,,supernatural ,,religion3  ,,an        
,,inquiry ,,into ,,the ,,reality ,,of   
,,divine ,,revelation4  ,by ,walter     
,richard ,cassels   ,in ,three ,volumes3
 ,vol4 ,,ii4  ,complete ,edition4       
,carefully ,revised4  ,london3          
,longmans1 ,greenland ,co41  #ahgi4     
,,pg ,,editor',s ,,note3 ,this file has 
been provided with an image of the      
original scan for each page which is    
linked to the page number in the html   
file4 ,nearly every page in the text has
 many ,greek passages which have been   
indicated where they occur by ------ as 
have many complex tables2 these passages
 may be viewed in the page images4 ,some
 of the pages have only a few lines of  
text and then the rest of the page is   
taken up with complex footnotes in      
,english1 ,greek and ,hebrew4 ,the      
reader may click on the page numbers in 
the html file to see the entire page    
with the footnotes4 --,,dw     ,,an     
,,inquiry ,,into ,,the ,,reality ,,of   
,,divine ,,revelation     ,,part ,,ii4  

,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,clementines--,,the
 ,,epistle ,,to ,,diognetus  ,we must   
now as briefly as possible examine the  
evidence furnished by the apocryphal    
religious romance generally known by the
 name of ,the ,clementines1 and         
assuming1 falsely of course17#a7 to be  
the composition of the ,roman ,clement4 
,the ,clementines are composed of three 
principal works1 the ,homilies1         
,recognitions1 and a so-called ,epitome4
 ,the ,homilies1 again1 are prefaced by 
a pretended epistle addressed by the    
,apostle ,peter to ,james1 and another  
from ,clement4 ,these ,homilies were    
only known in an imperfect form till    
#ahec1 when ,dressel7#b7 published a    
complete ,greek text4 ,of the           
,recognitions we only possess a ,latin  
translation by ,rufinus 7a4d4 #djb74  #b
  ,although there is much difference of 
opinion regarding the claims to priority
 of the ,homilies and ,recognitions1    
many critics assigning that place to the
 ,homilies17#a7 whilst others assert the

 earlier origin of the                  
,recognitions17#b7 all are agreed that  
the one is merely a version of the      
other1 the former being embodied almost 
word for word in the latter1 whilst the 
,epitome is a blending of the other two1
 probably intended to purge them from   
heretical doctrine4 ,these works1       
however1 which are generally admitted to
 have emanated from the ,ebionitic party
 of the early ,church17#c7 are supposed 
to be based upon older ,petrine         
writings1 such as the ,preaching of     
,peter ------1 and the ,travels of      
,peter ------47#d7  #c  ,it is not      
necessary for our purpose to go into any
 analysis of the character of the       
,clementines4 ,it will suffice to say   
that they almost entirely consist of    
discussions between the ,apostle ,peter 
and ,simon the ,magician regarding the  
identity of the true ,mosaic and        
,christian religions4 ,peter follows the
 ,magician from city to city for the    
purpose of exposing and refuting him1   

the one1 in fact1 representing          
,apostolic doctrine and the other       
heresy1 and in the course of these      
discussions occur the very numerous     
quotations of sayings of ,jesus and of  
,christian history which we have to     
examine4  ,the ,clementine              
,recognitions1 as we have already       
remarked1 are only known to us through  
the ,latin translation of ,rufinus2 and 
from a comparison of the evangelical    
quotations occurring in that work with  
the same in the ,homilies1 it is evident
 that ,rufinus has assimilated them in  
the course of translation to the        
parallel passages of our ,gospels4 ,it  
is admitted1 therefore1 that no argument
 regarding the source of the quotations 
can rightly be based upon the           
,recognitions1 and that work may1       
consequently1 be entirely set aside17#a7
 and the ,clementine ,homilies alone    
need occupy our attention4  ,we need    
scarcely remark that1 unless the date at
 which these ,homilies were composed can

 be ascertained1 their value as         
testimony for the existence of our      
,synoptic ,gospels is seriously         
affected4 ,the difficulty of arriving at
 a correct conclusion regarding this    
point1 great under almost any           
circumstances1 is of course increased by
 the fact that the work is altogether   
apocryphal1 and most certainly not held 
by any one to have  #d  been written by 
the person whose name it bears4 ,there  
is in fact nothing but internal evidence
 by which to fix the date1 and that     
internal evidence is of a character     
which admits of very wide extension down
 the course of time1 although a sharp   
limit is set beyond which it cannot     
mount upwards4 ,of external evidence    
there is almost none1 and what little   
exists does not warrant an early date4  
,origen1 it is true1 mentions           
------17#a7 which1 it is conjectured1   
may either be the same work as the      
------1 or ,recognitions1 translated by 
,rufinus1 or related to it1 and         

,epiphanius and others refer to         
------27#b7 but our ,clementine         
,homilies are not mentioned by any      
writer before pseudo-,athanasius47#c7   
,the work1 therefore1 can at the best   
afford no substantial testimony to the  
antiquity and apostolic origin of our   
,gospels4 ,hilgenfeld1 following in the 
steps of ,baur1 arrives at the          
conclusion that the ,homilies are       
directed against the ,gnosticism of     
,marcion 7and also1 as we shall         
hereafter see1 against the ,apostle     
,paul71 and he1 therefore1 necessarily  
assigns to them a date subsequent to    
a4d4 #afj4 ,as ,reuss1 however1         
inquires3 upon this ground1 why should a
 still later date not be named1 since   
even ,tertullian wrote vehemently       
against the same ,gnosis47#d7 ,there can
 be little doubt that the author was a  
representative of ,ebionitic            
,gnosticism1 which had once been the    
purest form of primitive ,christianity1 
but later1 through its own development1 

though still more through the rapid     
growth around it of ,paulinian doctrine1
 had  #e  assumed a position closely    
verging upon heresy4 ,it is not         
necessary for us1 however1 to enter upon
 any exhaustive discussion of the date  
at which the ,clementines were written2 
it is sufficient to show that there is  
no certain ground upon which a decision 
can be based1 and that even an          
approximate conjecture can scarcely be  
reasonably advanced4 ,critics variously 
date the composition of the original    
,recognitions from about the middle of  
the second century to the end of the    
third1 though the majority are agreed in
 placing them at least in the latter    
century47#a7 ,they assign to the        
,homilies an origin at different dates  
within a period commencing about the    
middle of the second century1 and       
extending to a century later4#b  ,in the
 ,homilies there are very numerous      
quotations  #f  of sayings of ,jesus and
 of ,gospel history1 which are generally

 placed in the mouth of ,peter1 or      
introduced with such formulae as3 ,the  
teacher said1 ,jesus said1 ,he said1    
,the prophet said1 but in no case does  
the author name the source from which   
these sayings and quotations are        
derived4 ,that he does1 however1 quote  
from a written source1 and not from     
tradition1 is clear from the use of such
 expressions as in another place        
------7#a7 he has said1 which refer not 
to other localities or circumstances1   
but another part of a written           
history47#b7 ,there are in the          
,clementine ,homilies upwards of a      
hundred quotations of sayings of ,jesus 
or references to his history1 too many  
by far for us to examine in detail here2
 but1 notwithstanding the number of     
these passages1 so systematically do    
they vary1 more or less1 from the       
parallels in our canonical ,gospels1    
that1 as in the case of ,justin1        
,apologists are obliged to have recourse
 to the elastic explanation1 already    

worn so threadbare1 of free quotation   
from memory and blending of passages to 
account for the remarkable phenomena    
presented4 ,it must1 however1 be evident
 that the necessity for such an apology 
at all shows the insufficiency of the   
evidence furnished by these quotations4 
,de ,wette says3 ,the quotations of     
evangelical works and histories in the  
pseudo-,clementine writings1 from their 
nature free and inaccurate1 permit only 
an uncertain conclusion to be  #g  drawn
 as to their written source47#a7        
,critics have maintained very different 
and conflicting views regarding that    
source4 ,apologists1 of course1 assert  
that the quotations in the ,homilies are
 taken from our ,gospels only47#b7      
,others ascribe them to our ,gospels1   
with a supplementary apocryphal work3   
the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1  
or the ,gospel according to ,peter47#c7 
,some1 whilst admitting a subsidiary use
 of some of our ,gospels1 assert that   
the author of the ,homilies employs1 in 

preference1 the ,gospel according to    
,peter27#d7 whilst others1 recognizing  
also the similarity of the phenomena    
presented by these quotations with those
 of ,justin's1 conclude that the author 
does not quote our ,gospels at all1 but 
makes use of the ,gospel according to   
,peter1 or the ,gospel according to the 
,hebrews47#e7 ,evidence permitting of   
such divergent conclusions manifestly   
cannot be of a decided character4 ,we   
may affirm1 however1 that few of those  
who are  #h  willing to admit the use of
 our ,synoptics by the author of the    
,homilies along with other sources1 make
 that concession on the strength of the 
absolute isolated evidence of the       
,homilies themselves1 but they are      
generally moved by antecedent views on  
the point4 ,in an inquiry like that     
which we have undertaken1 however1 such 
easy and indifferent judgment would     
obviously be out of place1 and the point
 we have to determine is not whether an 
author may have been acquainted with our

 ,gospels1 but whether he furnishes     
testimony that he actually was in       
possession of our present ,gospels and  
regarded them as authoritative4  ,we    
have already mentioned that the author  
of the ,clementine ,homilies never names
 the source from which his quotations   
are derived4 ,of these very numerous    
quotations we must again distinctly     
state that only two or three1 of a very 
brief and fragmentary character1        
literally agree with our ,synoptics1    
whilst all the rest differ more or less 
widely from the parallel passages in    
those ,gospels4 ,some of these          
quotations are repeated more than once  
with the same persistent and            
characteristic variations1 and in       
several cases1 as we have already seen1 
they agree more or less closely with    
quotations of ,justin from the ,memoirs 
of the ,apostles4 ,others1 again1 have  
no parallels at all in our ,gospels1 and
 even ,apologists are consequently      
compelled to admit the collateral use of

 an apocryphal ,gospel4 ,as in the case 
of ,justin1 therefore1 the singular     
phenomenon is presented of a vast number
 of quotations of which only one or two 
brief phrases1 too fragmentary to avail 
as evidence1 perfectly agree with our   
,gospels2 whilst of the rest1 which all 
vary more or less1 some merely resemble 
combined passages of two ,gospels1      
others merely contain the sense1 some   
#i  present variations likewise found in
 other writers or in various parts of   
the ,homilies are repeatedly quoted with
 the same variations1 and others are not
 found in our ,gospels at all4 ,such    
phenomena cannot be fairly accounted for
 by any mere theory of imperfect memory 
or negligence4 ,the systematic variation
 from our ,synoptics1 variation proved  
by repetition not to be accidental1     
coupled with quotations which have no   
parallels at all in our ,gospels1 more  
naturally point to the use of a         
different ,gospel4 ,in no case can the  
,homilies be accepted as furnishing     

evidence even of the existence of our   
,gospels4  ,as it is impossible here to 
examine in detail all of the quotations 
in the ,clementine ,homilies1 we must   
content ourselves with this distinct    
statement of their character1 and merely
 illustrate briefly the different       
classes of quotations1 exhausting1      
however1 those which literally agree    
with passages in the ,gospels4 ,the most
 determined of recent ,apologists do not
 afford us an opportunity of testing the
 passages upon which they base their    
assertion of the use of our ,synoptics1 
for they simply assume that the author  
used them without producing             
instances47#a7  ,the first quotation    
agreeing with a passage in our          
,synoptics occurs in ,hom4 iii4 #eb3    
,and he cried1 saying3 ,come unto me all
 ye that are weary1 which agrees with   
the opening words of ,matt4 xi4 #bh1 but
 the phrase does       #a ,teschendorf  
only devotes a dozen linos1 with a note1
 to      the ,clemontinos1 and only in  

connection with our fourth      ,gospel1
 which shall hero-after have our        
attention4 ,wann      wurden u4 s4 w41  
p4 #ij4 ,in the same way ,canon         
,westcott      passes them over in a    
short paragraph1 merely asserting the   
allusions to our ,gospels to be         
generally admitted1 and      only       
directly referring to one supposed      
quotation from ,mark      which we shall
 presently examine1 and one which he    
affirms      to be from the fourth      
,gospel4 ,on the ,canon1 p4 #bea f4 ,in 
the #dth edition he has enlarged his    
remarks1 p4 #bhb ff4  #aj  not continue1
 and is followed by the explanation3    
that is1 who are seeking the truth and  
not finding it47#a7 ,it is evident1 that
 so short and fragmentary a phrase      
cannot prove anything47#b7  ,the next   
passage occurs in ,hom4 xviii4 #ae3 ,for
 ,isaiah said3 ,i will open my mouth in 
parables1 and ,i will utter things that 
have been kept secret from the          
foundation of the world47#c7 ,now this  

passage1 with a slightly different order
 of words1 is found in ,matt4 xiii4 #ce4
 ,after giving a series of parables1 the
 author of the ,gospel says 7v4 #cd71   
,all these things spake ,jesus unto the 
multitudes in parables2 and without a   
parable spake he not unto them2 7v4 #ce7
 ,that it might be fulfilled which was  
spoken by the prophet 7,isaiah71 saying3
 ,i will open my mouth in parables1 c4  
,there are two peculiarities which must 
be pointed out in this passage4 ,it is  
not found in ,isaiah1 but in ,psalm     
lxxviii4 #b17d7 and it presents a       
variation from the version of the lxx4  
,both the variation and the erroneous   
reference to ,isaiah1 therefore1 occur  
also in the ,homily4 ,the first part of 
the sentence agrees with1 but the latter
 part is quite different from1 the      
,greek of the lxx41 which reads3 ,i will
 utter problems from the beginning1     
------47#e7  ,the ,psalm from which the 
quotation is really taken is1 by its    
superscription1 ascribed to ,asaph1 who1

 in the ,septuagint version of ,,ii4    
,chronicles xxix4 #cj1 is called a  #aa 
prophet47#a7 ,it was1 therefore1 early  
asserted that the original reading of   
,matthew was ,asaph1 instead of ,isaiah4
 ,porphyry1 in the third century1       
twitted ,christians with this erroneous 
ascription by their inspired evangelist 
to ,isaiah of a passage from a ,psalm1  
and reduced the ,fathers to great       
straits4 ,eusebius1 in his commentary on
 this verse of the ,psalm1 attributes   
the insertion of the words1 by the      
prophet ,isaiah1 to unintelligent       
copyists1 and asserts that in accurate  
,,mss4 the name is not added to the word
 prophet4 ,jerome likewise ascribes the 
insertion of the name ,isaiah for that  
of ,asaph1 which was originally written1
 to an ignorant scribe17#b7 and in the  
commentary on the ,psalms1 generally1   
though probably falsely1 ascribed to    
him1 the remark is made that many copies
 of the ,gospel to that day had the name
 ,isaiah1 for which ,porphyry had       

reproached ,christians17#c7 and the     
writer of the same commentary actually  
allows himself to make the assertion    
that ,asaph was found in all the old    
codices1 but ignorant men had removed   
it47#d7 ,the fact is1 that the reading  
,asaph for ,isaiah is not found in any  
extant ,,ms41 and1 although ,isaiah has 
disappeared from all but a few obscure  
codices1 it cannot be denied that the   
name anciently stood in the text47#e7   
,in the ,sinaitic ,codex1 which is      
probably the earliest ,,ms4 extant1 and 
which is assigned to the fourth century1
 the prophet ,isaiah stands in the text 
by the first hand1 but is erased by the 
second 7b74  #ab  ,the quotation in the 
,homily1 however1 is clearly not from   
our ,gospel4 ,it is introduced by the   
words ,for ,isaiah says3 and the context
 is so different from that in ,matthew1 
that it seems most improbable that the  
author of the ,homily could have had the
 passage suggested to him by the        
,gospel4 ,it occurs in a discussion     

between ,simon the ,magician and ,peter4
 ,the former undertakes to prove that   
the ,maker of the world is not the      
highest ,god1 and amongst other         
arguments he advances the passage3 ,no  
man knew the ,father1 c41 to show that  
the ,father had remained concealed from 
the ,patriarchs1 c41 until revealed by  
the ,son1 and in reply to ,peter he     
retorts1 that if the supposition that   
the ,patriarchs were not deemed worthy  
to know the ,father was unjust1 the     
,christian teacher was himself to blame1
 who said3 ,i thank thee1 ,lord of      
heaven and earth1 that what was         
concealed from the wise thou hast       
revealed to suckling babes4 ,peter      
argues that in the statement of ,jesus3 
,no man knew the ,father1 c41 he cannot 
be considered to indicate another ,god  
and ,father from him who made the world1
 and he continues3 ,for the concealed   
things of which he spoke may be those of
 the ,creator himself2 for ,isaiah says3
 ',i will open my mouth1 c4' ,do you    

admit1 therefore1 that the prophet was  
not ignorant of the things              
concealed17#a7 and so on4 ,there is     
absolutely nothing in this argument to  
indicate that the passage was suggested 
by the ,gospel1 but1 on the contrary1 it
 is used in a totally different way1 and
 is quoted not as an evangelical text1  
but as a saying from the ,old           
,testament1 and treated in connection   
with the prophet himself1 and not with  
its supposed fulfilment in ,jesus4 ,it  
may be remarked1 that in the            
corresponding part of  #ac  the         
,recognitions1 whether that work be of  
older or more recent date1 the passage  
does not occur at all4 ,now1 although it
 is impossible to say how and where this
 erroneous reference to a passage of the
 ,old ,testament first occurred1 there  
is no reason for affirming that it      
originated in our first ,synoptic1 and  
as little for asserting that its        
occurrence in the ,clementine ,homilies1
 with so different a context and object1

 involves the conclusion that their     
author derived it from the ,gospel1 and 
not from the ,old ,testament or some    
other source4 ,on the contrary1 the     
peculiar argument based upon it in the  
,homilies suggests a different origin1  
and it is very probable that the        
passage1 with its erroneous reference1  
was derived by both from another and    
common source4  ,another passage is a   
phrase from the ,lord's ,prayer1 which  
occurs in ,hom4 xix4 #b3 ,but also in   
the prayer which he commended to us1 we 
have it said3 ,deliver us from the evil 
one ------4 ,it need scarcely be said1  
however1 that few ,gospels can have been
 composed without including this prayer1
 and the occurrence of this short phrase
 demonstrates nothing more than the mere
 fact1 that the author of the ,homilies 
was acquainted with one of the most     
universally known lessons of ,jesus1 or 
made use of a ,gospel which contained   
it4 ,there would have been cause for    
wonder had he been ignorant of it4  ,the

 only other passage which agrees        
literally with our ,gospels is also a   
mere fragment from the parable of the   
,talents1 and when the other references 
to the same parable are added1 it is    
evident that the quotation is not from  
our ,gospels4 ,in ,hom4 iii4 #fe1 the   
address to the good servant is          
introduced3 ,well done1 good and        
faithful servant ------1 which agrees   
#ad  with the words in ,matt4 xxv4 #ba4 
,the allusion to the parable of the     
talents in the context is perfectly     
clear1 and the passage occurs in an     
address of the ,apostle ,peter to       
overcome the modest scruples of         
,zaccheus1 the former publican1 who has 
been selected by ,peter as his successor
 in the ,church of ,caesarea when he is 
about to leave in pursuit of ,simon the 
,magician4 ,anticipating the possibility
 of his hesitating to accept the office1
 ,peter1 in an earlier part of his      
address1 however1 makes fuller allusions
 to the same parable of the talents1    

which we must contrast with the parallel
 in the first ,synoptic4 ,but if any of 
those present1 having the ability to    
instruct the ignorance of men1 shrink   
back from it1 considering only his own  
ease1 then let him expect to hear3      
--,table--  #ae  ,the ,homily does not  
end here1 however1 but continues in     
words not found in our ,gospels at all3 
,and reasonably3 ',for1' he says1 'it is
 thine1 ,o man1 to put my words as      
silver with exchangers1 and to prove    
them as money_/7#a7 ,this passage is    
very analogous to another saying of     
,jesus1 frequently quoted from an       
apocryphal ,gospel1 by the author of the
 ,homilies1 to which we shall hereafter 
more particularly refer1 but here merely
 point out3 ,be ye approved             
money-changers ------47#b7 ,the         
variations from the parallel passages in
 the first and third ,gospels1 the      
peculiar application of the parable to  
the words of ,jesus1 and the addition of
 a saying not found in our ,gospels1    

warrant us in denying that the          
quotations we are considering can be    
appropriated by our canonical ,gospels1 
and1 on the contrary1 give good reason  
for the conclusion1 that the author     
derived his knowledge of the parable    
from another source4  ,there is no other
 quotation in the ,clementine ,homilies 
which literally agrees with our         
,gospels1 and it is difficult1 without  
incurring the charge of partial         
selection1 to illustrate the systematic 
variation in such very numerous passages
 as occur in these writings4 ,it would  
be tedious and unnecessary to repeat the
 test applied to the quotations of      
,justin1 and give in detail the passages
 from the ,sermon on the ,mount which   
are found in the ,homilies4 ,some of    
these will come before us presently1 but
 with regard to the whole1 which are not
 less than fifty1 we may broadly and    
positively state that they all more or  
less differ from our ,gospels4 ,to take 
the  #af  severest test1 however1 we    

shall compare those further passages    
which are specially adduced as most     
closely following our ,gospels1 and     
neglect the vast majority which most    
widely differ from them4 ,in addition to
 the passages which we have already     
examined1 ,credner7#a7 points out the   
following4 ,the first is from ,hom4 xix4
 #b47b7 ,if ,satan cast out ,satan he is
 divided against himself3 how then can  
his kingdom stand8 ,in the first part of
 this sentence1 the ,homily reads1      
------ for the ------ of the first      
,gospel1 and the last phrase in each is 
as follows3--  ------  ,the third       
,gospel differs from the first as the   
,homily does from both4 ,the next       
passage is from ,hom4 xix4 #g4s ,for    
thus1 said our ,father1 who was without 
deceit3 out of abundance of heart mouth 
speaketh4 ,the ,greek compared with that
 of ,matt4 xii4 #cd4  ------  ,the form 
of the homily is much more proverbial4  
,the next passage occurs in ,hom4 iii4  
#eb3 ,every plant which the heavenly    

,father did not plant shall be rooted   
up4 ,this agrees with the parallel in   
,matt4 xv4 #ac1 with the important      
exception1 that although in the mouth of
 ,jesus1 the heavenly ,father is        
substituted for the my heavenly ,father 
of the ,gospel4 ,the last passage       
pointed out by ,credner1 is from ,hom4  
viii4 #d3 ,but also 'many1' he said1    
'called1 but few chosen2' which may be  
compared with ,matt4 xx4 #af1 c4  ------
  #ag  ,we have already fully discussed 
this passage of the ,gospel in          
connection with the ,epistle of         
,barnabas1#a and need not say more here4
  ,the variations in these passages1 it 
may be argued1 are not very important4  
,certainly1 if they were the exceptional
 variations amongst a mass of quotations
 perfectly agreeing with parallels in   
our ,gospels1 it might be exaggeration  
to base upon such divergences a         
conclusion that they were derived from a
 different source4 ,when it is          
considered1 however1 that the very      

reverse is the case1 and that these are 
passages selected for their closer      
agreement out of a multitude of others  
either more decidedly differing from our
 ,gospels or not found in them at all1  
the case entirely changes1 and          
variations being the rule instead of the
 exception1 these1 however slight1      
become evidence of the use of a ,gospel 
different from ours4 ,as an illustration
 of the importance of slight variations 
in connection with the question as to   
the source from which quotations are    
derived1 the following may at random be 
pointed out4 ,the passage ,see thou say 
nothing to any man1 but go thy way1 show
 thyself to the priest ------ occurring 
in a work like the ,homilies would1     
supposing our second ,gospel no longer  
extant1 be referred to ,matt viii4 #d1  
with which it entirely agrees with the  
exception of its containing the one     
extra word ------4 ,it is however       
actually taken from ,mark i4 #dd1 and   
not from the first ,gospel4 ,then again1

 supposing that our first ,gospel had   
shared the fate of so many others of the
 ------ of ,luke1 and in some early work
 the following passage were found3 ,a   
prophet is not without honour except in 
his own country  #ah  and in his own    
house ------t this passage would        
undoubtedly be claimed by apologists as 
a quotation from ,mark vi4 #d1 and as   
proving the existence and use of that   
,gospel4 ,the omission of the words and 
among his own kin ------ would at first 
be explained as mere abbreviation1 or   
defect of memory1 but on the discovery  
that part or all of these words are     
omitted from some ,,mss41 that for      
instance the phrase is erased from the  
oldest manuscript known1 the ,cod4      
,sinaiticus1 the derivation from the    
second ,gospel would be considered as   
established4 ,the author notwithstanding
 might never have seen that ,gospel1 for
 the quotation is taken from ,matt4     
xiii4 #eg47b7  ,we have already quoted  
the opinion of ,de ,wette as to the     

inconclusive nature of the deductions to
 be drawn from the quotations in the    
pseudo-,clementine writings regarding   
their source1 but in pursuance of the   
plan we have adopted we shall now       
examine the passages which he cites as  
most nearly agreeing with our           
,gospels47#c7 ,the first of these occurs
 in ,hom4 iii4 #ah3 ,the ,scribes and   
the ,pharisees sit upon ,moses' seat2   
all things therefore1 whatsoever they   
speak to you1 hear them1 which is       
compared with ,matt1 xxiii4 #b1 #c3 ,the
 ,scribes and the ,pharisees sit upon   
,moses' seat2 all things therefore1     
whatsoever they say to you1 do and      
observe4 ,we subjoin the ,greek of the  
latter half of these passages4          
#ai  ,that the variation in the ,homily 
is deliberate and derived from the      
,gospel used by the author is clear from
 the continuation3 ,hear them ------1 he
 said1 as entrusted with the key of the 
kingdom1 which is knowledge1 which alone
 is able to open the gate of life1      

through which alone is the entrance to  
eternal life4 ,but verily1 he says3     
,they possess the key indeed1 but to    
those who wish to enter in they do not  
grant it47#a7 ,the ------ is here       
emphatically repeated1 and the further  
quotation and reference to the          
denunciation of the ,scribes and        
,pharisees continues to differ          
distinctly from the account both in our 
first and third ,gospels4 ,the passage  
in ,matt1 xxiii4 #ac1 reads3 ,but woe   
unto you1 ,scribes and ,pharisees1      
hypocrites6 for ye shut the kingdom of  
heaven against men2 for ye go not in    
yourselves neither suffer ye them that  
are entering to go in47#b7 ,the parallel
 in ,luke xi4 #eb is not closer4 ,there 
the passage regarding ,moses' seat is   
altogether wanting1 and in ver4 #eb1    
where the greatest similarity exists1   
the lawyers instead of the ,scribes and 
,pharisees are addressed4 ,the verse    
reads3 ,woe unto you1 ,lawyers6 for ye  
have taken away the key of knowledge3 ye

 entered not in yourselves1 and them    
that were entering in ye hindered47#c7  
,the first ,gospel has not the direct   
image of the key at all3 the ,scribes   
and ,pharisees shut the kingdom of  #bj 
heaven2 the third has the key of        
knowledge ------ taken away by the      
lawyers1 and not by the ,scribes and    
,pharisees1 whilst the ,gospel of the   
,homilies has the key of the kingdom    
------1 and explains that this key is   
knowledge ------4 ,it is apparent that  
the first ,gospel uses an expression    
more direct than the others1 whilst the 
third ,gospel explains it1 but the      
,gospel of the ,homilies has in all     
probability the simpler original words3 
the key of the kingdom1 which both of   
the others have altered for the purpose 
of more immediate clearness4 ,in any    
case it is certain that the passage does
 not agree with our ,gospel47#a7  ,the  
next quotation referred to by ,de ,wette
 is in ,hom4 iii4 #ea3 ,and also that he
 said3 ',i am not come to destroy the   

law4444 the heaven and the earth will   
pass away1 but one jot or one tittle    
shall in nowise pass from the law4'     
,this is compared with ,matt4 v4 #ag1   
#ah37b7 ,think not that ,i am come to   
destroy the law or the prophets3 ,i am  
not come to destroy but to fulfil1 7v4  
#ah7 ,for verily ,i say unto you3 ,till 
heaven and earth pass away one jot or   
one tittle shall in nowise pass from the
 law1 till all be fulfilled4 ,the ,greek
 of both passages reads as follows3--   
------  #ba  ,that the omissions and    
variations in this passage are not      
accidental is proved by the fact that   
the same quotation occurs again         
literally in the ,epistle from          
,peter7#a7 which is prefixed to the     
,homilies in which the ------ is        
repeated1 and the sentence closes at the
 same point ,the author in that place   
adds3 ,this he said that all might be   
fulfilled ------4 ,hilgenfeld  considers
 this ,epistle of much more early date  
than the ,homilies1 and that this       

agreement bespeaks a particular         
text47#b7 ,the quotation does not agree 
with our ,gospels1 and must be assigned 
to another source4  ,the next passage   
pointed out by ,de ,wette is the        
erroneous quotation from ,isaiah which  
we have already examined47#c7 ,that     
which follows is found in ,hom4 viii4   
#g3 ,for on this account our ,jesus     
himself said to one who frequently      
called him ,lord1 yet did nothing which 
he commanded3 ,why dost thou say to me  
,lord1 ,lord1 and doest not the things  
which ,i say8 ,this is compared with    
,luke vi4 #df37d7 ,but why call ye me   
,lord1 ,lord1 and do not the things     
which ,i say8  ------  ,this passage    
differs from our ,gospels in having the 
second person singular instead of the   
plural1 and in substituting ------ for  
------ in the first phrase4 ,the        
,homily1 moreover1 in accordance with   
the use of the second person singular1  
distinctly states that the saying was   
addressed to a person who frequently    

called ,jesus ,lord1 whereas in the     
,gospels it forms part of the ,sermon on
 the ,mount with a totally impersonal   
application to the multitude4  #bb  ,the
 next passage referred to by ,de ,wette 
is in ,hom4 xix4 #b3 ,and he declared   
that he saw the evil one as lightning   
fall from heaven4 ,this is compared with
 ,luke x4 #ah1 which has no parallel in 
the other ,gospels3 ,and he said to     
them1 ,i beheld ,satan as lightning fall
 from heaven4  ------  ,the substitution
 of ------- for -------1 had he found   
the latter in his ,gospel1 would be all 
the more remarkable from the fact that  
the author of the ,homilies has just    
before quoted the saying ,if ,satan cast
 out ,satan17#a7 c4 and he continues in 
the above words to show that ,satan had 
been cast out1 so that the evidence     
would have been strengthened by the     
retention of the word in ,luke had he   
quoted that ,gospel4 ,the variations1   
however1 indicate that he quoted from   
another source47#b7  ,the next passage  

pointed out by ,de ,wette likewise finds
 a parallel only in the third ,gospel4  
,it occurs in ,hom4 ix4 #bb3            
,nevertheless1 though all demons with   
all the diseases flee before you1 in    
this only is not to be your rejoicing1  
but in that1 through grace1 your names1 
as of the ever-living1 are recorded in  
heaven4 ,this is compared with ,luke x4 
#bj3 ,notwithstanding1 in this rejoice  
not that the spirits are subject unto   
you1 but rejoice that your names are    
written in the heavens4  ------  #bc    
,the differences between these two      
passages are too great and the          
peculiarities of the ,homily too marked 
to require any argument to demonstrate  
that the quotation cannot be            
successfully claimed by our third       
,gospel4 ,on the contrary1 as one of so 
many other passages systematically      
varying from the canonical ,gospels1 it 
must rather be assigned to another      
source4  ,de ,wette says3 ,a few others 
7quotations7 presuppose 7voraussetzen7  

the ,gospel of ,mark17#a7 and he gives  
them4 ,the first occurs in ,hom4 ii4    
#ai3 ,there is a certain ,justa7#b7     
amongst us1 a ,syrophoenician1 a        
,canaantte by race1 whose daughter was  
affected by a sore disease1 and who came
 to our ,lord crying out and            
supplicating that he would heal her     
daughter4 ,but he being also asked by   
us1 said3 ',it is not meet to heal the  
,gentiles who are like dogs from their  
using different meats and practices1    
whilst the table in the kingdom has been
 granted to the sons of ,israel4' ,but  
she1 hearing this and exchanging her    
former manner of life for that of the   
sons of the kingdom1 in order that she  
might1 like a dog1 partake of the crumbs
 falling from that same table1 obtained1
 as she desired1 healing for her        
daughter47#c7 ,this is compared with    
,mark vii4 #bd--cj17d7 as it is the only
 ,gospel which calls the woman a        
,syrophoenician4 ,the ,homily1 however1 
not only calls her so1 a very           

unimportant point1 but gives her name as
 ,justa4  #bd  ,if1 therefore1 it be    
argued that the mention of her          
nationality supposes that the author    
found the fact in his ,gospel1 and that 
as we know no other but ,mark7#a7 which 
gives that information1 that he         
therefore derived it from our second    
,gospel1 the additional mention of the  
name of ,justa on the same grounds      
necessarily points to the use of a      
,gospel which likewise contained it1    
which our ,gospel does not4 ,nothing can
 be more decided than the variation in  
language throughout this whole passage  
from the account in ,mark1 and the reply
 of ,jesus is quite foreign to our      
,gospels4 ,in ,mark 7vii4 #be7 the      
daughter has an unclean spirit ------2  
in ,matthew 7xv4 #bb7 she is grievously 
possessed by a devil ------1 but in the 
,homily she is affected by a sore       
disease ------4 ,the second ,gospel     
knows nothing of any intercession on the
 part of the disciples1 but ,matthew    

has3 ,and the disciples came and        
besought him ------ saying3 ',send her  
away1 for she crieth after us1'7#b7     
whilst the ,homily has merely being also
 asked by us1 ------ in the sense of    
intercession in her favour4 ,the second 
,gospel gives the reply of ,jesus as    
follows3 ,let the children first be     
filled3 for it is not meet to take the  
bread of the children1 and to cast it to
 the dogs4 ,and she answered and said   
unto him3 ',yea1 ,lord1 for the dogs    
also eat under the table of the crumbs  
of the children4 ,and he said unto her3 
,for this saying go thy way2 the devil  
is gone out of thy daughter47#c7 ,the   
nature of the reply of the woman is1    
#be  in the ,gospels1 the reason given  
for granting her request2 but in the    
,homily the woman's conversion to       
,judaism17#a7 that is to say            
,judeo-,christianity1 is prominently    
advanced as the cause of her successful 
pleading4 ,it is certain from the whole 
character of this passage1 the variation

 of the language1 and the reply of      
,jesus which is not in our ,gospels at  
all1 that the narrative cannot rightly  
be assigned to them1 but the more       
reasonable inference is that it was     
derived from another source47#b7  ,the  
last of ,de ,wette's7#c7 passages is    
from ,hom4 iii4 #eg3 ,hear1 ,o ,israel2 
the ,lord thy7#d7 ,god is one ,lord4    
,this is a quotation from ,deuteronomy  
vi4 #d1 which is likewise quoted in the 
second ,gospel1 xii4 #bi1 in reply to   
the question1 ,which is the first       
,commandment of all8 ,jesus answered3   
,the first is1 ,hear1 ,o ,israel2 the   
,lord our ,god is one ,lord1 and thou   
shalt love the ,lord thy ,god1 c4 c4 ,in
 the ,homily1 however1 the quotation is 
made in a totally different connection1 
for there is no question of commandments
 at all1 but a clear statement of the   
circumstances under which the passage   
was used1 which excludes the idea that  
this quotation was derived from ,mark   
xii4 #bi4 ,the context in the ,homily is

 as follows3 ,but to those who were     
beguiled to imagine many gods as the    
,scriptures say1 he said3 ,hear1 ,o     
,israel1 c1 c47#e7 ,there is no hint of 
the assertion of many gods in the       
,gospels2 but1 on the contrary1 the     
question is put by one of the scribes in
 ,mark to whom ,jesus says3 ,thou art   
not far from the ,kingdom of ,god4#f    
,the quotation1  #bf  therefore1 beyond 
doubt1 cannot be legitimately           
appropriated by the second ,synoptic1   
but may with much greater probability be
 assigned to a different ,gospel4  ,we  
may here refer to the passage1 the only 
one pointed out by him in connection    
with the ,synoptics1 the discovery of   
which ,canon ,westcott affirms1 has     
removed the doubts which had long been  
raised about those 7allusions7 to ,st4  
,mark47#a7 ,the discovery referred to is
 that of the ,codex ,ottobonianus by    
,dressel1 which contains the concluding 
part of the ,homilies1 and which was    
first published by him in #ahec4 ,canon 

,westcott says3 ,though ,st ,mark has   
few peculiar phrases1 one of these is   
repeated verbally in the concluding part
 of the #aith ,homily47#b7 ,the passage 
is as follows3 ,hom4 xix4 #bj3          
,wherefore also he explained to his     
disciples privately the mysteries of the
 kingdom of the heavens4 ,this is       
compared with ,mark iv4 #cd4444 and     
privately to his own disciples1 he      
explained all things4  ------  ,we have 
only a few words to add to complete the 
whole of ,dr4 ,westcott's remarks upon  
the subject4 ,he adds after the         
quotation3 ,this is the only place where
 ------ occurs in the ,gospels47#d7 ,we 
may1 however1 point out that it occurs  
also in ,acts xix4 #ci and #b ,peter i4 
#bj4 ,it is upon the coincidence of this
 word that  #bg  ,canon ,westcott rests 
his argument that this passage is a     
reference to ,mark4 ,nothing1 however1  
could be more untenable than such a     
conclusion from such an indication4 ,the
 phrase in the ,homily presents a very  

marked variation from the passage in    
,mark4 ,the all things ------ of the    
,gospel1 reads3 ,the mysteries of the   
kingdom of the heavens ------ in the    
,homily4 ,the passage in ,mark iv4 #aa1 
to which ,dr4 ,westcott does not refer1 
reads ------4 ,there is one very        
important matter1 however1 which our    
,apologist has omitted to point out1 and
 which1 it seems to us1 decides the     
case--the context in the ,homily4 ,the  
chapter commences thus3 ,and ,peter     
said3 ,we remember that our ,lord and   
,teacher1 as commanding1 said to us3    
',guard the mysteries for me1 and the   
sons of my house4' ,wherefore also he   
explained to his disciples privately1   
c437l7 and then comes our passage4 ,now1
 here is a command of ,jesus1 in        
immediate connection with which the     
phrase before us is quoted1 which does  
not appear in our ,gospels at all1 and  
which clearly establishes the use of a  
different source4 ,the phrase itself    
which differs from ,mark1 as we have    

seen1 may with all right be referred to 
the same unknown ,gospel4  ,it must be  
borne in mind that all the quotations   
which we have hitherto examined are     
those which have been selected as most  
closely approximating to passages in our
 ,gospels4 ,space forbids our giving    
illustrations of the vast number which  
so much more widely differ from parallel
 texts in the ,synoptics4 ,we shall     
confine  #bh  ourselves to pointing out 
in the briefest possible manner some of 
the passages which are persistent in    
their variations or recall similar      
passages in the ,memoirs of ,justin4    
,the first of these is the injunction in
 ,hom4 iii4 #ee3 ,let your yea be yea1  
your nay nay1 for whatsoever is more    
than these cometh of the evil one4 ,the 
same saying is repeated in ,hom4 xix4   
with the sole addition of and4 ,we      
subjoin the ,greek of these1 together   
with that of the ,gospel and ,justin    
with which the ,homilies agree4  ------ 
,as we have already discussed this      

passage7#a7 we need not repeat our      
remarks here4 ,that this passage comes  
from a source different from our        
,gospels is rendered still more probable
 by the quotation in ,hom4 xix4 #b being
 preceded by another which has no       
parallel at all in our ,gospels4 ,and   
elsewhere he said1 ',he who sowed the   
bad seed is the devil' ------7#b73 and  
again3 ',give no pretext to the evil    
one4'7#b7 ------4 ,but in exhorting he  
prescribes3 ',let your yea be yea4' c4  
,the first of these phrases differs     
markedly from our ,gospels2 the second  
is not in them at all2 the third1 which 
we are considering1 differs likewise in 
an important degree in common with      
,justin's quotation1 and there is every 
reason for supposing that the whole were
 derived from the same unknown          
source47#c7 ,in the same ,homily1 xix4  
#b1 there occurs also the passage which 
exhibits variations likewise found in   
,justin1 which we have already          
examined17#d7 and now  #bi  merely point

 out3 ,begone into the darkness without1
 which the ,father hath prepared for the
 devil and his angels47#a7 ,the         
quotation in ,justin 7,dial4 #gf7 agrees
 exactly with this1 with the exception  
that ,justin has ------ instead of      
------1 which is not important1 whilst  
the agreement in the marked variation   
from the parallel in the first ,gospel  
establishes the probability of a common 
source different from ours47#b7  ,we    
have also already7#c7 referred to the   
passage in ,hom4 xvii4 #d4 ,no one knew 
------ the ,father but the ,son1 even as
 no one knoweth the ,son but the ,father
 and those to whom the ,son is minded to
 reveal him4 ,this quotation differs    
from ,matt4 xi4 #bg in form1 in         
language1 and in meaning1 but agrees    
with ,justin's reading of the same text1
 and as we have shown the use of the    
aorist here1 and the transposition of   
the order1 were characteristics of      
,gospels used by ,gnostics and other    
parties in the early ,church1 and the   

passage with these variations was       
regarded by them as the basis of some of
 their leading doctrines47#d7 ,that the 
variation is not accidental1 but a      
deliberate quotation from a written     
source1 is proved by this1 and by the   
circumstance that the author of the     
,homilies repeatedly quotes it elsewhere
 in the same form47#e7 ,it is           
unreasonable to suppose that the        
quotations in these ,homilies are so    
systematically and consistently         
erroneous1 and not only can they not1   
from their actual variations1 be        
legitimately referred to the ,synoptics 
exclusively1 but1 considering all the   
circumstances1 the  #cj  only natural   
conclusion is that they are derived from
 a source different from our            
,gospels47#a7  ,another passage occurs  
in ,hom4 iii4 #ej3 ,wherefore ye do err1
 not knowing the true things of the     
,scriptures2 and on this account ye are 
ignorant of the power of ,god4 ,this is 
compared with ,mark xii4 #bd37b7 ,do ye 

not therefore err1 not knowing the      
,scriptures nor the power of ,god8  ,the
 very same quotation is made both in    
,hom4 ii4 #ea and xviii4 #bj1 and in    
each case in which the passage is       
introduced it is in connection with the 
assertion that there are true and false 
,scriptures1 and that as there are in   
the ,scriptures some true sayings and   
some false1 ,jesus by this saying showed
 to those who erred by reason of the    
false the cause of their error4 ,there  
can scarcely be a doubt that the author 
of the ,homilies quotes this passage    
from a ,gospel different from ours1 and 
this is demonstrated both by the        
important variation from our text and   
also by its consistent repetition1 and  
by the context in which it stands47#c7  
,upon each occasion1 also1 that the     
author of the ,homilies quotes the      
foregoing passage he likewise quotes    
another saying of ,jesus which is       
foreign to our ,gospels3 ,be ye approved
 money-changers1 ------47#d7d  ,the     

saying is thrice quoted without  #ca    
variation1 and each time1 together with 
the preceding passage1 it refers to the 
necessity of discrimination between true
 and false sayings in the ,scriptures1  
as for instance3 ,and ,peter said3 ,if1 
therefore1 of the ,scriptures some are  
true and some are false1 our ,teacher   
rightly said3 ',be ye approved          
money-changers1' as in the ,scriptures  
there are some approved sayings and some
 spurious47#a7 ,this is one of the best 
known of the apocryphal sayings of      
,jesus1 and it is quoted by nearly all  
the ,fathers17#b7 by many as from ,holy 
,scripture1 and by some ascribed to the 
,gospel of the ,nazarenes1 or the       
,gospel according to the ,hebrews4      
,there can be no question here that the 
author quotes an apocryphal ,gospel47#c7
  ,there is1 in immediate connection    
with both the preceding passages1       
another saying of ,jesus quoted which is
 not found in our ,gospels3 ,why do ye  
not discern the good reason of the      

,scriptures8 ------2 7#d7  ,this passage
 also comes from a ,gospel different    
from ours17#e7 and the connection and   
sequence of these quotations is very    
significant4  ,one further illustration1
 and we have done4 ,we find the         
following in ,hom4 iii4 #ee3 ,and to    
those who  7#cb7  think that ,god       
tempts1 as the ,scriptures say1 he said3
 ',the evil one is the tempter1' who    
also tempted himself4 l ,this short     
saying is not found in our ,gospels4 ,it
 probably occurred in the ,gospel of the
 ,homilies in connection with the       
temptation of ,jesus4 ,it is not        
improbable that the writer of the       
,epistle of ,james1 who shows           
acquaintance with a ,gospel different   
from ours17#b7 also knew this           
saying47#c7 ,we are here again directed 
to the ,ebionite ,gospel4 ,certainly the
 quotation is derived from a source     
different from our ,gospels47#d7  ,these
 illustrations of the evangelical       
quotations in the ,clementine ,homilies 

give but an imperfect impression of the 
character of the extremely numerous     
passages which occur in the work4 ,we   
have selected for our examination the   
quotations which have been specially    
cited by critics as closest to parallels
 in our ,gospels1 and have thus         
submitted the question to the test which
 is most favourable to the claims of our
 ,synoptics4 ,space forbids our         
adequately showing the much wider       
divergence which exists in the great    
majority of cases between them and the  
quotations in the ,homilies4 ,to sum up 
the case3 ,out of more than a hundred of
 these quotations only four brief and   
fragmentary phrases really agree with   
parallels in our ,synoptics1 and these1 
we have shown1 are either not used in   
the same context as in our ,gospels or  
are of a nature far from special to     
them4 ,of the rest1 all without         
exception systematically vary more or   
less from our ,gospels1 and many in     
their variations agree with similar     

quotations in other writers1  #cc  or on
 repeated quotation always present the  
same peculiarities1 whilst others1      
professed to be direct quotations of    
sayings of ,jesus1 have no parallels in 
our ,gospels at all4 ,upon the          
hypothesis that the author made use of  
our ,gospels1 such systematic divergence
 would be perfectly unintelligible and  
astounding4 ,on the other hand1 it must 
be remembered that the agreement of a   
few passages with parallels in our      
,gospels cannot prove anything4 ,the    
only extraordinary circumstance is that1
 even using a totally different source1 
there should not have been a greater    
agreement with our ,synoptics4 ,but for 
the universal inaccuracy of the human   
mind1 every important historical saying1
 having obviously only one distinct     
original form1 would in all truthful    
histories have been reported in that one
 unvarying form4 ,the nature of the     
quotations in the ,clementine ,homilies 
leads to the inevitable conclusion that 

their author derived them from a ,gospel
 different from ours2 at least1 since   
the source of these quotations is never 
named throughout the work1 and there is 
not the faintest direct indication of   
our ,gospels1 the ,clementine ,homilies 
cannot be considered witnesses of any   
value as to the origin and authenticity 
of the canonical ,gospels4 ,that this   
can be said of a work written a century 
and a half after the establishment of   
,christianity1 and abounding with       
quotations of the discourses of ,jesus1 
is in itself singularly suggestive4  ,it
 is scarcely necessary to add that the  
author of the ,homilies has no idea     
whatever of any canonical writings but  
those of the ,old ,testament1 though    
even with regard to these some of our   
quotations have shown that he held      
peculiar views1 and believed that they  
contained spurious elements4 ,there is  
no reference in the  #cd  ,homilies to  
any of the ,epistles of the ,new        
,testament47#a7  ,one of the most       

striking points in this work1 on the    
other hand1 is its determined animosity 
against the ,apostle ,paul4 ,we have    
seen that a strong anti-,pauline        
tendency was exhibited by many of the   
,fathers1 who1 like the author of the   
,homilies1 made use of ,judeo-,christian
 ,gospels different from ours4 ,in this 
work1 however1 the antagonism against   
the ,apostle of the ,gentiles assumes a 
tone of peculiar virulence4 ,there      
cannot be a doubt that the ,apostle     
,paul is attacked in it1 as the great   
enemy of the true faith1 under the hated
 name of ,simon the ,magician17#b7 whom 
,peter follows everywhere for the       
purpose of unmasking and confuting him4 
,he is robbed of his title of ,apostle  
of the ,gentiles1 which1 together with  
the honour of founding the ,church of   
,antioch1 of ,laodicaae1 and of ,rome1  
is ascribed to ,peter4 ,all that        
opposition to ,paul which is implied in 
the ,epistle to the ,galatians and      
elsewhere7#c7 is here realized and      

exaggerated1 and  #ce  the personal     
difference with ,peter to which ,paul   
refers7#a7 is widened into the most     
bitter animosity4 ,in the ,epistle of   
,peter to ,james which is prefixed to   
the ,homilies1 ,peter says1 in allusion 
to ,paul3 ,for some among the ,gentiles 
have rejected my lawful preaching and   
accepted certain lawless and foolish    
teaching of the hostile man47#b7 ,first 
expounding a doctrine of duality1 as    
heaven and earth1 day and night1 life   
and death17#c7 ,peter asserts that in   
nature the greater things come first1   
but amongst men the opposite is the     
case1 and the first is worse and the    
second better47#d7 ,he then says to     
,clement that it is easy according to   
this order to discern to what class     
,simon 7,paul7 belongs1 who came before 
me to the ,gentiles1 and to which ,i    
belong who have come after him1 and have
 followed him as light upon darkness1 as
 knowledge upon ignorance1 as health    
upon disease47#e7 ,he continues3 ,if he 

had been known he would not have been   
believed1 but now1 not being known1 he  
is wrongly believed2 and though by his  
acts he is a hater1 he has been loved2  
and although an enemy1 he has been      
welcomed as a friend2 and though he is  
death1 he has been desired as a saviour2
 and though fire1 esteemed as light2 and
 though a deceiver1 he is listened to as
 speaking the truth47#f7 ,there is much 
more of this acrimonious abuse put into 
the mouth of ,peter47#g7 ,the           
indications that it is ,paul who is     
really attacked under the name of ,simon
 are much too clear to admit of doubt4  
,in ,hom4 xi4 #ce1 ,peter1 warning the  
,church against false  #cf  teachers1   
says3 ,he who hath sent us1 our ,lord   
and ,prophet1 declared to us that the   
evil one4444 announced that he would    
send from amongst his followers         
apostles7#a7 to deceive4 ,therefore1    
above all remember to avoid every       
apostle1 or teacher1 or prophet1 who    
first does not accurately compare his   

teaching with that of ,james called the 
brother of my ,lord1 and to whom was    
confided the ordering of the ,church of 
the ,hebrews in ,jerusalem1 c41 lest    
this evil one should send a false       
preacher to them1 as he has sent to us  
,simon preaching a counterfeit of truth 
in the name of our ,lord and            
disseminating error47#b7 ,further on he 
speaks more plainly still4 ,simon       
maintains that he has a truer           
appreciation of the doctrines and       
teaching of ,jesus because he has       
received his inspiration by supernatural
 vision1 and not merely by the common   
experience of the senses17#c7 and ,peter
 replies3 ,if1 therefore1 our ,jesus    
indeed was seen in a vision1 was known  
by thee1 and conversed with thee1 it was
 only as one angry with an adversary4444
 ,but can any one through a vision be   
made wise to teach8 ,and if thou sayest3
 ',it is possible1' then wherefore did  
the ,teacher remain and discourse for a 
whole year to us who were awake8 ,and   

how can we believe thy story that he was
 seen by thee8 ,and how could he have   
been seen by thee when thy thoughts are 
contrary to his teaching8 ,but if seen  
and taught by him for a single hour thou
 becamest an apostle37#d7 preach his    
words1 interpret his sayings1 love his  
#cg  apostles1 oppose not me who        
consorted with him4 ,for thou hast      
directly withstood me who am a firm     
rock1 the foundation of the ,church4 ,if
 thou hadst not been an adversary thou  
wouldst not have calumniated me1 thou   
wouldst not have reviled my teaching in 
order that1 when declaring what ,i have 
myself heard from the ,lord4  ,i might  
not be believed1 as though ,i were      
condemned4444 ,but if thou callest me   
condemned1 thou speakest against ,god   
who revealed ,christ to me1'7#a7 c4     
,this last phrase3 ,if thou callest me  
condemned ------ is an evident allusion 
to ,galat4 ii4 ,,ii3 ,i withstood him to
 the face1 because he was condemned     
------4  ,we have digressed to a greater

 extent than we intended1 but it is not 
unimportant to show the general         
character and tendency of the work we   
have been examining4 ,the ,clementine   
,homilies1--written perhaps about the   
end of the second century1 which never  
name nor indicate any ,gospel as the    
source of the author's knowledge of     
evangelical history1 whose quotations of
 sayings of ,jesus1 numerous as they    
are1 systematically differ from the     
parallel passages of our ,synoptics1 or 
are altogether foreign to them1 which   
denounce the ,apostle ,paul as an       
impostor1 enemy of the faith1 and       
disseminator of false doctrine1 and     
therefore repudiate his ,epistles1 at   
the same time equally ignoring all the  
other writings of the ,new              
,testament1--can scarcely be considered 
as giving much support to any theory of 
the early formation of the ,new         
,testament ,canon1 or as affording      
evidence even of the existence of its   
separate books4  #ch  #b4  ,among the   

writings which used formerly to be      
ascribed to ,justin ,martyr1 and to be  
published along with his genuine works1 
is the short composition commonly known 
as the ,epistle to ,diognetus4 ,the     
ascription of this composition to       
,justin arose solely from the fact that 
in the only known ,,ms4 of the letter   
there is an inscription ------ which1   
from its connection1 was referred to    
,justin47#a7 ,the style and contents of 
the work1 however1 soon convinced       
critics that it could not possibly be   
written by ,justin17#b7 and although it 
has been ascribed by various isolated   
writers to ,apollos1 ,clement1 ,marcion1
 ,quadratus1 and others1 none of these  
guesses have been seriously supported1  
and critics are almost universally      
agreed in confessing that the author of 
the ,epistle is entirely unknown4  ,such
 being the case1 it need scarcely be    
said that the difficulty of assigning a 
date to the work with any degree of     
certainty is extreme1 if it be not      

absolutely impossible to do so4 ,this   
difficulty1 however1 is increased by    
several circumstances4 ,the first and   
most important of these is the fact that
 the ,epistle to ,diognetus is neither  
quoted nor mentioned by any ancient  #ci
  writer1 and consequently there is no  
external evidence whatever to indicate  
the period of its composition47#a7      
,moreover1 it is not only anonymous but 
incomplete1 or1 at least1 as we have it1
 not the work of a single writer4 ,at   
the end of ,chapter x4 a break is       
indicated1 and the two concluding       
chapters are unmistakably by a different
 and later hand47#b7 ,it is not         
singular1 therefore1 that there exists a
 wide difference of opinion as to the   
date of the first ten chapters1 although
 all agree regarding the later          
composition of the concluding portion4  
,it is assigned by critics to various   
periods ranging from about the end of   
the first quarter of the second century 
to the end of the third century or      

later17#c7 whilst some denounce it as a 
mere modern forgery47#d7 ,nothing can be
 more insecure in one  #dj  direction   
than the date of a work derived alone   
from internal evidence4 ,allusions to   
actual occurrences may with certainty   
prove that a work could only have been  
written after they had taken place4 ,the
 mere absence of later indications in an
 anonymous ,epistle only found in a     
single ,,ms4 of the thirteenth or       
fourteenth century1 however1 and which  
may have been1 and probably was1 written
 expressly in imitation of early        
,christian feeling1 cannot furnish any  
solid basis for an early date4 ,it must 
be evident that the determination of the
 date of this ,epistle cannot therefore 
be regarded as otherwise than doubtful  
and arbitrary4 ,it is certain that the  
purity of its ,greek and the elegance of
 its style distinguish it from all other
 ,christian works of the period to which
 so many assign it47#a7  ,the ,epistle  
to ,diognetus1 however1 does not furnish

 any evidence even of the existence of  
our ,synoptics1 for it is admitted that 
it does not contain a single direct     
quotation from any evangelical          
work47#b7,we shall hereafter have to    
refer to this ,epistle in connection    
with the fourth ,gospel1 but in the     
meantime it may be well to add that in  
,chapter xii41 one of those1 it will be 
remembered1 which are admitted to be of 
later date1 a brief quotation is made   
from #a ,cor4 viii4 #a1 introduced      
merely by the words1 ------4            
,,chapter ,,vi4                         
,,basilides--,,valentinus4  ,we must now
 turn back to an earlier period1 and    
consider any evidence regarding the     
,synoptic ,gospels which may be         
furnished by the so-called heretical    
writers of the second century4 ,the     
first of these who claims our attention 
is ,basilides1 the founder of a system  
of ,gnosticism1 who lived in ,alexandria
 about the year #abe of our era47#a7    
,with the exception of a very few brief 

fragments17#b7 none of the writings of  
this ,gnostic have been preserved1 and  
all our information regarding them is1  
therefore1 derived at second-hand from  
ecclesiastical writers opposed to him   
and his doctrines2 and their statements1
 especially where acquaintance with1 and
 the use of1 the ,new ,testament        
,scriptures are assumed1 must be        
received with very great caution4 ,the  
uncritical and inaccurate character of  
the ,fathers rendered them peculiarly   
liable to be misled by foregone devout  
conclusions4  ,eusebius states that     
,agrippa ,castor1 who had written a     
refutation of the doctrines of          
,basilides3 says that he had composed   
twenty-four books upon the ,gospel47#c7 
#db  ,this is interpreted by            
,tischendorf1 without argument1 and in a
 most arbitrary and erroneous manner1 to
 imply that the work was a commentary   
upon our four canonical ,gospels27#a7 a 
conclusion the audacity of which can    
scarcely be exceeded4 ,this is1 however1

 almost surpassed by the treatment of   
,canon ,westcott1 who writes regarding  
,basilides3 ,it appears1 moreover1 that 
he himself published a ,gospel--a ',life
 of ,christ' as it would perhaps be     
called in our days1 or ',the ,philosophy
 of ,christianity17#b7--;but he admitted
 the historic truth of all the facts    
contained in the canonical ,gospels1 and
 used them as ,scripture4 ,for1 in spite
 of his peculiar opinions1 the          
testimony1 of ,basilides to our         
'acknowledged' books is comprehensive   
and clear4 ,in the few pages of his     
writings which remain there are certain 
references to the ,gospels of ,st4      
,matthew1 ,st4 ,luke1 and ,st4          
,john17#c7 c4 ,now in making1 in such a 
manner1 these assertions3 in totally    
ignoring the whole of the discussion    
with regard to the supposed quotations  
of ,basilides in the work commonly      
ascribed to ,hippolytus and the adverse 
results of learned criticism3 in the    
unqualified assertions thus made and the

 absence either of explanation of the   
facts or the reasons for the conclusion3
 this statement must be condemned as    
only calculated to mislead readers who  
must generally be ignorant of the actual
 facts of the case4 ,we know from the   
evidence of antiquity that ,basilides   
made use of a ,gospel1 written by       
himself it is said1 but certainly called
 after his own name47#d7 ,an attempt has
       #b  ,these names are pure        
inventions of ,dr4 ,westcott's fancy1   
of course4       #c  ,on the ,canon1 p4 
#bee f4 ,since these remarks were first 
made1 ,dr4 ,westcott has somewhat       
enlarged his account of      ,basilides1
 but we still consider that his         
treatment of the      subject is        
deceptive and incomplete4  #dc  been    
made to explain this by suggesting that 
perhaps the work mentioned by ,agrippa  
,castor may have been mistaken for a    
,gospel27#a7 but the fragments of that  
work which are still extant7#b7 are of a
 character which precludes the          

possibility that any writing of which   
they formed a part could have been      
considered a ,gospel47#c7 ,various      
opinions have been expressed as to the  
exact nature of the ,gospel of          
,basilides4 ,neander affirmed it to be  
the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews   
which he brought from ,syria to         
,egypt27#d7 whilst ,schneckenburger held
 it to be the ,gospel according to the  
,egyptians47#e7 ,others believe it to   
have at least been based upon one or    
other of these ,gospels47#f7 ,there     
seems most reason for the hypothesis    
that it was a form of the ,gospel       
according to the ,hebrews1 which was so 
generally in use4  ,returning to the    
passage already quoted1 in which        
,eusebius states1 on the authority of   
,agrippa ,castor1 whose works are no    
longer extant1 that ,basilides had      
composed a work in twenty-four books on 
the ,gospel  #dd  ------1 and to the    
unwarrantable inference that this must  
have been a work on our four ,gospels1  

we must add that1 so far from deriving  
his doctrines from our ,gospels or other
 ,new ,testament writings1 or           
acknowledging their authority1          
,basilides professed that he received   
his knowledge of the truth from         
,glaucias1 the interpreter of ,peter1   
whose disciple he claimed to be17#a7 and
 thus practically sets ,gospels aside   
and prefers tradition47#b7 ,basilides   
also claimed to have received from a    
certain ,matthias the report of private 
discourses which he had heard from the  
,saviour for his special                
instruction47#c7 ,agrippa ,castor       
further stated1 according to ,eusebius1 
that in his ------ ,basilides named for 
himself1 as prophets1 ,barcabbas and    
,barcoph 7,parchor7#d771 as well as     
invented others who never existed1 and  
claimed their authority for his         
doctrines47#e7 ,with regard to all this 
,canon ,westcott writes3 ,since         
,basilides lived on the verge of the    
apostolic times1 it is not surprising   

that he made use of other sources of    
,christian doctrine besides the         
canonical books4 ,the belief in ,divine 
,inspiration was still fresh and        
real17#f7 c4 ,it is apparent1 however1  
that ,basilides1 in basing his doctrines
 upon tradition and  #de  upon these    
,apocryphal books as inspired1 and in   
having a special ,gospel called after   
his own name1 which1 therefore1 he      
clearly adopts as the exponent of his   
ideas of ,christian truth1 completely   
ignores the canonical ,gospels1 and not 
only does not offer any evidence for    
their existence1 but proves1 on the     
contrary1 that he did not recognize any 
such works as of authority4 ,there is no
 ground1 therefore1 for ,tischendorfs   
assumption that the commentary of       
,basilides on the ,gospel was written   
upon our ,gospels1 but that idea is     
negatived in the strongest way by all   
the facts of the case47#a7 ,the         
perfectly simple interpretation of the  
statement is that long ago suggested by 

,valesius17#b7 that the ,commentary of  
,basilides was composed upon his own    
,gospel17#c7 whether it was the ,gospel 
according to the ,hebrews or the        
,egyptians4  ,moreover1 it must be borne
 in mind that ,basilides used the word  
,gospel in a peculiar sense4            
,hippolytus1 in the work usually        
ascribed to him1 writing of the         
,basilidians and describing their       
doctrines1 says3 ,when therefore it was 
necessary1 he 787 says1 that we1 the    
children of ,god1 should be revealed1 in
 expectation of whose revelation1 he    
says1 the creation groaned and          
travailed1 the ,gospel came into the    
world1 and passed through every         
principality and power and dominion1 and
 every name that is named47#d7 ,the     
,gospel1 therefore1  #df  came first    
from the ,sonship1 he says1 through the 
,son1 sitting by the ,archon1 to the    
,archon1 and the ,archon learnt that he 
was not the ,god of all things but      
begotten17#a7 c4 ,the ,gospel1 according

 to them1 is the knowledge of           
supramundane matters17#b7 c4 ,this may  
not be very intelligible1 but it is     
sufficient to show that the ,gospel in a
 technical sense7#c7 formed a very      
important part of the system of         
,basilides4 ,now there is nothing       
whatever to show that the twenty-four   
books which he composed on the ,gospel  
were not in elucidation of the ,gospel  
as technically understood by him1       
illustrated by extracts from his own    
special ,gospel and from the tradition  
handed down to him by ,glaucias and     
,matthias4 ,the emphatic assertion of   
,canon ,westcott that ,basilides        
admitted the historic truth of all the  
facts contained in the canonical        
,gospels1 is based solely upon the      
following sentence of the work          
attributed to ,hippolytus2 ,jesus1      
however1 was generated according to     
these 7followers of ,basilides7 as we   
have already said47#d7 ,but when the    
generation which has already been       

declared had taken place1 all things    
regarding the ,saviour1 according to    
them1 occurred in like manner as they   
have been written in the ,gospel47#e7   
,there are1 however1 several important  
points to be borne in mind in reference 
to this passage4 ,the statement in      
question is not made in  #dg  connection
 with ,basilides himself1 but distinctly
 in reference to his followers1 of whom 
there were many in the time of          
,hippolytus and long after him4 ,it is1 
moreover1 a general observation the     
accuracy of which we have no means of   
testing1 and upon the correctness of    
which there is no special reason to     
rely4 ,the remark1 made at the beginning
 of the third century1 however1 that the
 followers of ,basilides believed that  
the actual events of the life of ,jesus 
occurred in the way in which they have  
been written in the ,gospels1 is no     
proof whatever that either they or      
,basilides used or admitted the         
authority of our ,gospels4 ,the         

exclusive use by any one of the ,gospel 
according to the ,hebrews1 for instance1
 would be perfectly consistent with the 
statement4 ,no one who considers what is
 known of that ,gospel1 or who thinks of
 the use made of it in the first half of
 the second century by perfectly        
orthodox ,fathers1 can doubt this4 ,the 
passage is1 therefore1 of no weight as  
evidence for the use of our ,gospels4   
,canon ,westcott himself admits that in 
the extant fragments of ,isidorus1 the  
son and disciple of ,basilides1 who     
maintained the doctrines of his father1 
he has noticed nothing bearing on the   
books of the ,new ,testament447#a7 ,on  
the supposition that ,basilides actually
 wrote a ,commentary on our ,gospels1   
and used them as ,scripture1 it is      
indeed passing strange that we have so  
little evidence on the point4  ,we must 
now1 however1 examine in detail all of  
the quotations1 and they are few1       
alleged to show the use of our ,gospels1
 and we shall commence with those of    

,tischendorf4 ,the first passage which  
he points out is found in the ,stromata 
of ,clement of ,alexandria4 ,tischendorf
 guards himself1 in reference to these  
quotations1  #dh  by merely speaking of 
them as ,basilidian                     
7,basilidianisch717#a7 but it might have
 been more frank to have stated clearly 
that ,clement distinctly assigns the    
quotation to the followers of ,basilides
 ------17#b7 and not to ,basilides      
himself47#c7 ,the supposed quotation1   
therefore1 however surely traced to our 
,gospels1 could really not prove        
anything in regard to ,basilides4 ,the  
passage itself compared with the        
parallel in ,matt4 xix4 #aa1 #ab1 is as 
follows3--  ------  ,now this passage in
 its affinity to1 and material variation
 from1 our first ,gospel might be quoted
 as evidence for the use of another     
,gospel1 but it cannot reasonably be    
cited as evidence for the use of        
,matthew4 ,apologists in their anxiety  
to grasp at the faintest analogies as   

testimony seem altogether to ignore the 
history of the creation of written      
,gospels1 and to forget the very        
existence of the ------ of ,luke47#d7   
,the next passage referred to by        
,tischendorf7#e7 is one  #di  quoted by 
,epiphanius7#a7 which we subjoin in     
contrast with the parallel in ,matt4    
vii4 #f3--  ------  ,here1 again1 the   
variation in order is just what one     
might have expected from the use of the 
,gospel according to the ,hebrews or a  
similar work1 and there is no indication
 whatever that the passage did not end  
here1 without the continuation of our   
first ,synoptic4 ,what is still more    
important1 although ,teschendorf does   
not mention the fact1 nor otherwise hint
 a doubt than by the use1 again1 of an  
unexplained description of this         
quotation as ,basilidianisch instead of 
a more direct ascription of it to       
,basilides himself1 this passage is by  
no means attributed by ,epiphanius to   
that heretic4 ,it is introduced into the

 section of his work directed against   
the ,basilidians1 but he uses1 like     
,clement1 the indefinite ------1 and as 
in dealing with all these heresies there
 is continual interchange of reference  
to the head and the later followers1    
there is no certainty who is referred to
 in these quotations and1 in this       
instance1 nothing to indicate that this 
passage is ascribed to ,basilides       
himself1 ,his name is mentioned in the  
first line of the first chapter of this 
heresy1 but not again before this ------
 occurs in chapter v4 ,teschendorf does 
not claim any other quotations4  #ej    
,canon ,westcott states3 ,in the few    
pages of his 7,basilides'7 writings     
which remain there are certain          
references to the ,gospels of ,st4      
,matthew1 ,st4 ,luke17#a7 c4 ,one might 
suppose from this that the certain      
references occurred in actual extracts  
made from his works1 and that the       
quotations1 therefore1 appeared sc7#e7  
7sp47 in a context of his own words4    

,this impression is strengthened when we
 read as an introduction to the         
instances3 ,the following examples will 
be sufficient to show his method of     
quotation47#b7 ,the fact is1 however1   
that these examples are found in the    
work of ,hippolytus1 in an epitome of   
the views of the school by that writer  
himself1 with nothing more definite than
 a subjectless ------ to indicate who is
 referred to4 ,the only examples ,canon 
,westcott can give of these certain     
references to our first and third       
,synoptics1 do not show his method of   
quotation to much advantage4 ,the first 
is not a quotation at all1 but a mere   
reference to the ,magi and the ,star4   
,but that every thing1 he says ------1  
has its own seasons1 the ,saviour       
sufficiently teaches when he says3444   
and the ,magi having seen the star17#c7 
c4 ,this of course ,canon ,westcott     
considers a reference to ,matt4 ii4 #a1 
#b1 but we need scarcely point out that 
this falls to the ground instantly1 if  

it be admitted1 as it must be1 that the 
,star and the ,magi may have been       
mentioned in other ,gospels than the    
first ,synoptic4 ,we have already seen1 
when examining the evidence of ,justin1 
that this is the case4 ,the only        
quotation asserted to be taken from     
,luke is the phrase3 ,the ,holy ,spirit 
shall come upon thee1 and the power of  
the ,highest shall overshadow  #ea      
thee17#a7 which agrees with ,luke i4    
#ce4 ,this again is introduced by       
,hippolytus with another subjectless he 
says1 and apart from the uncertainty as 
to who he is1 this is very              
unsatisfactory evidence as to the form  
of the quotation in the original text1  
for it may easily have been corrected by
 ,hippolytus1 consciously or            
unconsciously1 in the course of transfer
 to his pages4 ,we have already met with
 this passage as quoted by ,justin from 
a ,gospel different from ours4  ,as we  
have already stated1 however1 none of   
the quotations which we have considered 

are directly referred to ,basilides     
himself1 but they are all introduced by 
the utterly vague expression1 he says1  
------ without any subject accompanying 
the verb4 ,now it is admitted that      
writers of the time of ,hippolytus1 and 
notably ,hippolytus himself1 made use of
 the name of the founder of a sect to   
represent the whole of his school1 and  
applied to him1 apparently1 quotations  
taken from unknown and later            
followers47#b7 ,the passages which he   
cites1 therefore1 and which appear to   
indicate the use of ,gospels1 instead of
 being extracted from the works of the  
founder himself1 in all probability were
 taken from writings of ,gnostics of his
 own time4 ,canon ,westcott himself     
admits the possibility of this1 in      
writing of other early heretics4 ,he    
says3 ,the evidence that has been       
collected from  #eb  the documents of   
these primitive sects is necessarily    
somewhat vague4 ,it would be more       
satisfactory to know the exact position 

of their authors1 and the precise date  
of their being composed4 ,it is just    
possible that ,hippolytus made use of   
writings which were current in his own  
time without further examination1 and   
transferred to the apostolic age forms  
of thought and expression which had been
 the growth of two1 or even of three    
generations47#a7 ,so much as to the     
reliance to be placed on the work       
ascribed to ,hippolytus4 ,it is certain1
 for instance1 that in writing of the   
sect of ,naaseni and ,ophites1          
,hippolytus perpetually quotes passages 
from the writings of the school1 with   
the indefinite ------17#b7 as he        
likewise does in dealing with the       
,peratici17#c7 and ,docetae17#d7 no     
individual author being named2 yet he   
evidently quotes various writers1       
passing from one to another without     
explanation1 and making use of the same 
unvarying ------ ,in one place17#e7     
where he has the ,greeks say1 ------ he 
gives1 without further indication1 a    

quotation from ,pindar47#f7 ,a still    
more apt instance of his method is that 
pointed out by ,volkmar17#g7 where      
,hippolytus1 writing of ,marcion1 or    
some one of his hounds1 uses1 without   
further explanation1 the subjectless    
------ to introduce matter from the     
later followers of ,marcion47#h7 ,now1  
with regard to  #ec  ,basilides1        
,hippolytus directly refers not only to 
the heretic chief1 but also to his      
disciple ,isidorus and all their        
followers17#a7 ------ and then proceeds 
to use the indefinite he says1          
interspersed with references in the     
plural to these heretics1 exhibiting the
 same careless method of quotation1 and 
leaving the same complete uncertainty as
 to the speaker's identity as in the    
other cases mentioned47#b7 ,on the other
 hand1 it has been demonstrated by      
,hilgenfeld1 that the gnosticism        
ascribed to ,basilides by ,hippolytus1  
in connection with these quotations1 is 
of a much later and more developed type 

than that which ,basilides himself      
held17#c7 as shown in the actual        
fragments of his own writings which are 
still extant1 and as reported by        
,irenaeus17#d7 ,clement of              
,alexandria17#e7 and the work ,adversus 
omnes ,haereses1 annexed to the         
,praescriptio haereticorum of           
,tertullian1 which is  #ed  considered  
to be the epitome of an earlier work of 
,hippolytus4 ,the fact probably is that 
,hippolytus derived his views of the    
doctrines of ,basilides from the        
writings of his later followers1 and    
from them made the quotations which are 
attributed to the founder of the        
school47#a7 ,in any case there is no    
ground for referring these quotations   
with an indefinite ------ to ,basilides 
himself4  ,of all this there is not a   
word from ,canon ,westcott17#b7 but he  
ventures to speak of the testimony of   
,basilides to our 'acknowledged' books1 
as comprehensive and clear47#c7 ,we have
 seen1 however1 that the passages       

referred to have no weight whatever as  
evidence for the use of our ,synoptics4 
,the formulae 7as ------ to that        
compared with ,luke i4 #ce1 and ------  
with references compared with some of   
the ,epistles7 which accompany these    
quotations1 and to which ,canon         
,westcott points as an indication that  
the ,new ,testament writings were       
already recognized as ,holy             
,scripture17#d7 need no special         
attention1 because1 as it cannot be     
shown that the expressions were used by 
,basilides himself at all1 they do not  
come into question4 ,if anything1       
however1 were required to complete the  
evidence that these quotations are not  
from the works of ,basilides himself1   
but from later writings by his          
followers1 it would be the use of such  
formulae1 for as the writings of        
pseudo-,ignatius1 ,polycarp1 ,justin    
,martyr1 ,papias1 ,hegesippus1  #ee  and
 others of the ,fathers in several ways 
positively demonstrate1 the ,new        

,testament writings were not admitted1  
even amongst orthodox ,fathers1 to the  
rank of ,holy ,scripture1 until a very  
much later period47#a7  #b4  ,much of   
what has been said with regard to the   
claim which is laid to ,basilides1 by   
some apologists1 as a witness for the   
,gospels and the existence of a ,new    
,testament ,canon1 and the manner in    
which that claim is advanced1 likewise  
applies to ,valentinus1 another ,gnostic
 leader1 who1 about the year #adj1 came 
from ,alexandria to ,rome and flourished
 till about a4d4 #afj47b7 ,very little  
remains of the writings of this         
,gnostic1 and we gain our only knowledge
 of them from a few short quotations in 
the works of ,clement of ,alexandria1   
and some doubtful fragments preserved by
 others4 ,we shall presently have       
occasion to refer more directly to      
these1 and need not here more           
particularly mention them4              
,tischendorf1 the self-constituted      
modern ,defensor fidei17#c7 asserts1    

with an assurance which can scarcely be 
characterized otherwise than as an      
unpardonable calculation upon the       
ignorance of his readers1 that          
,valentinus used  #ef  the whole of our 
four ,canonical ,gospels4 ,to do him    
full justice1 we shall as much as       
possible give his own words2 and1       
although we set aside systematically all
 discussion regarding the fourth ,gospel
 for separate treatment hereafter1 we   
must1 in order to convey the full sense 
of ,dr4 ,tischendorf s proceeding1      
commence with a sentence regarding that 
,gospel4 ,referring to a statement of   
,irenaeus1 that the followers of        
,valentinus made use of the fourth      
,gospel1 ,tischendorf continues3        
,hippolytus confirms and completes the  
statement of ,irenaeus1 for he quotes   
several expressions of ,john1 which     
,valentinus employed4 ,this most clearly
 occurs in the case of ,john x4 #h2 for 
,hippolytus writes3 ',because the       
prophets and the law1 according to the  

doctrine of ,valentinus1 were only      
filled with a subordinate and foolish   
spirit1 ,valentinus says3 ,on account of
 this1 the ,saviour says3 ,all who came 
before me were thieves and robbers4'7l7 
,now this1 to begin with1 is a practical
 falsification of the text of the       
,philosophumena1 which reads3 ,therefore
 all the ,prophets and the ,law spoke   
under the influence of the ,demiurge1 a 
foolish ,god1 he says1 7they themselves 
being7 foolish1 knowing nothing4 ,on    
this account1 he says1 the ,saviour     
saith3 ,all who came before me1 c4      
c47#b7 ,there is no mention whatever of 
the name of ,valentinus in the passage1 
and1 as we shall presently  #eg  show1  
there is no direct reference in the     
whole chapter to ,valentinus himself4   
,the introduction of his name in this   
manner into the text1 without a word of 
explanation1 is highly reprehensible4   
,it is true that in a note ,tischendorf 
gives a closer translation of the       
passage1 without1 however1 any          

explanation2 and here again he adds1 in 
parenthesis to the says he1 namely1     
,valentinus4 ,such a note1 however1     
which would probably be unread by a     
majority of readers1 does not rectify   
the impression conveyed by so positive  
and emphatic an assertion as is conveyed
 by the alteration in the text4         
,tischendorf continues3 ,and as the     
,gospel of ,john1 so also were the other
 ,gospels used by ,valentinus4          
,according to the statement of ,irenaeus
 7,i4 #g1 ,sec4 #d71 he found the said  
subordinate spirit1 which he calls      
,demiurge1 ,masterworker1 emblematically
 represented by the ,centurion of       
,capernaum 7,matt4 viii4 #i1 ,luke vii4 
#h72 in the dead and resuscitated       
daughter of ,jairus1 when twelve years  
old1 7,luke viii4 #da71 he recognized a 
symbol of his ',wisdom' 7,achamoth71 the
 mother of the ,masterworker 7,i4 #h1   
,sec4 #b72 in like manner1 he saw       
represented in the history of the woman 
who had suffered twelve years from the  

bloody issue1 and was cured by the ,lord
 7,matt4 ix4 #bj71 the sufferings and   
salvation of his twelfth primitive      
spirit 7,aeon7 7,i4 #c1 ,sec4 #c72 the  
expression of the ,lord 7,matt4 v4 #ah7 
on the numerical value of the iota 7'the
 smallest letter'7 he applied to his ten
 aeons in repose4l ,now1 in every       
instance where ,tischendorf here speaks 
of ,valentinus by the singular he1      
,irenaeus uses the plural they1         
referring not to the original founder of
 the sect1 but to his followers in his  
own day1 and the  #eh  text is thus     
again in every instance falsified by the
 pious zeal of the apologist4 ,in the   
case of the ,centurions they say ------ 
that he is the ,demiurge27#a7 they      
declare ------ that the daughter of     
,jairus is the type of ,achamoth27#b7   
they say ------ that the apostasy of    
,judas points to the passion in         
connection with the twelfth aeon1 and   
also the fact that ,jesus suffered in   
the twelfth month after his baptism2 for

 they will have it ------ that he only  
preached for one year4 ,the case of the 
woman with the bloody issue for twelve  
years1 and the power which went forth   
from the ,son to heal her1 they will    
have to be ,horos ------#c ,in like     
manner they assert that the ten aeons   
are indicated ------ by the letter      
,iota1 mentioned in the ,saviour's      
expression1 ,matt v4 #ah47d7 ,at the end
 of these and numerous other similar    
references in this chapter to ,new      
,testament expressions and passages1    
,irenaeus says3 ,thus they interpret1 c4
 ------47#e7 ,the plural they is        
employed throughout4  ,tischendorf      
proceeds to give the answer to his      
statement which is supposed to be made  
by objectors43 ,they say3 all that has  
reference to the ,gospel of ,john was   
not advanced by ,valentinus himself1 but
 by his disciples4 ,and in fact1 in     
,irenaeus1 'they--the                   
,valen-tinians--say1' occurs much       
oftener than 'he--,valentinus--says4'   

,but who is there so sapient as to draw 
the line between what the master alone  
says1 and that which the disciples state
 without in the least repeating the  #ei
  master87#a7 ,tischendorf solves the   
difficulty by referring everything      
indiscriminately to the master4 ,now1 in
 reply to these observations1 we must   
remark in the first place that the      
admission here made by ,tischendorf1    
that ,irenaeus much more often uses they
 say than he says is still quite        
disingenuous1 inasmuch as invariably1   
and without exception1 ,irenaeus uses   
the plural in connection with the texts 
in question4 ,secondly1 it is quite     
obvious that a ,gnostic1 writing about  
a4d4 #ahe-aie1 was likely to use        
arguments which were never thought of by
 a ,gnostic1 writing at the middle of   
the second century ,at the end of the   
century1 the writings of the ,new       
,testament had acquired consideration   
and authority1 and ,gnostic writers had 
therefore a reason to refer to them1 and

 to endeavour to show that they         
supported their peculiar views1 which   
did not exist at all at the time when   
,valentinus propounded his system4      
,tischendorf1 however1 cannot be allowed
 the benefit even of such a doubt as he 
insinuates1 as to what belongs to the   
master1 and what to the followers4 ,such
 doubtful testimony could not establish 
anything1 but it is in point of fact    
also totally excluded by the statement  
of ,irenaeus himself4  ,in the preface  
to the first book of his great work1    
,irenaeus clearly states the motives and
 objects for which he writes4 ,he says3 
,i considered it necessary1 having read 
the commentaries ------ of the disciples
 of ,valentinus1 as they call           
themselves1 and having had personal     
intercourse with some of them and       
acquired full knowledge of their        
opinions1 to unfold to thee1 c41 and he 
goes on to say that he intends to set   
forth the opinions of those who are now 
teaching heresy2 ,i speak  #fj          

particularly of the followers of        
,ptolemaeus1 whose system is an offshoot
 of the school of ,valentinus47#a7      
,nothing could be more explicit than    
this statement that ,irenaeus neither   
intended nor pretended to write upon the
 works of ,valentinus himself1 but upon 
the commentaries of his followers of his
 own time1 with some of whom he had had 
personal intercourse1 and that the      
system which he intended to attack was  
that actually being taught in his day by
 ,ptolemaeus and his school1 the        
offshoot from ,valentinus4 ,all the     
quotations to which ,tischendorf refers 
are made within a few pages of this     
explicit declaration4 ,immediately after
 the passage about the ,centurion1 he   
says3 such is their system ------1 and  
three lines below he states that they   
derive their views from unwritten       
sources ------47#b7 ,the first direct   
reference to ,valentinus does not occur 
until after these quotations1 and is for
 the purpose of showing the variation of

 opinion of his followers4 ,he says3    
,let us now see the uncertain opinions  
of these heretics1 for there are two or 
three of them1 how they do not speak    
alike of the same things1 but           
contradicted one another in facts and   
names4 ,then he continues3 ,for the     
first of them1 ,valentinus1 having      
derived his principles from the         
so-called ,gnostic heresy1 and adapted  
them to the peculiar character of his   
school declared this3 c41 c4#c ,and  #fa
  after a brief description of his      
system1 in which no ,scriptural allusion
 occurs1 he goes on to compare the views
 of the rest1 and in chap4 xii4 he      
returns to ,ptolemaeus and his followers
 ------4  ,in the preface to ,book ii1  
he again says that he has been exposing 
the falsity of the followers of         
,valentinus 7qui sunt a ,valentino7 and 
will proceed to establish what he has   
advanced2 and everywhere he uses the    
plural they1 with occasional direct     
references to the followers of          

,valentinus 7qui sunt a ,valentino747#a7
 ,the same course is adopted in ,book   
iii41 the plural being systematically   
used1 and the same distinct definition  
introduced at intervals47#b7 ,and again1
 in the preface to ,book iv4 he         
recapitulates that the preceding books  
had been written against these1 qui sunt
 a ,valentino 7,sec4 #b74 ,in fact1 it  
would almost be impossible for any      
writer more frequently and emphatically 
to show that he is not1 as he began by  
declaring1 dealing with the founder of  
the school himself1 but with his        
followers living and teaching at the    
time at which he wrote4  ,canon         
,westcott1 with whose system of         
positively enunciating unsupported and  
controverted statements we are already  
acquainted1 is only slightly outstripped
 by the ,german apologist in his        
misrepresentation of the evidence of    
,valentinus4 ,it must be stated1        
however1 that1 acknowledging1 as no     
doubt he does1 that ,irenaeus never     

refers to ,valentinus himself1 ,canon   
,westcott passes over in complete       
silence the supposed references upon    
#fb  which ,teschendorf relies as his   
only evidence for the use of the        
,synoptics by that ,gnostic4 ,he1       
however1 makes the following            
extraordinary statement regarding       
,valentinus3  ,the fragments of his     
writings which remain show the same     
natural and trustful use of ,scripture  
as other ,christian works of the same   
period2 and there is no diversity of    
character in this respect between the   
quotations given in ,hippolytus and     
those found in ,clement of ,alexandria4 
,he cites the ,epistle to the ,ephesians
 as ',scripture1' and refers clearly to 
the ,gospels of ,st4 ,matthew1 ,st4     
,luke1 and ,st4 ,john1 to the ,epistles 
to the ,romans17#a7 c4  ,we shall now   
give the passages which he points out in
 support of these assertions47#b7 ,the  
first two are said to occur in the      
,stromata of the ,alexandrian ,clement1 

who professes to quote the very words of
 a letter of ,valentinus to certain     
people regarding the passions1 which are
 called by the followers of ,basilides  
the appendages of the soul4 ,the passage
 is as follows3 ,but one only is good1  
whose presence is the manifestation     
through the ,son1 and  #a ,on the       
,canon1 p4 #bei f4 ,in the #dth ed4 of  
his work1 published since the above     
remarks were made1 ,dr4 ,westcott has   
modified or withdrawn his assertions    
regarding ,valentinus4 ,as we cannot    
well omit the above passage1 it is right
 to state that the lines quoted now     
read3 ,the few unquestionable fragments 
of ,valentinus contain but little which 
points to passages of ,scripture4 ,if it
 were clear that the anonymous          
quotations in ,hippolytus were derived  
from ,valentinus himself1 the list would
 be much enlarged1 and include a        
citation of the ,epistle to the         
,ephesians as ',scripture1' and clear   
references to the ,gospels of ,st4 ,luke

 and ,st4 ,john1 to #a ,corinthians1    
perhaps also to the ,epistle to the     
,hebrews1 and the first ,epistle of ,st4
 ,john1 7p4 #bie f474 ,in a note he     
adds3 ,but a fresh and careful          
examination of the whole section of     
,hippolytus makes me feel that the      
evidence is so uncertain1 that ,i cannot
 be sure in this case1 as in the case of
 ,basilides1 that ,hippolytus is quoting
 the words of the ,founder 7p4 #bie1 n4 
#e74 ,under these circumstances the     
statements even in the amended edition  
present many curious features4  #fc     
through ,him alone will the heart be    
enabled to become pure1 by the expulsion
 of every evil spirit from the heart4   
,for many spirits dwelling in it do not 
allow it to be pure1 but each of them1  
while in divers parts they riot there in
 unseemly lusts1 performs its own works4
 ,and1 it seems to me1 the heart is     
somewhat like an inn4 ,for that1 also1  
is both bored and dug into1 and often   
filled with the ordure of men1 who abide

 there in revelry1 and bestow not one   
single thought upon the place1 seeing it
 is the property of another4 ,and in    
such wise is it with the heart1 so long 
as no thought is given to it1 being     
impure1 and the dwelling-place of many  
demons1 but as soon as the alone good   
,father has visited it1 it is sanctified
 and shines through with light1 and the 
possessor of such a heart becomes so    
blessed1 that he shall see ,god47#a7    
,according to ,canon ,westcott this     
passage contains two of the clear       
references to our ,gospels upon which he
 bases his statement1 namely to ,matt4  
v4 #h1 and to ,matt4 xix4 #ag4  ,now it 
is clear that there is no actual        
quotation from any evangelical work in  
this passage from the ,epistle of       
,valentinus1 and the utmost for which   
the most zealous apologist could contend
 is1 that there is a slight similarity  
with some words in the ,gospel1 and     
,canon  #fd  ,westcott himself does not 
venture to call them more than          

references4 ,that such distant          
coincidences should be quoted as        
evidence for the use of the first       
,gospel shows how weak is his case4 ,at 
best such vague allusions could not     
prove anything1 but when the passages to
 which reference is supposed to be made 
are examined1 it will be apparent that  
nothing could be more unfounded or      
arbitrary than the claim of reference   
specially to our ,gospel1 to the        
exclusion of the other ,gospels then    
existing1 which to our knowledge        
contained both passages4 ,we may1       
indeed1 go still further1 and affirm    
that if these coincidences are          
references to any ,gospel at all1 that  
,gospel is not the canonical1 but one   
different from it4  ,the first reference
 alluded to consists of the following   
two phrases3 ,but one only is good      
------44444 the alone good ,father      
------4 ,this is compared with ,matt4   
xix4 #ag3a ,why askest thou me          
concerning good8 there is one that is   

good ------47#b7 ,now the passage in the
 epistle1 if a reference to any parallel
 episode1 such as ,matt4 xix4 #ag1      
indicates with certainty the reading3   
,one is good the ,father ------4 ,there 
is no such reading in any of our        
,gospels4 ,but although this reading    
does not exist in any of the ,canonical 
,gospels1 it is well known that it did  
exist in uncanonical ,gospels no longer 
extant1 and that the passage was one    
upon which various sects of so-called   
heretics laid great stress4 ,irenseus   
quotes it as one of  #fe  the texts to  
which the ,marcosians1 who made use of  
apocryphal ,gospels17#a7 and notably of 
the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1  
gave a different colouring3 ------7#b7  
,epiphanius also quotes this reading as 
one of the variations of the            
,marcionites3 ------47#c7 ,origen1      
likewise1 remarks that this passage is  
misused by some ,heretics3 ,velut       
proprie sibi datum scutum putant        
7haeretici7 quod dixit ,dominus in      

,evangelio3 ,nemo bonus nisi unus ,deus 
pater47#d7 ,justin ,martyr quotes the   
same reading from a source different    
from our ,gospels17#e7 ------7#f7 and in
 agreement with the repeated similar    
readings of the ,clementine ,homilies1  
which likewise derived it from an extra 
canonical source17#g7 ------4#h ,the use
 of a similar expression by ,clement of 
,alexandria1#i as well as by ,origen1   
only serves to prove the existence of   
the reading in extinct ,gospels1        
although it is not found in any ,,ms4 of
 any of our ,gospels4  ,the second of   
the supposed references is more diffuse3
 ,one is good and through him alone will
 the heart be enabled to become pure    
------444 but when the alone good       
,father has visited it1 it is sanctified
 and shines through with light1 and the 
possessor of such a heart becomes so    
blessed1 that he shall see ,god ------  
#ff  ------4 ,this is compared7#a7 with 
,matthew v4 #h3 ,blessed are the pure in
 heart1 for they shall see ,god ------4 

,it might be argued that this is quite  
as much a reference to ,psalm xxiv4 #c-f
 as to ,matt4 v4 #h1 but even if treated
 as a reference to the ,sermon on the   
,mount1 nothing is more certain than the
 fact that this discourse had its place 
in much older forms of the ,gospel than 
our present ,canonical ,gospels17#b7 and
 that it formed part of the ,gospel     
according to the ,hebrews and other     
evangelical writings in circulation in  
the early ,church4 ,such a reference as 
this is absolutely worthless as evidence
 of special acquaintance with our first 
,synoptic47#c7  ,tischendorf does not   
appeal at all to these supposed         
references contained in the passages    
preserved by ,clement1 but both the     
,german and the ,english apologist join 
in relying upon the testimony of        
,hippolytus17#d7 with regard to the use 
of the ,gospels by ,valentinus1 although
 it must be admitted that the former    
does so with greater fairness of        
treatment than ,canon ,westcott4        

,tischendorf does refer to1 and admit1  
some of the difficulties of the case1 as
 we shall presently see1 whilst ,canon  
,westcott1 as in the case of ,basilides1
 boldly makes his assertion1 and totally
 ignores all adverse facts4 ,the only   
,gospel  #fg  reference which can be    
adduced even in the ,philosophumena1    
exclusive of one asserted to be to the  
fourth ,gospel1 which will be separately
 considered hereafter1 is advanced by   
,canon ,westcott1 for ,teschendorf does 
not refer to it1 but confines himself   
solely to the supposed reference to the 
fourth ,gospel4 ,the passage is the same
 as one also imputed to ,basilides3 ,the
 ,holy ,spirit shall come upon thee and 
the power of the ,highest shall         
overshadow thee2 which happens to agree 
with the words in ,luke i4 #ce2 but1 as 
we have seen in connection with ,justin1
 there is good reason for concluding    
that the narrative to which it belongs  
was contained in other ,gospels47#a7 ,in
 this instance1 however1 the quotation  

is carried further and presents an      
important variation from the text of    
,luke4 ,the ,holy ,spirit shall come    
upon thee1 and the power of the ,highest
 shall overshadow thee2 therefore the   
thing begotten of thee shall be called  
holy7#b7 ------4 ,the reading of ,luke  
is3 ,therefore also the holy thing      
begotten shall be called the ,son of    
,god ------4 ,it is probable that the   
passage referred to in connection with  
the followers of ,basilides may have    
ended in the same way as this1 and been 
derived from the same source4 ,nothing1 
however1 can be clearer than the fact   
that this quotation1 by whoever made1 is
 not taken from our third ,synoptic1    
inasmuch as there does not exist a      
single ,,ms4 which contains such a      
passage4  ,we again1 however1 come to   
the question3 ,who really made the      
quotations which ,hippolytus introduces 
so indefinitely8 ,we have already1 in   
speaking of ,basilides1  #fh  pointed   
out the loose manner in which           

,hippolytus and other early writers1 in 
dealing with different schools of       
heretics1 indifferently quote the       
founder or his followers without        
indicating the precise person quoted4   
,this practice is particularly apparent 
in the work of ,hippolytus when the     
followers of ,valentinus are in         
question4 ,tischendorf himself is       
obliged to admit this4 ,he asks3 ,even  
though it be also incontestable that the
 author 7,hippolytus7 does not always   
sharply distinguish between the sect and
 the founder of the sect1 does this     
apply to the present case87#a7 ,he      
denies that it does in the instance to  
which he refers1 but he admits the      
general fact4 ,in the same way another  
apologist of the fourth ,gospel 7and as 
the use of that ,gospel is maintained in
 consequence of a quotation in the very 
same chapter as we are now considering1 
only a few lines higher up1 both the    
third and fourth are in the same        
position7 is forced to admit3 ,the use  

of the ,gospel of ,john by ,valentinus  
cannot so certainly be proved from our  
refutation-writing 7the work of         
,hippolytus74 ,certainly in the         
statement of these doctrines it gives   
abstracts1 which contain an expression  
of ,john 7x4 #h71 and there cannot be   
any doubt that this is taken from some  
writing of the sect4 ,but the apologist1
 in his expressions regarding the       
,valentinian doctrines1 does not seem to
 confine himself to one and the same    
work1 but to have alternately made use  
of different writings of the school1 for
 which reason we cannot say anything as 
to the age of this quotation1 and from  
this testimony1 therefore1 we merely    
have further confirmation that the      
,gospel was early7#b7 787 used in the   
#b ,why early8 since ,hippolytus writes 
about a4d4 #bbe4  #fi  ,school of the   
,valentinians17#a7 c4 ,of all this not a
 word from ,canon ,westcott1 who adheres
 to his system of bare assertion4  ,now 
we have already quoted7#b7 the opening  

sentence of ,book vi4 #ce1 of the work  
ascribed to ,hippolytus1 in which the   
quotation from ,john x4 #h1 referred to 
above occurs1 and ten line#c further on1
 with another intermediate and equally  
indefinite he says ------1 occurs the   
supposed quotation from ,luke i4 #ce1   
which1 equally with that from the fourth
 ,gospel1 must1 according to            
,weizsaecker1 be abandoned as a         
quotation which can fairly be ascribed  
to ,valentinus himself1 whose name is   
not once mentioned in the whole chapter4
 ,a few lines below the quotation1      
however1 a passage occurs which throws  
much light upou the question4 ,after    
explaining the views of the             
,valentinians regarding the verse3 ,the 
,holy ,ghost shall come upon thee1 c41  
the writer thus proceeds3 ,regarding    
this there is among them ------ a great 
question1 a cause both of schism and    
dissension4 ,and hence their ------     
teaching has become divided1 and the one
 teaching according to them ------ is   

called ,eastern '------ and the other   
,italian4 ,they from ,italy1 of whom is 
,heracleon and ,ptolemaeus1 say ------  
that the body of ,jesus was animal1 and 
on account of this1 on the occasion of  
the baptism1 the ,holy ,spirit like a   
dove came down--that is1 the ,logos from
 the ,mother above1 ,sophia--and became 
joined to the animal1 and raised him    
from the dead4 ,this1 he says ------ is 
the declaration ------1--and here be it 
observed we come to another of the clear
  #gj  references which ,canon ,westcott
 ventures1 deliberately and without a   
word of doubt1 to attribute to          
,valentinus himself17#a7--,this1 he     
says1 is the declaration3 ',he who      
raised ,christ from the dead shall also 
quicken your mortal bodies1'7#c7 that is
 animal4 ,for the earth has come under a
 curse3 ',for dust1 he says ------ thou 
art and unto dust shalt thou            
return4'7#c7 ,on the other hand1 those  
from the ,east ------1 of whom is       
,axionicus and ,bardesanes1 say ------  

that the body of the ,saviour was       
spiritual1 for the ,holy ,spirit came   
upon ,mary1 that is the ,sophia and the 
power of the ,highest47#d7 c4  ,in this 
passage we have a good illustration of  
the mode in which the writer introduces 
his quotations with the subjectless he  
says4 ,here he is conveying the         
divergent opinions of the two parties of
 ,valentinians1 and explaining the      
peculiar doctrines of the ,italian      
school of whom is ,heracleon and        
,ptolemaeus1 and he suddenly departs    
from the plural they to quote the       
passage from ,romans viii4 #aa1 in      
support of their views with the singular
 he says4 ,nothing can be more obvious  
than that he cannot possibly be         
,valentinus himself1 for the schism is  
represented as taking place  #ga        
amongst his followers1 and the quotation
 is evidently made by one of them to    
support the views of his party in the   
schism1 but whether ,hippolytus is      
quoting from ,heraclcon or ,ptolemaeus  

or some other of the ,italian7#a7       
school1 there is no means of knowing4   
,of all this1 again1 nothing is said by 
,canon ,westcott1 who quietly asserts   
without hesitation or argument1 that    
,valentinus himself is the person who   
here makes the quotation4  ,we have     
already said that the name of           
,valentinus does not occur once in the  
whole chapter 7vi4 #ce7 which we have   
been examining1 and if we turn back we  
find that the preceding context confirms
 the result at which we have arrived1   
that the ------ has no reference to the 
,founder himself1 but is applicable only
 to some later member of his school1    
most probably contemporary with         
,hippolytus4 ,in vi4 #ba1 ,hippolytus   
discusses the heresy of ,valentinus1    
which he traces to ,pythagoras and      
,plato1 but in ,ch4 #bi he passes from  
direct reference to the ,founder to deal
 entirely with his school4 ,this is so  
manifest1 that the learned editors of   
the work of ,hippolytus1 ,professors    

,duncker and ,schneidewin1 alter the    
preceding heading at that part from     
,valentinus to ,valentiniani4 ,at the   
beginning of ,ch4 #bi ,hippolytus       
writes3 ,valentinus1 therefore1 and     
,heracleon and ,ptolemaeus and the whole
 school of these 7heretics7444 have laid
 down as the fundamental principle of   
their teaching the arithmetical system4 
,for according to these1 c4 ,and a few  
lines lower down3 ,there is discernible 
amongst them1 however1 considerable     
difference of opinion4 ,for many of     
them1 in order that       #a ,the       
quotation from an ,epistle to the       
,romans by the ,italian      school is  
appropriate4  #gb  the ,pythagorean     
doctrine of ,valentinus may be wholly   
pure1 suppose1 c41 but others1 c4 ,he   
shortly after says that he will proceed 
to state their doctrines as they        
themselves teach them ------4 ,he then  
continues3 ,there is1 he says ------ c4 
c41 quoting evidently one of these      
followers who want to keep the doctrine 

of ,valentinus pure1 or of the others1  
although without naming him1 and three  
lines further on again1 without any     
preparation1 returning to the plural    
they say ------ and so on through the   
following chapters1 he says alternating 
with the plural1 as the author          
apparently has in view something said by
 individuals or merely expresses general
 views4 ,in the ,chapter 7#cd7 preceding
 that which we have principally been    
examining1 ,hippolytus begins by        
referring to the ,quaternion according  
to ,valentinus1 but after five lines on 
it1 he continues3 ,this is what they    
say3 ------7#a7 and then goes on to     
speak of their whole teaching ------1   
and lower down he distinctly sets       
himself to discuss the opinions of the  
school in the plural3 ,thus these       
7,valentinians7 subdivide the contents  
of the ,pleroma1 c4 ------1 and         
continues with an occasional according  
to them ------ until1 without any name  
being mentioned1 he makes use of the    

indefinite he says to introduce the     
quotation referred to by ,canon         
,westcott as a citation by ,valentinus  
himself of the ,epistle to the          
,ephesians as ,scripture47#b7 ,this is1 
he says1 what is written in ,scripture1 
and there follows a quotation which1 it 
may merely be mentioned as ,canon       
,westcott says nothing of it1 differs   
considerably from the passage in the    
,epistle                                
#gc  iii4 #ad--ah4 ,immediately after1  
another of ,canon ,west-cott's          
quotations from #a ,cor4 ii4 #ad1 is    
given1 with the same indefinite he says1
 and in the same way1 without further   
mention of names1 the quotations in ,ch4
 #ce compared with ,john x4 #h1 and     
,luke i4 #ce4 ,there is1 therefore1     
absolutely no ground whatever for       
referring these ------ to ,valentinus   
himself2 but1 on the contrary1          
,hippolytus shows in the clearest way   
that he is discussing the views of the  
later writers of the sect1 and it is one

 of these1 and not the ,founder himself1
 whom in his usual indefinite way he    
thus quotes4  ,we have been forced by   
these bald and unsupported assertions of
 apologists to go at such length into   
these questions at the risk of being    
very wearisome to our readers1 but it   
has been our aim as much as possible to 
make no statements without placing      
before those who are interested the     
materials for forming an intelligent    
opinion4 ,any other course would be to  
meet mere assertion by simple denial1   
and it is only by bold and              
unsubstantiated statements which have   
been simply and in good faith accepted  
by ordinary readers who have not the    
opportunity1 if they have even the will1
 to test their veracity1 that apologists
 have so long held their ground4 ,our   
results regarding ,valentinus so far may
 be stated as follows3 the quotations   
which without any explanation are so    
positively imputed to ,valentinus are   
not made by him1 but by later writers of

 his school27#a7 and1 moreover1 the     
passages which are indicated by the     
,english apologist as references to our 
two ,synoptic ,gospels not only do      
7#gd7  not emanate from ,valentinus1 but
 do not agree with our ,gospels1 and are
 apparently derived from other          
sources47#a7  ,the remarks of ,canon    
,westcott with regard1 to the connection
 of ,valentinus with our ,new ,testament
 are on a par with the rest of his      
assertions4 ,he says3 ,there is no      
reason to suppose that ,valentinus      
differed from ,catholic writers on the  
,canon of the ,new ,testament47#b7 ,we  
might ironically adopt this sentence1   
for as no writer whatever of the time of
 ,valentinus1 as we have seen1          
recognized any ,new ,testament ,canon at
 all1 he certainly did not in this      
respect differ from the other writers of
 that period4 ,canon ,westcott relies   
upon the statement of ,tertullian1 but  
even here1 although he quotes the ,latin
 passage in a note1 he does not fully   

give its real sense in his text4 ,he    
writes in immediate continuation of the 
quotation given above3 ,tertullian says 
that in this he differed from ,marcion1 
that he at least professed to accept    
'the whole instrument1' perverting the  
interpretation1 where ,marcion mutilated
 the text4 ,now the assertion of        
,tertullian has a very important        
modification1 which1 to any one         
acquainted with the very unscrupulous   
boldness of the ,great ,african in      
dealing with religious controversy1 is  
extremely significant4 ,he does not make
 the assertion positively and of his own
 knowledge1 but modifies it by saying3  
,nor1 indeed1 if ,valentinus seems to   
use the       #b  ,on the ,canon1 p4    
#bei4 ,dr4 ,westcott omits these words  
from his #dth ed41 but he uses others   
here and elsewhere      which imply very
 nearly the same assertion4  #ge  whole 
instrument1 7neque enim si ,valentinus  
integro instrumento uti videtur717#a7 c4
 ,tertullian evidently knew very little 

of ,valentinus himself1 and had probably
 not read his writings at all47#b7 ,his 
treatise against the ,valentinians is   
avowedly not original1 but1 as he       
himself admits1 is compiled from the    
writings of ,justin1 ,miltiades1        
,irenaeus1 and ,proclus47#c7 ,tertullian
 would not have hesitated to affirm     
anything of this kind positively1 had   
there been any ground for it1 but his   
assertion is at once too uncertain1 and 
the value of his statements of this     
nature much too small1 for such a remark
 to have any weight as evidence47#d7    
,besides1 by his own showing ,valentinus
 altered ,scripture 7sine dubio         
emen-dans717#e7 which he could not have 
done had he recognized it as of         
canonical authority47#f7 ,we cannot1    
however1 place any reliance upon        
criticism emanating from ,tertullian4   
,all that ,origen seems to know on this 
subject is that the followers of        
,valentinus ------ have altered the form
 of the ,gospel ------47#g7 ,clement of 

,alexandria1 however1 informs us that   
,valentinus1 like ,basilides1 professed 
to have direct traditions from the      
,apostles1 his teacher being ,theodas1 a
 disciple of the ,apostle ,paul47#h7 ,if
 he had known any ,gospels which he     
believed to have apostolic authority1   
there would clearly not have been any   
need of such tradition4 ,hippolytus     
distinctly affirms that ,valentinus     
derived his system from ,pythagoras and 
,plato1  #gf  and not from the ,gospels 
-----1 and that consequently he might   
more properly be considered a           
,pythagorean and ,platonist than a      
,christian47#a7 ,irenaeus1 in like      
manner1 asserts that the ,valentinians  
derive their views from unwritten       
sources ------17#b7 and he accuses them 
of rejecting the ,gospels1 for after    
enumerating them17#c7 he continues3     
,when1 indeed1 they are refuted out of  
the ,scriptures1 they turn round in     
accusation of these same ,scriptures1 as
 though they were not correct1 nor of   

authority4444  ,for 7they say7 that it  
7the truth7 was not conveyed by written 
records but by the living voice47#d7 ,in
 the same chapter he goes on to show    
that the ,valen-tinians not only reject 
the authority of ,scripture1 but also   
reject ecclesiastical tradition4 ,he    
says3 ,but1 again1 when we refer them to
 that tradition which is from the       
,apostles1 which has been preserved     
through a succession of ,presbyters in  
the ,churches1 they are opposed to      
tradition1 affirming themselves wiser   
not only than ,presbyters1 but even than
 the ,apostles1 in that they have       
discovered the uncorrupted truth4 ,for  
7they say7 the ,apostles mixed up       
matters which are of the law with the   
words of the ,saviour1 c4444 ,it comes  
to this1 they neither consent to        
,scripture nor to tradition4 7,evenit   
itaque1 neque ,scripturis jam1 neque    
,traditioni consentire eos477#f7 ,we    
find1 therefore1 that even in the time  
of ,irenaeus the ,valentinians rejected 

the writings  #gg  of the ,new          
,testament as authoritative documents1  
which they certainly would not have done
 had the ,founder of their sect himself 
acknowledged them4 ,so far from this    
being the case1 there was absolutely no 
,new ,testament ,canon for ,valentinus  
himself to deal with17#a7 and his       
perfectly orthodox contemporaries       
recognized no other ,holy ,scriptures   
than those of the ,old ,testament4      
,irenaeus1 however1 goes still further1 
and states that the ,valentinians of his
 time not only had many ,gospels1 but   
that they possessed one peculiar to     
themselves4 ,those indeed who are       
followers of ,valentinus1 he says1 again
 passing beyond all fear1 and putting   
forth their own compositions1 boast that
 they have more ,gospels than there     
actually are4 ,indeed they have         
proceeded so far in audacity that they  
entitle their not long written work1    
agreeing in nothing with the ,gospels of
 the ,apostles1 the ,gospel of ,truth1  

so that there cannot be any ,gospel     
among them without blasphemy47#b7 ,it   
follows clearly1 from the very name of  
the ,valentinian ,gospel1 that they did 
not consider that others contained the  
truth17#c7 and indeed ,irenaeus himself 
perceived this1 for he continues3 ,for  
if what is published by them be the     
,gospel of ,truth1 yet is dissimilar    
from those which have been delivered to 
us by the ,apostles1 any may perceive   
who please1 as is demonstrated by these 
very ,scriptures1 that that which has   
been handed down from the ,apostles is  
not the ,gospel of ,truth47#d7 ,these   
passages speak for  #gh  themselves4 ,it
 has been suggested that the ,gospel of 
,truth was a harmony of the four        
,gospels47#a7 ,this1 however1 cannot by 
any possibility have been the case1     
inasmuch as ,irenaeus distinctly says   
that it did not agree in anything with  
the ,gospels of the ,apostles4 ,we have 
been compelled to devote too much space 
to ,valentinus1 and we now leave him    

with the certainty that in nothing does 
he afford any evidence even of the      
existence of our ,synoptic ,gospels4    
#gi     ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,marcion  ,we 
must now turn to the great ,heresiarch  
of the second century1 ,marcion1 and    
consider the evidence regarding our     
,gospels which may be derived from what 
we know of him4 ,the importance1 and at 
the same time the difficulty1 of        
arriving at a just conclusion from the  
materials within our reach have rendered
 ,marcion's ,gospel the object of very  
elaborate criticism1 and the discussion 
of its actual character has continued   
with fluctuating results for nearly a   
century4  ,marcion was born at ,sinope1 
in ,pontus1 of which place his father   
was ,bishop17#a7 and although it is said
 that he aspired to the first place in  
the ,church of ,rome17#b7 the           
,presbyters refused him communion on    
account of his peculiar views of        
,christianity4 ,we shall presently more 
fully refer to his opinions1 but here it

 will be sufficient to say that he      
objected to what he considered the      
debasement of true ,christianity by     
,jewish elements1 and he upheld the     
teaching of ,paul alone1 in opposition  
to that of all the other ,apostles1 whom
 he accused of mixing  #hj  up matters  
of the law with the ,gospel of ,christ1 
and falsifying ,christianity17#a7 as    
,paul himself had protested47#i7 ,he    
came to ,rome about a4d4 #aci--adb17c7  
and continued teaching for some twenty  
years47#d7 ,his high personal character 
and elevated views produced a powerful  
effect upon his time17#e7 and1 although 
during his own lifetime and long        
afterwards vehemently and with every    
opprobrious epithet denounced by        
ecclesiastical writers1 his opinions    
were so widely adopted that in the time 
of ,epiphanius his followers were to be 
found throughout the whole world47#f7   
,marcion is said to have recognized as  
his sources of ,christian doctrine1     
besides tradition1 a single ,gospel and 

ten ,epistles of ,paul1 which in his    
collection stood in the following       
order2--,epistle to ,galatians1         
,corinthians 7#b71 ,romans1             
,thessalonians 7#b71 ,ephesians 7which  
he had with  #ha  the superscription to 
the ,laodiceans717#a7 ,colossians1      
,philippians1 and ,philemon47#b7 ,none  
of the other books which now form part  
of the canonical ,new ,testament were   
either mentioned or recognized by       
,marcion47#c7 ,this is the oldest       
collection of ,apostolic writings of    
which there is any trace17#d7 but there 
was at that time no other ,holy         
,scripture than the ,old ,testament1 and
 no ,new ,testament ,canon had yet been 
imagined4 ,marcion neither claimed      
canonical authority for these           
writings17#e7 nor did he associate with 
them any idea of divine inspiration47#f7
 ,we have already seen the animosity    
expressed by contemporaries of ,marcion 
against the ,apostle ,paul4  ,the       
principal interest in connection with   

the collection of ,marcion1 however1    
centres in his single ,gospel1 the      
nature1 origin1 and identity of which   
have long been actively and minutely    
discussed by learned men of all shades  
of opinion with very varying results4   
,the work itself is unfortunately no    
longer extant1 and our only knowledge of
 it is derived from the bitter and very 
inaccurate opponents of ,marcion4 ,it   
seems to have borne much the same       
analogy to our third ,canonical ,gospel 
which existed between the ,gospel       
according to  #hb  the ,hebrews and our 
first ,synoptic47#a7 ,the ,fathers1     
whose uncritical and1 in such matters1  
prejudiced character led them to        
denounce every variation from their     
actual texts as a mere falsification1   
and without argument to assume the      
exclusive authenticity and originality  
of our ,gospels1 which towards the      
beginning of the third century had      
acquired wide circulation in the        
,church1 vehemently stigmatized ,marcion

 as an audacious adulterator of the     
,gospel1 and affirmed his evangelical   
work to be merely a mutilated and       
falsified version of the ,gospel        
according to ,luke47#b7  ,this view     
continued to prevail1 almost without    
question or examination1 till towards   
the end of the eighteenth century1 when 
,biblical criticism began to exhibit the
 earnestness and activity which have    
ever since more or less characterized   
it4 ,semler first abandoned the         
prevalent tradition1 and1 after         
analyzing the evidence1 he concluded    
that ,marcion's ,gospel and ,luke's were
 different versions of an earlier       
work17#c7 and that the so-called        
heretical ,gospel was one of the        
numerous ,gospels from amongst which the
 ,canonical had been selected by the    
,church47#d7 ,griesbach about the same  
time also rejected the ruling opinion1  
and denied the close relationship       
usually asserted to exist between the   
two ,gospels47#e7 ,loffler7#f7 and      

,corrodi7#g7 strongly supported         
,sender's  #hc  conclusion1 that        
,marcion was no mere falsifier of       
,luke's ,gospel1 and ,j4 ,e4 ,c4        
,schmidt7#a7 went still further1 and    
asserted that ,marcion's ,gospel was the
 genuine ,luke1 and our actual ,gospel a
 later version of it with alterations   
and additions4 ,eichhorn17#b7 after a   
fuller and more exhaustive examination1 
adopted similar views2 he repudiated the
 statements of ,tertullian regarding    
,marcion's ,gospel as utterly           
untrustworthy1 asserting that he had not
 that work itself before him at all1 and
 he maintained that ,marcion's ,gospel  
was the more original text and one of   
the sources of ,luke4 ,bolten17#c7      
,bertholdt17#d7 ,schleiermacher17#e7 and
 ,d4 ,schulz7#f7 likewise maintained    
that ,marcion's ,gospel was by no means 
a mutilated version of ,luke1 but1 on   
the contrary1 an independent original   
,gospel ,a similar conclusion was       
arrived at by ,gieseler17#g7 but later1 

after ,hahn's criticism1 he abandoned   
it1 and adopted the opinion that        
,marcion's ,gospel was constructed out  
of ,luke47#h7  ,on the other hand1 the  
traditional view was maintained by      
,storr17#i7 ,arneth17#aj7 ,hug17#aa7    
,neander17#ab7 and ,gratz17#ac7 although
 with little originality of             
investigation or argument2 and  #hd     
,paulus7#a7 sought to reconcile both    
views by admitting that ,marcion had    
before him the ,gospel of ,luke1 but    
denying that he mutilated it1 arguing   
that ,tertullian did not base his       
arguments on the actual ,gospel of      
,marcion1 but upon his work1 the        
,antitheses4 ,hahn17#b7 however1        
undertook a more exhaustive examination 
of the problem1 attempting to           
reconstruct the text of ,marcion's      
,gospel7#c7 from the statements of      
,tertullian and ,epiphanius1 and he came
 to the conclusion that the work was a  
mere version1 with omissions and        
alterations made by the ,heresiarch in  

the interest of his system1 of the third
 ,canonical ,gospel4 ,olshausen7#d7     
arrived at the same result1 and with    
more or less of modification but no     
detailed argument1 similar opinions were
 expressed by ,credner17#e7 ,de         
,wette17#f7 and others47#g7  ,not       
satisfied1 however1 with the method and 
results of  #he  ,hahn and ,olshausen1  
whose examination1 although more minute 
than any previously undertaken1 still   
left much to be desired1 ,ritschl7l7    
made a further thorough investigation of
 the character of ,mansion's ,gospel1   
and decided that it was in no case a    
mutilated version of ,luke1 but1 on the 
contrary1 an original and independent   
work1 from which the ,canonical ,gospel 
was produced by the introduction of     
anti-,marcionitish passages and         
readings4 ,baur7#b7 strongly enunciated 
similar views1 and maintained that the  
whole error lay in the mistake of the   
,fathers1 who had1 with characteristic  
assumption1 asserted the earlier and    

shorter ,gospel of ,marcion to be an    
abbreviation of the later ,canonical    
,gospel1 instead of recognizing the     
latter as a mere extension of the       
former4 ,schwegler7#c7 had already1 in a
 remarkable criticism of ,marcion's     
,gospel declared it to be an independent
 and original work1 and in no sense a   
mutilated ,luke1 but1 on the contrary1  
probably the source of that ,gospel4    
,kostlin17#d7 while stating that the    
theory that ,marcion's ,gospel was an   
earlier work and the basis of that      
ascribed to ,luke was not very probable1
 affirmed that much of the ,marcionitish
 text was more original than the        
,canonical1 and that both ,gospels must 
be considered versions of the same      
original1 although ,luke's was the later
 and more corrupt4  ,these results1     
however1 did not satisfy ,volkmar17#e7  
who entered afresh upon a searching     
examination of the whole subject1 and   
concluded that whilst1 on the one hand1 
the  #hf  ,gospel of ,marcion was not a 

mere falsified and mutilated form of the
 ,canonical ,gospel1 neither was it1 on 
the other1 an earlier work1 and still   
less the original ,gospel of ,luke1 but 
merely a ,gnostic compilation from what1
 so far as we are concerned1 may be     
called the oldest codex of ,luke's      
,gospel1 which itself is nothing more   
than a similar ,pauline edition of the  
original ,gospel4 ,volkmar's analysis1  
together with the arguments of          
,hilgenfeld1 succeeded in convincing    
,ritschl1#a who withdrew from his       
previous opinions1 and1 with those      
critics1 merely maintained some of      
,marcion's readings to be more original 
than those of ,luke1#b and generally    
defended ,marcion from the aspersions of
 the ,fathers1 on the ground that his   
procedure with regard to ,luke's ,gospel
 was precisely that of the ,canonical   
,evangelists to each other2#c ,luke     
himself being clearly dependent both on 
,mark and ,matthew4#d ,baur was likewise
 induced by ,volkmar's and ,hilgenfeld's

 arguments to modify his views2#e but   
although for the first time he admitted 
that ,marcion had altered the original  
of his ,gospel frequently for dogmatic  
reasons1 he still maintained that there 
was an older form of the ,gospel without
 the earlier chapters1 from which both  
,marcion and ,luke directly constructed 
their ,gospels2--both of them stood in  
the same line in regard to the original2
 both altered it2 the one abbreviated1  
the other extended it4#f ,encouraged by 
this success1 but not yet satisfied1    
,volkmar immediately undertook a further
 and more exhaustive examination of the 
text of ,marcion1 in the hope of finally
 settling the  #hg  discussion1 and he  
again1 but with greater emphasis1       
confirmed his previous results47#a7 ,in 
the meantime ,hilgenfeld7#b7 had        
seriously attacked the problem1 and1    
like ,hahn and ,volkmar1 had sought to  
reconstruct the text of ,marcion1 and1  
whilst admitting many more original and 
genuine readings in the text of         

,marcion1 he had also decided that his  
,gospel was dependent on ,luke1 although
 he further concluded that the text of  
,luke had subsequently gone through     
another1 though slight1 manipulation    
before it assumed its present form4     
,these conclusions he again fully       
confirmed after a renewed investigation 
of the subject47#c7  ,this brief sketch 
of the controversy which has so long    
occupied the attention of critics will  
at least show the uncertainty of the    
data upon which any decision is to be   
based4 ,we have not attempted to give   
more than the barest outlines1 but it   
will appear as we go on that most of    
those who decide against the general    
independence of ,mansion's ,gospel1 at  
the same time admit his partial         
originality and the superiority of some 
of his readings over those of the third 
,synoptic1 and justify his treatment of 
,luke as a procedure common to the      
,evangelists1 and warranted not only by 
their example but by the fact that no   

,gospels had in his time emerged from   
the position of private documents in    
limited circulation4  ,marcion's ,gospel
 not being any longer extant1 it is     
important to establish clearly the      
nature of our knowledge regarding it1   
and the exact value of the data from    
which various attempts have been made to
 reconstruct the text4 ,it is manifest  
that the evidential force of any        
deductions from a reconstructed text is 
almost wholly  #hh  dependent on the    
accuracy and sufficiency of the         
materials from which that text is       
derived4  ,the principal sources of our 
information regarding ,marcion's ,gospel
 are the works of his most bitter       
denouncers ,tertullian and ,epiphanius1 
who1 however1 it must be borne in mind1 
wrote long after his time1--the work of 
,tertullian against ,marcion having been
 composed about ,a4,d4 #bjh17a7 and that
 of ,epiphanius a century later4 ,we may
 likewise merely mention here the       
,dialogus de recta in deum fide1        

commonly attributed to ,origen1 although
 it cannot have been composed earlier   
than the middle of the fourth           
century47#c7 ,the first three sections  
are directed against the ,marcionites1  
but only deal with a late form of their 
doctrines47#c7 ,as ,volkmar admits that 
the author clearly had only a general   
acquaintance with the ,antitheses1 and  
principal proof passages of the         
,marcionites1 but1 although he certainly
 possessed the ,epistles1 had not the   
,gospel of ,marcion itself17#d7 we need 
not now more particularly consider it4  
,we are1 therefore1 dependent upon the  
dogmatic and partly blind and unjust    
adversaries7#e7 of ,marcion for our only
 knowledge of the text they stigmatize2 
and when the character of polemical     
discussion in the early centuries of our
 era is considered1 it is certain that  
great caution must be exercised1 and not
 too much weight attached to the        
statements of opponents who regarded a  
heretic with abhorrence1 and attacked   

him with an acrimony which carried them 
far beyond the limits of fairness and   
truth4 ,their religious controversy     
bristles with  #hi  misstatements1 and  
is turbid with pious abuse4 ,tertullian 
was a master of this style1 and the     
vehement vituperation with which he     
opens7#a7 and often interlards his work 
against the impious and sacrilegious    
,marcion offers anything but a guarantee
 of fair and legitimate criticism4      
,epiphanius was1 if possible1 still more
 passionate and exaggerated in his      
representations against him47#b7 ,undue 
importance must not1 therefore1 be      
attributed to their statements47#c7     
,not only should there be caution       
exercised in receiving the              
representations of one side in a        
religious discussion1 but more          
particularly is such caution necessary  
in the case of ,tertullian1 whose       
trustworthiness is very far from being  
above suspicion1 and whose inaccuracy is
 often apparent47#d7 ,son christianisme1

 says ,reuss1 est ardent1 sincere1      
profondement ancre dans son ame4 ,l'on  
voit qu'il en vit4 ,mais ce             
christianisme est apre1 insolent1       
brutal1 ferrailleur4 ,,ii est sans      
onction et sans charite1 quelquefois    
merae sans loyaute1 des qu'il se trouve 
en face d'une opposition quelconque4    
,c'est un soldat qui ne sait que se     
battre et qui oublie1 tout en se        
battant1 qu'il faut aussi respecter son 
ennemi4 ,dialecticien subtil et ruse1 il
 excelle h1 ridiculiser ses adversaires4
 ,l'injure1 le sarcasme1 un langage qui 
rappelle parfois en verite le genre de  
,rabelais1 une effronterie d'affirmation
 dans les moments de faiblesse qui frise
 et atteint meme la mauvaise foi1 voila 
ses armes4 ,je sais ce qu'il faut en    
cela mettre surde compte de l'epoque4444
 ,si1 au second siecle1  #ij  tous les  
partis1 sauf quelques gnostiques1 sont  
intolerants1 ,tertullian ,test plus que 
tout le monde47#a7  ,the charge of      
mutilating and interpolating the ,gospel

 of ,luke is first brought against      
,marcion by ,irenaeus17#b7 and it is    
repeated with still greater vehemence   
and fulness by ,tertullian17#c7 and     
,epiphanius27#d7 but the mere assertion 
by ,fathers at the end of the second and
 in the third centuries1 that a ,gospel 
different from their own was one of the 
,canonical ,gospels falsified and       
mutilated1 can have no weight whatever  
in itself in the inquiry as to the real 
nature of that work47#e7 ,their         
arbitrary assumption of exclusive       
originality and priority for the four   
,gospels of the ,church led them1       
without any attempt at argument1 to     
treat every other evangelical work as an
 offshoot or falsification of these4    
,the arguments by which ,tertullian     
endeavours to establish that the        
,gospels of ,luke and the other         
,canonical ,evangelists were more       
ancient than that of ,marcion7#f7 show  
that he had no idea of historical or    
critical evidence47#g7 ,we are1 however1

 driven back upon such actual data      
regarding the text and contents of      
,marcion's ,gospel as are given by the  
,fathers1 as the only basis1 in the     
absence of the ,gospel itself1 upon     
which any hypothesis as to its real     
character can be built4 ,the question   
therefore is3 ,are these data           
sufficiently ample and trustworthy for a
 decisive judgment  #ia  from internal  
evidence8 if indeed internal evidence in
 such a case can be decisive at all4    
,all that we know1 then1 of ,marcion's  
,gospel is simply what ,tertullian and  
,epiphanius have stated with regard to  
it4 ,it is1 however1 undeniable1 and    
indeed is universally admitted1 that    
their object in dealing with it at all  
was entirely dogmatic1 and not in the   
least degree critical7#a74 ,the spirit  
of that age was indeed so essentially   
uncritical7#b7 that not even the        
canonical text could waken it into      
activity4 ,tertullian very clearly      
states what his object was in attacking 

,marcion's ,gospel4 ,after asserting    
that the whole aim of the ,heresiarch   
was to prove a disagreement between the 
,old ,testament and the ,new1 and that  
for this purpose he had erased from the 
,gospel all that was contrary to his    
opinion1 and retained all that he had   
considered favourable1 ,tertullian      
proceeds to examine the passages        
retained17#c7 with the view of proving  
that the ,heretic has shown the same    
blindness of heresy both in that which  
he has erased and in that which he has  
retained1 inasmuch as the passages which
 ,marcion has allowed to remain are as  
opposed to his system1 as those which he
 has omitted4 ,he conducts the          
controversy in a free and discursive    
manner1 and whilst he appears to go     
through ,marcion's ,gospel with some    
regularity1 it will be apparent1 as we  
proceed1 that  #ib  mere conjecture has 
to play a large part in any attempt to  
reconstruct1 from his data1 the actual  
text of ,marcion4 ,epiphanius explains  

his aim with equal clearness4 ,he had   
made a number of extracts from the      
so-called ,gospel of ,marcion which     
seemed to him to refute the heretic1 and
 after giving a detailed and numbered   
list of these passages1 which he calls  
------1 he takes them consecutively and 
to each adds his ,refutation4 ,his      
intention is to show how wickedly and   
disgracefully ,marcion has mutilated and
 falsified the ,gospel1 and how         
fruitlessly he has done so1 inasmuch as 
he has stupidly1 or by oversight1       
allowed much to remain in his ,gospel by
 which he may be completely refuted47#a7
  ,as it is impossible within our limits
 fully to illustrate the procedure of   
the ,fathers with regard to ,marcion's  
,gospel1 and the nature and value of the
 materials they supply1 we shall as far 
as possible quote the declarations of   
critics1 and more especially of ,volkmar
 and ,hilgenfeld1 who1 in the true and  
enlightened spirit of criticism1        
impartially state the character of the  

data available for the understanding of 
the text4 ,as these two critics have1 by
 their able and learned investigations1 
done more than any others to educe and  
render possible a decision of the       
problem1 their own estimate of the      
materials upon which a judgment has to  
be formed is of double value4  ,with    
regard to ,tertullian1 ,volkmar explains
 that his desire is totally to          
annihilate the most dangerous heretic of
 his time1--first 7,books i4--iii471 to 
overthrow ,marcion's system in general  
as expounded in his ,antitheses1--and   
then 7,book iv47 to show that even the  
,gospel of ,marcion  #ic  only contains 
,catholic doctrine 7he concludes1       
,christus ,jesus in ,evangelio tuo mens 
est c4 #dc72 and therefore he examines  
the ,gospel only so far as may serve to 
establish his own view and refute that  
of ,marcion4 ,to show1 ,volkmar         
continues1 wherein this ,gospel was     
falsified or mutilated1 i4e41 varied    
from his own1 on the contrary1 is in no 

way his design1 for he perceives that   
,marcion could retort the reproach of   
interpolation1 and in his time proof    
from internal grounds was hardly        
possible1 so that only exceptionally1   
where a variation seems to him          
remarkable1 does he specially mention   
it47#a7 ,on the other hand ,volkmar     
remarks that ,tertullian's ,latin       
rendering of the text of ,marcion which 
lay before him1--which1 although        
certainly free and having chiefly the   
substance in view1 is still in weightier
 passages verbally accurate1--directly  
indicates important variations in that  
text4 ,he goes on to argue that the     
silence of ,tertullian may be weighty   
testimony for the fact that passages    
which exist in ,luke1 but which he does 
not mention1 were missing in ,marcion's 
,gospel1 but he does so with            
considerable reservation4 ,but his      
silence alone1 he says1 can only under  
certain conditions represent with       
diplomatic certainty an omission in     

,marcion4 ,it is indeed probable that he
 would not lightly have passed over a   
passage in the ,gospel of ,marcion which
 might in any way be contradictory to   
its system1 if one altogether similar   
had not preceded it1 all the more as he 
frequently drags in by force such proof 
passages from ,marcion's text1 and often
 plainly with but a certain sophistry   
tries to refute his adversary out of the
 words of his own ,gospel4 ,but it      
remains always possible that in his     
eagerness he has  #id  overlooked much2 
and besides1 he believes that by his    
replies to particular passages he has   
already sufficiently dealt with many    
others of a similar kind2 indeed1       
avowedly1 he will not willingly repeat  
himself4 ,a certain conclusion1         
therefore1 can only be deduced from the 
silence of ,tertullian when special     
circumstances enter47l7 ,volkmar1       
however1 deduces with certainty from the
 statements of ,tertullian that1 whilst 
he wrote1 he had not before him the     

,gospel of ,luke1 but intentionally laid
 it aside1 and merely referred to the   
,marcionitish text1 and further that1   
like all the ,fathers of the third      
,century1 he preferred the ,gospel      
according to ,matthew to the other      
,synoptics1 and was well acquainted with
 it alone1 so that in speaking of the   
,gospel generally he only has in his    
memory the sense1 and the sense alone of
 ,luke except in so far as it agrees or 
seems to agree with ,matthew47#b7  ,with
 regard to the manner in which          
,tertullian performed the work he had   
undertaken1 ,hilgenfeld remarks3 ,as    
,tertullian1 in going through the       
,marcionitish ,gospel1 has only the     
object of refutation in view1 he very   
rarely states explicitly what is missing
 in it2 and as1 on the one hand1 we can 
only venture to conclude from the       
silence of ,tertullian that a passage is
 wanting1 when it is altogether         
inexplicable that he should not have    
made use of it for the purpose of       

refutation2 so1 on the other1 we must   
also know how ,marcion used and         
interpreted the ,gospel1 and should     
never lose sight of ,tertullian's       
refutation and defence47#c7  ,hahn      
substantially expresses the same        
opinions4 ,he  #ie  says3 ,inasmuch as  
,tertullian goes through the            
,mar-cionitish text with the view of    
refuting the heretic out of that which  
he accepts1 and not of critically       
pointing out all variations1            
falsifications1 and passages rejected1  
he frequently quotes the falsified or   
altered ,marcionitish text without      
expressly mentioning the                
variations47#a7444 ,yet he cannot       
refrain--although this was not his      
object--occasionally1 from noticing     
amongst other things any falsifications 
and omissions which1 when he perhaps    
examined the text of ,luke or had a     
lively recollection of it1 struck and   
too grievously offended him47#b7        
,volkmar's opinion of the procedure of  

,epiphanius is still more unfavourable4 
,contrasting it with that of            
,tertullian1 he characterizes it as more
 superficial1 and he considers that its 
only merit is its presenting an         
independent view of ,marcion's ,gospel4 
,further than this1 however1 he says3   
,how far we can build upon his          
statements1 whether as regards their    
completeness or their trustworthiness is
 not yet made altogether clear47#c7     
,volk-mar goes on to show how thoroughly
 ,epiphanius intended to do his work1   
and yet that1 although from what he     
himself leads us to expect1 we might    
hope to find a complete statement of    
,marcion's sins1 the ,father himself    
disappoints such an expectation by his  
own admission of incompleteness4 ,he    
complains generally of his free and     
misleading method of quotation1 such1   
for instance1 as his alteration of the  
text without explanation2 alteration of 
the same passage on different occasions 
in more than one way2 abbreviations1 and

 omissions of parts of quotations2 the  
sudden breaking off of passages just    
commenced with  #if  the indefinite     
------1 without any indication how much 
this may include47#a7  ,volkmar1 indeed1
 explains that ,epiphanius is only      
thoroughly trustworthy where1 and so far
 as1 he wishes to state in his ,scholia 
an omission or variation in ,marcion's  
text from his own ,canonical ,gospel1 in
 which case he minutely registers the   
smallest point1 but this is to be       
clearly distinguished from any charge of
 falsification brought against ,marcion 
in his ,refutations2 for only while     
earlier drawing up his ,scholia had he  
the ,mar-cionitish ,gospel before him   
and compared it with ,luke2 but in the  
case of the ,refutations1 on the        
contrary1 which he wrote later1 he did  
not at least again compare the ,gospel  
of ,luke4 ,it is1 however1 altogether   
different1 continues ,volkmar1 as       
regards the statements of ,epiphanius   
concerning the part of the ,gospel of   

,luke which is preserved in ,marcion4   
,whilst he desires to be strictly       
literal in the account of the           
variations1 and also with two exceptions
 is so1 he so generally adheres only to 
the purport of the passages retained by 
,marcion1 that altogether literal       
quotations are quite exceptional2       
throughout1 however1 where passages of  
greater extent are referred to1 these   
are not merely abbreviated1 but also are
 quoted in very free fashion1 and       
nowhere can we reckon that the passage  
in ,marcion ran verbally as ,epiphanius 
quotes it47#b7 ,and to this we may add a
 remark made further on3 ,we cannot in  
general rely upon the accuracy of his   
statements in regard to that which      
,marcion had in common with ,luke47#c7  
,on the other hand ,volkmar had         
previously  #ig  said3 ,absolute        
completeness in regard to that which    
,marcion's ,gospel did not contain is   
not to be reckoned upon in his ,scholia4
 ,he has certainly not intended to pass 

over anything1 but in the eagerness     
which so easily renders men superficial 
and blind much has escaped him47l7      
,hahn bears similar testimony to the    
incompleteness of ,epiphanius4 ,it was  
not his purpose1 he says1 fully to      
notice all falsifications1 variations1  
and omissions1 although he does mark    
most of them1 but merely to extract from
 the ,gospel of ,marcion1 as well as    
from his collection of ,epistles1 what  
seemed to him well suited for           
refutation47#b7 ,but he immediately     
adds3 ,when he quotes a passage from    
,marcion's text1 however1 in which such 
falsifications occur1 he generally1--but
 not always1--notes them more or less   
precisely1 and he had himself laid it   
down as a subsidiary object of his work 
to pay attention to such                
falsifications47#c7 ,a little further on
 he says3 ,in the quotations of the     
remaining passages which ,epiphanius did
 not find different from the ,gospel of 
,luke1 and where he therefore says      

nothing of falsification or omission1 he
 is often very free1 neither adhering   
strictly to the particular words1 nor to
 their arrangement1 but his favourite   
practice is to give their substance and 
sense for the purpose of refuting his   
opponent4 ,he presupposes the words     
known from the ,gospel of ,luke47#d7    
,it must be stated1 however1 that both  
,volkmar7#e7 and ,hilgenfeld7#f7        
consider that the representations of    
#ih  ,tertullian and ,epiphanius        
supplement each other and enable the    
contents of ,marcion's ,gospel to be    
ascertained with tolerable certainty4   
,yet a few pages earlier ,volkmar had   
pointed out that3 ,the ground for a     
certain fixture of the text of the      
,marcionitish ,gospel1 however1 seems   
completely taken away by the fact that  
,tertullian and ,epiphanius1 in their   
statements regarding its state1 not     
merely repeatedly seem to1 but in part  
actually do1 directly contradict each   
other47#a7 ,hahn endeavours to explain  

some of these contradictions by         
imagining that later ,marcionites had   
altered the text of their ,gospel1 and  
that ,epiphanius had the one form and   
,tertullian another27#b7 but such a     
doubt only renders the whole of the     
statements regarding the work more      
uncertain and insecure4 ,that it is not 
without some reason1 however1 appears   
from the charge which ,tertullian brings
 against the disciples of ,marcion3 for 
they daily alter it 7their ,gospel7 as  
they are daily refuted by us47#c7 ,in   
fact1 we have no assurance whatever that
 the work upon which ,tertullian and    
,epiphanius base their charge against   
,marcion of falsification and mutilation
 of ,luke was ,marcion's original       
,gospel at all1 and we certainly have no
 historical evidence on the point47#d7  
,the question even arises1 whether      
,tertullian1 and indeed ,epiphanius1 had
 ,marcion's ,gospel in any shape before 
them when they wrote1 or merely his work
 the  #ii  ,antitheses47#a7 ,in         

commencing his onslaught on ,marcion's  
,gospel1 ,terlullian says3 ,marcion     
seems 7videtur7 to have selected ,luke1 
to mutilate it47#b7 ,this is the first  
serious introduction of his mutilation  
hypothesis1 which he thenceforward      
presses with so much assurance1 but the 
expression is very uncertain for so     
decided a controversialist1 if he had   
been able to speak more positively47#c7 
,we have seen that it is admitted that  
,epiphanius wrote without again         
comparing the ,gospel of ,marcion with  
,luke1 and it is also conceded that     
,tertullian at least had not the        
,canonical ,gospel1 but in professing to
 quote ,luke evidently does so from     
memory1 and approximates his text to    
,matthew1 with which ,gospel1 like most 
of the ,fathers1 he was better          
acquainted4 ,this may be illustrated by 
the fact that both ,tertullian and      
,epiphanius reproach ,marcion with      
erasing passages from the ,gospel of    
,luke1 which never were in ,luke at     

all47#d7 ,in one place ,tertullian says3
 ,marcion1 you must also remove this    
from the ,gospel3 ',i am not sent but   
unto the lost sheep of the house of     
,israel1'7#c7 and3 ',it is not meet to  
take the children's bread1 and give it  
to dogs1'7#f7 in order1 be it known1    
that ,christ may not seem to be an      
,israelite47#g7 ,the ,great ,african    
#ajj  thus taunts his opponent1         
evidently under the impression that the 
two passages were in ,luke1 immediately 
after he had accused ,marcion of having 
actually expunged from that ,gospel1 as 
an interpolation17#a7 the saying that   
,christ had not come to destroy the law 
and the prophets1 but to fulfil         
them17#b7 which likewise never formed   
part of it4 ,he repeats a similar charge
 on several other occasions47#c7        
,epiphanius commits the same mistake of 
reproaching ,marcion with omitting from 
,luke what is only found in             
,matthew47#d7 ,we have1 in fact1 no     
certain guarantee of the accuracy or    

trustworthiness of their statements4    
,we have said enough1 we trust1 to show 
that the sources for the reconstruction 
of a text of ,marcion's ,gospel are most
 unsatisfactory1 and no one who         
attentively studies the analysis of     
,hahn1 ,ritschl1 ,volkmar1 ,hilgenfeld1 
and others1 who have examined and       
systematized the data of the ,fathers1  
can fail to be struck by the uncertainty
 which prevails throughout1 the almost  
continuous vagueness and consequent     
opening1 nay1 necessity1 for conjecture1
 and the absence of really sure         
indications4 ,the ,fathers had no       
intention of showing what ,marcion's    
text actually was1 and their object     
being solely dogmatic and not critical1 
their statements are very insufficient  
for the purpose47#e7 ,the materials have
 had to be ingeniously collected and    
sifted from polemical writings whose    
authors1 so far from professing to      
furnish them1 were only bent upon       
seeking in ,marcion's ,gospel such      

points as could legitimately1 or by     
sophistical skill1 be used against him4 
,passing observations1 general  #aja    
remarks1 as well as direct statements1  
have too often been the only indications
 guiding the patient explorers and1 in  
the absence of certain information1 the 
silence of the angry ,fathers has been  
made the basis for important            
conclusions4 ,it is evident that not    
only is such a procedure necessarily    
uncertain and insecure1 but that it     
rests upon assumptions with regard to   
the intelligence1 care and accuracy of  
,tertullian and ,epiphanius1 which are  
not sufficiently justified by that part 
of their treatment of ,marcion's text   
which we can examine and appreciate4    
,and when all these doubtful landmarks  
have failed1 too many passages have been
 left to the mere judgment of critics1  
as to whether they were too opposed to  
,marcion's system to have been retained 
by him1 or too favourable to have been  
omitted4 ,the reconstructed texts1 as   

might be expected1 differ from each     
other1 and one ,editor finds the results
 of his predecessors incomplete or      
unsatisfactory1#a although naturally at 
each successive attempt1 the materials  
previously collected and adopted have   
contributed to an apparently more       
complete result4 ,after complaining of  
the incompleteness and uncertainty of   
the statements of ,tertullian and       
,epiphanius1 ,ritschl affirms that they 
furnish so little solid material on     
which to base a hypothesis1 that rather 
by means of a hypothesis must we        
determine the remains of the ,gospel    
from ,tertullian47#c7 ,hilgenfeld quotes
 this with approval1 and adds1 that at  
least ,ritschl's opinion is so far      
right1 that all the facts of the case   
can no longer be settled from external  
data1 and that the general view         
regarding the  #ajb  ,gospel only can   
decide many points47#a7 ,this means of  
course that hypothesis is to supply that
 which is wanting in the ,fathers4      

,volkmar1 in the introduction to his    
last comprehensive work on ,marcion's   
,gospel1 says3 ,and1 in fact1 it is no  
wonder that critics have for so long1   
and substantially to so little effect1  
fought over the protean question1 for   
there has been so much uncertainty as to
 the very basis 7,fundament7            
itself1--the precise text of the        
remarkable document1--that ,baur has    
found full ground for rejecting1 as     
unfounded1 the supposition on which that
 finally-attained decision 7his previous
 one7 rested47#b7 ,critics of all shades
 of opinion are forced to admit the     
incompleteness of the materials for any 
certain reconstruction of ,marcion's    
text and1 consequently1 for an absolute 
settlement of the question from internal
 evidence17#c7 although the labours of  
,volkmar and ,hilgenfeld have materially
 increased our knowledge of the contents
 of his ,gospel4 ,we must contend1      
however1 that1 desirable and important  
as it is to ascertain as perfectly as   

possible the precise nature of          
,marcion's text1 the question of its    
origin and relation to ,luke would not  
by any means be settled even by its     
final reconstruction4 ,there would1 as  
we shall presently show1 remain unsolved
 the problem of its place in that       
successive manipulation of materials by 
which a few ,gospels gradually absorbed 
and displaced the rest4 ,our own        
synoptics  #ajc  exhibit unmistakable   
traces of the process1 and clearly      
forbid our lightly setting aside the    
claim of ,marcion's ,gospel to be       
considered a genuine work1 and no mere  
falsification and abbreviation of ,luke4
  ,before proceeding to a closer        
examination of ,marcion's ,gospel and   
the general evidence bearing upon it1 it
 may be well here briefly to refer to   
the system of the ,heresiarch whose high
 personal character exerted so powerful 
an influence upon his own time17#a7 and 
whose views continued to prevail widely 
for a couple of centuries after his     

death4 ,it was the misfortune of        
,marcion to live in an age when         
,christianity had passed out of the pure
 morality of its infancy1 when1         
untroubled by complicated questions of  
dogma1 simple faith and pious enthusiasm
 had been the one great bond of         
,christian brotherhood1 into a phase of 
ecclesiastical development in which     
religion was fast degenerating into     
theology1 and complicated doctrines were
 rapidly assuming that rampant attitude 
which led to so much bitterness1        
persecution1 and schism4 ,in later times
 ,marcion might have been honoured as a 
reformer1 in his own he was denounced as
 a heretic47#b7 ,austere and ascetic in 
his opinions1 he aimed at superhuman    
purity1 and although his clerical       
adversaries might scoff at his          
impracticable doctrines regarding       
marriage and the subjugation of the     
flesh1 they have had their parallels    
amongst those whom the ,church has since
 most delighted to honour2 and at least 

the whole tendency of his system was    
markedly towards the side of virtue47#c7
 ,it would of course be foreign to our  
#ajd  purpose to enter upon any detailed
 statement of its principles1 and we    
must confine ourselves to such          
particulars only as are necessary to an 
understanding of the question before us4
  ,as we have already frequently had    
occasion to mention1 there were two     
broad parties in the primitive ,church1 
and the very existence of ,christianity 
was in one sense endangered by the      
national exclusiveness of the people    
amongst whom it originated4 ,the one    
party considered ,christianity a mere   
continuation of the ,law1 and dwarfed it
 into an ,isrealitish institution1 a    
narrow sect of ,judaism2 the other      
represented the glad tidings as the     
introduction of a new system applicable 
to all and supplanting the ,mosaic      
dispensation of the ,law by a universal 
dispensation of grace4 ,these two       
parties were popularly represented in   

the early ,church by the ,apostles      
,peter and ,paul1 and their antagonism  
is faintly revealed in the ,epistle to  
the ,galatians4 ,marcion1 a gentile     
,christian1 appreciating the true       
character of the new religion and its   
elevated spirituality1 and profoundly   
impressed by the comparatively degraded 
and anthropomorphic features of         
,judaism1 drew a very sharp line of     
demarcation between them1 and           
represented ,christianity as an entirely
 new and separate system abrogating the 
old and having absolutely no connection 
with it4 ,jesus was not to him the      
,messiah of the ,jews1 the son of ,david
 come permanently to establish the ,law 
and the ,prophets1 but a divine being   
sent to reveal to man a wholly new      
spiritual religion1 and a hitherto      
unknown ,god of goodness and grace4 ,the
 ,creator ------1  #aje  the ,god of the
 ,old ,testament1 was different from the
 ,god of grace who had sent ,jesus to   
reveal the ,truth1 to bring             

reconciliation and salvation to all1 and
 to abrogate the ,jewish ,god of the    
,world and of the ,law1 who was opposed 
to the ,god and ,father of ,jesus       
,christ as ,matter is to ,spirit1       
impurity to purity4 ,christianity was in
 distinct antagonism to ,judaism1 the   
,spiritual ,god of heaven1 whose        
goodness and love were for the          
,universe1 to the ,god of the ,world1   
whose chosen and peculiar people were   
the ,jews1 the ,gospel of ,grace to the 
dispensation of the ,old ,testament4    
,christianity1 therefore1 must be kept  
pure from the ,judaistic elements       
humanly thrust into it1 which were so   
essentially opposed to its whole spirit4
  ,marcion wrote a work called          
,antitheses ------1 in which he         
contrasted the old system with the new1 
the ,god of the one with the ,god of the
 other1 the ,law with the ,gospel1 and  
in this he maintained opinions which    
anticipated many held in our own time4  
,tertullian attacks this work in the    

first three books of his treatise       
against ,marcion1 and he enters upon the
 discussion of its details with true    
theological vigour3 ,now1 then1 ye      
hounds1 yelping at the ,god of truth1   
whom the ,apostle casts out17#a7 to all 
your questions6 ,these are the bones of 
contention which ye gnaw67#b7 ,the      
poverty of the ,great ,african's        
arguments keeps pace with his abuse4    
,marcion objected3 ,if the ,god of the  
,old ,testament be good1 prescient of   
the future1 and able to avert evil1 why 
did he allow man1 made in his own image1
 to be deceived  #ajf  by the devil1 and
 to fall from obedience of the ,law into
 sin and death87#a7 ,how came the devil1
 the origin of lying and deceit1 to be  
made at all87#b7 ,after the fall1 ,god  
became a judge both severe and cruel2   
woman is at once condemned to bring     
forth in sorrow and to serve her        
husband1 changed from a help into a     
slave2 the earth is cursed which before 
was blessed1 and man is doomed to labour

 and to death47#c7 ,the law was one of  
retaliation and not of justice1--lex    
talionis--eye for eye1 tooth for tooth1 
stripe for stripe47#d7 ,and it was not  
consistent1 for in contravention of the 
,decalogue1 ,god is made to instigate   
the ,israelites to spoil the ,egyptians1
 and fraudulently rob them of their gold
 and silver27#e7 to incite them to work 
on the ,sabbath by ordering them to     
carry the ark for eight days round      
,jericho27#f7 to break the second       
commandment by making and setting up the
 brazen serpent and the golden          
cherubim47#g7 ,then ,god is inconstant1 
electing men1 as ,saul and ,solomon1    
whom he subsequently rejects27#h7       
repenting that he had set up ,saul1 and 
that he had doomed the ,ninevites17#i7  
and so on4 ,god calls out3 ,adam1 where 
art thou8 inquires whether he had eaten 
the forbidden fruit2 asks of ,cain where
 his brother was1 as if he had not yet  
heard the blood of ,abel crying from the
 ground1 and did not already know all   

these things47#aj7 ,anticipating the    
results of modem criticism1 ,marcion    
denies the applicability to ,jesus of   
the so-called ,messianic prophecies4    
,the ,emmanuel of  #ajg  ,isaiah 7vii4  
#ad1 cf4 viii4 #d7 is not ,christ27#a7  
the ,virgin his mother is simply a young
 woman according to ,jewish             
phraseology27#b7 and the sufferings of  
the ,servant of ,god 7,isaiah lii4      
#ac--liii4 #i7 are not predictions of   
the death of ,jesus47#c7 ,there is a    
complete severance between the ,law and 
the ,gospel1 and the ,god of the latter 
is the ,antithesis of that of the       
former47#d7 ,the one was perfect1 pure1 
beneficent1 passionless2 the other1     
though not unjust by nature1 infected by
 matter1--subject to all the passions of
 man1--cruel1 changeable2 the ,new      
,testament1 especially as remodelled by 
,marcion17#e7 was holy1 wise1 amiable2  
the ,old ,testament1 the ,law1          
barbarous1 inhuman1 contradictory1 and  
detestable47#f7  ,marcion ardently      

maintained the doctrine of the impurity 
of matter1 and he carried it to its     
logical conclusion1 both in speculation 
and practice4 ,he1 therefore1 asserting 
the incredibility of an incarnate ,god1 
denied the corporeal reality of the     
flesh of ,christ4 ,his body was a mere  
semblance and not of human substance1   
was not born of a human mother1 and the 
divine nature was not degraded by       
contact with the flesh47#g7 ,marcion    
finds in ,paul the purest promulgator of
 the truth as he understands it1 and    
emboldened by the ,epistle to the       
,galatians1 in which that ,apostle      
rebukes even ,apostles for not walking  
uprightly according to the truth of the 
,gospel1 he accuses the other ,apostles 
of having depraved the pure form of the 
,gospel doctrines delivered to them by  
#e ,we give this quotation as a resume  
by an ,english historian      and       
divine1 but the idea of the ,new        
,testament remodelled by      ,marcion1 
is a mere ecclesiastical imagination4   

#ajh  ,jesus17#a7 mixing up matters of  
the ,law with the words of the          
,saviour47#b7  ,tertullian reproaches   
,marcion with having written the work in
 which he details the contrasts between 
,judaism and ,christianity1 of which we 
have given the briefest sketch1 as an   
introduction and encouragement to belief
 in his ,gospel1 which he ironically    
calls the ,gospel according to the      
,antitheses27#c7 and the charge which   
the ,fathers bring against ,marcion is  
that he laid violent hands on the       
,canonical ,gospel of ,luke1 and        
manipulated it to suit his own views4   
,for certainly the whole object at which
 he laboured in drawing up the          
',antitheses4' says ,tertullian1 amounts
 to this3 that he may prove a           
disagreement between the ,old and ,new  
,testament1 so that his own ,christ may 
be separated from the ,creator1 as of   
another ,god1 as alien from the ,law and
 the ,prophets4 ,for this purpose it is 
certain that he has erased whatever was 

contrary to his own opinion and in      
harmony with the ,creator1 as if        
interpolated by his partisans1 but has  
retained everything consistent with his 
own opinion47#d7 ,the whole hypothesis  
that ,marcion's ,gospel is a mutilated  
version of our third ,synoptic in fact  
rested upon this accusation4 ,it is     
obvious that if it cannot be shown that 
,marcion's ,gospel was our ,canonical   
,gospel merely garbled by the           
,heresiarch for dogmatic reasons in the 
interest of his system1--for there could
 not be any other conceivable  #aji     
reason for tampering with it1--the claim
 of ,marcion's ,gospel to the rank of a 
more original and authentic work than   
,luke's acquires double force4 ,we must1
 therefore1 inquire into the character  
of the variations between the so-called 
heretical1 and the ,canonical ,gospels1 
and see how far the hypothesis of the   
,fathers accord with the contents of    
,marcion's ,gospel so far as we are     
acquainted with it4  ,at the very outset

 we are met by the singular phenomenon1 
that both ,tertullian and ,epiphanius1  
who accuse ,marcion of omitting         
everything which was unfavourable1 and  
retaining only what was favourable to   
his views1 undertake to refute him out  
of what remains in his ,gospel4         
,tertullian says3 ,it will then be      
proved that he has shown the same defect
 of blindness of heresy both in that    
which he has erased and that which he   
has retained47#a7 ,epiphanius also      
confidently states that1 out of that    
which ,marcion has allowed to remain of 
the ,gospel1 he can prove his fraud and 
imposture1 and thoroughly refute        
him47#b7 ,now if ,marcion mutilated     
,luke to so little purpose as this1 what
 was the use of his touching it at all8 
,he is known as an able man1 the most   
influential and distinguished of all the
 heretical leaders of the second        
century1 and it seems unreasonable to   
suppose that1 on the theory of his      
erasing or altering all that            

contradicted his system1 he should have 
done his work so imperfectly47#c7 ,the  
,fathers say that he endeavours to get  
rid of the contradictory passages which 
remain by a system of false             
interpretation2 but surely he would not 
have allowed himself to be driven  #aaj 
to this extremity1 leaving weapons in   
the hands of his opponents1 when he     
might so easily have excised the        
obnoxious texts along with the rest8 ,it
 is admitted by critics1 moreover1 that 
passages said to have been omitted by   
,marcion are often not opposed to his   
system at all1 and sometimes1 indeed1   
even in favour of it27#a7 and on the    
other hand1 that passages which were    
retained are contradictory to his       
views47#b7 ,this is not intelligible    
upon any theory of arbitrary garbling of
 a ,gospel in the interest of a system4 
,it may be well to give a few instances 
of the anomalies presented1 upon this   
hypothesis1 by ,marcion's text4 ,some   
critics believe that the verses ,luke   

vii4 #bi--ce1 were wanting in ,marcion's
 ,gospel47#c7 ,hahn accounts for the    
omission of verses #bi1 #cj1 regarding  
the baptism of ,john1 because they      
represented the relation of the ,baptist
 to ,jesus in a way which ,marcion did  
not admit47#d7 ,but as he allowed the   
preceding verses to remain1 such a      
proceeding was absurd4 ,in verse #bf he 
calls ,john a prophet1 and much more    
than a prophet1 and in the next verse   
7#bg7 quotes respecting him the words of
  #aaa  ,malachi iii4 #a3 ,this is he of
 whom it is written3 ,behold ,i send my 
messenger before thy face1 which shall  
prepare thy way before thee4 ,it is     
impossible on any reasonable ground to  
account for the retention of such       
honourable mention of the ,baptist1 if  
verses #bi1 #cj were erased for such    
dogmatic reasons47#a7 ,still more       
incomprehensible on such a hypothesis is
 the omission of ,luke vii4 #ca--ce1    
where that generation is likened unto   
children playing in the market-place and

 calling to each other3 ,we piped unto  
you and ye danced not1 and ,jesus       
continues3 ,for ,john is come neither   
eating bread nor drinking wine2 and ye  
say1 ,he hath a devil 7#cd74 ,the ,son  
of ,man is come1 eating and drinking2   
and ye say3 ,behold a gluttonous man and
 a winebibber1 a friend of publicans and
 sinners4 ,hahn attributes the omission 
of these verses to the sensuous         
representation they give of ,jesus as   
eating and drinking47#b7 ,what was the  
use of eliminating these verses when he 
allowed to remain unaltered verse #cf of
 the same chapter17#c7 in which ,jesus  
is invited to eat with the ,pharisee1   
and goes into his house and sits down to
 meat8 or v4 #bi--ce17d7 in which ,jesus
 accepts the feast of ,levi1 and defends
 his disciples for eating and drinking  
against the murmurs of the ,scribes and 
,pharisees8 or xv4 #b17e7  #aab  where  
the ,pharisees say of him3 ,this man    
receiveth sinners and eateth with them8 
,how absurdly futile the omission of the

 one passage for dogmatic reasons1 while
 so many others were allowed to remain  
unaltered47#a7  ,the next passage to    
which we must refer is one of the most  
important in connection with ,marcion's 
,docetic doctrine of the person of      
,jesus4 ,it is said that he omitted     
viii4 #ai3 ,and his mother and his      
brethren came to him and could not come 
at him for the crowd1 and that he       
inserted in verse #ba1 ------2 making   
the whole episode in his ,gospel read   
7#bj73 ,and it was told him by certain  
which said3 ,thy mother and thy brethren
 stand without desiring to see thee3    
#ba4 ,but he answered and said unto     
them3 ,who are my mother and brethren8  
,my mother and my brethren are these1 c4
 ,the omission of verse #ai is said to  
have been made because1 according to    
,marcion1 ,christ was not born like an  
ordinary man1 and consequently had      
neither mother nor brethren47#c7 ,the   
mere fact1 however1 that ,marcion       
retains verse #bj1 in which the crowd   

simply state as a matter fully          
recognized1 the relationship of those   
who were seeking ,jesus1 renders the    
omission of the preceding verse         
useless17#d7 except on the ground of    
mere redundancy4  ,marcion is reported  
not to have had the word ------ in x4   
#be17e7 so that the question of the     
lawyer simply ran3  #aac  ,master1 what 
shall ,i do to inherit life8 ,the       
omission of this word is supposed to    
have been made in order to make the     
passage refer back to the ,god of the   
,old ,testament1 who promises merely    
long life on earth for keeping the      
commandments1 whilst it is only in the  
,gospel that eternal life is            
promised47#a7 ,but in the corresponding 
passage1 xviii4 #ah17b7 the ------ is   
retained1 and the question of the ruler 
is3 ,good master1 what shall ,i do to   
inherit eternal life8 ,it has been      
argued that the introduction of the one 
thing still lacking 7verse #bb7 after   
the keeping of the law and the          

injunction to sell all and give to the  
poor1 changes the context1 and justifies
 the use there of eternal life as the   
reward for fulfilment of the higher     
commandment47#c7 ,this reasoning1       
however1 seems to us without grounds1   
and merely an ingenious attempt to      
account for an embarrassing fact4 ,in   
reality the very same context occurs in 
the other passage1 for1 explaining the  
meaning of the word neighbour1 love to  
whom is enjoined as part of the way to  
obtain life1 ,jesus inculcates the very 
same duty as in xviii4 #bb1 of          
distributing to the poor 7cf4 x4        
#bh--cg74 ,there seems1 therefore1 no   
reasonable motive for omitting the word 
from the one passage whilst retaining it
 in the other47#d7  ,the passage in     
,luke xi4 #bi--cb1 from the concluding  
words of verse #bi1 but the sign of the 
prophet ,jonah  #aad  was not found in  
,marcion's ,gospel47#a7 ,this omission  
is accounted for on the ground that such
 a respectful reference to the ,old     

,testament was quite contrary to the    
system of ,marcion47#b7 ,verses #di--ea 
of the same chapter1 containing the     
saying of the ,wisdom of ,god1 regarding
 the sending of the prophets that the   
,jews might slay them1 and their blood  
be required of that generation1 were    
also omitted47#c7 ,the reason given for 
this omission is1 that the words of the 
,god of the ,old ,testament are too     
respectfully quoted and adopted to suit 
the views of the ,heretic47#d7 ,the     
words in verses #ca--cb1 ,and a greater 
than ,solomon--than ,jonah is here1     
might well have been allowed to remain  
in the text1 for the superiority of     
,christ over the kings and prophets of  
the ,old ,testament which is asserted   
directly suits and supports the system  
of ,marcion4 ,how much less1 however1 is
 the omission of these passages to be   
explained upon any intelligent dogmatic 
principle1 when we find in ,marcion's   
text the passage in which ,jesus        
justifies his conduct on the ,sabbath by

 the example of ,david 7vi4 #c--d717e7  
and that in which he assures the        
disciples of the greatness of their     
reward in heaven for the persecutions   
they were to endure3  #aae  ,for behold 
your reward is great in heaven3 for     
after the same manner did their fathers 
unto the prophets 7vi4 #bc747a7 ,as we  
have seen1 ,jesus is also allowed to    
quote an ,old ,testament prophecy 7vii4 
#bg7 as fulfilled in the coming of ,john
 to prepare the way for himself4 ,the   
questions which ,jesus puts to the      
,scribes 7xx4 #da--dd7 regarding the    
,christ being ,david's son1 with the    
quotation from ,ps4 ex4 #a1 which       
,marcion is stated to have retained17#b7
 equally refute the supposition as to   
his motive for omitting xi4 #bi ff4 ,it 
has been argued with regard to the last 
passage that ,jesus merely uses the     
words of the ,old ,testament to meet his
 own theory17#c7 but the dilemma in     
which ,jesus places the ,scribes is     
clearly not the real object of his      

question3 its aim is a suggestion of the
 true character of the ,christ4 ,but    
amongst his other sins with regard to   
,luke's ,gospel1 ,marcion is also       
accused of interpolating it4 ,and in    
what way8 ,why the ,heresiarch1 who is  
so averse to all references to the ,old 
,testament that he is supposed to erase 
them1 actually1 amongst his few         
interpolations1 adds a reference to the 
,old ,testament4 ,between xvii4 #ad and 
#ae 7some critics say in verse #ah7     
,marcion introduced the verse which is  
found in ,luke iv4 #bg3 ,and many lepers
 were in ,israel in the time of ,elisha 
the prophet2 and none of them was       
cleansed saving ,naaman1 the            
,syrian47#d7 ,now is it conceivable that
 a man who inserts1 as it is said1      
references to the  #aaf  ,old ,testament
 into his text so gratuitously1 can have
 been so inconsistent as to have omitted
 these passages because they contain    
similar references8 ,we must say that   
the whole of the reasoning regarding    

these passages omitted and retained1 and
 the fine distinctions which are drawn  
between them1 are anything but          
convincing4 ,a general theory being     
adopted1 nothing is more easy than to   
harmonise everything with it in this    
way2 nothing is more easy than to assign
 some reason1 good or bad1 apparently in
 accordance with the foregone           
conclusion1 why one passage was         
retained1 and why another was omitted1  
but in almost every case the reasoning  
might with equal propriety be reversed  
if the passages were so1 and the        
retention of the omitted passage as well
 as the omission of that retained be    
quite as reasonably justified4 ,the     
critics who have examined ,marcion's    
,gospel do not trouble themselves to    
inquire if the general connection of the
 text be improved by the absence of     
passages supposed to be omitted1 but    
simply try whether the supposed         
omissions are explainable on the ground 
of a dogmatic tendency in ,marcion4 ,in 

fact1 the argument throughout is based  
upon foregone conclusions1 and rarely   
upon any solid grounds whatever4 ,the   
retention of such passages as we have   
quoted above renders the omission of the
 other for dogmatic reasons quite       
purposeless47#a7  ,the passage1 xii4 #f1
 #g1 which argues that as the sparrows  
are not forgotten before ,god1 and the  
hairs of our head are numbered1 the     
disciples need not fear1 was not found  
in ,mansion's ,gospel47#b7 ,the supposed
 omission  #aag  is explained on the    
ground that1 according to ,marcion's    
system1 ,god does not interest himself  
about such trifles as sparrows and the  
hairs of our head1 but merely about     
souls47#a7 ,that such reasoning is      
arbitrary1 however1 is apparent from the
 fact1 that ,marcion's text had verse   
#bd of the same chapter37#b7 ,consider  
the ravens1 c41 c41 and ,god feedeth    
them3 c41 and also v4 #bh17c7 ,but if   
,god so clothe the grass1 c41 c41 how   
much more will he clothe you1 ,o6 ye of 

little faith8 ,as no one ventures to    
argue that ,marcion limited the         
providence of ,god to the ravens1 and to
 the grass1 but excluded the sparrows   
and the hair1 no dogmatic reason can be 
assigned for the omission of the one1   
whilst the other is retained47#d7  ,the 
first nine verses of ch4 xiii4 were     
likewise absent from ,marcion's         
text17#e7 wherein ,jesus declares that  
like the ,galilaeans1 whose blood       
,pilate had mixed with their sacrifices 
7v4 #a1 #b71 and the eighteen upon whom 
the tower in ,siloam fell 7v4 #d71      
except ye repent1 ye shall all likewise 
perish1 7v4 #c and #e71 and then recites
 the parable of the unfruitful fig-tree 
7v4 #f--i71 which the master of the     
vineyard orders to be cut down 7v4 #g71 
but then spares for a season 7v4 #h1    
#i74 ,the theory advanced to account for
 the asserted omission of these  #aah   
verses is that they could not be        
reconciled with ,marcion's system1      
according to which the good ,god never  

positively punishes the wicked1 but     
merely leaves them to punish themselves 
in that1 by not accepting the proffered 
grace1 they have no part in the         
blessedness of ,christians47#a7 ,in his 
earlier work1 ,volkmar distinctly       
admitted that the whole of this passage 
might be omitted without prejudice to   
the text of ,luke1 and that he could not
 state any ground1 in connection with   
,marcion's system1 which rendered its   
omission either necessary or even       
conceivable4 ,he then decided that the  
passage was not contained at all in the 
version of ,luke1 which ,marcion        
possessed1 but was inserted at a later  
period in our ,codices47#b7 ,it was only
 on his second attempt to account for   
all omissions on dogmatic grounds that  
he argued as above4 ,in like manner     
,hilgenfeld also1 with ,rettig1         
considered that the passage did not form
 part of the original ,luke1 so that    
here again ,marcion's text was free from
 a very abrupt passage1 not belonging to

 the more pure and primitive            
,gospel47#c7 ,baur recognizes not only  
that there is no dogmatic ground to     
explain the omission1 but on the        
contrary1 that the passage fully agrees 
with the system of ,marcion47#d7 ,the   
total insufficiency of the argument to  
explain the omission1 however1 is       
apparent from the numerous passages1    
which were allowed to remain in the     
text1 which still more clearly outraged 
this part of ,marcion's system4 ,in the 
parable of the great supper1 xiv4       
#ae--bd1 the ,lord is angry 7v4 #ba71   
and declares that none of those who were
  #aai  bidden should taste of his      
supper 7v4 #bd74 ,in xii4 #e1 ,jesus    
warns his own disciples3 ,fear him1     
which after he hath killed hath power to
 cast into hell2 yea1 ,i say unto you3  
fear him4 ,it is not permissible to     
argue that ,marcion here understands the
 ,god of the ,old ,testament1 the       
,creator1 for he would thus represent   
his ,christ as forewarning his own      

disciples to fear the power of that very
 ,demiurge1 whose reign he had come to  
terminate4 ,then again1 in the parable  
of the wise steward1 and the foolish    
servants1 xii4 #da ff1 he declares 7v4  
#df71 that the lord of the foolish      
servant will cut him in sunder1 and will
 appoint him his portion with the       
unbelievers1 and 7vs4 #dg1 #dh7 that the
 servants shall be beaten with stripes1 
in proportion to their fault4 ,in the   
parable of the nobleman who goes to a   
far country and leaves the ten pounds   
with his servants1 xix4 #aa ff1 the lord
 orders his enemies1 who would not that 
he should reign over them1 to be brought
 and slain before him 7v4 #bg74 ,then1  
how very much there was in the ,epistles
 of ,paul1 which he upheld1 of a still  
more contradictory character4 ,there is 
no dogmatic reason for such             
inconsistency47#a7  ,marcion is accused 
of having falsified xiii4 #bh in the    
following manner3 ,there shall be       
weeping and gnashing of teeth1 when ye  

shall see all the just ------ in the    
kingdom of ,god1 but you yourselves     
being thrust1 and bound ------ without4 
,the substitution of all the just for   
,abraham1 ,isaac1 and ,jacob1 and all   
the prophets1 is one of those variations
 which the supporter of the dogmatic    
theory greedily lays hold of1 as bearing
 evident tokens of falsification in     
anti-judaistic interest47#b7 ,but       
,marcion had in his ,gospel  #abj  the  
parable of the rich man and ,lazarus1   
xvi4 #ai--ca1 where the beggar is       
carried up into ,abraham's bosom47#a7   
,and again1 there was the account of the
 ,transfiguration1 ix4 #bh--cf1 in which
 ,moses and ,elias are seen in converse 
with ,jesus47#b7 ,the alteration of the 
one passage for dogmatic reasons1 whilst
 the parable of ,lazarus is retained1   
would have been useless4 ,hilgenfeld1   
however1 in agreement with ,baur and    
,ritschl1 has shown that ,marcion's     
reading ------ is evidently the contrast
 to the ------ of the preceding verse1  

and is superior to the canonical        
version1 which was either altered after 
,matth4 viii4 #ab1 or with the          
anti-,marcionitish object of bringing   
the rejected ,patriarchs into           
recognition47#c7 ,the whole theory in   
this case again goes into thin air1 and 
it is consequently weakened in every    
other4  ,marcion's ,gospel did not      
contain the parable of the ,prodigal    
,son1 xv4 #aa--bc47d7 ,the omission of  
this passage1  #aba  which is           
universally recognized as in the purest 
,paulinian spirit1 is accounted for     
partly on the ground that a portion of  
it 7v4 #bb--cb7 was repugnant to the    
ascetic discipline of ,marcion1 to whom 
the killing of the fatted calf1 the     
feasting1 dancing and merry-making1 must
 have been obnoxious1 and1 partly       
because1 understanding under the        
similitude of the elder son the ,jews1  
and of the younger son the ,gentiles1   
the identity of the ,god of the ,jews   
and of the ,christians would be         

recognized47#a7 ,there is1 however1 the 
very greatest doubt admitted as to the  
interpretation which ,marcion would be  
likely to put upon this parable1 and    
certainly the representation which it   
gives of the ,gentiles1 not only as     
received completely on a par with the   
,jews1 but as only having been lost for 
a time1 and found again1 is thoroughly  
in harmony with the teaching of ,paul1  
who was held by ,marcion to be the only 
true ,apostle4 ,it could not1 therefore1
 have been repugnant to him4 ,any points
 of disagreement could very easily have 
been explained away1 as his critics are 
so fond of asserting to be his practice 
in other passages47#c7 ,as to the       
supposed dislike of ,marcion for the    
festive character of the parable1 what  
object could he have had for omitting   
this1 when he retained the parable of   
the  #abb  great supper1 xiv4 #ae--bd2  
the feast in the house of ,levi1 v4     
#bg--cb2 the statements of ,jesus eating
 with the ,pharisees1 vii4 #cf1 xv4 #b8 

,if ,marcion had any objection to such  
matters1 he had still greater to        
marriage1 and yet ,jesus justifies his  
disciples for eating and drinking by the
 similitude of a marriage feast1 himself
 being the bridegroom3 v4 #cd1 #ce1 ,can
 ye make the sons of the bridechamber   
fast1 while the bridegroom is with them8
 ,but the days will come when the       
bridegroom shall be taken away from     
them3 then will they fast in those days4
 ,and he bids his disciples to be ready 
like men that wait for their lord1 when 
he shall return from the wedding1 7xii4 
#cf71 and makes another parable on a    
wedding feast 7xiv4 #g--aj74 ,leaving   
these passages1 it is impossible to see 
any dogmatic reason for excluding the   
others47#a7  ,the omission of a passage 
in every way so suitable to ,marcion's  
system as the parable of the vineyard1  
xx4 #i--af1 is equally unintelligible   
upon the dogmatic theory4  ,marcion is  
accused of falsifying xvi4 #ag1 by      
altering ------17#b7 making the passage 

read3 ,but it is easier for heaven and  
earth to pass1 than for one tittle of my
 words to fail4 ,the words in the       
canonical ,gospel1 it is argued1 were   
too repugnant to him to be allowed to   
remain unaltered1 representing as they  
do the permanency of the ,law to which  
he was opposed47#c7 ,upon this          
hypothesis1 why did he leave  #abc  x4  
#be f4 7especially v4 #bf7 and xviii4   
#ah ff1 in which the keeping of the law 
is made essential to life8 or xvii4 #ad1
 where ,jesus bids the lepers conform to
 the requirements of the law8 or xvi4   
#bi1 where the answer is given to the   
rich man pleading for his relatives3    
,they have ,moses and the prophets1 let 
them hear them87l7 ,hilgenfeld1 however1
 with others1 points out that it has    
been fully proved that the reading in   
,marcion's text is not an arbitrary     
alteration at all1 but the original     
expression1 and that the version in     
,luke xvi4 #ag1 on the contrary1 is a   
variation of the original introduced to 

give the passage an anti-,marcionitish  
tendency47#b7 ,here1 again1 it is clear 
that the supposed falsification is      
rather a falsification on the part of   
the editor of the third canonical       
,gospel47#c7  ,one more illustration may
 be given4 ,marcion is accused of       
omitting from xix4 #i the words3        
forasmuch as he also is a son of        
,abraham1 ------ leaving merely3  ,and  
,jesus said unto him3 ,this day is      
salvation come to this house4#d         
,marcion's system1 it is said1 could not
 tolerate the phrase which was          
erased47#e7 ,it was one1 however1       
eminently in the spirit of his ,apostle 
,paul1 and in his favourite ,epistle to 
the ,galatians he retained the very     
parallel  #abd  passage iii4 #g1 ,ye    
know1 therefore1 that they which are of 
faith1 these are the sons of            
,abraham47#a7 ,how could he1 therefore1 
find any difficulty in such words       
addressed to the repentant ,zacchaeus1  
who had just believed in the mission of 

,christ8 ,moreover1 why should he have  
erased the words here1 and left them    
standing in xiii4 #af1 in regard to the 
woman healed of the spirit of infirmity3
 and ought not this woman1 being a      
daughter of ,abraham1 whom ,satan hath  
bound1 lo6 these eighteen years1 to be  
loosed from this bond on the ,sabbath   
day8 ,no reasoning can explain away the 
substantial identity of the two phrases4
 ,upon what principle of dogmatic       
interest1 then1 can ,marcion have erased
 the one while he retained the          
other87#b7  ,we have taken a very few   
passages for illustration1 and treated  
them very briefly1 but it may roundly be
 said that there is scarcely a single   
variation of ,marcion's text regarding  
which similar reasons are not given1 and
 which do not present similar anomalies 
in consequence of what has elsewhere    
been retained47#c7 ,as we have already  
stated1 much that is really             
contradictory to ,marcion's system was  
found in his text1 and much which either

 is not opposed or is favourable to it  
is omitted  #abe  and cannot be set down
 to arbitrary alteration4 ,moreover1 it 
has never been shown that the supposed  
alterations were made by ,marcion       
himself17#a7 and till this is done the  
pith of the whole theory is wanting4    
,there is no principle of intelligent   
motive which can account for the        
anomalies presented by ,marcion's       
,gospel1 considered as a version of     
,luke mutilated and falsified in the    
interest of his system4 ,the contrast of
 what is retained with that which is    
omitted reduces the hypothesis ad       
absurdum4 ,marcion was too able a man to
 do his work so imperfectly1 if he had  
proposed to assimilate the ,gospel of   
,luke to his own views4 ,as it is       
avowedly necessary to explain away by   
false and forced interpretations        
requiring intricate definitions7#b7 very
 much of what was allowed to remain in  
his text1 it is inconceivable that he   
should not have cut the ,gordian knot   

with the same unscrupulous knife with   
which it is asserted he excised the rest
 ,the ingenuity of most able and learned
 critics endeavouring to discover       
whether a motive in the interest of his 
system cannot be conceived for every    
alteration is1 notwithstanding the      
evident scope afforded by the procedure1
 often foiled4 ,yet a more elastic      
hypothesis could not possibly have been 
advanced1 and that the text obstinately 
refuses to fit into it1 is even more    
than could have been expected4 ,marcion 
is like a prisoner at the bar without   
witnesses1 who is treated from the first
 as guilty1 attacked by able and        
passionate adversaries who warp every   
possible circumstance against him1 and  
yet who cannot be convicted4 ,the       
foregone conclusion by which every      
supposed omission from his ,gospel is   
explained1 is1 as we have shown1 almost 
in  #abf  every case contradicted by    
passages which have been allowed to     
remain1 and this is rendered more       

significant by the fact1 which is       
generally admitted1 that ,marcion's text
 contains many readings which are       
manifestly superior to1 and more        
original than1 the form in which the    
passages stand in our third             
,synoptic47#a7 ,the only one of these to
 which we shall refer is the interesting
 variation from the passage in ,luke xi4
 #b1 in the substitution of a prayer for
 the ,holy ,spirit for the hallowed be  
thy name1--------4 ,the former is       
recognized to be the true original      
reading4 ,this phrase is evidently      
referred to in v4 #ac4 ,we are1         
therefore1 indebted to ,marcion for the 
correct version of the ,lord's          
,prayer47#b7  ,there can be no doubt    
that ,marcion's ,gospelbore great       
analogy to our ,luke1 although it was   
very considerably shorter4 ,it is1      
however1 unnecessary to repeat that     
there were many ,gospels in the second  
century which1 although nearly related  
to those which have become canonical1   

were independent works1 and the most    
favourable interpretation which can be  
given of the relationship between our   
three ,synoptics leaves them very much  
in a line with ,marcion's work4 ,his    
,gospel was chiefly distinguished  #abg 
by a shorter text17#a7 but besides large
 and important omissions there are a few
 additions17#b7 and very many variations
 of text4 ,the whole of the first two   
chapters of ,luke1 as well as all the   
third1 was wanting1 with the exception  
of part of the first verse of the third 
chapter1 which1 joined to iv4 #ca1      
formed the commencement of the ,gospel4 
,of chapter iv4 verses #a--ac1 #ag--bj  
and #bd were likewise probably absent4  
,some of the other more important       
omissions are xi4 #bi--cb1 #di--ea1     
xiii4 #a--i1 #bi--ce1 xv4 #aa--cb1 xvii4
 #e--aj 7probably71 xviii4 #ca--cd1 xix4
 #bi--dh1 xx4 #i--ai1 #cg--ch1 xxi4     
#a--d1 #ah1 #ba--bb xxii4 #af--ah1      
#bh--cj1 #ce--ch1 #di--ea1 and there is 
great doubt about the concluding verses 

of xxiv4 from #dd to the end1 but it may
 have terminated with v4 #di4 ,it is not
 certain whether the order was the same 
as ,luke17#c7 but there are instances of
 decided variation1 especially at the   
opening4 ,as the peculiarities of the   
opening variations have had an important
 effect in inclining some critics       
towards the acceptance of the mutilation
 hypothesis17#d7 it may be well for us  
briefly to examine the more important   
amongst them4  ,marcion's ,gospel is    
generally said to have commenced thus3  
,in the fifteenth year of the reign of  
,tiberius ,caesar1 ,jesus came down to  
,capernaum1 a city of ,galilee47#e7     
#abh  ,there are various slightly       
differing readings of this4 ,epiphanius 
gives the opening words1 ------4#a      
,tertullian has3 ,anno quintodecimo     
principatus ,tiberiani4444 de-scendisse 
in civitatem ,galilsaeae                
,capharnaum47#b7 ,the -------s of       
,epiphanius has permitted the conjecture
 that there might have been an          

additional indication of the time1 such 
as ,pontius ,pilate being governor of   
,judaea17#c7 but this has not been      
generally adopted47#d7 ,it is not       
necessary for us to discuss the sense in
 which the came down ------ was         
interpreted1 since it is the word used  
in ,luke4 ,marcion's ,gospel then       
proceeds with iv4 #ca3 and taught them  
on the sabbath days1 7v4 #cb71 and they 
were exceedingly astonished at his      
teaching1 for his word was power4 ,then 
follow vs4 #cc--ci containing the       
healing of the man with an unclean      
spirit17#e7 and of ,simon's wife's      
mother1 with the important omission of  
the expression of ,nazareth             
7,najapipc7#f after ,jesus in the cry of
 the possessed 7v4 #cd74 ,the vs4       
#af--cjg immediately follow iv4 #ci1    
with important  #abi  omissions and     
variations4 ,in iv4 #af1 where ,jesus   
comes to ,nazareth1 the words where he  
had been brought up are omitted1 as is  
also the concluding phrase and stood up 

to read47#a7 ,verses #ag--ai1 in which  
,jesus reads from ,isaiah1 are          
altogether wanting47#b7 ,volkmar omits  
the whole of v4 #bj1 ,hilgenfeld only   
the first half down to the sitting down1
 retaining the rest2 ,hahn retains from 
and he sat down to the end47#c7 ,of v4  
#ba only3 ,he began to speak to them is 
retained47#d7 ,from v4 #bb the          
concluding phrase3 ,and said3 ,is not   
this ,joseph's son is omitted17#e7 as   
are also the words in thy country from  
v4 #bc47f7 ,verse #bd1 containing the   
proverb3 ,a prophet has no honour is    
wholly omitted17#g7 but the best critics
 differ regarding the two following     
verses #be--bf2 they are omitted        
according to ,hahn1 ,ritschl and ,de    
,wette17#h7 but retained by ,volkmar and
 ,hilgenfeld47#i7 ,verse #bg1  #acj     
referring to the leprosy of ,naaman1    
which1 it will be remembered1 is        
interpolated at xvii4 #ad1 is omitted   
here by most critics1 but retained by   
,vojkmar47#a7 ,verses #bh--cj come      

next17#b7 and the four verses iv4       
#dj--dd1 which then immediately follow1 
complete the chapter4 ,this brief       
analysis1 with the accompanying notes1  
illustrates the uncertainty of the text1
 and1 throughout the whole ,gospel1     
conjecture similarly plays the larger   
part4 ,we do not propose to criticise   
minutely the various conclusions arrived
 at as to the state of the text1 but    
must emphatically remark that where     
there is so little certainty there      
cannot be any safe ground for delicate  
deductions regarding motives and        
sequences of matter4 ,nothing is more   
certain than that1 if we criticise and  
compare the ,synoptics on the same      
principle1 we meet with the most        
startling results and the most          
irreconcileable difficulties47#c7 ,the  
opening of ,marcion's ,gospel is more   
free from abruptness and crudity than   
that of ,luke4  ,it is not necessary to 
show that the first three chapters of   
,luke present very many differences from

 the other ,synoptics4 ,mark omits them 
altogether1 and they do not even agree  
with the account in ,matthew4 ,some of  
the oldest ,gospels of which we have any
 knowledge1 such as the ,gospel         
according to the ,hebrews1 are said not 
to have had the narrative of the first  
two chapters at all17#d7 and there is   
much more than doubt as to their        
originality4 ,the mere omission of the  
history of  #aca  the infancy1 c41 from 
,mark1 however1 renders it unnecessary  
to show that the absence of these       
chapters from ,marcion's ,gospel has the
 strongest support and justification4   
,now ,luke's account of the early events
 and geography of the ,gospel history is
 briefly as follows3 ,nazareth is the   
permanent dwelling-place of ,joseph and 
,mary17#a7 but on account of the census 
they travel to ,bethlehem1 where ,jesus 
is born27#b7 and after visiting         
,jerusalem to present him at the        
,temple17#c7 they return to their own   
city ,nazareth47#d7 ,after the baptism  

and temptation ,jesus comes to ,nazareth
 where he had been brought up17#e7 and  
in the course of his address to the     
people he says3 ,ye will surely say unto
 me this proverb3 ,physician heal       
thyself3 whatsoever we have heard done  
in ,capernaum do also here in thy       
country47#f7 ,no mention1 however1 has  
before this been made of ,capernaum1 and
 no account has been given of any works 
done there2 but1 on the contrary1 after 
escaping from the angry mob at          
,nazareth1 ,jesus goes for the first    
time to ,capernaum1 which1 on being thus
 first mentioned1 is particularized as a
 city of ,galilee17#g7 where he heals a 
man who had an unclean spirit1 in the   
synagogue1 who addresses him as ,jesus  
of ,nazareth27#h7 and the fame of him   
goes throughout the country47#i7 ,he    
cures ,simon's wife's mother of a       
fever7#aj7 and when the sun is set they 
bring the sick and he heals them47#aa7  
,the account in ,matthew contradicts    
this in many points1 some of which had  

better be indicated here4 ,jesus is born
 in ,bethlehem1 which is the ordinary   
#acb  dwelling-place of the family27#a7 
his parents fly thence with him into    
,egypt17#b7 and on their return1 they   
dwell in a city called ,nazareth2 that  
it might be fulfilled which was spoken  
by the prophets3 ,he shall be called a  
,nazarene47#c7 ,after ,john's           
imprisonment1 ,jesus leaves ,nazareth1  
and goes to dwell in ,capernaum47#d7    
,from that time he begins to preach47#e7
 ,here then1 he commences his public    
career in ,capernaum4  ,in ,mark1 ,jesus
 comes from ,nazareth to be             
baptized17#f7 and after the imprisonment
 of ,john1 he comes into ,galilee       
preaching47#g7 ,in ,capernaum1 he heals 
the man of the unclean spirit1 and      
,simon's wife's mother17#h7 and then    
retires to a solitary place17#i7 returns
 after some days to ,capernaum7#aj7     
without going to ,nazareth at all1 and  
it is only at a later period that he    
comes to his own country1 and quotes the

 proverb regarding a prophet47#aa7  ,it 
is evident from this comparison1 that   
there is very considerable difference   
between the three ,synoptics1 regarding 
the outset of the career of ,jesus1 and 
that there must have been decided       
elasticity in the tradition1 and variety
 in the early written accounts of this  
part of the ,gospel narrative4 ,luke    
alone commits the error of making ,jesus
 appear in the synagogue at ,nazareth1  
and refer to works wrought at           
,capernaum1 before any mention had been 
made of his having preached or worked   
wonders there to justify the allusions  
#c  ii4 #cc4 ,we need not pause here to 
point out that there      is no such    
prophecy known in the ,old ,testament4  
,the      reference may very probably bo
 a singularly mistaken      application 
of the word in ,isaiah xi4 #a1 the      
,hebrew word for      branch being ---- 
,nazer4  #acc  and the consequent       
agitation4 ,it is obvious that there has
 been confusion in the arrangement of   

the third ,synoptic and a transposition 
of the episodes1 clearly pointing to a  
combination of passages from other      
sources47#a7 ,now ,marcion's ,gospel did
 not contain these anomalies4 ,it       
represented ,jesus as first appearing in
 ,capernaum1 teaching in the synagogue1 
and performing mighty works there1 and  
then going to ,nazareth1 and addressing 
the people with the natural reference to
 the previous events at ,capernaum1 and 
in this it is not only more consecutive1
 but also adheres more closely to the   
other two ,synoptics4 ,that ,luke       
happens to be the only one of our       
canonical ,gospels1 which has the words 
with which ,marcion's ,gospel commences1
 is no proof that these words were      
original in that work1 and not found in 
several of the writings which existed   
before the third ,synoptic was compiled4
 ,indeed1 the close relationship between
 the first three ,gospels is standing   
testimony to the fact that one ,gospel  
was built upon the basis of others      

previously existing4 ,this which has    
been called the chief prop of the       
mutilation hypothesis17#b7 has really no
 solid ground to stand on beyond the    
accident that only one of three ,gospels
 survives out of many which may have had
 the phrase4 ,the fact that ,marcion's  
,gospel really had the words of ,luke1  
moreover1 is mere conjecture1 inasmuch  
as ,epiphanius1 who alone gives the     
,greek1 shows a distinct variation of   
reading4 ,he has3 ------       #a ,cf4  
,luke iv4 #bc2 ,matt4 viii4 #ed2 ,mark  
vi4 #a--f4 ,we do not      go into the  
question as to the sufficiency of the   
motives      ascribed for the agitation 
at ,nazareth1 or the contradiction      
between the facts narrated as to the    
attempt to kill ,jesus1      and the    
statement of their wonder at his        
gracious words1 v4      #bb1 o4 ,there  
is no evidence where the various        
discrepancies      arose1 and no certain
 conclusions can be based upon such     
arguments4  #acd  ------47#a7 ,luke     

reads3 ------4 ,we do not of course lay 
much stress upon this1 but the fact that
 there is a variation should be noticed4
 ,critics quietly assume1 because there 
is a difference1 that ,epiphanius has   
abbreviated1 but that is by no means    
sure4 ,in any case1 instances could be  
multiplied to show that if one of our   
,synoptic ,gospels were lost1 one of the
 survivors would in this manner have    
credit for passages which it had in     
reality either derived from the lost    
,gospel1 or with it drawn from a common 
original source4  ,now starting from the
 undeniable fact that the ,synoptic     
,gospels are in no case purely original 
independent works1 but are based upon   
older writings1 or upon each other1 each
 ,gospel remodelling and adding to      
already existing materials1 as the      
author of the third ,gospel1 indeed1    
very frankly and distinctly             
indicates17#b7 it seems a bold thing to 
affirm that ,marcion's ,gospel must     
necessarily have been derived from the  

latter4 ,ewald has made a minute        
analysis of the ,synoptics assigning the
 materials of each to what he considers 
their original source4 ,we do not of    
course attach any very specific         
importance to such results1 for it is   
clear that they must to a great extent  
be arbitrary and incapable of proof1 but
 being effected without any reference to
 the question before us1 it may be      
interesting to compare ,ewald's         
conclusions regarding the parallel part 
of ,luke1 with the first chapter of     
,marcion's ,gospel4 ,ewald details the  
materials from which our ,synoptic      
,gospels       #b  ,luke i4 #a--d4 ,he  
professes to write in order the things  
in which ,theophilus had already been   
instructed1 not to tell      something  
new1 but merely that he might know the  
certainty      thereof4  #ace  were     
derived1 and the order of their         
composition as follows1 each ,synoptic  
of course making use of the earlier     
materials3 ,i4 the oldest ,gospel4 ,,ii4

 the collection of ,discourses          
7,spruchsammlung74 ,,iii4 ,mark4 ,,iv4  
the ,book of earlier ,history4 ,v4 our  
present ,matthew4 ,,vi4 the sixth       
recognizable book4 ,,vii4 the seventh   
book4 ,,viii4 the eighth book2 and ,,ix4
 ,luke47#a7 ,now the only part of our   
third canonical ,gospel corresponding   
with any part of the first chapter of   
,marcion's ,gospel which ,ewald ascribes
 to the author of our actual ,luke is   
the opening date47#b7 ,the passage to   
which the few opening words are joined1 
and which constitute the commencement of
 ,marcion's ,gospel1 ,luke iv4 #ca--ci1 
is a section commencing with verse #ca1 
and extending to the end of the chapter1
 thereby including verses #dj--dd1 which
 ,ewald assigns to ,mark47#c7 ,verses   
#af--bd1 which immediately follow1 also 
form a complete and isolated passage    
assigned by ,ewald1 to the sixth        
recognizable book47#d7 ,verses #be--bg1 
also are the whole       #b ,the verses 
iv4 #ad--ae1 which4 ,volkmar wished to  

include1      but which all other       
critics reject 7see p4 #abh1 note #g71  
from ,marcion's text1 ,ewald likewise   
identifies as an      isolated couple of
 verses by the author of our ,luke      
inserted      between episodes derived  
from other written sources4 ,cf4        
,ewald1 #a4 c4  #acf  of another        
isolated section attributed by ,ewald1  
to the ,book of earlier history1 whilst 
#bh--cj1 in like manner form another    
complete and isolated episode1 assigned 
by him to the eighth recognizable       
book47#a7 ,according to ,ewald1         
therefore1 ,luke's ,gospel at this place
 is a mere patchwork of older writings1 
and if this be in any degree accepted1  
as in the abstract1 indeed1 it is by the
 great mass of critics1 then the ,gospel
 of ,marcion might be an arrangement    
different from ,luke of materials not   
his1 but previously existing1 and of    
which1 therefore1 there is no warrant to
 limit the use and reproduction to the  
canonical ,gospel4  ,the course pursued 

by critics1 with regard to ,marcion's   
,gospel1 is necessarily very            
unsatisfactory4 ,they commence with a   
definite hypothesis1 and try whether all
 the peculiarities of the text may not  
be more or less well explained by it4   
,on the other hand1 the attempt to      
settle the question by a comparison of  
the reconstructed text with ,luke's is  
equally inconclusive4 ,the determination
 of priority of composition from        
internal evidence1 where there are no   
chronological references1 must as a     
general rule be arbitrary1 and can      
rarely be accepted as final4 ,internal  
evidence would1 indeed1 decidedly favour
 the priority of ,marcion's ,gospel4    
,the great uncertainty of the whole     
system1 even when applied under the most
 favourable circumstances1 is well      
illustrated by the contradictory results
 at which critics have arrived as to the
 order of production and dependence on  
each other of our three ,synoptics4     
,without going into details1 we may say 

that critics who are all agreed upon the
 mutual dependence of those ,gospels    
have variously arranged them in the     
following order3 ,i4 ,matthew--  #acg   
,mark--,luke47#a7 ,,ii4                 
,matthew--,luke--,mark47#c7 ,,iii4      
,mark--,matthew--,luke47#c7 ,,iv4       
,mark--,luke--,matthew47#d7 ,v4         
,luke--,matthew--,mark47#e7 ,,vi4 ,all  
three out of common written sources47#f7
 ,were we to state the various theories 
still more in detail1 we might largely  
increase the variety of conclusions4    
,these1 however1 suffice to show the    
uncertainty of results derived from     
internal evidence4 ,it is always assumed
 that ,marcion altered a ,gospel to suit
 his own particular system1 but as one  
of his most orthodox critics1 while     
asserting that ,luke's narrative lay at 
the basis of his ,gospel1 admits3 it is 
not equally clear that all the changes  
were due to ,marcion himself27#g7 and1  
although he considers that some of the  
omissions can be explained by his       

peculiar doctrines1 he continues3 others
 are unlike arbitrary corrections1 and  
must be considered as various readings  
of the greatest interest1 dating as they
 do from a time anterior to all       #a
 ,of course we only pretend to indicate 
a few of the critics      who adopt each
 order4 ,so ,bengel1 ,bolton1 ,ebrard1  
,grotius1      ,hengstenberg1 ,hug1     
,hilgenfeld1 ,holtzmann1 ,mill1 ,seiler1
      ,townson1 ,wetstein4       #b ,so 
,ammon1 ,baur1 ,bleek1 ,delitzsch1      
,fritzsche1 ,gfrorer1      ,griesbach1  
,kern1 ,eostlin1 ,neudecker1 ,saunier1  
,schwarz1      ,schwegler1 ,sieffert1   
,stroth1 ,theilo1 ,owon1 ,paulus1 ,de   
,wette4       #c ,so ,credner1 ,ewald1  
,hitzig1 ,lachmann1 787 ,xteuss1        
,bitschl1      ,meyer1 ,storr1          
,thiersch4       #d ,b4 ,bauer1 ,hitzig 
787 ,schnockonburger1 ,volkmar1 ,weisse1
      ,wilke4       #e ,busching1       
,eyanson4       #f  ,bortholdt1 ,le     
,clerc1 ,corrodi1 ,eichhorn1 ,gratz1    
,hanlein1      ,koppe1 ,kuinoel1        

,leasing1 ,marsh1 ,michaelis1 ,niemeyer1
 ,semler1      ,schleiermacher1         
,schmidt1 ,weber4 ,this view was partly 
shared      by many of those mentioned  
under other orders4  #ach  other        
authorities in our possession47#a7 ,now1
 undoubtedly1 the more developed forms  
of the ,gospel narrative were the result
 of additions1 materially influenced by 
dogmatic and other reasons1 made to     
earlier and more fragmentary works1 but 
it is an argument contrary to general   
critical experience to affirm that a    
,gospel1 the distinguishing             
characteristic of which is greater      
brevity1 was produced by omissions in   
the interest of a system from a longer  
work4  ,in the earlier editions of this 
work1 we contended that the theory that 
,marcion's ,gospel was a mutilated form 
of our third ,synoptic had not been     
established1 and that more probably it  
was an earlier work1 from which our     
,gospel might have been elaborated4 ,we 
leave the statement of the case1 so far1

 nearly in its former shape1 in order   
that the true nature of the problem and 
the varying results and gradual         
development of critical opinion may be  
better understood4 ,since the sixth     
edition of this work was completed1     
however1 a very able examination of     
,marcion's ,gospel has been made by ,dr4
 ,sanday17#b7 which has convinced us    
that our earlier hypothesis is          
untenable1 that the portions of our     
third ,synoptic excluded from ,marcion's
 ,gospel were really written by the same
 pen which composed the mass of the work
 and1 consequently1 that our third      
,synoptic existed in his time1 and was  
substantially in the hands of ,marcion4 
,this conviction is mainly the result of
 the linguistic analysis1 sufficiently  
indicated by ,dr4 ,sanday and1 since1   
exhaustively carried out for ourselves4 
,we still consider the argument based   
upon the mere dogmatic views of         
,marcion1 which has hitherto been almost
  #aci  exclusively relied on1 quite    

inconclusive by itself1 but the         
linguistic test1 applied practically for
 the first time in this controversy by  
,dr4 ,sanday1 must1 we think1 prove     
irresistible to all who are familiar    
with the comparatively limited          
vocabulary of ,new ,testament writers4  
,throughout the omitted sections1       
peculiarities of language and expression
 abound which clearly distinguish the   
general composer of the third ,gospel1  
and it is1 consequently1 not possible   
reasonably to maintain that these       
sections are additions subsequently made
 by a different hand1 which seems to be 
the only legitimate course open to those
 who would deny that ,marcion's ,gospel 
originally contained them4  ,here1 then1
 we find evidence of the existence of   
our third ,synoptic about the year #adj1
 and it may of course be inferred that  
it must have been composed at least some
 time before that date4 ,it is          
important1 however1 to estimate aright  
the facts actually before us and the    

deductions which may be drawn from them4
 ,the testimony of ,marcion does not    
throw any light upon the authorship or  
origin of the ,gospel of which he made  
use4 ,its superscription was simply3    
,the ,gospel1 or1 ,the ,gospel of the   
,lord ------17#a7 and no author's name  
was attached to it4 ,the ,heresiarch did
 not pretend to have written it himself1
 nor did he ascribe it to any other     
person4 ,tertullian1 in fact1 reproaches
 him with its anonymity4 ,and here  #aaj
  already ,i might make a stand1 he says
 at the very opening of his attack on   
,marcion's ,gospel1 contending that a   
work should not be recognized which does
 not hold its front erect444 which does 
not give a pledge of its trustworthiness
 by the fulness of its title1 and the   
due declaration of its author47#a7 ,not 
only did ,marcion himself not in any way
 connect the name of ,luke with his     
,gospel1 but his followers repudiated   
the idea that ,luke was its author47#b7 
,in establishing the substantial        

identity of ,marcion's ,gospel and our  
third ,synoptic1 therefore1 no advance  
is made towards establishing the        
authorship of ,luke4 ,the ,gospel       
remains anonymous still4 ,on the other  
hand we ascertain the important fact    
that1 so far from its having any        
authoritative or infallible character at
 that time1 ,marcion regarded our       
,synoptic as a work perverted by ,jewish
 influences1 and requiring to be freely 
expurgated in the interests of          
truth47#c7 ,amended by very considerable
 omissions and alterations1 ,marcion    
certainly held it in high respect as a  
record of the teaching of ,jesus1 but   
beyond this circumstance1 and the mere  
fact of its existence in his day1 we    
learn nothing from the evidence of      
,marcion4 ,it can scarcely be maintained
 that this does much to authenticate the
 third ,synoptic as a record of miracles
 and a witness for the reality of       
,divine ,revelation4  #ada  ,there is no
 evidence whatever that ,marcion had any

 knowledge of the other canonical       
,gospels in any form47#a7 ,none of his  
writings are extant1 and no direct      
assertion is made even by the ,fathers  
that he knew them1 although from their  
dogmatic point of view they assume that 
these ,gospels existed from the very    
first1 and therefore insinuate that as  
he only recognized one ,gospel1 he      
rejected the rest47#b7 ,when ,irenaeus  
says3 ,he persuaded his disciples that  
he himself was more veracious than were 
the apostles who handed down the        
,gospel1 though he delivered to them not
 the ,gospel1 but part of the           
,gospel17#c7 it is quite clear that he  
speaks of the ,gospel--the good         
tidings--,christianity--and not of      
specific written ,gospels4 ,in another  
passage which is referred to by         
,apologists1 ,irenaeus says of the      
,marcionites that they have asserted3   
,that even the apostles proclaimed the  
,gospel still under the influence of    
,jewish sentiments2 but that they       

themselves are more sound and more      
judicious than the apostles4 ,wherefore 
also ,marcion and his followers have had
 recourse to mutilating the ,scriptures1
 not recognizing some books at all1 but 
curtailing the ,gospel according to     
,luke and the ,epistles of ,paul2 these 
they say are alone authentic which they 
themselves have abbreviated47#d7  #adb  
,these remarks chiefly refer to the     
followers of ,marcion1 and as we have   
shown1 when treating of ,valentinus1    
,irenaeus is expressly writing against  
members of heretical sects living in his
 own day and not of the founders of     
those sects47#a7 ,the ,marcionites of   
the time of ,irenaeus no doubt          
deliberately rejected the ,gospels1 but 
it does1 not by any means follow that   
,marcion himself knew anything of them4 
,as yet we have not met with any        
evidence even of their existence4  ,the 
evidence of ,tertullian is not a whit   
more valuable4 ,in the passage usually  
cited1 he says3 ,but ,marcion1 lighting 

upon the ,epistle of ,paul to the       
,gaia-tians1 in which he reproaches even
 ,apostles for not walking uprightly    
according to the truth of the ,gospel1  
as well as accuses certain false        
,apostles of perverting the ,gospel of  
,christ1 tries with all his might to    
destroy the status of those ,gospels    
which are put forth as genuine and under
 the name of ,apostles or at least of   
contemporaries of the ,apostles1 in     
order1 be it known1 to confer upon his  
own the credit which he takes from      
them47#b7 ,now here again it is clear   
that ,tertullian is simply applying1 by 
inference1 ,marcion's views with regard 
to the preaching of the ,gospel by the  
two parties in the ,church1 represented 
by the ,apostle ,paul and the pillar    
,apostles whose leaning to ,jewish      
doctrines he condemned1 to the written  
,gospels recognized in his day though   
not in ,marcion's4 ,it is uncertain1    
says even ,canon ,westcott1  #adc       
whether ,tertullian in the passage      

quoted speaks from a knowledge of what  
,marcion may have written on the        
subject1 or simply from his own point of
 sight47#a7 ,any doubt is1 however1     
removed on examining the context1 for   
,tertullian proceeds to argue that if   
,paul censured ,peter1 ,john and ,james1
 it was for changing their company from 
respect of persons1 and similarly1 if   
false apostles crept in1 they betrayed  
their character by insisting on ,jewish 
observances4 ,so that it was not on     
account of their preaching1 but of their
 conversation that they were pointed out
 by ,paul17#b7 and he goes on to argue  
that if ,marcion thus accuses ,apostles 
of having depraved the ,gospel by their 
dissimulation1 he accuses ,christ in    
accusing those whom ,christ             
selected47#c7 ,it is palpable1          
therefore1 that ,marcion1 in whatever he
 may have written1 referred to the      
preaching of the ,gospel1 or            
,christianity1 by ,apostles who retained
 their ,jewish prejudices in favour of  

circumcision and legal observances1 and 
not to written ,gospels4 ,tertullian    
merely assumes1 with his usual audacity1
 that the ,church had the four ,gospels 
from the very first1 and therefore that 
,marcion1 who had only one ,gospel1 knew
 the others and deliberately rejected   
them4  #add     ,,chapter ,,viii4       
,,tatian--,,dionysius ,,of ,,corinth    
,from ,marcion we now turn to ,tatian1  
another so-called heretic leader4       
,tatian1 an ,assyrian by birth17#a7     
embraced ,christianity and became a     
disciple of ,justin ,martyr7#b7 in      
,rome1 sharing with him1 as it seems1   
the persecution excited by ,crescens the
 ,cynic7#c7 to which ,justin fell a     
victim4 ,after the death of ,justin1    
,tatian1 who till then had continued    
thoroughly orthodox1 left ,rome1 and    
joined the sect of the ,encratites1 of  
which1 however1 he was not the          
founder17#d7 and became the leading     
exponent of their austere and ascetic   
doctrines47#e7  ,the only one of his    

writings which is still extant is his   
,oration to the ,greeks------4 ,this    
work was written after the death of     
,justin1 for in it he refers to that    
event17#f7 and it is generally dated    
between  #ade  a4 d4 #agj-age4 7l7      
,teschendorf does not assert that there 
is any quotation in this address taken  
from the ,synoptic ,gospels27#b7 and    
,canon ,westcott only affirms that it   
contains a clear reference to a parable 
recorded by ,st4 ,matthew1 and he       
excuses the slightness of this evidence 
by adding3 ,the absence of more explicit
 testimony to the books of the ,new     
,testament is to be accounted for by the
 style of his writing1 and not by his   
unworthy estimate of their              
importance47#c7 ,this remark is without 
foundation1 as we know nothing whatever 
with regard to ,tatian's estimate of any
 such books4  ,the supposed clear       
reference is as follows3 ,for by means  
of a certain hidden treasure ------ he  
made himself lord of all that we        

possess1 in digging for which though we 
were covered with dust1 yet we give it  
the occasion of falling into our hands  
and abiding with us47#d7 ,this is       
claimed as a reference to ,matt4 xiii4  
#dd3 ,the kingdom of heaven is like unto
 treasure hidden ------ in the field1   
which a man found and hid1 and for his  
joy he goeth and selleth all that he    
hath and buyeth that field4 ,so faint a 
similarity could not prove anything1 but
 it is evident that there are decided   
differences here4 ,were the probability 
fifty times greater than it is that     
,tatian had in his mind the parable1    
which is reported in our first ,gospel1 
nothing could be more unwarrantable than
 the deduction that he must have derived
 it from our ,matthew1 and not from any 
other of the numerous ,gospels which we 
know to have early been in circulation4 
,ewald ascribes the parable in ,matthew 
originally to the ,spruchsammlung or    
collection of ,discourses1 the second of
 the four works out of which he         

considers our first ,synoptic to have   
been compiled47#a7 ,as evidence even for
 the existence of our first canonical   
,gospel1 no such anonymous allusion     
could have the slightest value4         
,although neither ,tischendorf nor      
,canon ,westcott think it worth while to
 refer to it1 some apologists claim     
another passage in the ,oration as a    
reference to our third ,synoptic4 ,laugh
 ye3 nevertheless you shall weep47#b7   
,this is compared with ,luke vi4 #be3   
,woe unto you that laugh now3 for ye    
shall mourn and weep17#c7 ,here again1  
it is impossible to trace a reference in
 the words of ,tatian specially to our  
third ,gospel1 and manifestly nothing   
could be more foolish than to build upon
 such vague similarity any hypothesis of
 ,tatian's acquaintance with ,luke4 ,if 
there be one part of the ,gospel which  
was more known than another in the first
 ages of ,christianity1 it was the      
,sermon on the ,mount1 and there can be 
no doubt that many evangelical works now

 lost contained versions of it4 ,ewald  
likewise assigns this passage of ,luke  
originally to the ,spruchsammlung1#d and
 no one can doubt that the saying was   
recorded long before the writer of the  
third ,gospel  #adg  undertook to       
compile evangelical history1 as so many 
had done before him4  ,further on1      
however1 ,canon ,westcott says3 it can  
be gathered from ,clement of            
,alexandria444 that he 7,tatian7        
endeavoured to derive authority for his 
peculiar opinions from the ,epistles to 
the ,corinthians and ,galatians1 and    
probably from the ,epistle to the       
,ephesians1 and the ,gospel of ,st4     
,matthew47#a7 ,the allusion here is to a
 passage in the ,stromata of ,clement1  
in which reference is supposed by the   
apologist to be made to ,tatian4 ,no    
writer1 however1 is named1 and ,clement 
merely introduces his remark by the     
words3 a certain person1 ------ and then
 proceeds to give his application of the
 ,saviour's words not to treasure upon  

earth where moth and rust corrupt       
------47#b7 ,the parallel passage in    
,matthew vi4 #ai1 reads3 ,lay not up for
 yourselves treasures upon earth1 where 
moth and rust doth corrupt1 ------4     
,canon ,westcott1 it is true1 merely    
suggests that probably this may be      
ascribed to ,tatian1 but it is almost   
absolutely certain that it was not      
attributed to him by ,clement4 ,tatian  
is several times referred to in the     
course of the same chapter1 and his     
words are continued by the use of ------
 or ------1 and it is in the highest    
degree improbable that ,clement should  
introduce another quotation from him in 
such immediate context by the vague and 
distant reference a certain person      
------4 ,on the other hand reference is 
made in the chapter to       #a ,on the 
,canon1 p4 #bgi4 ,in the #dth edition   
,dr4 ,westcott has      altered the     
probably of the above sentence to       
perhaps1      and in a note has added3  
,these two last references are from     

an anonymous citation ------ which has  
been commonly      assigned to ,tatian4 
,p4 #cah1 n4 #a4  #adh  other writers   
and sects1 to one of whom with          
infinitely greater propriety this       
expression applies4 ,no weight1         
therefore1 could be attached to any such
 passage in connection with ,tatian4    
,moreover the quotation not only does   
not agree with our ,synoptic1 but may   
much more probably have been derived    
from the ,gospel according to the       
,hebrews47#a7 ,it will be remembered    
that ,justin ,martyr quotes the same    
passage1 with the same omission of      
------1 from a ,gospel different from   
our ,synoptics47#b7  ,tatian1 however1  
is claimed by apologists as a witness   
for the existence of our ,gospels--more 
than this he could not possibly         
be--principally on the ground that his  
,gospel was called by some ,diatessaron 
------ or by four1 and it is assumed to 
have been a harmony of four ,gospels4   
,the work is no longer extant and1 as we

 shall see1 our information regarding it
 is of the scantiest and most           
unsatisfactory description4 ,critics    
have arrived at very various conclusions
 with regard to the composition of the  
work4 ,some of course affirm1 with more 
or less of hesitation nevertheless1 that
 it was nothing else than a harmony of  
our four canonical ,gospels27#c7 many of
 these1 however1 are constrained to     
admit that it was also partly based upon
 the ,gospel according to the           
,hebrews47#d7 ,some maintain that it was
  #adi  a harmony of our three          
,synoptics together with the ,gospel    
according to the ,hebrews27#a7 whilst   
many deny that it was composed of our   
,gospels at all17#b7 and either declare 
it to have been a harmony of the ,gospel
 according to the ,hebrews with three   
other ,gospels whose identity cannot be 
determined1 or that it was simply the   
,gospel according to the ,hebrews       
itself17#c7 by which name1 as           
,epiphanius states1 it was called by    

some in his day47#d7  ,tatian's ,gospel1
 however1 was not only called           
,diatessaron1 but1 according to ,victor 
of ,capua1 it was also called ,diapente 
------ by five17#e7 a complication which
 shows the incorrectness of the         
ecclesiastical theory of its            
composition4  ,tischendorf1 anxious to  
date ,tatian's ,gospel as early as      
possible1 says that in all probability  
it was composed earlier than the address
 to the ,greeks47#f7 ,of this1 however1 
he does not offer any evidence1 and upon
  #aej  examination it is very evident  
that the work was1 on the contrary1     
composed or adopted after the ,oration  
and his avowal of heretical opinions4   
,theodoret states that ,tatian had in it
 omitted the genealogies and all other  
passages showing that ,christ was born  
of ,david according to the flesh1 and he
 condemned the work1 and caused it to be
 abandoned1 on account of its evil      
design47#a7 ,if the assumption be       
correct1 therefore1 as ,tischendorf     

maintains1 that ,tatian altered our     
,gospels1 and did not merely from the   
first1 like his master ,justin1 make use
 of ,gospels different from those which 
afterwards became canonical1 he must    
have composed the work after the death  
of ,justin1 up to which time he is      
stated to have remained quite           
orthodox47#b7 ,the date may with much   
greater probability be set between a4d4 
#agj--ahj47c7  ,the earliest writer who 
mentions ,tatian's ,gospel is           
,eusebius17#d7 who wrote some century   
and a half after its supposed           
composition1 without1 however1 having   
himself seen the work at all1 or being  
really acquainted with its nature and   
contents47#e7 ,eusebius says3 ,tatian1  
however1 their former chief1 having put 
together a certain amalgamation and     
collection1 ,i know not how1 of the     
,gospels1 named this the ,diatessaron1  
which even now is current with some47#f7
  #aea  ,it is clear that such hearsay  
information is not to be relied on4     

,neither ,irenaeus1 ,clement of         
,alexandria1 nor ,jerome1 who refer to  
other works of ,tatian1 make any mention
 of this one4 ,epiphanius1 however1 does
 so1 but1 like ,eusebius1 evidently     
without having himself seen it47#a7     
,this second reference to ,tatian's     
,gospel is made upwards of two centuries
 after its supposed composition4        
,epiphanius says3 ,it is said that he   
7,tatian7 composed the ,diatessaron1    
which is called by some the ,gospel     
according to the ,hebrews47#b7 ,it must 
be observed that it is not said that    
,tatian himself gave this ,gospel the   
name of ,diates-saron17#c7 but on the   
contrary the expression of ,epiphanius  
implies that he did not do so17#d7 and  
the fact that it was also called by some
 the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 
and ,diapente1 shows that the work had  
no superscription from ,tatian of a     
contradictory character4 ,theodoret1    
,bishop of ,cyrus 7#deg71 is the next   
writer who mentions ,tatian's ,gospel1  

and he is the only one who had          
personally seen it ,he says3 ,he        
7,tatian7 also composed the ,gospel     
which is called ,diatessaron1 excising  
the genealogies and all the other parts 
which declare that the ,lord was born of
 the seed of ,david according to the    
flesh4 ,this was used not only by those 
of his own sect1 but also by those who  
held the apostolic doctrines1 who did   
not perceive the evil of the            
composition1 but made use of the book in
 simplicity on account of its           
conciseness4 ,i myself found upwards of 
two hundred such books held in honour   
among our churches1 and collecting them 
all together1 ,i had them put aside and1
 instead1 introduced the ,gospels of the
 four ,evangelists4 ,again it must be   
observed that ,theodoret does not say   
that the ,gospel of ,tatian was a       
,diatessaron1 but merely that it was    
called so ------47#a7  ,after quoting   
this passage1 and that from ,epiphanius1
 ,canon ,westcott says with an assurance

 which1 considering the nature of the   
evidence1 is singular3--,not only then  
was the ,diatessaron grounded on the    
four canonical ,gospels1 but in its     
general form it was so orthodox as to   
enjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity4 
,the heretical character of the book was
 not evident upon the surface of it1 and
 consisted rather in faults of defect   
than in erroneous teaching4 ,theodoret  
had certainly examined it1 and he1 like 
earlier writers1 regarded it as a       
compilation from the four ,gospels4 ,he 
speaks of omissions which were at least 
in part natural in a ,harmony1 but      
notices no such apocryphal additions as 
would have found place in any ,gospel   
not derived from canonical sources47#b7 
,now it must be remembered that the     
evidence regarding ,tatian's ,gospel is 
of the very vaguest description4 ,it is 
not mentioned by any writer until a     
century and a half after the date of its
 supposed       #b  ,on the ,canon1 p4  
#bha4 ,in the #dth edition1 the first   

sentence in the above passage is altered
 to3 ,from this      statement it is    
clear that the ,diatessaron was so      
orthodox      as to enjoy a wide        
ecclesiastical popularity4 ,p4 #cbj4    
#aec  composition1 and then only        
referred to by ,eusebius1 who had not   
seen the work1 and candidly confesses   
his ignorance with regard to it1 so that
 a critic who is almost as orthodox as  
,canon ,westcott himself acknowledges3  
,for the truth is that we know no more  
about ,tatian's work than what          
,eusebius1 who never saw it1 knew47#a7  
,the only other writer who refers to it1
 ,epiphanius1 had not seen it either1   
and while showing that the title of     
,diatessaron had not been given to it by
 ,tatian himself1 he states the         
important fact that some called it the  
,gospel according to the ,hebrews4      
,theodoret1 the last writer who mentions
 it1 and of whom ,dr4 ,donaldson also   
says3 ,theodoret's information cannot be
 depended upon17#b7 not only does not   

say that it is based upon our four      
,gospels1 but1 on the contrary1 points  
out that ,tatian's ,gospel did not      
contain the genealogies and passages    
tracing the descent of ,jesus through   
the race of ,david1 which our ,synoptics
 possess1 and he so much condemned the  
mischievous design of the work that he  
confiscated the copies in circulation in
 his diocese as heretical4 ,canon       
,westcott's assertion that ,theodoret   
regarded it as a compilation of our four
 ,gospels is most arbitrary4 ,omissions1
 as he himself points out1 are natural  
to a ,harmony1 and conciseness certainly
 would be the last quality for which it 
could have been so highly prized1 if    
every part of the four ,gospels had been
 retained4 ,the omission of the parts   
referred to1 which are equally omitted  
from the canonical fourth ,gospel1 could
 not have been sufficient to merit the  
condemnation of the work as heretical1  
and had ,tatian's ,gospel not been      
different in various respects from our  

four ,gospels1 such summary treatment   
would have been totally  #aed           
unwarrantable4 ,the statement1 moreover1
 that in place of ,tatian's ,gospel1    
,theodoret introduced the ,gospels of   
the four ,evangelists1 seems to indicate
 that the displaced ,gospel was not a   
compilation from them1 but a            
substantially different work4 ,had this 
not been the case1 ,theodoret would     
naturally have qualified such an        
expression4  ,speaking of the difficulty
 of distinguishing ,tatian's ,harmony   
from others which must1 the writer      
supposes1 have been composed in his     
time1 ,dr4 ,donaldson points out3 ,and  
then we must remember that the ,harmony 
of ,tatian was confounded with the      
,gospel according to the ,hebrews2 and  
it is not beyond the reach of           
possibility that ,theodoret should have 
made some such mistake47#a7 ,that is to 
say1 that the only writer who refers to 
,tatian's ,gospel who professes to have 
seen the work is not only not to be     

depended on1 but may actually have      
mistaken for it the ,gospel according to
 the ,hebrews4 ,there is1 therefore1 no 
authority for saying that ,tatian's     
,gospel was a harmony of four ,gospels  
at all1 and the name ,diatessaron was   
not only not given by ,tatian himself to
 the work1 but was probably the usual   
foregone conclusion of the ,christians  
of the third and fourth centuries1 that 
everything in the shape of evangelical  
literature must be dependent on the     
,gospels adopted by the ,church4 ,those1
 however1 who called the ,gospel used by
 ,tatian the ,gospel according to the   
,hebrews must apparently have read the  
work1 and all that we know confirms     
their conclusion4 ,the ,gospel was1 in  
point of fact1 found in wide circulation
 precisely in the places in which1      
earlier1 the ,gospel according to the   
,hebrews was more particularly          
current47#b7 ,the singular  #aee  fact  
that the earliest reference to ,tatian's
 ,harmony1 is made a century and a half 

after its supposed composition1 and that
 no writer before the fifth century had 
seen the work itself1 indeed that only  
two writers before that period mention  
it at all1 receives its natural         
explanation in the conclusion that      
,tatian did not compose any ,harmony at 
all1 but simply made use of the same    
,gospel as his master ,justin ,martyr1  
namely1 the ,gospel according to the    
,hebrews17#a7 by which name his ,gospel 
had been actually called by those best  
informed4  ,although ,theodoret1 writing
 in the fifth century1 says in the usual
 arbitrary manner of early ,christian   
writers1 that ,tatian excised from his  
,gospel the genealogies and certain     
passages found in the ,synoptics1 he    
offers no explanation or proof of his   
assertion1 and the utmost that can be   
received is that ,tatian's ,gospel did  
not contain them47#c7 ,did he omit them 
or merely use a ,gospel which never     
included them8 ,the latter is the more  
probable conclusion4 ,neither ,justin's 

,gospel nor the ,gospel according to the
 ,hebrews contained the genealogies or  
references to the ,son of ,david1 and   
why1 as ,credner suggests1 should       
,tatian have taken the trouble to       
prepare a ,harmony with these omissions 
when he already found one such as he    
desired in ,justin's ,gospel8 ,tatian's 
,gospel1 like that of his master        
,justin1 or the ,gospel according to the
 ,hebrews1 was different from1 yet      
nearly related to1 our canonical        
,gospels1 and as we have already seen1  
,justin's ,gospel1 like ,tatian's1 was  
considered by many to be a harmony of   
our ,gospels47#c7 ,no  #aef  one seems  
to have seen ,tatian's ,harmony1        
probably for the very simple reason that
 there was no such work1 and the real   
,gospel used by him was that according  
to the ,hebrews1 as some distinctly and 
correctly called it4 ,the name          
,diatessaron is first heard of in a work
 of the fourth century1 when it is      
naturally given by people accustomed to 

trace every such work to our four       
,gospels1 but as we have clearly seen1  
there is not up to the time of ,tatian  
any evidence even of the existence of   
three of our ,gospels1 and much less of 
the four in a collected form4 ,here is  
an attempt to identify a supposed1 but  
not demonstrated1 harmony of ,gospels   
whose separate existence has not been   
heard of4 ,even ,dr4 ,westcott states   
that ,tatian's ,diatessaron is          
apparently the first recognition of a   
fourfold ,gospel17#a7 but1 as we have   
seen1 that recognition emanates only    
from a writer of the fourth century who 
had not seen the work of which he       
speaks4 ,no such modern ideas1 based    
upon mere foregone conclusions1 can be  
allowed to enter into a discussion      
regarding a work dating from the time of
 ,tatian47#b7  ,the fact that the work  
found by ,theodoret in his diocese was  
used by orthodox ,christians without    
#b ,dr4 ,lightfoot 7,contemp4 ,rev41    
#ahgf-gg1 p4 #aacg7 refers to      an   

apocryphal work1 ,the ,doctrine of      
,addai1 recently edited      and        
published by ,dr4 ,phillips1 in which it
 is stated that a      large multitude  
assembled daily at ,edessa for prayer   
and the      reading of the ,old        
,testament1 and the new of the          
,diatessaron4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot assumes   
that this is ,tatian's      ,gospel4    
,even if it were so1 however1 we cannot 
discover in      this any addition to   
our information regarding the           
composition of the work4 ,we have       
already the fuller      statement of    
,theodoret respecting the use of        
,tatian's work      in the churches of  
his diocese1 so that beyond an          
interesting reference1 no fresh light is
 thrown upon the      question by the   
phrase quoted4 ,but we cannot see any   
ground      for asserting that the      
,diatessaron here spoken of was         
,tatian's ,gospel4 ,on the contrary1 it 
seems perfectly clear      that the     
writer speaks only of the four ,gospels 

of the ,new      ,testament4  #aeg      
consciousness of its supposed           
heterodoxy1 is quite consistent with the
 fact that it was the ,gospel according 
to the ,hebrews1 which at one time was  
in very general use1 but later gradually
 became an object of suspicion and      
jealousy in the ,church as our canonical
 ,gospels took its place4 ,the manner in
 which ,theodoret dealt with ,tatian's  
,gospel1 or that according to the       
,hebrews1 recalls the treatment by      
,serapion of another form of the same   
work3 the ,gospel according to ,peter4  
,he found that work in circulation and  
greatly valued amongst the ,christians  
of ,rhossus1 and allowed them peaceably 
to retain it for a time1 until1 alarmed 
at the ,docetic heresy1 he more closely 
examined the ,gospel1 and discovered in 
it what he considered heretical         
matter47#a7 ,the ,gospel according to   
the ,hebrews1 which narrowly missed a   
permanent place in the ,canon of the    
,church1 might well seem orthodox to the

 simple ,christians of ,cyrus1 yet as   
different from1 though closely related  
to1 the ,canonical ,gospels1 it would   
seem heretical to their ,bishop4 ,as    
different from the ,gospels of the four 
evangelists1 it was doubtless suppressed
 by ,theodoret with perfect indifference
 as to whether it were called ,tatian's 
,gospel or the ,gospel according to the 
,hebrews4 ,it is obvious that there is  
no evidence of any value connecting     
,tatian's ,gospel with those in our     
,canon4 ,we know so little about the    
work in question1 indeed1 that as ,dr4  
,donaldson frankly admits1 we should not
 be able to identify it1 even if it did 
come down to us1 unless it told us      
something reliable about itself47#b7    
,its earlier history is enveloped in    
obscurity1 and as ,canon ,westcott      
observes3 ,the later history of the     
,diatessaron is  #aeh  involved in      
confusion47#a7 ,we have seen that in the
 sixth century it was described by      
,victor of ,capua as ,diapente1 by five1

 instead of by four4 ,it was also       
confounded with another ,harmony        
written1 not long after ,tatian's day1  
by ,ammonius of ,alexandria 7#bdc74     
,dionysius ,bar-,salibi17#b7 a writer of
 the latter half of the twelfth century1
 mentions that the ,syrian ,ephrem1     
about the middle of the fourth century1 
wrote a commentary on the ,diatessaron  
of ,tatian1 which ,diatessaron commenced
 with the opening words of the fourth   
,gospel3 ,in the beginning was the word4
 ,the statement of ,bar-,salibi1        
however1 is contradicted by ,gregory    
,bar-,hebraeus1  ,bishop of ,tagrit1 who
 says that ,ephrem ,syrus wrote his     
,commentary on the ,diatessaron of      
,ammonius1 and that this ,diatessaron   
commenced with the words of the fourth  
,gospel3 ,in the beginning was the      
word47#c7 ,the ,syrian ,ebed-,jesu      
7l#cjh7 held ,tatian and ,ammonius to be
 one and the same person2 and it is     
probable that ,dionysius mistook the    
,harmony of ,ammonius for that of       

,tatian4 ,it is not necessary further to
 follow this discussion1 for it in no   
way affects our question1 and no        
important deduction can be derived from 
it47#d7 ,we allude to the point for the 
mere sake of showing that1 up to the    
last1 we have no certain information    
throwing light on the composition of    
,tatian's ,gospel4 ,all that we do know 
of it1--what it did not contain--the    
places where it largely circulated1 and 
the name by which it was  #aei  called1 
tends to identify it with the ,gospel   
according to the ,hebrews4  ,for the    
rest1 ,tatian had no idea of a ,new     
,testament ,canon1 and evidently did not
 recognize as inspired1 any ,scriptures 
except those of the ,old ,testament47#a7
 ,it is well known that the sect of the 
,encratites made use of apocryphal      
,gospels until a much later period1 and 
rejected the authority of the ,apostle  
,paul1 and ,tatian himself is accused of
 repudiating some of the ,pauline       
,epistles1 and of altering and          

mutilating others47#b7  #b4  ,dionysius 
of ,corinth need not detain us long4    
,eusebius informs us that he was the    
author of seven ,epistles addressed to  
various ,christian communities1 and also
 of a letter to ,chrysophora1 a most    
faithful sister4 ,eusebius speaks of    
these writings as ,catholic ,epistles1  
and briefly characterizes each1 but with
 the exception of a few short fragments 
preserved by him1 none of these fruits  
of the inspired industry ------ of      
,dionysius are now extant47#c7 ,these   
fragments are all from an ,epistle said 
to have been addressed to ,soter1       
,bishop of ,rome1 and give us a clue to 
the time at which they were written4    
,the ,bishopric of ,soter is generally  
dated between a4d4 #afh--agf17d7 during 
which years the ,epistle must have been 
composed4 ,it could not have  #afj  been
 written1 however1 until after          
,dionysius became ,bishop of ,corinth in
 a4d4 #agj17a7 and it was probably      
written some years after47#b7  ,no      

quotation from1 or allusion to1 any     
writing of the ,new ,testament occurs in
 any of the fragments of the ,epistles  
still extant2 nor does ,eusebius make   
mention of any such reference in the    
,epistles which have perished4 ,as      
testimony for our ,gospels1 therefore1  
,dionysius is an absolute blank4 ,some  
expressions and statements1 however1 are
 put forward by apologists which we must
 examine4 ,in the few lines which       
,tischendorf accords to ,dionysius he   
refers to two of these4 ,the first is an
 expression used1 not by ,dionysius     
himself1 but by ,eusebius1 in speaking  
of the ,epistles to the ,churches at    
,amastris and at ,pontus4 ,eusebius says
 that ,dionysius adds some expositions  
of ,divine ,scriptures ------47#c7      
,there can be no doubt1 we think1 that  
this refers to the ,old ,testament only1
 and ,tischendorf himself does not deny 
it47#d7  ,the second passage which      
,tischendorf7#e7 points out1 and which  
he claims with some other apologists as 

evidence of the actual existence of a   
,new ,testament ,canon when ,dionysius  
wrote1 occurs in a fragment from the    
,epistle  #afa  to ,soter and the       
,romans which is preserved by ,eusebius4
 ,it is as follows3 ,for the brethren   
having requested me to write ,epistles1 
,i wrote them4 ,and the ,apostles of the
 devil have filled these with tares1    
both taking away parts and adding       
others2 for whom the woe is destined4   
,it is not surprising then if some have 
recklessly ventured to adulterate the   
,scriptures of the ,lord ------ when    
they have formed designs against these  
which are not of such importance47#a7   
,regarding this passage1 ,canon         
,westcott1 with his usual boldness1     
says3 ,it is evident that the           
',scriptures of the ,lord'--the writings
 of the ,new ,testament--were at this   
time collected1 that they were          
distinguished from other books1 that    
they were jealously guarded1 that they  
had been corrupted for heretical        

purposes47#b7 ,we have seen1 however1   
that there has not been a trace of any  
,new ,testament ,canon in the writings  
of the ,fathers before and during this  
age1 and it is not permissible to put   
such an interpretation upon the remark  
of ,dionysius4 ,dr4 ,donaldson1 with    
greater critical justice and reserve1   
remarks regarding the expression        
,scriptures of the       #b ,on the     
,canon1 p4 #aff4 ,dr4 ,westcott1 in the 
first instance1      translates the     
expression3 ------ the ,scriptures of   
the      ,new ,testament4 ,in a note to 
his fourth edition1 however1 he      is 
kind enough to explain3 ,of course it is
 not affirmed      that the collection  
here called ------ was identical with   
our ',new ,testament1' but simply that  
the phrase shows that a      collection 
of writings belonging to the ,new       
,testament      existed1 p4 #ahh1 n4 #b4
 ,such a translation1 in such a work1   
assuming as it does the whole question1 
and concealing what      is doubtful1 is

 most unwarrantable4 ,the fact is that  
not      only is there no mention of the
 ,new ,testament at all1 but      the   
words as little necessarily imply a     
collection of      writings as they do a
 collection of the ,epistles of         
,dionyaius4  #afb  ,lord3 ,it is not    
easy to settle what this term means1    
although he adds his own personal       
opinion1 but most probably it refers to 
the ,gospels as containing the sayings  
and doings of the ,lord4 ,it is not     
likely1 as ,lardner supposes1 that such 
a term would be applied to the whole of 
the ,new ,testament7#a7 ,the idea of our
 collected ,new ,testament being        
referred to is of course quite          
untenable1 and although it is open to   
argument that ,dionysius may have       
referred to evangelical works1 it is    
obvious that there are no means of      
proving the fact1 and much less that he 
referred specially to our ,gospels4 ,in 
fact1 the fragments of ,dionysius       
present no evidence whatever of the     

existence of our ,synoptics4  ,in order 
further to illustrate the               
inconclusiveness of the arguments based 
upon so vague an expression1 we may add 
that it does not of necessity apply to  
any ,gospels or works of ,christian     
history at all1 and may with perfect    
propriety have indicated the ,scriptures
 of the ,old ,testament4 ,we find       
,justin ,martyr complaining in the same 
spirit as ,dionysius1 through several   
chapters1 that the ,old ,testament      
,scriptures1 and more especially those  
relating to the ,lord1 had been         
adulterated1 that parts had been taken  
away1 and others added1 with the        
intention of destroying or weakening    
their application to ,christ47#b7       
,justin's argument throughout is1 that  
the whole of the ,old ,testament        
,scriptures refer to ,christ1 and       
,tryphon1 his antagonist1 the           
representative of ,jewish opinion1 is   
made to avow that the ,jews not only    
wait for ,christ1 but1 he adds3 ,we     

admit that all the ,scriptures which you
 have cited refer to him47#c7 ,not only1
 therefore1 were the ,scriptures of the 
,old ,testament  #afc  closely connected
 with their ,lord by the ,fathers and1  
at the date of which we are treating1   
were the only ,holy ,scriptures         
recognised1 but they made the same      
complaints which we meet with in        
,dionysius that these ,scriptures were  
adulterated by omissions and            
interpolations47#a7 ,the expression of  
,eusebius regarding expositions of      
,divine ,scriptures ------ added by     
,dionysius1 which applied to the ,old   
,testament1 tends to connect the ,old   
,testament also with this term          
,scriptures of the ,lord4  ,if the term 
,scriptures of the ,lord1 however1 be   
referred to ,gospels1 the difficulty of 
using it as evidence continues          
undiminished4 ,we have no indication of 
the particular evangelical works which  
were in the ,bishop's mind4 ,we have    
seen that other ,gospels were used by   

the ,fathers1 and in exclusive          
circulation amongst various communities1
 and even until much later times many   
works were regarded by them as divinely 
inspired which have no place in our     
,canon4 ,the ,gospel according to the   
,hebrews for instance was probably used 
by some at least of the ,apostolic      
,fathers17#b7 by pseudo-,ignatius17#c7  
,polycarp17#d7 ,papias17#e7             
,hegesippus17#f7 ,justin ,martyr17#g7   
and at least employed along with our    
,gospels by ,clement of ,alexandria1    
,origen1 and ,jerome47#h7 ,the fact that
 ,serapion1 in the third century allowed
 the ,gospel of ,peter to be used in the
 church of ,rhossus7#i7 shows at the    
same time the consideration in which it 
was held1 and the incompleteness of the 
,canonical position of the ,new         
,testament writings4 ,so does the       
circumstance       #a ,this charge is   
made with insistance  throughout the    
,clementine ,homilies4  #afd  that in   
the fifth century ,theodoret found the  

,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 or   
,tatians ,gospel1 widely circulated and 
held in honour amongst orthodox churches
 in his diocese47#a7 ,the ,pastor of    
,hermas1 which was read in the ,churches
 and nearly secured a permanent place in
 the ,canon1 was quoted as inspired by  
,irenaeus47#b7 ,the ,epistle of         
,barnabas was held in similar honour1   
and quoted as inspired by ,clement of   
,alexandria7#c7 and by ,origen17#d7 as  
was likewise the ,epistle of the ,roman 
,clement4 ,the ,apocalypse of ,peter was
 included by ,clement of ,alexandria in 
his account of the ,canonical           
,scriptures and those which are         
disputed1 such as the ,epistle of ,jude 
and the other ,catholic ,epistles17#e7  
and it stands side by side with the     
,apocalypse of ,john in the ,canon of   
,muratori1 being long after publicly    
read in the ,churches of ,palestine47#f7
 ,tischendorf indeed conjectures that a 
blank in the ,codex ,sinaiticus after   
the ,new ,testament was formerly filled 

by it4 ,justin1 ,clement of ,alexandria1
 and ,lactantius quote the ,sibylline   
books as the ,word of ,god1 and pay     
similar honour to the ,book of          
,hystaspes47#g7 ,so great indeed was the
 consideration and use of the ,sibylline
 ,books in the ,church of the second and
 third centuries1 that ,christians from 
that fact were nicknamed                
,sibyllists47#h7 ,it is unnecessary to  
multiply1 as       #g ,justin1 ,apol41  
i4 #bj1 #dd2 ,clem4 ,al41 ,strom41 vi4  
#e1 ,sec4,sec4 #db1      #dc2           
,ladantius1 ,instit4 ,div41 i4 #f1 #g1  
vii4 #ae1 #ai4 ,clement      of         
,alexandria quotes with perfect faith   
and seriousness some      apocryphal    
book1 in which1 he says1 the ,apostle   
,paul      recommends the ,hellenic     
books1 the ,sibyl and the books of      
,hystaspes1 as giving notably clear     
prophetic descriptions of      the ,son 
of ,god4    ,strom41 vi4 #e1 ,sec4 #db1 
#dc4  #afe  might so easily be done1    
these illustrations2 it is too well     

known that a vast number of ,gospels and
 similar works1 which have been excluded
 from the ,canon1 were held in the      
deepest veneration by the ,church in the
 second century1 to which the words of  
,dionysius may apply4 ,so vague and     
indefinite an expression at any rate is 
useless as evidence for the existence of
 our ,canonical ,gospels4  ,canon       
,westcott's deduction from the words of 
,dionysius1 that not only were the      
writings of the ,new ,testament already 
collected1 but that they were jealously 
guarded1 is imaginative indeed4 ,it is  
much and devoutly to be wished that they
 had been as carefully guarded as he    
supposes1 but it is well known that this
 was not the case1 and that numerous    
interpolations have been introduced into
 the text4 ,the whole history of the    
,canon and of ,christian literature in  
the second and third centuries displays 
the most deplorable carelessness and    
want of critical judgment on the part of
 the ,fathers4 ,whatever was considered 

as conducive to ,christian edification  
was blindly adopted by them1 and a vast 
number of works were launched into      
circulation and falsely ascribed to     
,apostles and others likely to secure   
for them greater consideration4 ,such   
pious fraud was rarely suspected1 still 
more rarely detected in the early ages  
of ,christianity1 and several of such   
pseudographs have secured a place in our
 ,new ,testament4 ,the words of         
,dionysius need not receive any wider   
signification than a reference to       
well-known ,epistles4 ,it is clear from 
the words attributed to the ,apostle    
,paul in #b ,thess4 ii4 #b1 iii4 #ag1   
that his ,epistles were falsified1 and  
setting aside some of those which bear  
his name in our ,canon1 spurious        
,epistles were long  #aff  ascribed to  
him1 such as the ,epistle to the        
,laodiceans and a third ,epistle to the 
,corinthians4 ,we need not do more than 
allude to the second ,epistle falsely   
bearing the name of ,clement of ,rome1  

as well as the ,clementine ,homilies and
 ,recognitions1 the ,apostolical        
,constitutions1 and the spurious letters
 of ,ignatius1 the letters and legend of
 ,abgarus quoted by ,eusebius1 and the  
,epistles1 of ,paul and ,seneca1 in     
addition to others already pointed out1 
as instances of the wholesale           
falsification of that period1 many of   
which gross forgeries were at once      
accepted as genuine by the ,fathers1 so 
slight was their critical faculty and so
 ready their credulity47#a7 ,in one case
 the ,church punished the author who1   
from mistaken zeal for the honour of the
 ,apostle ,paul1 fabricated the ,acta   
,pauli et ,theclae in his name17#b7 but 
the forged production was not the less  
made use of in the ,church4 ,there was1 
therefore1 no lack of falsification and 
adulteration of works of ,apostles and  
others of greater note than himself to  
warrant the remark of ,dionysius1       
without any forced application of it to 
our ,gospels or to a ,new ,testament    

,canon1 the existence of which there is 
nothing to substantiate1 but on the     
contrary every reason to discredit4     
,before leaving this passage we may add 
that although even ,tischendorf does    
not1 ,canon ,westcott does find in it   
references to our first ,synoptic1 and  
to the ,apocalypse4 ,the short fragment 
just quoted1 he says1 contains two      
obvious allusions1 one to the ,gospel of
 ,st ,matthew1 and one to the           
,apocalypse47#c7 ,the words3 the        
,apostles of the devil have filled these
 with tares1 are1 he supposes1       #a 
,the ,epistle of ,jude quotes as genuine
 the ,assumption of      ,moses1 and    
also the ,book of ,enoch1 and the       
defence of the      authenticity of the 
latter by ,tertullian 7de ,cultu fem41  
i4      #c7 will not be forgotten4  #afg
  an allusion to ,matt4 xiii4 #bd ff4   
,but even if the expression were an echo
 of the ,parable of the ,wheat and      
,tares1 it is not permissible to refer  
it in this arbitrary way to our first   

,gospel1 to the exclusion of the        
numerous other works which existed1 many
 of which doubtless contained it        
,obviously the words have no evidential 
value4  ,continuing his previous        
assertions1 however1 ,canon ,westcott   
affirms with equal boldness3 ,the       
allusion in the last clause--to the     
,scriptures of the ,lord--will be clear 
when it is remembered that ,dionysius   
'warred against the heresy of ,marcion  
and defended the rule of truth '        
------47#a7 ,tischendorf1 who is ready  
enough to strain every expression into  
evidence1 recognizes too well that this 
is not capable of such an               
interpretation4 ,dr4 ,westcott omits to 
mention that the words1 moreover1 are   
not used by ,dionysius at all1 but      
simply proceed from ,eusebius47#b7 ,dr4 
,donaldson distinctly states the fact   
that1 there is no reference to the      
,bible in the words of ,eusebius3 he    
defends the rule of the truth 7#c7      
------4  ,there is only one other point 

to mention4 ,canon ,westcott refers to  
the passage in the ,epistle of          
,dionysius1 which has already been      
quoted in this work regarding the       
reading of ,christian writings in       
churches4 ,today1 he writes to ,soter1  
we have kept the ,lord's holy day1 in   
which we have read your ,epistle1 from  
the reading of which we shall ever      
derive admonition1 as we do from the    
former one written to us by             
,clement47#d7 ,it is evident that there 
was no idea1 in selecting the works to  
be read at the weekly assembly of       
,christians1 of any  #afh  ,canon of a  
,new ,testament4 ,we here learn that the
 ,epistles of ,clement and of ,soter    
were habitually read1 and while we hear 
of this1 and of the similar reading of  
,justin's ,memoirs of the ,apostles17#a7
 of the ,pastor of ,hermas17#b7 of the  
,apocalypse of ,peter17#c7 and other    
apocryphal works1 we do not at the same 
time hear of the public reading of our  
,gospels4  #afi     ,,chapter ,,ix4     

,,melito ,,of ,,sardis--,,claudius      
,,apollinaris--,,athenagoras--,,the     
,,epistle ,,of ,,vienne ,,and ,,lyons4  
,we might here altogether have passed   
over ,melito1 ,bishop of ,sardis in     
,lydia1 had it not been for the use of  
certain fragments of his writings made  
by ,canon ,westcott4 ,melito1 naturally1
 is not cited by ,tischendorf at all1   
but the ,english ,apologist1 with       
greater zeal1 we think1 than critical   
discretion1 forces him into service as  
evidence for the ,gospels and a ,new    
,testament ,canon4 ,the date of ,melito1
 it is generally agreed1 falls after    
a4d4 #agf1 a phrase in his apology      
presented to ,marcus ,antoninus         
preserved in ,eusebius7l7 ------        
indicating that ,commodus had already   
been admitted to a share of the         
,government47#c7  ,canon ,westcott      
affirms that1 in a fragment preserved by
 ,eusebius1 ,melito speaks of the books 
of the ,new ,testament in a collected   
form4 ,he says3 ,the words of ,melito on

 the other hand are simple and casual1  
and yet their meaning can scarcely be   
mistaken4 ,he writes to ,onesimus1 a    
fellow-,christian who had urged him 'to 
#agj  make selections for him from the  
,law and the ,prophets concerning the   
,saviour and the faith generally1 and   
furthermore desired to learn the        
accurate account of the ,old ------     
,books2' 'having gone therefore to the  
,east1' ,melito says1 'and reached the  
spot where each thing was preached and  
done1 and having learned accurately the 
,books of the ,old ,testament1 ,i have  
sent a list of them4' ,the mention of   
'the ,old ,books'--'the ,books of the   
,old ,testament1' naturally implies a   
definite ,new ,testament1 a written     
antitype to the ,old2 and the form of   
language implies a familiar recognition 
of its contents47#a7 ,this is truly     
astonishing6 ,the form of language can  
only refer to the words3 concerning the 
,saviour and the faith generally1 which 
must have an amazing fulness of meaning 

to convey to ,canon ,west-cott the      
implication of a familiar recognition of
 the contents of a supposed already     
collected ,new ,testament1 seeing that a
 simple ,christian1 not to say a        
,bishop1 might at least know of a       
,saviour and the faith generally from   
the oral preaching of the ,gospel1 from 
a single ,epistle of ,paul1 or from any 
of the ------ of ,luke4 ,this reasoning 
forms a worthy pendant to his argument  
that because ,melito speaks of the books
 of the ,old ,testament he implies the  
existence of a definite collected ,new  
,testament4 ,such an assertion is       
calculated to mislead a large class of  
readers47#b7  ,the fragment of ,melito  
is as follows3 ,melito to his       #a  
,on the ,canon1 p4 #aic4 ,in the fourth 
edition ,dr4 ,westcott      omits the   
last phrase1 making a full stop at ,old4
 p4 #bah4       #b ,it must be said1    
however1 that ,canon ,westcott merely   
follows and exaggerates ,lardner1 here1 
who says3 ,from this      passage ,i    

would conclude that there was then also 
a volume      or collection of books    
called the ,new ,testament1 containing  
the writings of ,apostles and           
,apostolical men1 but we cannot         
from hence infer the names or the exact 
number of those      books4             
,credibility1 c41 ,works1 ii4 p4 #adh4  
#aga  brother ,onesimus1 greeting4 ,as  
thou hast frequently desired in thy zeal
 for the word ------ to have extracts   
made for thee1 both from the law and the
 prophets concerning the ,saviour and   
our whole faith2 nay1 more1 hast wished 
to learn the exact statement of the old 
books ------1 how many they are and what
 is their order1 ,i have earnestly      
endeavoured to accomplish this1 knowing 
thy zeal concerning the faith1 and thy  
desire to be informed concerning the    
word ------1 and especially that thou   
preferrest these matters to all others  
from love towards ,god1 striving to gain
 eternal salvation4 ,having1 therefore1 
gone to the ,east1 and reached the place

 where this was preached and done1 and  
having accurately ascertained the books 
of the ,old ,testament ------1 ,i have1 
subjoined1 sent a list of them unto     
thee1 of which these are the names--then
 follows a list of the books of the ,old
 ,testament1 omitting1 however1 ,esther4
 ,he then concludes with the words3 ,of 
these ,i have made the extracts dividing
 them into six books47#a7  ,canon       
,westcott's assertion that the          
expression ,old ,books1 ,books of the   
,old ,testament1 involves here by       
antithesis a definite written ,new      
,testament1 requires us to say a few    
words as to the name of ,testament as   
applied to both divisions of the ,bible4
 ,it is of course well known that this  
word came into use originally from the  
translation of the ,hebrew word covenant
 ------1 or compact made between ,god   
and the ,israelites17#b7 in the         
,septuagint version1 by the ,greek word 
------1 which in a legal sense also     
means a will or ,testament17#c7 and that

 word is adopted throughout the ,new    
#b  ,the legal sense of ------ as a     
,will or ,testament is      distinctly  
intended in ,heb4 ix4 #af4 ,for where a 
,testament      ------ is1 there must   
also of necessity be the death of       
the testator ------4 ,the same word     
------ is employed      throughout the  
whole passage4 ,heb4 ix4 #ae--bj4  #agb 
,testament47l7 ,the ,vulgate            
translation1 instead of retaining the   
original ,hebrew signification1         
translated the word in the ,gospels and 
,epistles1 ,testamentum and ------      
became ,vetus ,testamentum instead of   
,vetus ,foedus and whenever the word    
occurs in the ,english version it is    
almost invariably rendered ,testament   
instead of covenant4 ,the expression    
,book of the ,covenant1 or ,testament1  
------1 frequently occurs in the ,,lxx  
version of the ,old ,testament and its  
,apocrypha17#b7 and in ,jeremiah xxxi4  
#ca-cd17c7 the prophet speaks of making 
a new covenant ------ with the house of 

,israel1 which is indeed quoted in      
,hebrews viii4 #h4 ,it is the doctrinal 
idea of the new covenant1 through       
,christ confirming the former one made  
to the ,israelites1 which has led to the
 distinction of the ,old and ,new       
,testaments4 ,generally the ,old        
,testament was1 in the first ages of    
,christianity1 indicated by the simple  
expressions ,the ,books ------1 ,holy   
,scriptures ------17#e7 or ,the         
,scriptures ------17#f7 but the         
preparation for the distinction of ,old 
,testament began very early in the      
development of the doctrinal idea of the
 ,new ,testament of ,christ1 before     
there was any part of the ,new          
,testament books written at all4 ,the   
expression ,new ,testament1 derived thus
  #agc  antithetically from the ,old    
,testament1 occurs constantly throughout
 the second part of the ,bible4 ,in the 
,epistle to the ,hebrews viii4 #f-ac1   
the ,mosaic dispensation is contrasted  
with the ,christian1 and ,jesus is      

called the ,mediator of a better        
,testament ------47#a7 ,the first       
,testament not being faultless1 is      
replaced by the second1 and the writer  
quotes the passage from ,jeremiah to    
which we have referred regarding a ,new 
,testament1 winding up his argument with
 the words1 v4 #ac3 ,in that he saith a 
new 7,testament7 he hath made the first 
old4 ,again1 in our first ,gospel1      
during the ,last ,supper1 ,jesus is     
represented as saying3 ,this is my blood
 of the ,new ,testament ------27#b7 and 
in ,luke he says3 ,this cup is the ,new 
,testament ------ in my blood47#c7      
,there is1 therefore1 a very distinct   
reference made to the two ,testaments as
 ,new and ,old1 and in speaking of the  
books of the ,law and the ,prophets as  
the ,old ,books and ,books of the old   
,testament1 after the general acceptance
 of the ,gospel of ,jesus as the ,new   
,testament or ,covenant1 there was no   
antithetical implication whatever of a  
written ,new ,testament1 but a mere     

reference to the doctrinal idea4 ,we    
might multiply illustrations showing how
 ever-present to the mind of the early  
,church was the contrast of the ,mosaic 
and ,christian ,covenants as ,old and   
,new4 ,two more we may venture to point 
out4 ,in ,romans ix4 #d1 and ,gal4 iv4  
#bd1 the two ,testaments or ,covenants  
------1 typified by ,sinai and the      
heavenly ,jerusalem1 are discussed1 and 
the superiority of the latter asserted4 
,there is1 however1 a passage1 still    
more clear and decisive4 ,paul says in  
#b ,corinthians iii4 #f3 ,who also      
7,god7 made us sufficient to be         
ministers of the ,new  #agd  ,testament 
------ not of the letter1 but of the    
spirit ------4 ,why does not ,canon     
,westcott boldly claim this as evidence 
of a definite written ,new ,testament1  
when not only is there reference to the 
name1 but a distinction drawn between   
the letter and the spirit of it1 from   
which an apologist might make a telling 
argument8 ,but proceeding to contrast   

the glory of the ,new with the ,old     
dispensation1 the ,apostle1 in reference
 to the veil with which ,moses covered  
his face1 says3 ,but their              
understandings were hardened3 for until 
this very day remaineth the same veil in
 the reading of the ,old ,testament     
------27l 7 and as if to make the matter
 still clearer he repeats in the next   
verse3 ,but even unto this day when     
,moses is read1 the veil lieth upon     
their heart4 ,now here the actual       
reading of the ,old ,testament ------ is
 distinctly mentioned1 and the          
expression quite as aptly as that of    
,melito1 implies a definite ,new        
,testament1 a written antitype to the   
,old1 but even ,canon ,westcott would   
not dare to suggest that1 when the      
second ,epistle to the ,corinthians was 
composed1 there was a definite written  
,new ,testament in existence4 ,this     
conclusively shows that the whole       
argument from ,melito's mention of the  
books of the ,old ,testament is         

absolutely groundless4  ,on the         
contrary1 ,canon ,westcott should know  
very well that the first general        
designation for the ,new ,testament     
collection was ,the ,gospel ------ and  
,the ,apostle ------1 for the two       
portions of the collection1 in contrast 
with the divisions of the ,old          
,testament1 the ,law and the ,prophets  
------  #age  ------17#a7 and the name  
,new ,testament occurs for the very     
first time in the third century1 when   
,tertullian called the collection of    
,christian ,scriptures ,novum           
,instrumentum and ,novum                
,testamentum47#b7 ,the term ------ is   
not1 so far as we are aware1 applied in 
the ,greek to the ,new ,testament       
collection in any earlier work than     
,origen's ,de ,principiis1 iv4 #a4 ,it  
was only in the second half of the third
 century that the double designation    
------ was generally abandoned47#c7  ,as
 to the evidence for a ,new ,testament  
,canon1 which ,dr4 ,westcott supposes he

 gains by his unfounded inference from  
,melito's expression1 we may judge of   
its value from the fact that he himself1
 like ,lardner1 admits3 ,but there is   
little evidence in the fragment of      
,melito to show what writings he would  
have included in the new collection47#d7
 ,little evidence8 ,there is none at    
all4  ,there is1 however1 one singular  
and instructive point in this fragment  
to which ,canon ,westcott does not in   
any way refer1 but which well merits    
attention as  #agf  illustrating the    
state of religious knowledge at that    
time1 and1 by analogy1 giving a glimpse 
of the difficulties which beset early   
,christian literature4 ,we are told by  
,melito that ,onesimus had frequently   
urged him to give him exact information 
as to the number and order of the books 
of the ,old ,testament1 and to have     
extracts made for him from them         
concerning the ,saviour and the faith4  
,now it is apparent that ,melito1 though
 a ,bishop1 was not able to give the    

desired information regarding the number
 and order of the books of the ,old     
,testament himself1 but that he had to  
make a journey to collect it4 ,if this  
was the extent of knowledge possessed by
 the ,bishop of ,sardis of what was to  
the ,fathers the only ,holy ,scripture1 
how ignorant his flock must have been1  
and how unfitted1 both1 to form any     
critical judgment as to the connection  
of ,christianity with the ,mosaic       
dispensation4 ,the formation of a       
,christian ,canon at a period when such 
ignorance was not only possible but     
generally prevailed1 and when the zeal  
of believers led to the composition of  
such a mass of pseudonymic and other    
literature1 in which every consideration
 of correctness and truth was           
subordinated to a childish desire for   
edification1 must have been slow indeed 
and uncertain2 and in such an age       
fortuitous circumstances must have      
mainly led to the canonization or actual
 loss of many a work4 ,so far from      

affording any evidence of the existence 
of a ,new ,testament ,canon1 the        
fragment of ,melito only shows the      
ignorance of the ,bishop of ,sardis as  
to the ,canon even of the ,old          
,testament4  ,we have not yet finished  
with ,melito in connection with ,canon  
,westcott1 however1 and it is necessary 
to follow him further in order fully to 
appreciate the nature of the evidence   
for the ,new ,testament ,canon1 which1  
in default  #agg  of better1 he is      
obliged to offer4 ,eusebius gives a list
 of the works of ,melito which have come
 to his knowledge1 and in addition to   
the fragment already quoted1 he extracts
 a brief passage from ,melito's work on 
the ,passover1 and some much longer     
quotations from his ,apology1 to which  
we have in passing referred47#a7 ,with  
these exceptions1 none of ,melito's     
writings are now extant4 ,dr4 ,cureton1 
however1 has published a ,syriac        
version1 with translation1 of a         
so-called ,oration of ,meliton1 the     

,philosopher1 who was in the presence of
 ,antoninus ,caesar1 together with five 
other fragments attributed to           
,melito47#b7 ,with regard to this       
,syriac ,oration1 ,canon ,westcott says3
 ,though if it be entire1 it is not the 
,apology with which ,eusebius was       
acquainted1 the general character of the
 writing leads to the belief that it is 
a genuine book of ,melito of            
,sardis27#c7 and he proceeds to treat it
 as authentic4 ,in the first place1 we  
have so little of ,melito's genuine     
compositions extant1 that it is         
hazardous indeed to draw any positive   
deduction from the character of the     
writing4 ,cureton1 ,bunsen1 and others  
maintain that this ,apology is not a    
fragment1 and it cannot be the work     
mentioned by ,eusebius1 for it does not 
contain the quotations from the         
authentic ,orations which he has        
preserved1 and which are considerable4  
,it is1 however1 clear from the         
substance of the composition that it    

cannot have been spoken before the      
,emperor17#d7 and1 moreover1 it has in  
no way the character of an ,apology1 for
 there is not a single word in it about 
either ,christianity or ,christians4    
,there is  #agh  every reason to believe
 that it is not a genuine work of       
,melito47#a7 ,there is no ground        
whatever for supposing that he wrote two
 ,apologies1 nor is this ascribed to him
 upon any other ground than the         
inscription of an unknown ,syriac       
writer4 ,this1 however1 is not the only 
spurious work attributed to ,melito4 ,of
 this work ,canon ,westcott says3 ,like 
other ,apologies1 this oration contains 
only indirect references to the         
,christian ,scriptures4 ,the allusions  
in it to the ,gospels are extremely     
rare1 and except so far as they show the
 influence of ,st4 ,john's writings1 of 
no special interest47#b7 ,it would have 
been more correct to have said that     
there are no allusions in it to the     
,gospels at all4  ,canon ,westcott is   

somewhat enthusiastic in speaking of    
,melito and his literary activity as    
evinced in the titles of his works      
recorded by ,eusebius1 and he quotes a  
fragment1 said to be from a treatise ,on
 ,faith1 amongst these ,syriac remains1 
and which he considers to be a very     
striking expansion of the early historic
 creed of the ,church47#c7 ,as usual1 we
 shall give the entire fragment3 ,we    
have made collections from the ,law and 
the ,prophets relative to those things  
which have been declared respecting our 
,lord ,jesus ,christ1 that we may prove 
to your love that he is perfect ,reason1
 the ,word of ,god2 who was begotten    
before the light2 who was ,creator      
together with the ,father2 who was the  
,fashioner of man2 who was all in all2  
who among the ,patriarchs was           
,patriarch2 who in the ,law was the     
,law2 among the ,priests chief ,priest2 
among ,kings ,governor2 among the       
,prophets the ,prophet2  #agi  among the
 ,angels ,archangel2 in the voice the   

,word2 among ,spirits ,spirit2 in the   
,father the ,son2 in ,god ,god the ,king
 for ever and ever4 ,for this was he who
 was ,pilot to ,noah2 who conducted     
,abraham2 who was bound with ,isaac2 who
 was in exile with ,jacob2 who was sold 
with ,joseph2 who was captain with      
,moses2 who was the ,divider of the     
inheritance with ,jesus the son of ,nun2
 who in ,david and the ,prophets        
foretold his own sufferings2 who was    
incarnate in the ,virgin2 who was born  
at ,bethlehem2 who was wrapped in       
swaddling clothes in the manger2 who was
 seen of shepherds2 who was glorified of
 angels2 who was worshipped by the      
,magi2 who was pointed out by ,john2 who
 assembled the ,apostles2 who preached  
the kingdom2 who healed the maimed2 who 
gave light to the blind2 who raised the 
dead2 who appeared in the ,temple2 who  
was not believed by the people2 who was 
betrayed by ,judas2 who was laid hold of
 by the ,priests2 who was condemned by  
,pilate2 who was pierced in the flesh2  

who was hanged upon the tree2 who was   
buried in the earth2 who rose from the  
dead2 who appeared to the ,apostles2 who
 ascended to heaven2 who sitteth on the 
right hand of the ,father2 who is the   
,rest of those who are departed2 the    
,recoverer of those who are lost2 the   
,light of those who are in darkness2 the
 ,deliverer of those who are captives2  
the ,finder of those who have gone      
astray2 the ,refuge of the afflicted2   
the ,bridegroom of the ,church2 the     
,charioteer of the ,cherubim2 the       
,captain of the ,angels2 ,god who is of 
,god2 the ,son who is of the ,father2   
,jesus ,christ1 the ,king for ever and  
ever4 ,amen47l7  #ahj  ,canon ,westcott 
commences his commentary upon this      
passage with the remark3 ,no writer     
could state the fundamental truths of   
,christianity more unhesitatingly1 or   
quote the ,scriptures of the ,old and   
,new ,testaments with more perfect      
confidence47#a7 ,we need not do more    
than remark that there is not a single  

quotation in the fragment1 and that     
there is not a single one of the        
references to ,gospel history or to     
ecclesiastical dogmas which might not   
have been derived from the ,epistles of 
,paul1 from any of the forms of the     
,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 the  
,protevangelium of ,james1 or from many 
another apocryphal ,gospel1 or the oral 
teaching of the ,church4 ,it is         
singular1 however1 that the only hint   
which ,canon ,westcott gives of the more
 than doubtful authenticity of this     
fragment consists of the introductory   
remark1 after alluding to the titles of 
his genuine and supposititious writings3
 ,of these multifarious writings very   
few fragments remain in the original    
,greek1 but the general tone of them is 
so decided in its theological character 
as to go far to establish the           
genuineness of those which are preserved
 in the ,syriac translation47#b7  ,now1 
the fragment ,on ,faith which has just  
been quoted is one of the five ,syriac  

pieces of ,dr4 ,cureton to which we have
 referred1 and which even ,apologists   
agree cannot be regarded as genuine47#c7
 ,it is well known that there were other
 writers in the early ,church bearing   
the names of ,melito and ,miletius or   
,meletius17#d7  #aha  which were        
frequently confounded4  ,of these five  
,syriac fragments one bears the         
superscription3 ,of ,meliton1 ,bishop of
 the city of ,attica1 and another1 ,of  
the holy ,meliton1 ,bishop of ,utica1   
and ,cureton himself evidently leant to 
the opinion that they are not by our    
,melito1 but by a ,meletius or          
,melitius1 ,bishop of ,sebastopolis in  
,pontus47#a7 ,the third fragment is said
 to be taken from a discourse ,on the   
,cross1 which was unknown to ,eusebius1 
and from its doctrinal peculiarities was
 probably written after his time47#b7   
,another fragment purports to be from a 
work on the ,soul and ,body2 and the    
last one from the treatise ,on ,faith1  
which we are discussing4 ,the last two  

works are mentioned by ,eusebius1 but   
these fragments1 besides coming in such 
suspicious company1 must for other      
reasons be pronounced spurious47#c7     
,they have in fact no attestation       
whatever except that of the ,syriac     
translator1 who is unknown1 and which   
therefore is worthless1 and1 on the     
other hand1 the whole style and thought 
of the fragments are unlike anything    
else of ,melito's time1 and clearly     
indicate a later stage of theological   
development47#d7 ,moreover1 in the      
,mechitarist ,library at ,venice there  
is a shorter version of the same passage
 in a ,syriac ,,ms41 and an ,armenian   
version of the extract as given above1  
with some variation of the opening      
lines1 in both of which the passage is  
distinctly ascribed to ,irenaeus47#e7   
,besides the ,oration and the five      
,syriac fragments1 we have other two    
works extant falsely attributed to      
,melito1 one1 ,de ,transitu ,virginis   
,mariae1 describing the miraculous      

presence of the ,apostles at the  #ahb  
death of ,mary27#a7 and the other1 ,de  
,actibus ,joannis ,apostoli1 relates the
 history of miracles performed by the   
,apostle ,john4 ,both are universally   
admitted to be spurious17#b7 as are a   
few other fragments also bearing his    
name4 ,melito did not escape from the   
falsification to which many of his more 
distinguished predecessors and          
contemporaries were victims1 through the
 literary activity and unscrupulous     
religious zeal of the first three or    
four centuries of our era4  #b4  ,very  
little is known regarding ,claudius     
,apollinaris to whom we must now for a  
moment turn4 ,eusebius informs us that  
he was ,bishop of ,hierapolis17#c7 and  
in this he is supported by the fragment 
of a letter of ,serapion ,bishop of     
,antioch preserved to us by him1 which  
refers to ,apollinaris as the most      
blessed47#d7 ,tischendorf1 without any  
precise date1 sets him down as          
contemporary with ,tatian and           

,theophilus 7the latter of whom1 he     
thinks1 wrote his work addressed to     
,autolycus about ,a4,d4 #ahj--aha 747#e7
 ,eusebius7#f7 mentions that1 like his  
somewhat earlier contemporary ,melito of
 ,sardis1 ,apollinaris presented an     
,apology to the ,emperor ,marcus        
,antoninus1 and he gives us further     
materials for a date7#g7 by stating that
 ,claudius ,apollinaris1 probably in his
 ,apology1 refers to       #a ,it is    
worthy of remark that the ,virgin is    
introduced into      all these fragments
 in a manner quite foreign to the period
      at which ,melito lived4       #g  
,eusebius himself sets him down in his  
,chronicle as      flourishing in the   
eleventh year of ,marcus1 or a4d4 #aga1 
a      year later than he dates ,melito4
  #ahc  the miracle of the ,thundering  
,legion1 which is said to have occurred 
during the war of ,marcus ,antoninus    
against the ,marcomanni in a4d4 #agd47a7
 ,the date of his writings may1         
therefore1 with moderation be fixed     

between a4d4 #agg--ahj47b7  ,eusebius   
and others mention various works        
composed by him17#c7 none of which1     
however1 are extant2 and we have only to
 deal with two brief fragments in       
connection with the ,paschal            
controversy1 which are ascribed to      
,apollinaris in the ,paschal ,chronicle 
of ,alexandria4 ,this controversy1 as to
 the day upon which the ,christian      
,passover should be celebrated1 broke   
out about a4d4 #agj1 and long continued 
to divide the ,church47#d7 ,in the      
preface to the ,paschal ,chronicle1 a   
work of the seventh century1 the unknown
 chronicler says3 ,now even             
,apollinaris1 the most holy ,bishop of  
,hiera-polis1 in ,asia1 who lived near  
apostolic times1 taught the like things 
in his work on the ,passover1 saying    
thus3 ',there are some1 however1 who    
through ignorance raise contentions     
regarding these matters in a way which  
#a ,eusebius1 ,h4 ,e41 v4 #e2 ,mosheim1 
,inst4 ,hist4 ,ecclee41 ,book      i4   

cent4 ii4 part4 i4 ch4 i4 ,sec4 #i4     
,apollinaris states that in             
consequence of this miracle1 the        
,emperor had bestowed upon      the     
,legion the name of the ,thundering     
,legion4 ,we cannot      here discuss   
this subject1 but the whole story       
illustrates      the rapidity with which
 a fiction is magnified into truth by   
religious zeal1 and is surrounded by    
false circumstantial      evidence4 ,cf4
 ,tertullian1 ,apol4 #e1 ad ,scapulam1  
#d2 ,dion      ,cassius1 lib4 #ee2      
,scaliyer1 ,animadv4 in ,euseb41 p4 #bbc
 f42      cf4 ,donaldson1 ,hist4 ,chr4  
,lit4 and ,doctr41 iii4 p4 #bda f4  #ahd
  should be pardoned1 for ignorance does
 not admit of accusation1 but requires  
instruction4 ,and they say that the     
,lord1 together with his disciples1 ate 
the sheep ------ on the #adth ,nisan1   
but himself suffered on the great day of
 unleavened bread4 ,and they state      
------ that ,matthew says precisely what
 they have understood2 hence their      

understanding of it is at variance with 
the law1 and according to them the      
,gospels seem to contradict each        
other4'7#a7 ,the last sentence is       
interpreted as pointing out that the    
first synoptic ,gospel is supposed to be
 at variance with our fourth ,gospel4   
,this fragment is claimed by            
,teschendorf7#b7 and others as evidence 
of the general acceptance at that time  
both of the ,synoptics and the fourth   
,gospel4 ,canon ,westcott1 with obvious 
exaggeration1 says3 ,the ,gospels are   
evidently quoted as books certainly     
known and recognized2 their authority is
 placed on the same footing as the ,old 
,testament437#c7 ,the ,gospels are      
referred to merely for the settlement of
 the historical fact as to the day on   
which the last ,passover had been eaten1
 a narrative of which they contained4   
,there are1 however1 very grave reasons 
for doubting the authenticity of the two
 fragments ascribed to  #ahe            
,apollinaris1 and we must mention that  

these doubts are much less those of     
,german critics1 who1 on the whole1     
either do not raise the question at all1
 or hastily dispose of it1 than doubts  
entertained by orthodox ,apologists1 who
 see little ground for accepting them as
 genuine47#a7 ,eusebius1 who gives a    
catalogue of the works of ,apol-linaris 
which had reached him17#b7 was evidently
 not acquainted with any writing of his 
on the ,passover4 ,it is argued1        
however1 that there is not any          
sufficient ground for doubting the      
genuineness of these fragments ',on     
,easter1' in the fact that ,eusebius    
mentions no such book by                
,apollinaris47#c7 ,it is quite true that
 ,eusebius does not pretend to give a   
complete list of these works1 but merely
 says that there are many preserved by  
many1 and that he mentions those with   
which he had met47#d7 ,at the same time1
 entering with great interest1 as he    
does1 into the ,paschal ,controversy1   
and acquainted with the principal       

writings on the subject17#e7 it would   
indeed have been strange had he not met 
with the work itself1 or at least with  
some notice of it in the works of       
others4 ,eusebius gives an account of   
the writings of ,melito and ,apollinaris
 together4 ,he was acquainted with the  
work of ,melito on the ,passover1 and   
quotes it17#f7 and it is extremely      
improbable that he could have been      
ignorant of a treatise by his           
distinguished contemporary       #c     
,westcott1 ,on the ,canon1 p4 #aih1 note
 #c2 cf4 ,baur1      ,unters4 kan4      
,evv41 p4 #cdj f4 ,this is the only     
remark which      ,dr4 ,westcott makes  
as to any doubt of the authenticity of  
these fragments4 ,tischendorf does not  
mention a doubt at      all4  #ahf  on  
the same subject1 had he actually       
written one4 ,not only1 however1 does   
,eusebius seem to know nothing of his   
having composed such a work1 but neither
 do ,theodoret17#a7 ,jerome17#b7 nor    
,photius17#c7 who refer to his writings1

 mention it2 and we cannot suppose that 
it was referred to in the lost works of 
,irenaeus or ,clement of ,alexandria on 
the ,passover4 ,eusebius1 who quotes    
from them17#d7 would in that case have  
probably mentioned the fact1 as he does 
the statement by ,clement regarding     
,melito's work1 or at least would have  
been aware of the existence of such a   
writing1 and alluded to it when speaking
 of the works of ,apollinaris4  ,this   
silence is equally significant whether  
we regard ,apollinaris as a             
,quartodeciman or as a supporter of the 
views of ,victor and the ,church of     
,rome4 ,on the one hand1 ,eusebius      
states that all the churches of         
,asia7#e7 kept the #adth ,nisan1 and it 
is difficult to believe that1 had       
,apollinaris differed from this practice
 and1 more especially1 had he written   
against it1 the name of so eminent an   
exception would not have been mentioned4
 ,the views of the ,bishop of           
,hierapolis1 as a prominent             

representative of the ,asiatic ,church1 
must have been quoted in many           
controversial works on the subject1 and 
even if the writing itself had not come 
into their hands1 ,eusebius and others  
could scarcely fail to become indirectly
 acquainted with it4 ,on the other hand1
 supposing ,apollinaris to have been a  
,quartodeciman1 whilst the ignorance of 
,eusebius and others regarding any      
contribution by him to the discussion is
 scarcely less remarkable1 it is still  
more surprising that no allusion is made
 to                             #ahg    
him by ,polycrates7#a7 when he names so 
many less distinguished men of ,asia1   
then passed away1 who kept the #adth    
,nisan1 such as ,thaseas of ,eumenia1   
,sagoris of ,laodicea1 ,papirius of     
,sardis1 and the seven ,bishops of his  
kindred1 not to mention ,polycarp of    
,smyrna and the ,apostles ,philip and   
,john4 ,he also cites ,melito of        
,sardis3 why does he not refer to       
,apollinaris of ,hierapolis8 ,if it be  

argued that he was still living1 then   
why does ,eusebius not mention him      
amongst those who protested against the 
measures of ,victor of ,rome87#b7       
,there has been much discussion as to   
the view taken by the writer of these   
fragments1 ,hilgenfeld and others7#c7   
maintaining that he is opposed to the   
,quartodeciman party4 ,into this it is  
not necessary for us to enter1 as our   
contention simply is that in no case can
 the authenticity of the fragments be   
established4 ,supposing them1 however1  
to be directed against those who kept   
the #adth ,nisan1 how can it be credited
 that this isolated convert to the views
 of ,victor and the ,roman ,church1     
could write of so vast and distinguished
 a majority of the ,churches of ,asia1  
including ,polycarp and ,melito1 as some
 who through ignorance raised           
contentions on the point1 when they     
really raised no new contention at all1 
but1 as ,polycrates represented1        
followed the tradition handed down to   

them from their ,fathers1 and authorized
 by the practice of the ,apostle ,john  
himself8  ,none of his contemporaries   
nor writers about his own time seem to  
have known that ,apollinaris wrote any  
work from which these fragments can have
 been taken1 and there is absolutely no 
independent evidence that he  #ahh  ever
 took any part in the ,paschal          
controversy at all4 ,the only ground we 
have for attributing these fragments to 
him is the ,preface to the ,paschal     
,chronicle of ,alexandria1 written by an
 unknown author of the seventh century1 
some five hundred years after the time  
of ,apollinaris1 whose testimony has    
rightly been described as worth almost  
nothing47#a7 ,most certainly many       
passages preserved by him are           
inauthentic1  and generally allowed to  
be so47#b7 ,the two fragments have by   
some been conjecturally ascribed to     
,pierius of ,alexandria17#c7 a writer of
 the third century1 who composed a work 
on ,easter1 but there is no evidence on 

the point ,in any case1 there is such   
exceedingly slight reason for           
attributing these fragments to ,claudius
 ,apollinaris1 and so many strong       
grounds for believing that he cannot    
have written them1 that they have no    
material value as evidence for the      
antiquity of the ,gospels4  #c4  ,we    
know little or nothing of ,athenagoras4 
,he is not mentioned by ,eusebius1 and  
our only information regarding him is   
derived from a fragment of ,philip      
,sidetes1 a writer of the fifth century1
 first published by       #b  ,dr4      
,donaldson rightly calls a fragment in  
the ,chronicle      ascribed to ,melito1
 unquestionably spurious4 ,hist4 ,chr4  
,lit4 and ,doctr41 iii4 p4 #bca4  #ahi  
,dodwell47#a7 ,philip states that he was
 the first leader of the school of      
,alexandria during the time of ,hadrian 
and ,antoninus1 to the latter of whom he
 addressed his ,apology1 and he further 
says that ,clement of ,alexandria was   
his disciple1 and that ,pantsenus was   

the disciple of ,clement4 ,part of this 
statement we know to be erroneous1 and  
the ,christian ,history of ,philip1 from
 which the fragment is taken1 is very   
slightingly spoken of both by           
,socrates7#b7 and ,photius47#c7 ,no     
reliance can be placed upon this        
information47#d7  ,the only works       
ascribed to ,athenagoras are an         
,apology--called an ,embassy1           
--------bearing the inscription3 ,the   
,embassy of ,athenagoras the ,athenian1 
a philosopher and a ,christian1         
concerning ,christians1 to the ,emperors
 ,marcus ,aurelius ,antoninus and       
,lucius ,aurelius ,commodus1 ,armeniaci 
,sarmatici and1 above all1 philosophers2
 and further1 a ,treatise3 ,on the      
,resurrection of the ,dead1 ,a quotation
 from the ,apology by ,methodius in his 
work on the ,resurrection of the ,body1 
is preserved by ,epiphanius7#e7 and     
,photius17#f7 and this1 the mention by  
,philip ,sidetes1 and the inscription by
 an unknown hand1 just quoted1 are all  

the evidence we possess regarding the   
,apology4 ,we have no evidence at all   
regarding the treatise on the           
,resurrection1 beyond the inscription4  
,the authenticity of neither1 therefore1
 stands on very sure grounds47#g7 ,the  
address of the ,apology and internal    
evidence furnished by it1 into which we 
need not go1 show that it could not     
#aij  have been written before a4d4     
#agf--agg1 the date assigned to it by   
most critics17#a7 although there are    
many reasons for dating it some years   
later4  ,in the six lines which         
,tischendorf devotes to ,athenagoras1 he
 says that the ,apology contains several
 quotations from ,matthew and ,luke17#b7
 without1 however1 indicating them4 ,in 
the very few sentences which ,canon     
,westcott vouchsafes to him1 he says3   
,athenagoras quotes the words of our    
,lord as they stand in ,st4 ,matthew    
four times1 and appears to allude to    
passages in ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,john1  
,but he nowhere mentions the name of an 

,evangelist47#c7 ,here the third        
,synoptic is not mentioned4 ,in another 
place he says3 ,athenagoras at ,athens1 
and ,theophilus at ,antioch1 make use of
 the same books generally1 and treat    
them with the same respect2 and in a    
note3 ,athenagoras quotes the ,gospels  
of ,st ,matthew and ,st4 ,john47#d7     
,here it will be observed that also the 
,gospel of ,mark is quietly dropped out 
of sight1 but still the positive manner 
in which it is asserted that            
,athenagoras quotes from the ,gospel of 
,st4 ,matthew1 without further          
explanation1 is calculated to mislead4  
,we shall refer to each of the supposed 
quotations4  ,athenagoras not only does 
not mention any ,gospel1 but singularly 
enough he never once introduces the     
#aia  name of ,christ into the works    
ascribed to him1 and all the words of   
the ,lord referred to are introduced    
simply by the indefinite he says1       
------1 and without any indication      
whatever of a written source47#a7 ,the  

only exception to this is an occasion on
 which he puts into the mouth of the    
,logos a saying which is not found in   
any of our ,gospels4 ,the first passage 
to which ,canon ,westcott alludes is the
 following1 which we contrast with the  
supposed parallel in the ,gospel3--     
------  ,it is scarcely possible to     
imagine a greater difference in language
 conveying a similar idea than that     
which exists between ,athenagoras and   
the first ,gospel1 and the parallel     
passage in ,luke is in many respects    
still more distant4 ,no echo of the     
words in ,matthew has lingered in the   
ear of the writer1 for he employs       
utterly different phraseology           
throughout1 and nothing can be more     
certain  #aib  than the fact that there 
is not a linguistic trace in it of      
acquaintance with our ,synoptics4  ,the 
next passage which is referred to is as 
follows3  ------  ,the same idea is     
continued in the next chapter1 in which 
the following passage occurs3  ------   

,there is no parallel at all in the     
first ,gospel to the phrase and lend to 
them that lend to you1 and in ,luke vi4 
#cd1 the passage reads3 and if ye lend  
to them of whom ye hope to receive1 what
 thank have ye8  #aic  ------2 ,it is   
evident1 therefore1 that there are      
decided variations here1 and that the   
passage of ,athenagoras does not agree  
with either of the ,synoptics4 ,we have 
seen the persistent variation in the    
quotations from the ,sermon on the      
,mount which occur in ,justin17#a7 and  
there is no part of the discourses of   
,jesus more certain to have been        
preserved by living ,christian          
tradition1 or to have been recorded in  
every form of ,gospel4 ,the differences 
in these passages from our ,synoptic    
present the same features as mark the   
several versions of the same discourse  
in our first and third ,gospels1 and    
indicate a distinct source4 ,the same   
remarks also apply to the next passage3 
------  ,the omission of ------1 with   

her1 is not accidental1 but is an       
important variation in the sense1 which 
we have already met with in the ,gospel 
used by ,justin ,martyr47#d7 ,there is  
another passage1 in the next chapter1   
the parallel to which follows closely on
 this in the great ,sermon as reported  
in our first ,gospel1 to which ,canon   
,westcott does not refer1 but which we  
must point out3  ------  #ajd  ------   
,it is evident that the passage in the  
,apology is quite different from that in
 the ,sermon on the ,mount in the first 
,synoptic4 ,if we compare it with ,matt4
 xix4 #i1 there still remains the       
express limitation ------1 which        
,athenagoras does not admit1 his own    
express doctrine being in accordance    
with the positive declaration in his    
text4 ,in the immediate context1 indeed1
 he insists that even to marry another  
wife after the death of the first is    
cloaked adultery4 ,we find in ,luke xvi4
 #ah1 the reading of ,athenagoras17#c7  
but with important linguistic           

variations3  ------  ,it cannot1        
obviously1 be rightly affirmed that     
,athenagoras must have derived this from
 ,luke1 and the sense of the passage in 
that ,gospel1 compared with the passage 
in ,matthew xix4 #i1 on the contrary1   
rather makes it certain that the reading
 of ,athenagoras was derived from a     
source combining the language of the one
 and the thought of the other4 ,in ,mark
 x4 #aa1 the reading is nearer that of  
,athenagoras and confirms this          
conclusion2 and the addition there of   
------ against her after  #aie  ------1 
further tends to prove that his source  
was not that ,gospel4  ,we may at once  
give the last passage which is supposed 
to be a quotation from our ,synoptics1  
and it is that which is affirmed to be a
 reference to ,mark4 ,athenagoras states
 in almost immediate context with the   
above3 for in the beginning ,god formed 
one man and one woman47#a7 ,this is     
compared with ,mark x4 #f3 ,but from the
 beginning of the creation ,god made    

them male and female3  ------  ,now this
 passage differs materially in every way
 from the second ,synoptic4 ,the        
reference to one man and one woman is   
used in a totally different sense1 and  
enforces the previous assertion that a  
man may only marry one wife4 ,such an   
argument directly derived from the ,old 
,testament is perfectly natural to one  
who1 like ,athenagoras1 derived all his 
authority from it alone4 ,it is not     
permissible to claim it as evidence of  
the use of ,mark4  ,now we must repeat  
that ,athenagoras does not name any     
source from which he derives his        
knowledge of the sayings of ,jesus4     
,these sayings are all from the ,sermon 
on the ,mount1 and are introduced by the
 indefinite phrase ------1 and it is    
remarkable that all differ distinctly   
from the parallels in our ,gospels4 ,the
 whole must be taken together as coming 
from one source1 and while the decided  
variation excludes the inference that   
they must have been taken from our      

,gospels1 there is reasonable ground for
 assigning them to a different  #aif    
source4 ,dr4 ,donaldson states the case 
with great fairness3 ,athenagoras makes 
no allusion to the inspiration of any of
 the ,new ,testament writers4 ,he does  
not mention one of them by name1 and one
 cannot be sure that he quotes from any 
except ,paul4 ,all the passages taken   
from the ,gospels are parts of our      
,lord's discourses1 and may have come   
down to ,athenagoras by tradition47#a7  
,he might have added that they might    
also have been derived from the gospel  
according to the ,hebrews or many       
another collection now unhappily lost4  
,one circumstance strongly confirming   
this conclusion is the fact already     
mentioned1 that ,athenagoras1 in the    
same chapter in which one of these      
quotations occurs1 introduces an        
apocryphal saying of the ,logos1 and    
connects it with previous sayings by the
 expression ,the ,logos again ------    
saying to us4 ,this can only refer to   

the sayings previously introduced by the
 indefinite ------4 ,the sentence1 which
 is in reference to the ,christian      
salutation of peace1 is as follows3 ,the
 ,logos again saying to us3 ',if any one
 for this reason kiss a second time     
because it pleased him 7he sins72' and  
adding3 ',thus the kiss or rather the   
salutation must be used with caution1   
as1 if it be defiled even a little by   
thought1 it excludes us from the life   
eternal4'7#b7 ,this saying1 which is    
directly attributed to the ,logos1 is   
not found in our ,gospels4 ,the only    
natural deduction is that it comes from 
the same source as the other sayings1   
and that source was not our synoptic    
,gospels4  #aig  ,the total absence of  
any allusion to ,new ,testament         
,scriptures in ,athenagoras1 however1 is
 rendered more striking and significant 
by the marked expression of his belief  
in the inspiration of the ,old          
,testament47#a7 ,he appeals to the      
prophets for testimony as to the truth  

of the opinions of ,christians3 men1 he 
says1 who spoke by the inspiration of   
,god1 whose ,spirit moved their mouths  
to express ,god's will as musical       
instruments are played upon37#b7 ,but   
since the voices of the prophets support
 our arguments1 ,i think that you1 being
 most learned and wise1 cannot be       
ignorant of the writings of ,moses1 or  
of those of ,isaiah and ,jeremiah and of
 the other prophets1 who being raised in
 ecstasy above the reasoning that was in
 themselves1 uttered the things which   
were wrought in them1 when the ,divine  
,spirit moved them1 the ,spirit using   
them as a flute player would blow into  
the flute47#c7 ,he thus enunciates the  
theory of the mechanical inspiration of 
the writers of the ,old ,testament1 in  
the clearest manner17#d7 and it would   
indeed have been strange1 on the        
supposition that he extended his views  
of inspiration to any of the ,scriptures
 of the ,new ,testament1 that he never  
names a single one of them1 nor         

indicates to the ,emperors in the same  
way1 as worthy of their attention1 any  
of these ,scriptures along with the ,law
 and the ,prophets4 ,there can be no    
doubt that he nowhere gives reason for  
supposing that he regarded any other    
writings than the ,old ,testament as    
inspired or ,holy ,scripture47#e7       
#e  ,in the treatise on the             
,resurrection there are no              
arguments derived from ,scripture4  #aih
  #d4  ,in the #agth year of the reign  
of ,marcus ,aurelius1 between the #gth  
,march1 #agg-agh1 a fierce persecution  
was1 it is said17#a7 commenced against  
the ,christians in ,gaul1 and more      
especially at ,vienne and ,lyons1 during
 the course of which the aged ,bishop   
,pothinus1 the predecessor of ,irenaeus1
 suffered martyrdom for the faith4 ,the 
two communities some time after         
addressed an ,epistle to their brethren 
in ,asia and ,phrygia1 and also to      
,eleutherus1 ,bishop of ,rome17#b7      
relating the events which had occurred1 

and the noble testimony which had been  
borne to ,christ by the numerous martyrs
 who had been cruelly put to death4 ,the
 ,epistle has in great part been        
preserved by ,eusebius17#c7 and critics 
generally agree in dating it about a4d4 
#agg17d7 although it was most probably  
not written until the following         
year47#e7  ,no writing of the ,new      
,testament is mentioned in this         
,epistle17#f7 but it is asserted that   
there are unequivocal coincidences of   
language7#g7 with the ,gospel of ,luke1 
and others of its books4 ,the passage   
which is referred to as  #aii  showing  
knowledge of our ,synoptic1 is as       
follows4 ,the letter speaks of one of   
the sufferers1 a certain ,vettius       
,epagathus1 whose life was so austere   
that1 although a young man1 he was      
thought worthy of the testimony ------  
borne by the elder ------ ,zacharias4   
,he had walked1 of a truth1 in all the  
commandments and ordinances of the ,lord
 blameless1 and was untiring in every   

kind office towards his neighbour2      
having much zeal for ,god and being     
fervent in spirit47#a7 ,this is compared
 with the description of ,zacharias and 
,elizabeth in ,luke i4 #f3 ,and they    
were both righteous before ,god1 walking
 in all the commandments and ordinances 
of the ,lord blameless47#b7 ,a little   
further on in the ,epistle it is said of
 the same person3 ,having in himself the
 advocate ------1 the spirit ------1    
more abundantly than ,zacharias1 c47#c7 
which again is referred to ,luke i4 #fg1
 ,and his father ,zacharias was filled  
with the ,holy ,spirit and prophesied1  
saying1 c47#d7  ,a few words must be    
said regarding the phrase ------1 the   
testimony of the presbyter ,zacharias4  
,this1 of course1 may either be         
rendered3 the testimony borne to        
,zacharias1 that is to say1 borne by    
others to his holy life2 or1 the  #bjj  
testimony borne by ,zacharias1 his own  
testimony to the ,faith3 his martyrdom4 
,we adopt the latter rendering for      

various reasons4 ,the ,epistle is an    
account of the persecution of the       
,christian community of ,vienne and     
,lyons1 and ,vettius ,epagathus is the  
first of the martyrs who is named in it3
 ------ was at that time the term used  
to express the supreme testimony of     
,christians--martyrdom1 and the ,epistle
 seems here simply to refer to the      
martyrdom1 the honour of which he shared
 with ,zacharias4 ,it is1 we think1 very
 improbable that1 under such            
circumstances1 the word ------ would    
have been used to express a mere        
description of the character of         
,zacharias given by some other writer4  
,the interpretation which we prefer is  
that adopted by ,tischendorf4#a ,we must
 add that the ,zacharias here spoken of 
is generally understood to be the father
 of ,john the ,baptist1 and no critic1  
so far as we can remember1 has suggested
 that the reference in ,luke xi4 #ea1   
applies to him47#b7 ,since the ,epistle1
 therefore1 refers to the martyrdom of  

,zacharias1 the father of ,john the     
,baptist1 when using the expressions    
which are supposed to be taken from our 
third ,synoptic1 is it not reasonable to
 suppose that those expressions were    
derived from some work which likewise   
contained an account of his death1 which
 is not found in the ,synoptic8 ,when we
 examine the matter more closely1 we    
find that1 although none of the         
,canonical ,gospels1 except the third1  
gives any narrative of the birth of     
,john the ,baptist1 that portion of the 
,gospel1 in which are the words we are  
discussing1 cannot be considered an     
original       #b  ,the great majority  
of critics consider it a reference to   
#b ,chron4 xxiv41 #ba1 though some apply
 it to a later      ,zacharias4  #bja   
production by the third ,synoptist1 but 
like the rest of his work is merely a   
composition based upon earlier written  
narratives47#a7 ,ewald1 for instance1   
assigns the whole of the first chapters 
of ,luke 7i4 #e--;ii4 #dj7 to what he   

terms the eighth recognizable book47#b7 
,however this may be1 the fact that     
other works existed at an earlier period
 in which the history of ,zacharias the 
father of the ,baptist was given1 and in
 which not only the words used in the   
,epistle were found but also the        
martyrdom1 is in the highest degree     
probable1 and1 so far as the history is 
concerned1 this is placed almost beyond 
doubt by the ,protevangclium ,jacobi    
which contains it4 ,tischendorf1 who    
does not make use of this ,epistle at   
all as evidence for the ,scriptures of  
the ,new ,testament1 does refer to it1  
and to this very allusion in it to the  
martyrdom of ,zacharias1 as testimony to
 the existence and use of the           
,protevangelium ,jacobi1 a work whose   
origin he dates so far back as the first
 three decades of the second            
century17#c7 and which he considers was 
also used by ,justin1 as ,hilgenfeld had
 already observed47#d7 ,tischendorf and 
,hilgenfeld1 therefore1 agree in        

affirming that the reference to         
,zacharias which we have quoted1        
indicates acquaintance with a different 
,gospel from our third ,synoptic4       
,hilgenfeld rightly maintains that the  
,protevangelium ,jacobi in its present  
shape is merely an  #bjb  altered form  
of an older work17#a7 which he          
conjectures to have been the ,gospel    
according to ,peter1 or the ,gnostic    
work ------17#b7 and both he and        
,tischendorf show that many of the      
,fathers7#c7 were either acquainted with
 the ,protevangelium itself or the works
 on which it was based4  ,the state of  
the case1 then1 is as follows3 ,we find 
a coincidence in a few words in         
connection with ,zacharias between the  
,epistle and our third ,gospel1 but so  
far from the ,gospel being in any way   
indicated as their source1 the words in 
question are connected with a reference 
to events unknown to our ,gospel1 but   
which were indubitably chronicled       
elsewhere4 ,as part of the passage in   

the epistle1 therefore1 could not have  
been derived from our third ,synoptic1  
the natural inference is that the whole 
emanates from a ,gospel1 different from 
ours1 which likewise contained that part
 ,in any case1 the agreement of these   
few words1 without the slightest mention
 of the third ,synoptic in the epistle1 
cannot be admitted as proof that they   
must necessarily have been derived from 
it and from no other source4  #bjc      
,,chapter ,x4 ,,ptolemaeus ,,and        
,,heracleon--,,celsus--,,the ,,canon    
,,of ,,muratori--,,results4  ,we have   
now reached the extreme limit of time   
within which we think it in any degree  
worth while to seek for evidence as to  
the date and authorship of the synoptic 
,gospels1 and we might now proceed to   
the fourth ,gospel2 but before doing so 
it may be well to examine one or two    
other witnesses whose support has been  
claimed by apologists1 although our     
attention may be chiefly confined to an 
inquiry into the date of such testimony1

 upon which its value1 even if real1    
mainly depends so far as we are         
concerned4 ,the first of these whom we  
must notice are the two ,gnostic        
leaders1 ,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon4    
,epiphanius has preserved a certain     
,epistle to ,flora ascribed to          
,ptolemseus1 in which1 it is contended1 
there are several quotations from       
,matthew1 and one from the first chapter
 of ,john47#a7 ,what date must be       
assigned to this ,epistle8 ,in reply to 
those who date it about the end of the  
second century1 ,tischendorf produces   
the evidence for an earlier period to   
which he assigns it4 ,he says3 ,he      
7,ptolemaeus7 appears in all the oldest 
sources       #a ,tischendorf ,wann     
wurden1 u4 s4 w41 p4 #df4 ,canon        
,westcott      with greater caution     
says3 ,he quoted words of our ,lord     
recorded by ,st4 ,matthew1 the prologue 
of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1      c4 ,on the
 ,canon1 p4 #bfg4  #bjd  as one of the  
most important1 most influential of the 

disciples of ,valentinus4 ,as the period
 at which the latter himself flourished 
falls about #adj1 do we say too much    
when we represent ,ptolemaeus as working
 at the latest about #afj8 ,irenaeus 7in
 the #bnd ,book7 and ,hippolytus name   
him together with ,heracleon2 likewise  
pseudo-,tertullian 7in the appendix to  
,de ,praescriptionibus ,haereticorum7   
and ,philastrius make him appear        
immediately after ,valentinus4 ,irenaeus
 wrote the first and second books of his
 great work most probably 7hochst       
warscheinlich7 before #ahj1 and in both 
he occupies himself much with           
,ptolemaeus47#a7 ,canon ,westcott1      
beyond calling ,ptolemaeus and          
,heracleon disciples of ,valentinus1    
does not assign any date to either1 and 
does not of course offer any further    
evidence on the point1 although1 in     
regard to ,heracleon1 he admits the     
ignorance in which we are as to all     
points of his history17#b7 and states   
generally1 in treating of him1 that the 

exact chronology of the early heretics  
is very uncertain47#c7  ,let us1        
however1 examine the evidence upon which
 ,tischendorf relies for the date he    
assigns to ,ptolemaeus4 ,he states in   
vague terms that ,ptolemaeus appears in 
all the oldest sources 7in alien den    
altesten ,quellen7 as one of the most   
important disciples of ,valentinus4 ,we 
shall presently see what these sources  
are1 but must now follow the argument3  
,as the date of ,valentinus falls about 
#adj1 do we say too much when we        
represent ,ptolemaeus as working at the 
latest about #afj8 ,it is obvious that  
there is no evidence here1 but merely   
assumption1 and the manner in which the 
period about #afj is begged1 is a clear 
admission that there are no certain     
data4 ,the year  #bje  might with equal 
propriety upon those grounds have been  
put ten years earlier or ten years      
later4 ,the deceptive and arbitrary     
character of the conclusion1 however1   
will be more apparent when we examine   

the grounds upon which the relative     
dates #adj and #afj rest4 ,tischendorf  
here states that the time at which      
,valentinus flourished falls about a4d4 
#adj1 but the fact is that1 as all      
critics are agreed17#a7 and as even     
,tischendorf himself elsewhere          
states17#b7 ,valentinus came out of     
,egypt to ,rome in that year1 when his  
public career practically commenced1 and
 he continued to flourish for at least  
twenty years after47#c7 ,tischendorf s  
pretended moderation1 therefore1        
consists in dating the period when      
,valentinus flourished from the very    
year of his first appearance1 and in    
assigning the active career of          
,ptolemseus to #afj when ,valentinus was
 still alive and teaching4 ,he might on 
the same principle be dated #ahj1 and   
even in that case there could be no     
reason for ascribing the ,epistle to    
,flora to so early a period of his      
career4 ,tischendorf never even pretends
 to state any ground upon which         

,ptolemaeus must be connected with any  
precise part of the public life of      
,valentinus1 and still less for         
discriminating the period of the career 
of ,ptolemaeus at which the ,epistle may
 have been composed4 ,it is obvious that
 a wide limit for date thus exists4     
,after these general statements         
,tischendorf details the only evidence  
which is available4 7#a7 ,irenaeus 7in  
the #bnd ,book7 and ,hippolytus name him
 together with ,heracleon2 likewise 7#b7
 pseudo-,tertullian 7in the  #bjf       
appendix to ,de ,praescriptionibus      
,haereticorum7 and ,philastrius make him
 appear immediately after ,valentinus1  
c4 ,we must first examine these two     
points a little more closely in order to
 ascertain the value of such statements4
 ,with regard to the first 7#ast7 of    
these points1 we shall presently see    
that the mention of the name of         
,ptolemseus along with that of          
,heracleon throws no light upon the     
matter from any point of view1 inasmuch 

as ,tischendorf has as little authority 
for the date he assigns to the latter1  
and is in as complete ignorance         
concerning him1 as in the case of       
,ptolemseus4 ,it is amusing1 moreover1  
that ,tischendorf employs the very same 
argument1 which sounds well although it 
means nothing1 inversely to establish   
the date of ,heracleon4 ,here1 he       
argues3 ,irenaeus and ,hippolytus name  
him 7,ptolemaeus7 together with         
,heracleon27l7 there1 he reasons3       
,irenaeus names ,heracleon together with
 ,ptolemaeus17#b7 c4 ,as neither the    
date assigned to the one nor to the     
other can stand alone1 he tries to get  
them into something like an upright     
position by propping the one against the
 other1 an expedient which1 naturally1  
meets with little success4 ,we shall in 
dealing with the case of ,heracleon show
 how untenable is the argument from the 
mere order in which such names are      
mentioned by these writers2 meantime we 
may simply say that ,irenaeus only once 

mentions the name of ,heracleon in his  
works1 and that the occasion on which he
 does so1 and to which reference is here
 made1 is merely an allusion to the     
,a,eons of ,ptolemseus himself1 and of  
,heracleon1 and all the rest who hold   
these views47#c7 ,this phrase might have
 been used1 exactly as it stands1 with  
#bjg  perfect propriety even if         
,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon had been     
separated by a century4 ,the only point 
which can be deduced from this mere     
coupling of names is that1 in using the 
present tense1 ,irenaeus is speaking of 
his own contemporaries4 ,we may make the
 same remark regarding ,hippolytus1 for1
 if his mention of ,ptolemaeus and      
,heracleon has any weight at all1 it is 
to prove that they were flourishing in  
his time3 ,those who are of ,italy1 of  
whom is ,heracleon and ,ptolemaeus1     
say4447#a7 c4 ,we shall have to go      
further into this point presently4 ,as  
to 7#b7 pseudo-,tertullian and          
,philastrius we need only say that even 

if the fact of the names of the two     
,gnostics being coupled together could  
prove anything in regard to the date1   
the repetition by these writers could   
have no importance for us1 their works  
being altogether based on those of      
,irenaeus and ,hippolytus17#b7 and      
scarcely1 if at all1 conveying          
independent information47#c7 ,we have   
merely indicated the weakness of these  
arguments in passing1 but shall again   
take them up further on4 ,the next and  
final consideration advanced by         
,tischendorf is the only one which      
merits serious attention4 ,irenaeus     
wrote the first and second book of his  
great work most probably before #ahj1   
and in both he occupies himself much    
with ,ptolemaeus4 ,before proceeding to 
examine the accuracy of this statement  
regarding the time at which ,irenaeus   
wrote1 we may ask what conclusion would 
be involved if ,irenaeus really did     
compose the two books in a4d4 #ahj in   
which he mentions       #c ,indeed the  

direct and avowed dependence of         
,hippolytus      himself upon the work  
of ,irenaeus deprives the               
,philosophumena1 in many parts1 of all  
separate authority4  #bjh  our ,gnostics
 in the present tense8 ,nothing more    
than the simple fact that ,ptolemaeus   
and ,heracleon were promulgating their  
doctrines at that time4 ,there is not a 
single word to show that they did not   
continue to flourish long after2 and as 
to the ,epistle to ,flora ,irenaeus     
apparently knows nothing of it1 nor has 
any attempt been made to assign it to an
 early part of the ,gnostic's career4   
,tischendorf1 in fact1 does not produce 
a single passage nor the slightest      
argument to show that ,irenaeus treats  
our two ,gnostics as men of the past1 or
 otherwise than as heretics then        
actively disseminating their heterodox  
opinions1 and1 even taken literally1 the
 argument of ,tischendorf would simply  
go to prove that about a4d4 #ahj        
,irenseus wrote part of a work in which 

he attacks ,ptolemaeus and mentions     
,heracleon4  ,when did ,irenaeus1       
however1 really write his work against  
,heresies8 ,although our sources of     
credible information regarding him are  
exceedingly limited1 we are not without 
materials for forming a judgment on the 
point ,irenaeus was probably born about 
a4d4 #adj-ade1 and is generally supposed
 to have died at the beginning of the   
third century 7a4d4 #bjb747a7 ,we know  
that he was deputed by the ,church of   
,lyons to bear to ,eleutherus1 then     
,bishop of ,rome1 the ,epistle of that  
,christian community describing their   
sufferings during the persecution       
commenced against them in the           
seventeenth year of the reign of ,marcus
 ,aurelius ,antoninus 7#gth ,march1     
#agg--agh747b7 ,it is very improbable   
that this journey was undertaken1 in any
 case1 before the spring of a4d4 #agh at
 the earliest1 and1 indeed1 in          
accordance with the given data1 the     
#bji  persecution itself may not have   

commenced earlier than the beginning of 
that year1 so that his journey need not 
have been undertaken before the close of
 #agh or the spring of #agi1 to which   
epoch other circumstances might lead    
us47#a7 ,there is reason to believe that
 he remained some time in ,rome4        
,baronius states that ,irenaeus was not 
appointed ,bishop of ,lyons till a4d4   
#ahj1 for he says that the see remained 
vacant for that period after the death  
of ,pothinus in consequence of the      
persecution4 ,now certain expressions in
 his work show that ,irenaeus did not   
write it until he became ,bishop47#b7   
,it is not known how long ,irenaeus     
remained in ,rome1 but there is every   
probability that he must have made a    
somewhat protracted stay1 for the       
purpose of making himself acquainted    
with the various tenets of ,gnostic and 
other heretics then being actively      
taught1 and the preface to the first    
,book refers to the pains he took4 ,he  
wrote his work in ,gaul1 however1 after 

his return from this visit to ,rome4    
,this is apparent from what he himself  
states in the ,preface to the first     
,book3 ,i have thought it necessary1 he 
says1 after having read the ,memoirs    
------ of the disciples of ,valentinus  
as they call themselves1 and having had 
personal intercourse with some of them  
and acquired full knowledge of their    
opinions1 to unfold to thee17#c7 c4 ,a  
little further on1 he claims from the   
friend to whom he addresses his work    
indulgence for any defects of style on  
the score of his being resident amongst 
the ,keltae47#d7 ,irenaeus no doubt     
during his stay in ,rome came in  #baj  
contact with the school of ,ptolemaeus  
and ,heracleon1 if not with the ,gnostic
 leaders themselves1 and shocked as he  
describes himself as being at the       
doctrines which they insidiously taught1
 he undertook1 on his return to ,lyons1 
to explain them that others might be    
exhorted to avoid such an abyss of      
madness and blasphemy against           

,christ47#a7 ,irenaeus gives us other   
materials for assigning a date to his   
work4 ,in the third ,book he enumerates 
the bishops who had filled the          
,episcopal ,chair of ,rome1 and the last
 whom he names is ,eleutherus 7a4d4     
#agg--aij71 who1 he says1 now in the    
twelfth place from the apostles1 holds  
the inheritance of the episcopate47#b7  
,there is1 however1 another clue which1 
taken along with this1 leads us to a    
close approximation to the actual date4 
,in the same ,book1 ,irenaeus mentions  
,theodotion's version of the ,old       
,testament3 ,but not as some of those   
say1 he writes1 who now ------ presume  
to alter the interpretation of the      
,scripture3 ',behold the young woman    
shall conceive1 and bring forth a son1' 
as ,theodotion1 the ,ephesian1          
translated it1 and ,aquila of ,pontus1  
both ,jewish proselytes47#c7 ,now we are
 informed by ,epiphanius that           
,theodotion published his translation   
during the reign of the ,emperor        

,commodus7#d7 7a4d4 #ahj--aib74 ,the    
,chronicon ,paschale adds that it was   
during the ,consulship of ,marcellus1 or
 as ,massuet7#e7 proposes to read       
,marullus1 who1 jointly with ,a,elianus1
 assumed office a4d4 #ahd4 ,these dates 
decidedly agree with the passage of     
,irenaeus and with the other data1 all  
of which lead  #baa  us to about the    
same period within the episcopate of    
,eleutherus 7 c4 #aij747a7 ,we have     
here1 therefore1 a clue to the date at  
which ,irenaeus wrote4 ,it must be      
remembered that at that period the      
multiplication and dissemination of     
books was a very slow process4 ,a work  
published about #ahd or #ahe could      
scarcely have come into the possession  
of ,irenaeus in ,gaul till some years   
later1 and we are1 therefore1 brought   
towards the end of the episcopate of    
,eleutherus as the earliest date at     
which the first three books of his work 
against ,heresies can well have been    
written1 and the rest must be assigned  

to a later period under the episcopate  
of ,victor 7 #aih--aii747b7  ,at this   
point we must pause and turn to the     
evidence which ,tischendorf offers      
regarding the date to be assigned to    
,heracleon47#c7 ,as in the case of      
,ptolemaeus1 we shall give it entire and
 then examine it in detail4 ,to the     
all-important question3 ,how old is     
,heracleon8 ,tischendorf replies3       
,irenaeus names ,heracleon1 together    
#c ,canon ,westcott adds no separate    
testimony4 ,he admits that3      ,the   
history of ,heracleon1 the great        
,valentinian      ,commentator1 is full 
of uncertainty4 ,nothing is known of his
      country or parentage4 ,on the     
,canon1 p4 #bfc1 and in a note3         
,the exact chronology of the early      
heretics is very      uncertain1 p4     
#bfd1 note #b4 p #b  #bab  with         
,ptolemaeus ,,ii4 #d1 ,sec4 #a1 in a way
 which makes them appear as well-known  
representatives of the ,valentinian     
school4 ,this interpretation of his     

words is all the more authorized because
 he never again mentions ,heracleon4    
,clement1 in the #dth ,book of his      
,stromata1 written shortly after the    
death of ,commodus 7#aic71 recalls an   
explanation by ,heracleon of ,luke xii4 
#h1 when he calls him the most noted1   
man of the ,valentinian school ------ is
 ,clement's expression74 ,origen1 at the
 beginning of his quotation from        
,heracleon1 says that he was held to be 
a friend of ,valentinus ------4         
,hippolytus mentions him1 for instance1 
in the following way3 7vi4 #bi72        
',valentinus1 and ,heracleon1 and       
,ptolemaeus1 and the whole school of    
these1 disciples of ,pythagoras and     
,plato4444' ,epiphanius says 7,hser4    
#da73 ',cerdo 7the same who1 according  
to ,irenaeus ,,iii4 #d1 ,sec4 #c1 was in
 ,rome under ,bishop ,hyginus with      
,valentinus7 follows these 7the         
,ophites1 ,kainites1 ,sethiani71 and    
,heracleon4' ,after all this ,heracleon 
certainly cannot be placed later than   

#aej to #afj4 ,the expression which     
,origen uses regarding his relation to  
,valentinus must1 according to          
linguistic usage1 be understood of a    
personal relation47#a7  ,we have already
 pointed out that the fact that the     
names of ,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon are 
thus coupled together affords no clue in
 itself to the date of either1 and their
 being mentioned as leading             
representatives of the school of        
,valentinus does not in any way involve 
the inference that they were not        
contemporaries of ,irenaeus1 living and 
working at the time he wrote4 ,the way  
in which ,irenaeus mentions them in this
 the only passage throughout his whole  
work in which he names  #bac            
,heracleon1 and to which ,tischendorf   
pointedly refers1 is as follows3 ,but if
 it was not produced1 but was generated 
by itself1 then that which is void is   
both like1 and brother to1 and of the   
same honour with1 that ,father who has  
before been mentioned by ,valentinus2   

but it is really more ancient1 having   
existed long before1 and is more exalted
 than the rest of the ,a,eons of        
,ptolemseus himself1 and of ,heracleon1 
and all the rest who hold these         
views47#a7 ,we fail to recognize        
anything special1 here1 of the kind     
inferred by ,tischendorf1 in the way in 
which mention is made of the two later  
,gnostics4 ,if anything be clear1 on the
 contrary1 it is that a distinction is  
drawn between ,valentinus and           
,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon1 and that    
,irenaeus points out inconsistencies    
between the doctrines of the founder and
 those of his later followers4 ,it is   
quite irrelevant to insist merely1 as   
,tischendorf does1 that ,irenaeus and   
subsequent writers represent ,ptolemaeus
 and ,heracleon and other ,gnostics of  
his time as of the school of            
,valentinus4 ,the question simply is1   
whether in doing so they at all imply   
that these men were not contemporaries  
of ,irenaeus1 or necessarily assign     

their period of independent activity to 
the lifetime of ,valentinus1 as         
,tischendorf appears to argue8 ,most    
certainly they do not1 and ,tischendorf 
does not attempt to offer any evidence  
that they do so4 ,we may perceive how   
utterly worthless such a fact is for the
 purpose of affixing an early date by   
merely considering the quotation which  
,tischendorf himself makes from         
,hippolytus3 ,valentinus1 therefore1 and
 ,heracleon and ,ptolemaeus1 and  #bad  
the whole school of these1 disciples of 
,pythagoras and ,plato4444 7l7 ,if the  
statement that men are of a certain     
school involves the supposition of      
coincidence of time1 the three ,gnostic 
leaders must be considered              
contemporaries of ,pythagoras or ,plato1
 whose disciples they are said to be4   
,again1 if the order in which names are 
mentioned1 as ,teschendorf contends by  
inference throughout his whole argument1
 is to involve strict similar sequence  
of date1 the principle applied to the   

whole of the early writers would lead to
 the most ridiculous confusion4         
,teschendorf quotes ,epiphanius3 ,cerdo 
follows these 7the ,ophites1 ,kainites1 
,sethiani71 and ,heracleon4  ,why he    
does so it is difficult to understand1  
unless it be to give the appearance of  
multiplying testimonies1 for two        
sentences further on he is obliged to   
admit3 ,epiphanius has certainly made a 
mistake1 as in such things not          
unfrequently happens to him1 when he    
makes ,cerdo1 who1 however1 is to be    
placed about #adj1 follow               
,heracleon47#b7 ,this kind of mistake   
is1 indeed1 common to all the writers   
quoted1 and when it is remembered that  
such an error is committed where a      
distinct and deliberate affirmation of  
the point is concerned1 it will easily  
be conceived how little dependence is to
 be placed on the mere mention of names 
in the course of argument4 ,we find     
,irenaeus saying that neither           
,valentinus1 nor ,marcion1 nor          

,saturninus1 nor ,basilides possesses   
certain knowledge17#c7 and elsewhere3 of
 such an one as ,valentinus1 or         
,ptolemaeus1 or ,basilides47#d7 ,to base
  #bae  an argument as to date on the   
order in which names appear in such     
writers is preposterous4  ,tischendorf  
draws an inference from the statement   
that ,heracleon was said to be a ------ 
of ,valentinus1 that ,origen declares   
him to have been his friend1 holding    
personal intercourse with him4 ,origen1 
however1 evidently knew nothing         
individually on the point1 and speaks   
from mere hearsay1 guardedly using the  
expression said to be ------4 ,but      
according to the later and patristic use
 of the word1 ------ meant nothing more 
than a disciple1 and it cannot here be  
necessarily interpreted into a          
contemporary47#a7 ,under no             
circumstances could such a phrase1      
avowedly limited to hearsay1 have any   
weight4 ,the loose manner in which the  
,fathers repeat each other1 even in     

serious matters1 is too well known to   
every one acquainted with their writings
 to require any remark4 ,their          
inaccuracy keeps pace with their want of
 critical judgment ,we have seen one of 
the mistakes of ,epiphanius1 admitted by
 ,tischendorf to be only too common with
 him1 which illustrates how little such 
data are to be relied on4 ,we may point 
out another of the same kind committed  
by him in common with ,hippolytus1      
pseudo-,tertullian and ,philastrius4    
,mistaking a passage of ,irenaeus17#b7  
regarding the sacred ,tetrad            
7,kol-,arbas7 of the ,valentinian       
,gnosis1 ,hippolytus supposes ,irenaeus 
to refer to another heretic leader4 ,he 
at once treats the ,tetrad as such a    
leader named ,kolarbasus1 and after     
dealing 7vi4 #d7 with the doctrines of  
,secundud1 and ,ptolemaeus1 and         
,heracleon1 he proposes1 ,sec4 #e1 to   
show what are the opinions held by      
,marcus and  #baf  ,kolarbasus47#a7 ,at 
the end of the same book he declares    

that ,irenaeus1 to whom he states that  
he is indebted for a knowledge of their 
inventions1 has completely refuted the  
opinions of these heretics1 and he      
proceeds to treat of ,basilides1        
considering that it has been            
sufficiently demonstrated whose         
disciples are ,marcus and ,kolarbasus1  
the successors of the school of         
,valentinus47#b7 ,at an earlier part of 
the work he had spoken in a more        
independent way in reference to certain 
who had promulgated great heresies3 ,of 
these1 he says1 one is ,kolarbasus1 who 
endeavours to explain religion by       
measures and numbers47#c7 ,the same     
mistake is committed by                 
pseudo-,tertullian17#d7 and             
,philastrius17#e7 each of whom devotes a
 chapter to this supposed heretic4      
,epiphanius1 as might have been         
expected1 fell into the same error1 and 
he proceeds elaborately to refute the   
heresy of the ,kolarbasians1 which is   
,heresy ,,xv4 ,he states that           

,kolarbasus follows ,marcus and         
,ptolemaeus17#f7 and after discussing   
the opinions of this mythical heretic he
 devotes the next chapter1 which is     
,heresy ,,xvi41 to the ,heracleonites1  
commencing it with the information that3
 ,a certain ,heracleon follows after    
,kolarbasus47#g7 ,this absurd           
mistake7#h7 shows how little these      
writers  #bag  knew of the ,gnostics of 
whom they wrote1 and how the one        
ignorantly follows the other4  ,the     
order1 moreover1 in which they set the  
heretic leaders varies considerably4 ,it
 will be sufficient for us merely to    
remark here that while                  
pseudo-,tertullian7#a7 and              
,philastrius7#b7 adopt the following    
order after the ,valentinians3          
,ptolemaeus1 ,secundus1 ,heracleon1     
,marcus1 and ,kolarbasus1               
,epiphanius7#c7 places them3 ,secundus1 
,ptolemaeus1 ,marcosians1 ,kolarbasus1  
and ,heracleon2 and ,hippolytus7#d7     
again3 ,secundus1 ,ptolemaeus1          

,heracleon1 ,marcus1 and ,kolarbasus4   
,the vagueness of ,irenaeus had left    
some latitude here1 and his followers   
were uncertain4 ,the somewhat singular  
fact that ,irenaeus only once mentions  
,heracleon whilst he so constantly      
refers to ,ptolemaeus1 taken in         
connection with this order1 in which    
,heracleon is always placed after       
,ptolemaeus17#e7 and by ,epiphanius     
after ,marcus1 may be reasonably        
explained by the fact that whilst       
,ptolemaeus had already gained          
considerable notoriety when ,irenaeus   
wrote1 ,heracleon may only have begun to
 come into notice4 ,since ,tischendorf  
lays so much stress upon                
pseudo-,tertullian and ,philastrius     
making ,ptolemaeus appear immediately   
after ,valentinus1 this explanation is  
after his own principle4  ,we have      
already pointed out that there is not a 
single passage in ,irenaeus1 or any     
other early writer1 assigning           
,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon to a period  

anterior to the time when ,irenaeus     
undertook to refute their opinions4     
,indeed1 ,tischendorf has not attempted 
to show that  #bah  they do1 and he has 
merely1 on the strength of the general  
expression that these ,gnostics were of 
the school of ,valentinus1 boldly       
assigned to them an early date4 ,now1 as
 we have stated1 he himself admits that 
,valentinus only came from ,egypt to    
,rome in a4d4 #adj1 and continued       
teaching till #afj17a7 and these dates  
are most clearly given by ,irenaeus     
himself47#b7 ,why then should           
,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon1 to take an  
extreme case1 not have known ,valentinus
 in their youth1 and yet have flourished
 chiefly during the last two decades of 
the second century8 ,irenaeus himself   
may be cited as a parallel case1 which  
,tischendorf at least cannot gainsay4   
,he is never tired of telling us that   
,irenaeus was the disciple of           
,polycarp17#c7 whose martyrdom he sets  
about ,a4,d4 #afe1 and he considers that

 the intercourse of ,irenaeus with the  
aged ,father must properly be put about 
a4d4 #aej17d7 yet he himself dates the  
death of ,irenaeus1 a4d4 #bjb17e7 and   
nothing is more certain than that the   
period of his greatest activity and     
influence falls precisely in the last   
twenty years of the second century4     
,upon his own data1 therefore1 that     
,valentinus may have taught for twenty  
years after his first appearance in     
,rome in a4d4 #adj--;and there is no    
ground whatever for asserting that he   
did not teach for even a much longer    
period--,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon might
 well have personally sat at the feet of
 ,valentinus in their youth1 as         
,irenseus is said to have done about the
 very same period at those of ,polycarp1
 and yet1 like him1 have flourished     
chiefly towards the end of the century4 
#bai  ,although there is not the        
slightest ground for asserting that     
,ptolemaeus and ,heraclcon were not     
contemporaries with ,irenaeus1          

flourishing like him towards the end of 
the second century1 there are1 on the   
other hand1 many circumstances which    
altogether establish1 the conclusion    
that they were4 ,we have already shown1 
in treating of ,valentinus17#a7 that    
,irenaeus principally directs his work  
against the followers of ,valentinus    
living at the time he wrote1 and notably
 of ,ptolemaeus and his school47#b7 ,in 
the preface to the first book1 having   
stated that he writes after personal    
intercourse with some of the disciples  
of ,valentinus17#c7 he more definitely  
declares his purpose3 ,we will1 then1 to
 the best of our ability1 clearly and   
concisely set forth the opinions of     
those who are now ------ teaching       
heresy1 ,i speak particularly of the    
disciples of ,ptolemaeus ------ whose   
system is an offshoot from the school of
 ,valentinus47#d7 ,nothing could be more
 explicit4 ,irenaeus in this passage    
distinctly represents ,ptolemaeus as    
teaching at the time he is writing1 and 

this statement alone is decisive1 more  
especially as there is not a single     
known fact which is either directly or  
indirectly opposed to it4  ,tischendorf 
lays much stress on the evidence of     
,hippolytus in coupling together the    
names of ,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon with
 that of ,valentinus2 similar testimony 
of the same writer1 fully confirming the
 above statement of ,irenaeus1 will1    
therefore1 have the greater force4      
,hippolytus says that the ,valentinians 
differed materially among themselves    
regarding certain points which led to   
divisions1 one party being called the   
#bbj  ,oriental and the other the       
,italian4 ,they of the ,italian party1  
of whom is ,heracleon and ,ptolemaeus1  
say1 c4444 ,they1 however1 who are of   
the ,oriental party1 of whom is         
,axionicus and ,bardesanes1 maintain1   
c47#a7 ,now1 ,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon 
are here quite clearly represented as   
being contemporary with ,axionicus and  
,bardesanes1 and without discussing     

whether ,hippolytus does not1 in        
continuation1 describe them as all      
living at the time he wrote17#b7 there  
can be no doubt that some of them were1 
and that this evidence confirms again   
the statement of ,irenaeus4 ,hippolytus1
 in a subsequent part of his work1      
states that a certain ,prepon1 a        
,marcionite1 has introduced something   
new1 and now in our own time ------ has 
written a work regarding the heresy in  
reply to ,bardesanes47#c7 ,the          
researches of ,hilgenfeld have proved   
that ,bardesanes lived at least over the
 reign of ,heliogabalus 7#bah--bbb71 and
 the statement of ,hippolytus is thus   
confirmed47#d7 ,axionicus again was     
still flourishing when ,tertullian wrote
 his work against the ,valentinians     
#bba  7#bja--bbf74 ,tertullian says3    
,axionicus of ,antioch alone to the     
present day 7ad hodiernum7 respects the 
memory of ,valentinus1 by keeping fully 
the rules of his system47#a7 ,although  
on the whole they may be considered to  

have flourished somewhat earlier1       
,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon are thus     
shown to have been for a time at least  
contemporaries of ,axionicus and        
,bardesanes47#b7  ,moreover1 it is      
evident that the doctrines of           
,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon represent a  
much later form of ,gnosticism than that
 of ,valentinus4 ,it is generally       
admitted that ,ptolemaeus reduced the   
system of ,valentinus to                
consistency17#c7 and the inconsistencies
 which existed between the views of the 
,master and these later followers1 and  
which indicate a much more advanced     
stage of development1 are constantly    
pointed out by ,irenaeus and the        
,fathers who wrote in refutation of     
heresy4 ,origen also represents         
,heracleon as amongst those who held    
opinions sanctioned by the ,church17#d7 
and both he and ,ptolemaeus must        
indubitably be classed amongst the      
latest ,gnostics47#e7 ,it is clear1     
therefore1 that ,ptolemaeus and         

,heracleon were contemporaries of       
,irenaeus7#f7 at the time he composed   
his work against ,heresies 7#ahe--aie71 
both1 and especially  #bbb  the latter1 
flourishing and writing towards the end 
of the second century47#a7  ,we         
mentioned1 in first speaking of these   
,gnostics1 that ,epiphanius has         
preserved an ,epistle1 attributed to    
,ptolemaeus1 which is addressed to      
,flora1 one of his disciples47#b7 ,this 
,epistle is neither mentioned by        
,irenaeus nor by any other writer before
 ,epiphanius4 ,there is nothing in the  
,epistle itself to show that it was     
really written by ,ptolemaeus himself4  
,assuming it to be by him1 however1 the 
,epistle was in all probability written 
towards the end of the second century1  
and it does not1 therefore1 come within 
the scope of our inquiry4 ,we may1      
however1 briefly notice the supposed    
references to our ,gospels which it     
contains4 ,the writer of the ,epistle1  
without any indication whatever of a    

written source from which he derived    
them1 quotes sayings of ,jesus for which
 parallels are found in our first       
,gospel4 ,these sayings are introduced  
by such expressions as he said1 our     
,saviour declared1 but never as         
quotations from any ,scripture4 ,now1 in
 affirming that they are taken from the 
,gospel according to ,matthew1          
,apologists exhibit their usual         
arbitrary haste1 for we must clearly and
 decidedly state that there is not a    
single one of the passages which does   
not present decided variations from the 
parallel passages in our first          
,synoptic4 ,we subjoin for comparison in
 parallel columns the passages from the 
,epistle and ,gospel3--  ------  ------ 
#bbc  ,it must not be forgotten that    
,iraeneus makes very explicit statements
 as to the recognition of other sources 
of evangelical truth than our ,gospels  
by the ,valentinians1 regarding which we
 have fully written when discussing the 
founder of that sect47#e7 ,we know that 

they professed to have direct traditions
 from the ,apostles through ,theodas1 a 
disciple of the ,apostle ,paul27#f7 and 
in the  #bbd  ,epistle to ,flora        
allusion is made to the succession of   
doctrine received by direct tradition   
from the ,apostles47#a7 ,irenaeus says  
that the ,valentinians profess to derive
 their views from unwritten sources17#b7
 and he accuses them of rejecting the   
,gospels of the ,church17#c7 but1 on the
 other hand1 he states that they had    
many ,gospels different from what he    
calls the ,gospels of the ,apostles47#d7
  ,with regard to ,heracleon1 it is said
 that he wrote ,commentaries on the     
third and fourth ,gospels4 ,the         
authority for this statement is very    
insufficient4 ,the assertion with       
reference to the third ,gospel is based 
solely upon a passage in the ,stromata  
of the ,alexandrian ,clement4 ,clement  
quotes a passage found in ,luke xii4 #h1
 #aa1 #ab1 and says3 ,expounding this   
passage1 ,heracleon1 the most           

distinguished of the ,school of         
,valentinus1 says as follows1 c47#e7    
,this is immediately interpreted into a 
quotation from a ,commentary on         
,luke47#f7 ,we merely point out that    
from ,clement's remark it by no means   
follows that ,heracleon wrote a         
,commentary at all1 and further there is
 no evidence that the passage commented 
upon was actually from our third        
,gospel47#g7 ,the ,stromata of ,clement 
were not written until after a4d4 #aic1 
and in them we find the first and only  
reference to this supposed ,commentary4 
,we need not here refer to the          
,commentary on the fourth ,gospel1 which
 is merely  #bbe  inferred from         
references in ,origen 7c4 a4d4 #bbe71   
but of which we have neither earlier nor
 fuller information47#a7 ,we must1      
however1 before leaving this subject1   
mention that ,origen informs us that    
,heracleon quotes from the ,preaching of
 ,peter ------1 ,pesedicatio ,petri71 a 
work which1 as we have already several  

times mentioned1 was cited by ,clement  
of ,alexandria as authentic and inspired
 ,holy ,scripture47#b7  ,the epoch at   
which ,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon        
flourished would in any case render     
testimony regarding our ,gospels of     
little value4 ,the actual evidence which
 they furnish1 however1 is not of a     
character to prove even the existence of
 our ,synoptics1 and much less does it  
in any way bear upon their character or 
authenticity4  #b4  ,a similar question 
of date arises regarding ,celsus1 who   
wrote a work1 entitled ------1 ,true    
,doctrine1 which is no longer extant1 of
 which ,origen composed an elaborate    
refutation4 ,the ,christian writer takes
 the arguments of ,celsus in detail1    
presenting to us1 therefore1 its general
 features1 and giving many extracts2 and
 as ,celsus professes to base much of   
his accusation upon the writings in use 
amongst ,christians1 although he does   
not name a single one of them1 it       
becomes desirable to ascertain what     

those works were1 and the date at which 
#bbf  ,celsus wrote4 ,as usual1 we shall
 state the case by giving the reasons   
assigned for an early date4  ,arguing   
against ,volkmar and others1 who        
maintain1 from a passage at the close of
 his work1 that ,oligen1 writing about  
the second quarter of the third century1
 represents ,celsus as his              
contemporary17#a7 ,tischendorf1         
referring to the passage1 which we shall
 give in its place1 proceeds to assign  
an earlier date upon the following      
grounds3 ,but indeed1 even in the first 
book1 at the commencement of the whole  
work1 ,origen says3 ',therefore1 ,i     
cannot compliment a ,christian whose    
faith is in danger of being shaken by   
,celsus1 who yet does not even ------   
still ------ live the common life among 
men1 but already and long since ------  
is dead4'444 ,in the  same first book   
,origen says3 ',we have heard that there
 were two men of the name of ,celsus1   
,epicureans1 the first under ,nero2 this

 one' 7that is to say1 ours7 'under     
,hadrian and later4' ,it is not         
impossible that ,origen mistakes when he
 identified his ,celsus with the        
,epicurean living 'under ,hadrian and   
later2' but it is impossible to convert 
the same ,celsus of whom ,origen says   
this into a contemporary of ,origen4 ,or
 would ,origen himself in the first book
 really have set his ,celsus 'under     
,hadrian 7#aag--ach7 and later1' yet in 
the eighth have said3 ',we will wait    
7about #bbe71 to see whether he will    
still accomplish this design of making  
another work follow8' ,now1 until some  
better discovery regarding ,celsus is   
attained1 it will be well to hold to the
 old opinion that ,celsus wrote his book
 about the middle of the second century1
 probably between #aej--afj1 c47#b7     
#bbg  ,it is scarcely necessary to point
 out that the only argument advanced by 
,tischendorf bears solely against the   
assertion that ,celsus was a            
contemporary of ,origen1 about #bbe1 and

 leaves the actual date entirely        
unsettled4 ,he not only admits that the 
statement of ,origen regarding the      
identity of his opponent with the       
,epicurean of the reign of ,hadrian and 
later1 may be erroneous1 but he tacitly 
rejects it1 and having abandoned the    
conjecture of ,origen as groundless and 
untenable1 he substitutes a conjecture  
of his own1 equally unsupported by      
reasons1 that ,celsus probably wrote    
between #aej-afj4 ,indeed1 he does not  
attempt to justify this date1 but       
arbitrarily decides to hold by it until 
a better can be demonstrated4 ,he is    
forced to admit the ignorance of ,origen
 on the point1 and he does not conceal  
his own4  ,now it is clear that the     
statement of ,origen in the preface to  
his work1 quoted above1 that ,celsus1   
against whom he writes1 is long since   
dead17#a7 is made in the belief that    
this ,celsus was the ,epicurean who     
lived under ,hadrian17#b7  #bbh  which  
,tischendorf1 although he avoids        

explanation of the reason1 rightly      
recognizes to be a mistake4 ,origen     
undoubtedly knew nothing of his         
adversary1 and it obviously follows     
that1 his impression that he is ,celsus 
the ,epicurean being erroneous1 his     
statement that he was long since dead1  
which is based upon that impression1    
loses all its value4 ,origen certainly  
at one time conjectured his ,celsus to  
be the ,epicurean of the reign of       
,hadrian1 for he not only says so       
directly in the passage quoted1 but on  
the strength of his belief in the fact1 
he accuses him of inconsistency3 ,but   
,celsus1 he says1 must be convicted of  
contradicting himself2 for he is        
discovered from other of his works to   
have been an ,epicurean1 but here1      
because he considered that he could     
attack the ,word more effectively by not
 avowing the views of ,epicurus1 he     
pretends1 c4444 ,remark1 therefore1 the 
falseness of his mind1 c47#a7 ,and from 
time to time he continues to refer to   

him as an ,epicurean17#b7 although it is
 evident that in the writing before him 
he constantly finds evidence that he is 
of a wholly different school4 ,beyond   
this belief1 founded avowedly on mere   
hearsay1 ,origen absolutely knows       
nothing whatever as to the personality  
of ,celsus1 or the time at which he     
wrote17#c7 and he sometimes very naively
 expresses his uncertainty regarding    
him4 ,referring in one place to certain 
passages which seem to imply a belief in
 magic on the part of ,celsus1 ,origen  
adds3 ,i do not know whether he is the  
same who has written several books  #bbi
  against magic47#a7 ,elsewhere he says3
 444 the ,epicurean ,celsus 7if he be   
the same who composed two other books   
against ,christians71 c47#b7  ,not only 
is it apparent that ,origen knows       
nothing of the ,celsus with whom he is  
dealing1 however1 but it is almost      
impossible to avoid the conviction that 
during the time he was composing his    
work his impressions concerning the date

 and identity of his opponent became    
considerably modified4 ,in the earlier  
portion of the first book7#c7 he has    
heard that his ,celsus is the ,epicurean
 of the reign of ,hadrian1 but a little 
further on17#d7 he confesses his        
ignorance as to whether he is the same  
,celsus who wrote against magic1 which  
,celsus the ,epicurean actually did4 ,in
 the fourth book7#e7 he expresses       
uncertainty as to whether the ,epicurean
 ,celsus had composed the work against  
,christians which he is refuting1 and at
 the close of his treatise he seems to  
treat him as a contemporary4 ,he writes 
to his friend ,ambrosius1 at whose      
request the refutation of ,celsus was   
undertaken3 ,know1 however1 that ,celsus
 has promised to write another treatise 
after this one4444 ,if1 therefore1 he   
has not fulfilled his promise to write a
 second book1 we may well be satisfied  
with the eight books in reply to his    
,discourse4 ,if1  #bcj  however1 he has 
commenced and finished this work also1  

seek it and send it in order that we may
 answer it also1 and confute the false  
teaching in it1 ,c47#a7 ,from this      
passage1 and supported by other         
considerations1 ,volkmar and others     
assert that ,celsus was really a        
contemporary of ,origen47#b7 ,to this1  
as we have seen1 ,tischendorf merely    
replies by pointing out that ,origen in 
the preface says that ,celsus was       
already dead1 and that he was identical 
with the ,epicurean ,celsus who         
flourished under ,hadrian and later4    
,the former of these statements1        
however1 was made under the impression  
that the latter was correct1 and as it  
is generally agreed that ,origen was    
mistaken in supposing that ,celsus the  
,epicurean was the author of the        
------17#c7 and ,tischendorf himself    
admits the fact1 the two earlier        
statements1 that ,celsus flourished     
under ,hadrian and consequently that he 
had long been dead1 fall together1      
whilst the subsequent doubts regarding  

his identity not only stand1 but  #bca  
rise into assurance at the close of the 
work in the final request to            
,ambrosius47#a7 ,there can be no doubt  
that the first statements and the       
closing paragraphs are contradictory1   
and whilst almost all critics pronounce 
against the accuracy of the former1 the 
inferences from the latter retain full  
force1 confirmed as they are by the     
intermediate doubts expressed by ,origen
 himself4  ,even those who1 like        
,tischendorf1 in an arbitrary manner    
assign an early date to ,celsus1        
although they do not support their      
conjectures by any satisfactory reasons 
of their own1 all tacitly set aside     
these of ,origen47#b7 ,it is generally  
admitted by these1 with ,lardner7#c7 and
 ,michaelis17#d7 that the ,epicurean    
,celsus to whom ,origen was at one time 
disposed to refer the work against      
,christianity1 was the writer of that   
name to whom ,lucian1 his friend and    
contemporary1 addressed his ,alexander  

or ,pseudomantis1 and who really wrote  
against magic17#e7 as ,origen           
mentions47#f7 ,but although on this     
account ,lardner assigns to him the date
 of a4d4 #agf1 the fact is that ,lucian 
did not write his ,pseudomantis1 as     
,lardner is obliged to admit17#g7 until 
the reign of the  #bcb  ,emperor        
,commodus 7#ahj--aic71 and even upon the
 supposition that this ,celsus wrote    
against ,christianity1 of which there is
 not the slightest evidence1 there would
 be no ground whatever for dating the   
work before a4d4 #ahj4 ,on the contrary1
 as ,lucian does not in any way refer to
 such a writing by his friend1 there    
would be strong reason for assigning the
 work1 if it be supposed to be written  
by him1 to a date subsequent to the     
,pseudo-mantis4 ,it need not be remarked
 that the references of ,celsus to the  
,marcionites17#a7 and to the followers  
of ,marcellina17#b7 only so far bear    
upon the matter as to exclude an early  
date47#c7  ,it requires very slight     

examination of the numerous extracts    
from1 and references to1 the work which 
,origen seeks to refute1 however1 to    
convince any impartial mind that the    
doubts of ,origen were well founded as  
to whether ,celsus the ,epicurean were  
really the author of the ------4 ,as    
many critics of all shades of opinion   
have long since determined1 so far from 
being an ,epicurean1 the ,celsus        
attacked by ,origen1 as the             
philosophical opinions which he         
everywhere expresses clearly show1 was a
 ,neo-,platonist47#d7 ,indeed1 although 
,origen seems to retain some impression 
that his antagonist must be an          
,epicurean1 as he had heard1 and        
frequently refers to him as such1 he    
does not point out ,epicurean  #bcc     
sentiments in his writings1 but on the  
contrary1 not only calls upon him no    
longer to conceal the school to which he
 belongs and avow himself an            
,epicurean17#a7 which ,celsus evidently 
does not1 but accuses him of expressing 

views inconsistent with that            
philosophy17#b7 or of so concealing his 
,epicurean opinions that it might be    
said that he is an ,epicurean only in   
name47#c7 ,on the other hand1 ,origen is
 clearly surprised to find that he      
quotes so largely from the writings1 and
 shows such marked leaning towards the  
teaching1 of ,plato1 in which ,celsus   
indeed finds the original and purer form
 of many ,christian doctrines17#d7 and  
,origen is constantly forced to discuss 
,plato in meeting the arguments of      
,celsus4  ,the author of the work which 
,origen refuted1 therefore1 instead of  
being an ,epicurean1 as ,origen supposed
 merely from there having been an       
,epicurean of the same name1 was        
undoubtedly a ,neo-,platonist1 as       
,mosheim long ago demonstrated1 of the  
,school of ,ammonius1 who founded the   
sect at the close of the second         
century47#e7 ,the promise of ,celsus to 
write a second book with practical rules
 for living in accordance with the      

philosophy he promulgates1 to which     
,origen refers at the close of his work1
 confirms this conclusion1 and indicates
 a new and recent system of             
philosophy47#f7 ,an ,epicurean would not
 have thought of such a work--it would  
have been both appropriate and necessary
 in connection with ,neo-,platonism4    
,we are1 therefore1 constrained to      
assign the work of  #bca  ,celsus to at 
least the early part of the third       
century1 and to the reign of ,septimius 
,severus4 ,celsus repeatedly accuses    
,christians1 in it1 of teaching their   
doctrines secretly and against the law1 
which seeks them out and punishes them  
with death17#a7 and this indicates a    
period of persecution4 ,lardner1        
assuming the writer to be the ,epicurean
 friend of ,lucian1 from this clue      
supposes that the persecution referred  
to must have been that under ,marcus    
,aurelius 7f #ahj71 and practically     
rejecting the data of ,origen himself1  
without advancing sufficient reasons of 

his own1 dates ,celsus a4d4 #agf47b7 ,as
 a ,neo-,platonist1 however1 we are more
 accurately led to the period of        
persecution which1 from embers never    
wholly extinct since the time of ,marcus
 ,aurelius1 burst into fierce flame more
 especially in the tenth year of the    
reign of ,severus7#c7 7a4d4 #bjb71 and  
continued for many years to afflict     
,christians4  ,it is evident that the   
dates assigned by apologists are wholly 
arbitrary1 and even if our argument for 
the later epoch were very much less     
conclusive than it is1 the total absence
 of evidence for an earlier date would  
completely nullify any testimony derived
 from ,celsus4 ,it is sufficient for us 
to add that1 whilst he refers to        
incidents of ,gospel history and quotes 
some sayings which have pandlels1 with  
more or less of variation1 in our       
,gospels1 ,celsus nowhere mentions the  
name of any ,christian book1 unless we  
except the ,book of ,enoch27#d7 and he  
accuses ,christians1 not without reason1

 of interpolating the books of the      
,sibyl1 whose authority1 he states1 some
 of them acknowledged47#e7  #bce  #c4   
,the last document which we need examine
 in connection with the synoptic        
,gospels is the list of ,new ,testament 
and other writings held in consideration
 by the ,church1 which is generally     
called1 after its discoverer and first  
editor1 the ,canon of ,muratori4 ,this  
interesting fragment1 which was         
published in #agdj by ,muratori in his  
collection of ,italian antiquities17#a7 
at one time belonged to the monastery of
 ,bobbio1 founded by the ,irish monk    
,columban1 and was found by ,muratori in
 the ,ambrosian ,library at ,milan in a 
,,ms4 containing extracts of little     
interest from writings of ,eucherius1   
,ambrose1 ,chrysostom1 and others4      
,muratori estimated the age of the ,,ms4
 at about a thousand years1 but so far  
as we are aware no thoroughly competent 
judge has since expressed any opinion   
upon the point4 ,the fragment1 which is 

defective both at the commencement and  
at the end1 is written in an apologetic 
tone1 and professes to give a list of   
the writings which are recognised by the
 ,christian ,church4 ,it is a document  
which has no official character17#b7 but
 which merely conveys the private views 
and information of the anonymous writer1
 regarding whom nothing whatever is     
known4 ,from any point of view1 the     
composition is of a nature permitting   
the widest differences of opinion4 ,it  
is by some affirmed to be a complete    
treatise on the books received by the   
,church1 from which fragments have been 
lost27#c7 whilst  #bcf  others consider 
it a mere fragment in itself47#a7 ,it is
 written in ,latin which by some is     
represented as most corrupt17#b7 whilst 
others uphold it as most correct47#c7   
,the text is further rendered almost    
unintelligible by every possible        
inaccuracy of orthography and grammar1  
which is ascribed diversely to the      
transcriber1 to the translator1 and to  

both47#d7 ,indeed such is the elastic   
condition of the text1 resulting from   
errors and obscurity of every imaginable
 description1 that by means of ingenious
 conjectures critics are able to find in
 it almost any sense they desire47#e7   
,considerable difference of opinion     
exists as to the original language of   
the fragment1 the greater number of     
critics maintaining that the composition
 is a translation from the ,greek17#f7  
whilst others assert it to  #bcg  have  
been originally written in ,latin47#a7  
,its composition is variously attributed
 to the ,church of ,africa7#b7 and to a 
member of the ,church in ,rome47#c7     
,the fragment commences with the        
concluding portion of a sentence4444    
quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit--at
 which nevertheless he was present1 and 
thus he placed it4 ,the ,,ms4 then      
proceeds3 ,third book of the ,gospel    
according to ,luke4 ,luke1 that         
physician1 after the ascension of       
,christ when ,paul took him with him4441

 wrote it in his name as he deemed best 
7ex opinione7--nevertheless he had not  
himself seen the ,lord in the           
flesh1--and he too1 as far as he could  
obtain information1 also begins to speak
 from the nativity of ,john4 ,the text1 
at the sense of which this is a closely 
approximate guess1 though several other 
#bch  interpretations might be          
maintained1 is as follows3 ,tertio      
evangelii librum secundo ,lucan ,lucas  
iste medicus post ascensum ,christi cum 
eo ,paulus quasi ut juris studiosum     
secundum adsumsisset numeni suo ex      
opinione concribset dominum tamen nec   
ipse vidit in carne et idem prout asequi
 potuit ita et ad nativitate ,johannis  
incipet dicere4  ,the ,,ms4 goes on to  
speak in more intelligible language of  
the fourth of the ,gospels of ,john1 one
 of the disciples4 7,quarti evangeliorum
 ,johannis ex decipolis7 regarding the  
composition of which the writer relates 
a legend1 which we shall quote when we  
come to deal with that ,gospel ,the     

fragment then proceeds to mention the   
,acts of the ,apostles1--which is       
ascribed to ,luke--thirteen epistles of 
,paul in peculiar order1 and it then    
refers to an ,epistle to the ,laodiceans
 and another to the ,alexandrians1      
forged1 in the name of ,paul1 after the 
heresy of ,marcion1 and many others     
which cannot be received by the         
,catholic ,church1 as gall must not be  
mixed with vinegar4 ,the ,epistle to the
 ,ephesians bore the name of ,epistle to
 the ,laodiceans in the list of         
,marcion1 and this may be a reference to
 it47#a7 ,the ,epistle to the           
,alexandrians is generally identified   
with the ,epistle to the ,hebrews17#b7  
although some critics think this        
doubtful1 or deny the fact1 and consider
 both ,epistles referred to pseudographs
  #bci  attributed to the ,apostle      
,paul4#a ,the ,epistle of ,jude1 and two
 7the second and third7 ,epistles of    
,john are1 with some tone of doubt1     
mentioned amongst the received books1   

and so is the ,book of ,wisdom4 ,the    
,apocalypses of ,john and of ,peter only
 are received1 but some object to the   
latter being read in church4  ,the      
,epistle of ,james1 both ,epistles of   
,peter1 the ,epistle to the ,hebrews    
7which is1 however1 probably indicated  
as the ,epistle to the ,alexandrians71  
and the first ,epistle of ,john are     
omitted altogether1 with the exception  
of a quotation which is supposed to be  
from the last-named ,epistle1 to which  
we shall hereafter refer4 ,special      
reference is made to the ,pastor of     
,hermas1 which we shall presently       
discuss1 regarding which the writer     
expresses his opinion that it should be 
read privately but not publicly in      
church1 as it can neither be classed    
amongst the books of the prophets nor of
 the apostles4 ,the fragment concludes  
with the rejection of the writings of   
several heretics47#b7  ,it is inferred  
that1 in the missing commencement of the
 fragment1 the first two ,synoptics must

 have been mentioned4 ,this1 however1   
though of course most probable1 cannot  
actually be ascertained1 and so far as  
these ,gospels are concerned1 therefore1
 the ,canon of ,muratori only furnishes 
conjectural evidence4 ,the statement    
regarding the third ,synoptic merely    
proves the existence of that ,gospel at 
the time the fragment  #bdj  was        
composed1 and we shall presently        
endeavour to form some idea of that     
date1 but beyond this fact the          
information given anything but tends to 
establish the unusual credibility       
claimed for the ,gospels4 ,it is        
declared by the fragment1 as we have    
seen1 that the third ,synoptic was      
written by ,luke1 who had not himself   
seen the ,lord1 but narrated the history
 as best he was able4 ,it is worthy of  
remark1 moreover1 that even the ,apostle
 ,paul1 who took ,luke with him after   
the ,ascension1 had not been a follower 
of ,jesus either1 nor had seen him in   
the flesh1 and certainly he did not1 by 

the showing of his own ,epistles1       
associate much with the other ,apostles1
 so that ,luke could not have had much  
opportunity while with him of acquiring 
from them any intimate knowledge of the 
events of ,gospel history4 ,it is       
undeniable that the third ,synoptic is  
not the narrative of an eye-witness1 and
 the occurrences which it records did   
not take place in the presence1 or      
within the personal knowledge1 of the   
writer1 but were derived from tradition1
 or from written sources4 ,such         
testimony1 therefore1 could not in any  
case be of much service to our third    
,synoptic2 but when we consider the     
uncertainty of the date at which the    
fragment was composed1 and the certainty
 that it could not have been written at 
an early period1 it will become apparent
 that the value of its evidence is      
reduced to a minimum4  ,we have already 
incidentally mentioned that the writer  
of this fragment is totally unknown1 nor
 does there exist any clue by which he  

can be identified4 ,all the critics who 
have assigned an early date to the      
composition of the fragment have based  
their conclusion1 almost solely1 upon a 
statement made by the ,author regarding 
the ,pastor of ,hennas4 ,he says3       
,hermas in  #bda  truth composed the    
,pastor very recently in our times in   
the city of ,rome1 the ,bishop ,pius his
 brother1 sitting in the chair of the   
church of the city of ,rome4 ,and1      
therefore1 it should indeed be read1 but
 it cannot be published in the church to
 the people1 neither being among the    
prophets1 whose number is complete1 nor 
amongst the apostles in the latter days4
  ,pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus   
nostris in urbe ,roma ,herma conscripsit
 sedente cathedra urbis ,romae ecclesiae
 ,pio episcopus fratre ejus et ideo legi
 eum quidem oportet se publicare vero in
 ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas  
completum numero neque inter apostolos  
in fine temporum potest47#a7  ,muratori1
 the discoverer of the ,,ms41           

conjectured for various reasons1 which  
need not be here detailed1 that the     
fragment was written by ,caius the      
,roman ,presbyter1 who flourished at the
 end of the second 7c4 a4d4 #aif7 and   
beginning of the third century1 and in  
this he was followed by a few           
others47#b7 ,the great mass of critics1 
however1 have rejected this conjecture1 
as they have likewise negatived the     
fanciful ascription of the composition  
by ,simon de ,magistris to ,papias of   
,hierapolis17#c7 and by ,bunsen to      
,hegesippus47#d7 ,such attempts to      
identify the unknown author are         
obviously mere speculation1 and it is   
impossible to suppose that1 had ,papias1
 ,hegesippus1 or any other well-known   
writer of the same period composed such 
a list1 ,eusebius could have failed to  
refer to  #bdb  it1 as so immediately   
relevant to the purpose of his work4    
,thiersch even expressed a suspicion    
that the fragment was a literary        
mystification on the part of ,muratori  

himself47#a7  ,the mass of critics1 with
 very little independent consideration1 
have taken literally the statement of   
the author regarding the composition of 
the ,pastor very recently in our times  
7nuperrime temporibus nostris71 during  
the ,episcopate of ,pius 7a4d4          
#adb--aeg71 and have concluded the      
fragment to have been written towards   
the end of the second century1 though we
 need scarcely say that a few writers   
would date it even earlier47#b7 ,on the 
other hand1 and we consider with reason1
 many critics1  #bdc  including men who 
will not be accused of opposition to an 
early ,canon1 assign the composition to 
a later period1 between the end of the  
second or beginning of the third century
 and the fourth century47#a7  ,when we  
examine the ground upon which alone an  
early date can be supported1 it becomes 
apparent how slight the foundation is4  
,the only argument of any weight is the 
statement with regard to the composition
 of the ,pastor1 but with the exception 

of the few apologists who do not        
hesitate to assign a date totally       
inconsistent with the state of the      
,canon described in the fragment1 the   
great majority of critics feel that they
 are forced to place the composition at 
least towards the end of the second     
century1 at a period when the statement 
in the composition may agree with the   
actual opinions in the ,church1 and yet 
in a sufficient degree accord with the  
expression very recently in our times1  
as applied to the period of ,pius of    
,rome1 #adb--aeg4 ,it must be evident   
that1 taken literally1 a very arbitrary 
interpretation is given to this         
indication1 and in supposing that the   
writer may have appropriately used the  
phrase thirty or forty years after the  
time of ,pius1 so much licence is taken 
that there is absolutely no reason why a
 still greater interval may not be      
allowed4 ,with this sole exception1     
there is not a single word or statement 
in the fragment which would oppose our  

assigning the  #bdd  composition to a   
late period of the third century4       
,volkmar has very justly pointed out1   
however1 that in saying very recently in
 our times the writer merely intended to
 distinguish the ,pastor of ,hermas from
 the writings of the ,prophets and      
,apostles3 ,it cannot be classed amongst
 the ,prophets whose number is complete1
 nor amongst the ,apostles1 inasmuch as 
it was only written in our              
post-apostolic time4 ,this is an        
accurate interpretation of the          
expression17#a7 which might with perfect
 propriety be used a century after the  
time of ,pius4 ,we have seen that there 
has not appeared a single trace of any  
,canon in the writings of any of the    
,fathers whom we have examined1 and that
 the ,old ,testament has been the only  
,holy ,scripture they have acknowledged2
 and it is therefore unsafe1 upon the   
mere interpretation of a phrase which   
would be applicable even a century      
later1 to date this anonymous fragment1 

regarding which we know nothing1 earlier
 than the very end of the second or     
beginning of the third century1 and it  
is still more probable that it was not  
written until an advanced period of the 
third century4 ,the expression used with
 regard to ,pius3 ,sitting in the chair 
of the church1 is quite unprecedented in
 the second century or until a very much
 later date47#b7 ,it is argued that the 
fragment is imperfect1 and that         
sentences have fallen out2 and in regard
 to this1 and to the assertion that it  
is a translation from the ,greek1 it has
 been well remarked by a writer whose   
judgment on the point will scarcely be  
called prejudiced3 ,if it is thus       
mutilated1 why might it not also be     
interpolated8 ,if moreover the          
translator  #bde  was so ignorant of    
,latin1 can we trust his translation8   
and what guarantee have we that he has  
not paraphrased and expanded the        
original8 ,the force of these remarks is
 peculiarly felt in dealing with the    

paragraph which gives the date4 ,the    
,pastor of ,hermas was not well known to
 the ,western ,church1 and it was not   
highly esteemed4 ,it was regarded as    
inspired by the ,eastern1 and read in   
the ,eastern ,churches4 ,we have seen1  
moreover1 that it was extremely unlikely
 that ,hermas was a real personage4 ,it 
would be1 therefore1 far more probable  
that we have here an interpolation1 or  
addition by a member of the ,roman or   
,african ,church1 probably by the       
translator1 made expressly for the      
purpose of serving as proof that the    
,pastor of ,hennas was not inspired4    
,the paragraph itself bears             
unquestionable mark of tampering17#a7 c4
 ,it would take us too far were we to   
discuss the various statements of the   
fragment as indications of date1 and the
 matter is not of sufficient importance4
 ,it contains nothing involving an      
earlier date than the third century4    
,the facts of the case may be briefly   
summed up as follows1 so far as our     

object is concerned4 ,the third         
,synoptic is mentioned by a totally     
unknown writer1 at an unknown1 but      
certainly not early1 date1 in all       
probability during the third century1 in
 a fragment which we possess in a very  
corrupt version very far from free from 
suspicion of interpolation in the       
precise part from which the early date  
is inferred4 ,the ,gospel is attributed 
to ,luke1 who was not one of the        
followers of ,jesus1 and of whom it is  
expressly said that he himself had not  
seen the ,lord in the flesh1 but wrote  
as he deemed best 7ex opinione71 and    
followed his history as he was able 7et 
#bdf  idem prout assequi potuit747#a7   
,if the fragment of ,muratori1          
therefore1 even came within our limits  
as to date1 its evidence would be of no 
value1 for1 instead of establishing the 
trustworthiness and absolute accuracy of
 the narrative of the third ,synoptic1  
it distinctly tends to discredit it1    
inasmuch as it declares it to be the    

composition of one who undeniably was   
not an eye-witness of the miracles      
reported1 but collected his materials1  
long after1 as best he could47#b7  #d4  
,we may now briefly sum up the results  
of our examination of the evidence for  
the synoptic ,gospels4 ,after having    
exhausted the literature and the        
testimony bearing on the point1 we have 
not found a single distinct trace of any
 of those ,gospels1 with the exception  
of the third1 during the first century  
and a half after the death of ,jesus4   
,only once during the whole of that     
period do we find even a tradition that 
any of our ,evangelists composed a      
,gospel at all1 and that tradition1 so  
far from favouring our ,synoptics1 is   
fatal to the claims of the first and    
second4 ,papias1 about the middle of    
#a  ,the passage is freely rendered thus
 by ,canon ,westcott3      ,the ,gospel 
of ,st4 ,luke1 it is then said1 stands  
third in      order in the ,canon1      
having been written by ',luke the       

physician1' the companion of ,st4 ,paul1
 who1 not being      himself an         
eye-witness1 based his narrative on such
      information as he could obtain1   
beginning from tho birth of      ,john4 
,on the ,canon1 p4 #ahg4       #b  ,we  
do not propose1 to consider the ,ophites
 and ,peratici1      obscure ,gnostic   
sects towards the end of the second     
century4      ,there is no direct       
evidence regarding them1 and the        
testimony of writers in the third       
century1 like ,hippolytus1      is of no
 value for the ,gospels4  #bdg  the     
second century1 on the occasion to which
 we refer1 records that ,matthew        
composed the ,discourses of the ,lord in
 the ,hebrew tongue1 a statement which  
totally excludes the claim of our ,greek
 ,gospel to apostolic origin4 ,mark1 he 
said1 wrote down from the casual        
preaching of ,peter the sayings and     
doings of ,jesus1 but without orderly   
arrangement1 as he was not himself a    
follower of the ,master1 and merely     

recorded what fell from the ,apostle4   
,this description1 likewise1 shows that 
our actual second ,gospel could not1 in 
its present form1 have been the work of 
,mark4 ,there is no other reference     
during the period to any writing of     
,matthew or ,mark1 and no mention at all
 of any work ascribed to ,luke4 ,the    
identification of ,marcion's ,gospel    
with our third ,synoptic proves the     
existence of that work before ,a4,d4    
#adj1 but no evidence is thus obtained  
either as to the author or the character
 of his work1 but on the contrary the   
testimony of the great heresiarch is so 
far unfavourable to that ,gospel1 as it 
involves a charge against it1 of being  
interpolated and debased by ,jewish     
elements4 ,the freedom with which       
,marcion expurgated and altered it      
clearly shows that he did not regard it 
either as a sacred or canonical work4   
,any argument for the mere existence of 
our ,synoptics based upou their supposed
 rejection by heretical leaders and     

sects has the inevitable disadvantage1  
that the very testimony which would show
 their existence would oppose their     
authenticity4 ,there is no evidence of  
their use by heretical leaders1 however1
 and no direct reference to them by any 
writer1 heretical or orthodox1 whom we  
have examined4 ,it is unnecessary to add
 that no reason whatever has been shown 
for accepting the testimony of these    
,gospels as sufficient to establish the 
reality of  #bdh  miracles and of a     
direct ,divine ,revelation47#a7 ,it is  
not pretended that more than one of the 
synoptic ,gospels was written by an     
eye-witness of the miraculous           
occurrences reported1 and whilst no     
evidence has been1 or can be1 produced  
even of the historical accuracy of the  
narratives1 no testimony as to the      
correctness of the inferences from the  
external phenomena exists1 or is now    
even conceivable4 ,the discrepancy      
between the amount of evidence required 
and that which is forthcoming1 however1 

is greater than under the circumstances 
could have been thought possible4       
#a ,a comparison of the contents of the 
three ,synoptics would      have        
confirmed this conclusion1 but this is  
not at present      necessary1 and we   
must hasten on4  #bdi     ,,part ,,iii4 
,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel     ,,chapter   
,i4 ,,the ,,external ,,evidence  ,we    
shall now examine1 in the same order1   
the witnesses already cited in          
connection with the ,synoptics1 and     
ascertain what evidence they furnish for
 the date and authenticity of the fourth
 ,gospel  ,apologists do not even allege
 that there is any reference to the     
fourth ,gospel in the so-called ,epistle
 of ,clement of ,rome to the            
,corinthians47#a7  ,a few critics7#b7   
pretend to find a trace of it in the    
,epistle of ,barnabas1 in the reference 
to the brazen ,serpent as a type of     
,jesus4 ,tischendorf states the case as 
follows3--  #bej  ,and when in the same 
chapter xii4 it is shown how ,moses in  

the brazen serpent made a type of ,jesus
 'who should suffer 7die7 and yet       
himself make alive1' the natural        
inference is that ,barnabas connected   
therewith ,john iii4 #ad1 f4 even if the
 use of this passage in particular      
cannot be proved4 ,although this        
connection cannot be affirmed1 since the
 author of the ,epistle1 in this passage
 as in many others1 may be independent1 
yet it is justifiable to ascribe the    
greatest probability to its dependence  
on the passage in ,john1 as the tendency
 of the ,epistle in no way required a   
particular leaning to the expression of 
,john4 ,the disproportionately more     
abundant use of express quotations from 
the ,old ,testament in ,barnabas is1 on 
the contrary1 connected most intimately 
with the tendency of his whole          
composition47#a7  ,it will be observed  
that the suggestion of reference to the 
fourth ,gospel is here advanced in a    
very hesitating way1 and does not indeed
 go beyond an assertion of probability4 

,we might1 therefore1 well leave the    
matter without further notice1 as the   
reference in no case could be of any    
weight as evidence4 ,on examination of  
the context1 however1 we find that there
 is every reason to conclude that the   
reference to the brazen serpent is made 
direct to the ,old ,testament4 ,the     
author who delights in typology is bent 
upon showing that the cross is          
prefigured in the ,old ,testament4 ,he  
gives a number of instances1 involving  
the necessity for a display of          
ridiculous ingenuity of explanation1    
which should prepare us to find the     
comparatively simple type of the brazen 
serpent naturally selected4 ,after      
pointing out that ,moses1 with his arms 
stretched out in prayer that the        
,israelites might prevail in the fight1 
was a type of the  #bea  cross1 he goes 
on to say3 ,again ,moses makes a type of
 ,jesus1 that he must suffer and himself
 make alive ------1 whom they will      
appear to have destroyed1 in a figure1  

while ,israel was falling27l7 and       
connecting the circumstance that the    
people were bit by serpents and died    
with the transgression of ,eve by means 
of the serpent1 he goes on to narrate   
minutely the story of ,moses and the    
brazen serpent1 and then winds up with  
the words3 ,thou hast in this the glory 
of ,jesus2 that in him are all things   
and for him47#b7 ,no one can read the   
whole passage carefully without seeing  
that the reference is direct to the ,old
 ,testament47#c7 ,there is no ground for
 supposing that the author was          
acquainted with the fourth ,gospel4  ,to
 the ,pastor of ,hermas ,tischendorf    
devotes only two lines1 in which he     
states that it has neither quotations   
from the ,old nor from the ,new         
,testament47#d7 ,canon  #beb  ,westcott 
makes the same statement17#a7 but1      
unlike the ,german apologist1 he        
proceeds subsequently to affirm that    
,hermas makes clear allusions to ,st4   
,john2 which few or no apologists       

support4 ,this assertion he elaborates  
and illustrates as follows3--  ,the view
 which ,hermas gives of ,christ's nature
 and work is no less harmonious with    
apostolic doctrine1 and it offers       
striking analogies to the ,gospel of    
,st4 ,john4 ,not only did the ,son      
'appoint angels to preserve each of     
those whom the ,father gave to him2' but
 ',he himself toiled very much and      
suffered very much to cleanse our       
sins4444 ,and so when he himself had    
cleansed the sins of the people1 he     
showed them the paths of life by giving 
them the ,law which he received from    
his4 ,father4'7#b7 ,he is 'a ,rock      
higher than the mountains1 able to hold 
the whole world1 ancient1 and yet having
 a new gate4'7#c7 ',his name is great   
and infinite1 and the whole world is    
supported by him4'7#d7 ',he is older    
than ,creation1 so that he took counsel 
with the ,father about the  #bec        
creation which he made4'7#a7 ',he is the
 sole way of access to the ,lord2 and no

 one shall enter in unto him otherwise  
than by his ,son4'7#b7  ,this is all    
,canon ,westcott says on the            
subject47#c7 ,he does not attempt to    
point out any precise portions of the   
fourth ,gospel with which to compare    
these striking analogies1 nor does he   
produce any instances of similarity of  
language1 or of the use of the same     
terminology as the ,gospel in this      
apocalyptic allegory4 ,it is evident    
that such evidence could in no case be  
of any value for the fourth ,gospel4    
,when we examine more closely1 however1 
it becomes certain that these passages  
possess no real analogy with the fourth 
,gospel1 and were not derived from it4  
,there is no part of them that has not  
close parallels in writings antecedent  
to our ,gospel1 and there is no use of  
terminology peculiar to it4 ,the author 
does not even once use the term ,logos4 
,canon ,westcott makes no mention of the
 fact that the doctrine of the ,logos   
and of the pre-existence of ,jesus was  

enunciated long before the composition  
of the fourth ,gospel1 with almost equal
 clearness and fulness1 and that its    
development can be traced through the   
,septuagint translation1 the ,proverbs  
of ,solomon1 some of the ,apocryphal    
works of the ,old ,testament1 the       
writings of ,philo1 and in the          
,apocalypse1 ,epistle to the ,hebrews1  
as well as the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,to  
any one who examines the passages cited 
from the works of ,hennas1 and still    
more to any one acquainted with the     
history of the ,logos doctrine1 it will1
 we fear1  #bed  seem wasted time to    
enter upon any minute refutation of such
 imaginary analogies4 ,we shall1        
however1 as briefly as possible refer to
 each passage quoted4  ,the first is    
taken from an elaborate similitude with 
regard to true fasting1 in which the    
world is likened to a vineyard and1 in  
explaining his parable1 the ,shepherd   
says3 ,god planted the vineyard1 that   
is1 he created the people and gave them 

to his ,son3 and the ,son appointed his 
angels over them to keep them3 and he   
himself cleansed their sins1 having     
suffered many things and endured many   
labours4444 ,he himself1 therefore1     
having cleansed the sins of the people1 
showed them the paths of life by giving 
them the ,law which he received from his
 ,father47#a7  ,it is difficult indeed  
to find anything in this passage which  
is in the slightest degree peculiar to  
the fourth ,gospel1 or apart from the   
whole course of what is taught in the   
,epistles1 and more especially the      
,epistle to the ,hebrews4 ,we may point 
out a few passages for comparison3 ,heb4
 i4 #b-d2 ii4 #aj-aa2 v4 #h-i2 vii4 #ab1
 #ag-ai2 viii4 #f-aj2 x4 #aj-af2 ,romans
 viii4 #bd-ag2 ,matt4 xxi4 #cc2 ,mark   
xii4 #a2 ,isaiah v4 #g1 liii4  ,the     
second passage is taken from an         
elaborate parable on the building of the
 ,church3 ------ ,and in the middle of  
the plain he showed me a great white    
rock which had risen out of the plain1  

and the rock was higher than the        
mountains1 rectangular so as to be able 
to hold the whole world1 but that rock  
was old having a gate ------ hewn out of
 it1 and the hewing out of the gate     
------ seemed to me to be recent47#b7   
,upon this rock the tower of the ,church
 is built4 ,further on an explanation is
 given of the similitude1 in which      
occurs another of the  #bee  passages   
referred to4------ ,this rock ------ and
 this gate ------ are the ,son of ,god4 
',how1 ,lord1' ,i said1 'is the rock old
 and the gate new8' ',listen1' he said1 
'and understand1 thou ignorant man4     
------ ,the ,son of ,god is older than  
all of his creation ------1 so that he  
was a councillor with the ,father in his
 work of creation2 and for this is he   
old4' ------ ',and why is the gate new1 
,lord8' ,i said2 ',because1' he replied1
 'he was manifested at the last days    
------ of the dispensation2 for this    
cause the gate was made new1 in order   
that they who shall be saved might enter

 by it into the kingdom of ,god4'7#a7   
,and a few lines lower down the         
,shepherd further explains1 referring to
 entrance through the gate1 and         
introducing another of the passages     
cited3 ------ ',in this way1' he said1  
'no one shall enter into the kingdom of 
,god unless he receive his holy name4   
,if1 therefore1 you cannot enter into   
the ,city unless through its gate1 so   
also1' he said1 'a man cannot enter in  
any other way into the kingdom of ,god  
than by the name of his ,son beloved by 
him'444 'and the gate ------ is the ,son
 of ,god4 ,this is the one entrance to  
the ,lord4' ,in no other way1 therefore1
 shall any one enter in to him1 except  
through his ,son47#b7  ,now with regard 
to the similitude of a rock we need     
scarcely say that the ,old ,testament   
teems with it2 and we need not point to 
the parable of the house built upon a   
rock in the first ,gospel47#c7 ,a more  
apt illustration is the famous saying   
with regard to ,peter3 ,and upon this   

rock ------ ,i will build my ,church1   
upon which  #bef  indeed the whole      
similitude of ,hermas turns2 and in #a  
,cor4 x4 #d1 we read3 ,for they drank of
 the ,spiritual ,rock accompanying them2
 but the ,rock was ,christ ------4      
,there is no such similitude in the     
fourth ,gospel at all4  ,we then have   
the gate1 on which we presume ,canon    
,westcott chiefly relies4 ,the parable  
in ,john x4 #a--i is quite different    
from that of ,hermas17#a7 and there is a
 persistent use of different            
terminology4 ,the door into the         
sheepfold is always ------1 the gate in 
the rock always ------4 ,i am the       
door17#b7 ------ is twice repeated in   
the fourth ,gospel4 ,the gate is the    
,son of ,god ------ is the declaration  
of ,hermas4 ,on the other hand1 there   
are numerous passages1 elsewhere1       
analogous to that in the ,pastor of     
,hermas4 ,every one will remember the   
injunction in the ,sermon on the ,mount3
 ,matth4 vii4 #ac1 #ad4 ,enter in       

through the strait gate ------1 for wide
 is the gate ------1 c41 #ad4 ,because  
narrow is the gate ------ and straitened
 is the way which leadeth unto life1 and
 few there be that find it47#c7 ,the    
limitation to the one way of entrance   
into the kingdom of ,god3 by the name of
 his ,son1 is also found everywhere     
throughout the ,epistles1 and likewise  
in the ,acts of the ,apostles2 as for   
instance3 ,acts iv4 #ab1 ,and there is  
no salvation in any other3 for neither  
is there any other name under heaven    
given among men whereby we must be      
saved4  ,the reasons given why the rock 
is old and the gate new ------ have     
anything but special analogy with       
#c ,compare the account of the new      
,jerusalem1 ,rev4 xxi4 #ab      ff42 cf4
 xxii4 #d1 #ad4 ,in ,simil4 ix4 #ac1 it 
is insisted that1      to enter into the
 kingdom1 not only his name must be     
borne1 but that we must put on certain  
clothing4  #beg  the fourth ,gospel4 ,we
 are1 on the contrary1 taken directly to

 the ,epistle to the ,hebrews in which  
the pre-existence of ,jesus is          
prominently asserted1 and between which 
and the ,pastor1 as in a former passage1
 we find singular linguistic analogies4 
,for instance1 take the whole opening   
portion of ,heb4 i4 #a3 ,god having at  
many times and in many manners spoken in
 times past to the fathers by the       
prophets1 #b4 ,at the end of these days 
------ spake to us in the ,son whom he  
appointed heir ------7#a7 of all things1
 by whom he also made the worlds1 #c4   
,who being the brightness of his glory  
and the express image of his substance1 
upholding all things by the word of his 
power1 when he had made by himself a    
cleansing of our sins sat down at the   
right hand of ,majesty on high1 #d4     
,having become so much better than the  
angels17#b7 c41 c2 and if we take the   
different clauses we may also find them 
elsewhere constantly repeated1 as for   
instance3 ------ ,the son older than all
 his creation3 compare #b ,tim4 i4 #i1  

,colossiansi4 #ae 7who is444 the first  
born of all creation--------1 #af1 #ag1 
#ah1 ,rev4 iii4 #ad1 x4 #f4 ,the works  
of ,philo are full of this              
representation of the ,logos4 ,for      
example3 ,for the ,word of ,god is over 
all the universe1 and the oldest and    
most universal of all things created    
------  #beh  ------47#a7 ,again1 as to 
the second clause1 that he assisted the 
,father in the work of creation1 compare
 ,heb4 ii4 #aj1 i4 #b1 xi4 #c1 ,rom4 xi4
 #cf1 #a ,cor4 viii4 #f1 ,coloss4 i4    
#ae1 #af47b7  ,the only remaining       
passage is the following3 ,the name of  
the ,son of ,god is great and infinite  
and supports the whole world4 ,for the  
first phrase1 compare #b ,tim4 iv4 #ah1 
,heb4 i4 #h2 and for the second part of 
the sentence1 ,heb4 i4 #c1 ,coloss4 i4  
#ag1 and many other passages quoted     
above47#c7  ,the whole assertion7#d7 is 
devoid of foundation1 and might well    
have been left unnoticed4 ,the attention
 called to it1 however1 may not be      

wasted in observing the kind of evidence
 with which apologists are compelled to 
be content4  ,tischendorf points out two
 passages in the ,epistles of           
pseudo-,ignatius which1 he considers1   
show the use of the fourth ,gospel47#e7 
,they are as follows--,epistle to the   
,romans vii43 ,i desire the bread of    
,god1 the bread of  #bei  heaven1 the   
bread of life1 which is the flesh of    
,jesus ,christ the son of ,god1 who was 
born at a later time of the seed of     
,david and ,abraham2 and ,i desire the  
drink of ,god ------1 that is his blood1
 which is love incorruptible1 and       
eternal life ------47#a7 ,this is       
compared with ,john vi4 #da3 ,i am the  
bread which came down from heaven       
#dh4444 ,i am the bread of life1 #ea4444
 ,and the bread that ,i will give is my 
flesh2 #ed4 ,he who eateth my flesh and 
drinketh my blood hath everlasting life 
------4 ,scholten has pointed out that  
the reference to ,jesus as born of the  
seed of ,david and ,abraham is not in   

the spirit of the fourth ,gospel2 and   
the use of ------ for the ------ of vi4 
#ee1 and ------2 instead of ------ are  
also opposed to the connection with that
 ,gospel47#c7 ,on the other hand1 in the
 institution of the ,supper1 the bread  
is described as the body of ,jesus1 and 
the wine as his blood2 and reference is 
made there1 and elsewhere1 to eating    
bread and drinking wine in the kingdom  
of ,god17#c7 and the passage seems to be
 nothing but a development of this      
teaching47#d7 ,nothing could be proved  
by such an analogy47#e7  ,the second    
passage referred to by ,tischendorf is  
in the ,epistle to the ,philadelphians  
vii43 ,for if some  #bfj  would have led
 me astray according to the flesh1 yet  
the ,spirit is not led astray1 being    
from ,god1 for it knoweth whence it     
cometh and whither it goeth1 and        
detecteth the things that are           
hidden47#a7 ,teschendorf considers that 
these words are based upon ,john iii4   
#f--h1 and the last phrase3 ,and        

detecteth the hidden things1 upon verse 
#bj4 ,the sense of the ,epistle1        
however1 is precisely the reverse of    
that of the ,gospel1 which reads3 ,the  
wind bloweth where it listeth2 and thou 
hearest the sound thereof but knowest   
not whence it cometh and whither it     
goeth2 so is every one that is born of  
the ,spirit27#c7 whilst the ,epistle    
does not refer to the wind at all1 but  
affirms that the ,spirit of ,god does   
know whence it cometh1 c4 ,the analogy  
in verse #bj is still more remote3 ,for 
every one that doeth evil hateth the    
light1 neither cometh to the light1 lest
 his deeds should be detected47#c7 ,in  
#a ,cor4 ii4 #aj1 the sense is found    
more closely3 ,for the ,spirit searcheth
 all things1 yea1 even the deep things  
of ,god47#d7 ,it is evidently           
unreasonable to assert from such a      
passage the use of the fourth           
,gospel47#e7 ,even ,tischendorf         
recognizes that in themselves the       
phrases which he points out in          

pseudo-,ignatius could not1 unsupported 
by other corroboration1 possess much    
weight as testimony for the use of our  
,gospels4 ,he says3 ,were these         
allusions of ,ignatius to ,matthew and  
,john a wholly isolated phenomenon1 and 
one which perhaps other undoubted       
results  #bfa  of inquiry wholly        
contradicted1 they would hardly have any
 conclusive weight4 ,but--47#a7 ,canon  
,westcott says3 ,the ,ignatian writings1
 as might be expected1 are not without  
traces of the influence of ,st4 ,john4  
,the circumstances in which he was      
placed required a special enunciation of
 ,pauline doctrine2 but this is not so  
expressed as to exclude the parallel    
lines of ,christian thought4 ,love is   
'the stamp of the ,christian4' 7,ad     
,magn4 v47 ',faith is the beginning and 
love the end of life4' 7,ad ,ephes4     
xiv47 ',faith is our guide upward'      
------1 but love is the road that 'leads
 to ,god4' 7,ad ,eph4 ix47 ',the        
,eternal ------ ,word is the            

manifestation of ,god' 7,ad ,magn4      
viii471 'the door by which we come to   
the ,father' 7,ad ,philad4 ix41 cf4     
,john x4 #g71 'and without ,him we have 
not the principle of true life' 7,ad    
,trail1 ix43 ------4 cf4 ,ad ,eph4 iii43
 ------4 ,the true meat of the          
,christian is the 'bread of ,god1 the   
bread of heaven1 the bread of life1     
which is the flesh of ,jesus ,christ1'  
and his drink is ',christ's blood1 which
 is love incorruptible' 7,ad ,rom4 vii41
 cf4 ,john vi4 #cb1 #ea1 #ec74 ,he has  
no love of this life2 'his love has been
 crucified1 and he has in him no burning
 passion for the world1 but living water
 7as the spring of a new life7 speaking 
within him1 and bidding him come to his 
,father' 7,ad ,rom4 #a4 c74 ,meanwhile  
his enemy is the enemy of his ,master1  
even the 'ruler of this age4' 7,ad ,rom4
 #a4 c1 ------4 ,cf4 ,john xii4 #ca1    
xvi4 #aa3 ------ and see #a ,cor4 ii4   
#f1 #h47b77  ,part of these references  
we have already considered2  #bfb       

others of them really do not require any
 notice whatever1 and the only one to   
which we need to direct our attention   
for a moment may be the passage from the
 ,epistle to the ,philadelphians ix41   
which reads3 ,he is the door of the     
,father1 by which enter in ,abraham1    
,isaac1 and ,jacob and the prophets1 and
 the apostles1 and the ,church47l7 ,this
 is compared with ,john x4 #g4          
,therefore said ,jesus again3 ,verily1  
verily1 ,i say unto you1 ,i am the door 
of the ,sheep ------4 ,we have already  
referred1 a few pages back17#b7 to the  
image of the door4 ,here again it is    
obvious that there is a marked          
difference in the sense of the ,epistle 
from that of the ,gospel4 ,in the latter
 ,jesus is said to be the door into the 
,sheepfold27#c7 whilst in the ,epistle1 
he is the door into the ,father1 through
 which not only the patriarchs1         
prophets1 and apostles enter1 but also  
the ,church itself4 ,such distant       
analogy cannot warrant the conclusion   

that the passage shows any acquaintance 
with the fourth ,gospel47#d7 ,as for the
 other phrases1 they are not only       
without special bearing upon the fourth 
,gospel1 but they are everywhere found  
in the canonical ,epistles1 as well as  
elsewhere4 ,regarding love and faith1   
for instance1 compare ,gal4 v4 #f1 #ad1 
#bb2 ,rom4 xii4 #i1 #aj1 viii4 #ci1     
xiii4 #i2 #a ,cor4 ii4 #i1 viii4 #c2    
,ephea iii4 #ag1 v4 #a1 #b1 vi4 #bc2    
,philip1 i4 #i1 ii4 #b2 #b ,thess4 iii4 
#e2 #a ,tim4 i4 #ad1 vi4 #aa2 #b ,tim4  
i4 #ac2 ,heb4 x4 #ch f41 xi41 c41 c4    
,we might point out many equally close  
analogies in  #bfc  the works of        
,philo17#a7 but it is unnecessary to do 
so1 although we may indicate one or two 
which first present themselves4 ,philo  
equally has the ,eternal ,logos         
------17#b7 whom he represents as the   
manifestation of ,god in every way4 ,the
 ,word is the likeness of ,god1 by whom 
the universe was created ------47#c7 ,he
 is the vicegerent ------ of ,god17#d7  

the heavenly incorruptible food of the  
soul1 the bread ------ from heaven4 ,in 
one place he says3 and they who inquired
 what is the food of the soul444 learnt 
at last that it is the ,word of ,god1   
and the ,divine ,logos4444 ,this is the 
heavenly nourishment1 and it is         
mentioned in the holy ,scriptures444    
saying1 ',lo6 ,i rain upon you bread    
------ from heaven4' 7,exod4 xvi4 #d47  
',this is the bread ------ which the    
,lord has given them to eat' 7,exod4    
xvi4 #ae747e7 ,and again3 ,for the one  
indeed raises his eyes towards the sky1 
contemplating the manna1 the divine     
,word1 the heavenly incorruptible food  
of the longing soul47#f7 ,elsewhere3 444
 but it is  #bfd  taught by the         
,hierophant and ,prophet ,moses1 who    
will say3 ',this is the bread ------1   
the nourishment which ,god gave to the  
soul'--that he offered his own ,word and
 his own ,logos2 for this is bread      
------ which he has given us to eat1    
this is the ,word ------47#a7 ,he also  

says3 ,therefore he exhorts him that can
 run swiftly to strive with breathless  
eagerness towards the ,divine ,word who 
is above all things1 the fountain of    
,wisdom1 in order that by drinking of   
the stream1 instead of death he may for 
his reward obtain eternal life7#b7 ,it  
is the ,logos who guides us to the      
,father1 ,god by the same ,logos both   
creating all things and leading up      
------ the perfect man from the things  
of earth to himself47#c7 ,these are very
 imperfect examples1 but it may be      
asserted that there is not a            
representation of the ,logos in the     
fourth ,gospel which has not close      
parallels in the works of ,philo4  ,we  
have given these passages of the        
pseudo-,ignatian ,epistles which are    
pointed out as indicating acquaintance  
with the fourth ,gospel1 in order that  
the whole case might be stated and      
appreciated4 ,the analogies are too     
distant to prove anything1 but were they
 fifty times more close1 they could do  

little or nothing to establish an early 
origin for the fourth ,gospel1 and      
nothing at all to elucidate the question
 as to its character and authorship47#d7
       #d ,in general the ,epistles     
follow the ,synoptic narratives1        
and not the account of the fourth       
,gospel4   ,see for instance      the   
reference to the anointing of ,jesus1   
,ad ,eph4 xvii41 cf4      ,matt4 xxvi4  
#g ff42 ,mark ziy4 #c flf42 cf4 ,john   
xii4 #a ff4  #bfe  ,the ,epistles in    
which the passages occur are spurious   
and of no value as evidence for the     
fourth ,gospel4 ,only-one of them is    
found in the three ,syriac ,epistles4   
,we have already stated the facts       
connected with the so-called ,epistles  
of ,ignatius17#a7 and no one who has    
attentively examined them can fail to   
see that the testimony of such documents
 cannot be considered of any historic   
weight1 except for a period when        
evidence of the use of the fourth       
,gospel ceases to be of any             

significance4  ,there are fifteen       
,epistles ascribed to ,ignatius--of     
these eight are universally recognized  
to be spurious4 ,of the remaining seven1
 there are two ,greek and ,latin        
versions1 the one much longer than the  
other4 ,the longer version is almost    
unanimously rejected as interpolated4   
,the discovery of a still shorter       
,syriac version of the three ,epistles  
of ,ignatius1 convinced the majority of 
critics that even the shorter ,greek    
version of seven ,epistles must be      
condemned1 and that whatever matter     
could be ascribed to ,ignatius himself1 
if any1 must be looked for in these     
three ,epistles alone4 ,the three       
martyrologies of ,ignatius are likewise 
universally repudiated as mere fictions4
 ,from such a mass of forgery1 in which 
it is impossible to identify even a     
kernel of truth1 no testimony could be  
produced which could in any degree      
establish the apostolic origin and      
authenticity of our ,gospels4  ,it is   

not pretended that the so-called        
,epistle of ,polycarp to the            
,philippians contains any references to 
the fourth ,gospel4 ,tischendorf1       
however1 affirms that it is weighty     
testimony for that ,gospel1 inasmuch as 
he discovers in it a certain trace of   
the first ,epistle of  #bff  ,john1 and 
as he maintains that the ,epistle and   
the ,gospel are the works of the same   
author1 any evidence for the one is at  
the same time evidence for the          
other47#a7 ,we shall hereafter consider 
the point of the common authorship of   
the ,epistles and fourth ,gospel1 and   
here confine ourselves chiefly to the   
alleged fact of the reference4  ,the    
passage to which ,teschendorf alludes we
 subjoin1 with the supposed parallel in 
the ,epistle4------  #bfg  ,this passage
 does not occur as a quotation1 and the 
utmost that can be said of the few words
 with which it opens is that a phrase   
somewhat resembling1 but at the same    
time materially differing from1 the     

,epistle of ,john is interwoven with the
 text of the ,epistle to the            
,philippians4 ,if this were really a    
quotation from the canonical ,epistle1  
it would indeed be singular that1       
considering the supposed relations of   
,polycarp and ,john1 the name of the    
apostle should not have been mentioned1 
and a quotation have been distinctly and
 correctly made47#a7 ,on the other hand1
 there is no earlier trace of the       
canonical ,epistle1 and1 as ,volkmar    
argues1 it may well be doubted whether  
it may not rather be dependent on the   
,epistle to the ,philippians1 than the  
latter upon the ,epistle of ,john47#b7  
,we believe with ,scholten that neither 
is dependent on the other1 but that both
 adopted a formula in use in the early  
,church against various heresies1#c the 
superficial coincidence of which is     
without any weight as evidence for the  
use of either ,epistle by the writer of 
the other4 ,moreover1 it is clear that  
the writers refer to different classes  

of heretics4 ,polycarp attacks the      
,docetae who deny that ,jesus ,christ   
has come in the flesh1 that is with a   
human body of flesh and blood2 whilst   
the ,epistle of ,john is directed       
against those who deny that ,jesus who  
has come in the flesh is the  #bfh      
,christ the ,son of ,god47#a7 ,volkmar  
points out that in ,polycarp the word   
,antichrist is made a proper name1      
whilst in the ,epistle the expression   
used is the abstract ,spirit of         
,antichrist4 ,polycarp in fact says that
 whoever denies the flesh of ,christ is 
no ,christian but ,antichrist1 and      
,volkmar finds this direct assertion    
more original than the assertion of the 
,epistle2 ,every spirit that confesseth 
that ,jesus ,christ is come in the flesh
 is of ,god17#b7 c4 ,in any case it     
seems to us clear that in both writings 
we have only the independent            
enunciation1 with decided difference of 
language and sense1 of a formula current
 in the ,church1 and that neither writer

 can be held to have originated the     
condemnation1 in these words1 of        
heresies which the ,church had begun    
vehemently to oppose1 and which were    
merely an application of ideas already  
well known1 as we see from the          
expression of the ,epistle in reference 
to the ,spirit of ,antichrist1 of which 
ye have heard that it cometh4 ,whether  
this phrase be an allusion to the       
,apocalypse xiii41 or to #b             
,thessalonians ii41 or to traditions    
current in the ,church1 we need not     
inquire2 it is sufficient that the      
,epistle of ,john avowedly applies a    
prophecy regarding ,antichrist already  
known amongst ,christians1 which was    
equally open to the other writer and    
probably familiar in the ,church4 ,this 
cannot under any circumstances be       
admitted as evidence of weight for the  
use of the #ast ,epistle of ,john4      
,there is no testimony whatever of the  
existence of the ,epistles ascribed to  
,john previous to this date1 and that   

fact would have to  #bfi  be established
 on sure grounds before the argument we 
are considering can have any value4  ,on
 the other hand1 we have already        
seen7#a7 that there is strong reason to 
doubt the authenticity of the ,epistle  
attributed to ,polycarp1 and a certainty
 that in any case it is1 in its present 
form1 considerably interpolated4 ,even  
if genuine in any part1 the use of the  
#ast ,epistle of ,john1 if established1 
could not be of much value as evidence  
for the fourth ,gospel1 of which the    
writing does not show a trace4 ,so far  
from there being any evidence that      
,polycarp knew the fourth ,gospel1      
however1 everything points to the       
opposite conclusion4 ,about ,a4,d4      
#aed-aee we find him taking part in the 
,paschal controversy17#b7 contradicting 
the statements of the fourth            
,gospel17#c7 and supporting the         
,synoptic view1 contending that the     
,christian festival should be celebrated
 on the #adth ,nisan1 the day on which  

he affirmed that the ,apostle ,john     
himself had observed it47#d7 ,irenaeus1 
who represents ,polycarp as the disciple
 of ,john1 says of him3 ,for neither was
 ,anicetus able to persuade ,polycarp   
not to observe it 7on the #adth7 because
 he had always observed it with ,john   
the disciple of our ,lord1 and with the 
rest of the apostles with whom he       
consorted47#e7 ,not only1 therefore1    
does ,polycarp not refer to the fourth  
,gospel1 but he is on the       #b  ,the
 date has1 hitherto1 generally been     
fixed at ,a4,d4 #afj1      but the      
recent investigations referred to in    
vol4 i4 p4 #bgd      f4 have led to the 
adoption of this earlier date1 and the  
visit to ,rome must1 therefore1 probably
 have taken place      just after the   
accession of ,anicetus to the ,roman    
bishopric4      ,cf4 ,lipsius1          
,zeitschr4 w4 ,theol4 #ahgd1 p4 #bje f4 
#bgj  contrary an important witness     
against it as the work of ,john1 for he 
represents that apostle as practically  

contradicting the ,gospel of which he is
 said to be the author4  ,the fulness   
with which we have discussed the        
character of the evangelical quotations 
of ,justin ,martyr renders the task of  
ascertaining whether his works indicate 
any acquaintance with the fourth ,gospel
 comparatively easy4 ,the detailed      
statements already made enable us       
without preliminary explanation directly
 to attack the problem1 and we are freed
 from the necessity of making extensive 
quotations to illustrate the facts of   
the case4  ,whilst apologists assert    
with some boldness that ,justin made use
 of our ,synoptics1 they are evidently1 
and with good reason1 less confident in 
maintaining his acquaintance with the   
fourth ,gospel4 ,canon ,westcott states3
 ,his references to ,st ,john are       
uncertain2 but this1 as has been already
 remarked1 follows from the character of
 the fourth ,gospel4 ,it was unlikely   
that he should quote its peculiar       
teaching in apologetic writings         

addressed to ,jews and heathens2 and at 
the same time he exhibits types of      
language and doctrine which1 if not     
immediately drawn from ,st4 ,john1 yet  
mark the presence of his influence and  
the recognition of his authority47#a7   
,this apology for the neglect of the    
fourth ,gospel  #bga  illustrates the   
obvious scantiness of the evidence      
furnished by ,justin4  ,tischendorf1    
however1 with his usual temerity1 claims
 ,justin as a powerful witness for the  
fourth ,gospel4 ,he says3 ,according to 
our judgment there are convincing       
grounds of proof for the fact that ,john
 also was known and used by ,justin1    
provided that an unprejudiced           
consideration be not made to give way to
 the antagonistic predilection against  
the ,johannine ,gospel4 ,in order fully 
and fairly to state the case which he   
puts forward1 we shall quote his own    
words1 but to avoid repetition we shall 
permit ourselves to interrupt him by    
remarks and by parallel passages from   

other writings for comparison with      
,justin4 ,tischendorf says3 ,the        
representation of the person of ,christ 
altogether peculiar to ,john as it is   
given particularly in his ,prologue i4  
#a 7 ,in the beginning was the ,word and
 the ,word was with ,god1 and the ,word 
was ,god71 and verse #ad 7and the word  
became flesh71 in the designation of him
 as ,logos1 as the ,word of ,god1       
unmistakably re-echoes in not a few     
passages in ,justin2 for instance37#a7  
',and ,jesus ,christ is alone the       
special ,son begotten by ,god1 being his
 ,word and first-begotten and           
power4'7#b7  ,with this we may compare  
another passage of ,justin from the     
second ,apology4 ,but his son1 who alone
 is rightly called ,son1 the ,word      
before the works of creation1       #a  
,tischendorf uses great liberty in      
translating some of      these passages1
 abbreviating and otherwise altering    
them as      it suits him4 ,we shall    
therefore give his ,german translation  

below1 and we add the ,greek which      
,tischendorf does not      quote--indeed
 he does not1 in most cases1 even state 
where      the passages are to be found4
  #bgb  who was both with him and       
begotten when in the beginning he       
created and ordered all things by       
him17#a7 c4  ,now the same words and    
ideas are to be found throughout the    
,canonical ,epistles and other writings1
 as well as in earlier works4 ,in the   
,apocalypse17#b7 the only book of the   
,new ,testament mentioned by ,justin1   
and which is directly ascribed by him to
 ,john17#c7 the term ,logos is applied  
to ,jesus the ,lamb1 7xix4 #ac73 and his
 name is called the ,word of ,god       
------4 ,elsewhere 7iii4 #ad7 he is     
called the ,beginning of the ,creation  
of ,god ------2 and again in the same   
book 7i4 #e7 he is the first-begotten of
 the dead ------4 ,in ,heb4 i #f he is  
the first-born ------1 as in ,coloss4 i4
 #ae he is the first-born of every      
creature ------2 and in #a ,cor4 i4 #bd 

we have3 ,christ the ,power of ,god and 
the ,wisdom of ,god------1 and it will  
be remembered that ,wisdom was the      
earlier term which became an alternative
 with ,word for the intermediate ,being4
 ,in ,heb4 i4 #b1 ,god is represented as
 speaking to us in the ,son4444 by whom 
he also made the worlds ------4 ,in #b  
,tim4 i4 #i1 he is before all worlds    
------1 cf4 ,heb4 ,l #aj1 ii4 #aj1 ,kom4
 xi4 #cf1 #a ,cor4 viii4 #f1 ,ephes4    
iii4 #i4  ,the works of ,philo are      
filled with similar representations of  
the ,logos1 but we must restrict        
ourselves to a very  #bgc  few4 ,god as 
a ,shepherd and ,king governs the       
universe having appointed his true      
,logos1 his first begotten ,son1 to have
 the care of this sacred flock1 as the  
,vicegerent of-a great ,king47#a7 ,in   
another place ,philo exhorts men to     
strive to become like ,god's first      
begotten ,word ------17#b7 and he adds1 
a few lines further on3 for the most    
ancient ,word is the image of ,god      

------4 ,the high priest of ,god in the 
world is the divine ,word1 his          
first-begotten son ------47#c7 ,speaking
 of the creation of the world ,philo    
says3 ,the instrument by which it was   
formed is the ,word of ,god ------47#d7 
,elsewhere3 ,for the ,word is the image 
of ,god by which the whole world was    
created ------47#e7 ,these passages     
might be indefinitely multiplied4       
,tischendorf's next passage is3 ,the    
first power ------ after the ,father of 
all and ,god the ,lord1 and ,son1 is the
 ,word ------2 in what manner having    
been made flesh ------ he became man1 we
 shall in what follows relate47#f7  #bgd
  ,we find everywhere parallels for this
 passage without seeking them in the    
fourth ,gospel4 ,in #a ,cor4 i4 #bd1    
,christ the ,power ------ of ,god and   
the ,wisdom of ,god2 cf4 ,heb4 i4 #b1   
#c1 #d1 #f1 #h2 ii4 #h4 ,in ,heb4 ii4   
#ad--ah1 there is a distinct account of 
his becoming flesh2 cf4 verse #g4 ,in   
,phil4 ii4 #f--h3 ,who 7,jesus ,christ7 

being in the form of ,god1 deemed it not
 grasping to be equal with ,god1 7#g7   
,but gave himself up1 taking the form of
 a servant1 being made in the likeness  
of men1 c4 ,in ,rom4 viii4 #c we have3  
,god sending his own ,son in the        
likeness of the flesh of sin1 c4 ------ 
,it must be borne in mind that the      
terminology of ,john i4 #ad1 and the    
word became flesh ------ is different   
from that of ,justin1 who uses the word 
------4 ,the sense and language here is1
 therefore1 quite as close as that of   
the fourth ,gospel ,we have also another
 parallel in #a ,tim4 iii4 #af1 ,who    
7,god7 was manifested in the flesh      
------1 cf4 #a ,cor4 xv4 #d1 #dg4  ,in  
like manner we find many similar        
passages in the ,works of ,philo4 ,he   
says in one place that man was not made 
in the likeness of the most high ,god   
the ,father of the universe1 but in that
 of the ,second ,god who is his ,word   
------47#a7 ,in another place the ,logos
 is said to be the interpreter of the   

highest ,god1 and he continues3 that    
must be ,god of us imperfect beings     
------47#b7  ,elsewhere he says3 ,but   
the  #bge  divine ,word which is above  
these 7the ,winged ,cherubim74444 but   
being itself the image of ,god1 at once 
the most ancient of all conceivable     
things1 and the one placed nearest to   
the only true and absolute existence    
without any separation or distance      
between them 27#a7 and a few lines      
further on he explains the cities of    
refuge to be3 ,the ,word of the         
,governor 7of all things7 and his       
creative and kingly power1 for of these 
are the heavens and the whole world47#b7
 ,the ,logos of ,god is above all things
 in the world1 and is the most ancient  
and the most universal of all things    
which are47#c7 ,the ,word is also the   
,ambassador sent by the ,governor 7of   
the universe7 to his subject 7man7      
------47#d7 ,such views of the ,logos   
are everywhere met with in the pages of 
,philo4  ,tischendorf continues3 ,the   

,word 7,logos7 of ,god is his ,son47#e7 
,we have already in the preceding       
paragraphs abundantly illustrated this  
sentence1 and may proceed to the next3  
,but since they did not know all things 
concerning the ,logos1 which is ,christ1
 they have frequently contradicted each 
other47#f7 ,these words are  #bgf  used 
with reference to ,lawgivers and        
philosophers4 ,justin1 who frankly      
admits the delight he took in the       
writings of ,plato7#a7 and other ,greek 
philosophers1 held the view that        
,socrates and ,plato had in an          
elementary form enunciated the doctrine 
of the ,logos17#b7 although he contends 
that they borrowed it from the writings 
of ,moses1 and with a largeness of mind 
very uncommon in the early ,church1 and 
indeed1 we might add1 in any age1 he    
believed ,socrates and such philosophers
 to have been ,christians1 even although
 they had been considered ,atheists47#c7
 ,as they did not of course know ,christ
 to be the ,logos1 he makes the         

assertion just quoted4 ,now the only    
point in the passage which requires     
notice is the identification of the     
,logos with ,jesus1 which has already   
been dealt with1 and as this was        
asserted in the ,apocalypse xix4 #ac1   
before the fourth ,gospel was written1  
no evidence in its favour is deducible  
from the statement4 ,we shall have more 
to say regarding this presently4        
,tischendorf continues3 ,but in what    
manner through the ,word of ,god1 ,jesus
 ,christ our ,saviour having been made  
flesh17#d7 c4  ,it must be apparent that
 the doctrine here is not that of the   
fourth ,gospel which makes the word     
become flesh simply1 whilst ,justin1    
representing a less advanced form1 and  
more uncertain stage1 of its            
development1 draws a distinction between
 the ,logos and ,jesus1 and describes   
,jesus ,christ as being made flesh by   
the power  #bgg  of the ,logos4 ,this is
 no accidental use of words1 for he     
repeatedly states the same fact1 as for 

instance3 ,but why through the power of 
the ,word1 according to the will of ,god
 the ,father and ,lord of all1 he was   
born a man of a ,virgin17#a7 c4         
,tischendorf continues3 ,to these       
passages out of the short second        
,apology we extract from the first 7cap4
 #cc747b7 ,by the ,spirit1 therefore1   
and power of ,god 7in reference to ,luke
 i4 #ce3 ',the ,holy ,spirit shall come 
upon thee1 and the power of the ,highest
 shall overshadow thee'7 we have nothing
 else to understand but the ,logos1     
which is the first-born of ,god47#c7    
,here again we have the same difference 
from the doctrine of the fourth ,gospel 
which we have just pointed out1 which   
is1 however1 so completely in agreement 
with the views of ,philo17#d7 and       
characteristic of a less developed form 
of the idea4 ,we shall further refer to 
the terminology hereafter1 and meantime 
we proceed to the last illustration     
given by ,tischendorf4  ,out of the     
,dialogue 7c4 #aje73 ',for that he was  

the only-begotten of the ,father of all1
 in peculiar wise begotten of him as    
,word and ,power ------1 and afterwards 
became man through the ,virgin1 as we   
have learnt from the ,memoirs1 ,i have  
already stated4'7#e7  #bgh  ,the        
allusion here is to the preceding       
chapters of the ,dialogue1 wherein1 with
 special reference 7c4 #ajj7 to the     
passage which has a parallel in ,luke i4
 #ce1 quoted by ,tischendorf in the     
preceding illustration1 ,justin narrates
 the birth of ,jesus4  ,this reference  
very appropriately leads us to a more   
general discussion of the real source of
 the terminology and ,logos doctrine of 
,justin4 ,we do not propose1 in this    
work1 to enter fully into the history of
 the ,logos doctrine1 and we must       
confine ourselves strictly to showing1  
in the most simple manner possible1 that
 not only is there no evidence whatever 
that ,justin derived his ideas regarding
 it from the fourth ,gospel1 but that1  
on the contrary1 his terminology and    

doctrine may be traced to another       
source4 ,now1 in the very chapter 7#ajj7
 from which this last illustration is   
taken1 ,justin shows clearly whence he  
derives the expression3 only-begotten4  
,in chap4 #ig he refers to the ,ps4     
xxii4 7,sept4 xxi47 as a prophecy       
applying to ,jesus1 quotes the whole    
,psalm1 and comments upon it in the     
following chapters2 refers to ,ps4 ii4  
#g3 ,thou art my ,son1 this day have ,i 
begotten thee1 uttered by the voice at  
the baptism1 in ch4 #ajc1 in            
illustration of it2 and in ch4 #aje he  
arrives1 in his exposition of it1 at    
,verse #bj3 ,deliver my soul from the   
sword1 and my7#a7 only-begotten ------  
from the hand of the dog4 ,then follows 
the passage we are discussing1 in which 
,justin affirms that       #a ,this     
should probably be thy4  #bgi  he has   
proved that he was the only-begotten    
------ of the ,father1 and at the close 
he again quotes the verse as indicative 
of his sufferings4 ,the ,memoirs are    

referred to in regard to the fulfilment 
of this prophecy1 and his birth as man  
through the ,virgin4 ,the phrase in     
,justin is quite different from that in 
the fourth ,gospel1 i4 #ad3 ,and the    
,word became flesh ------ and           
tabernacled among us1 find we beheld his
 glory1 glory as of the only-begotten   
from the ,father ------1 c4  ,in ,justin
 he is the only-begotten of the ,father 
of all ------1 and he became man ------ 
through the ,virgin1 and ,justin never  
once employs the peculiar terminology of
 the fourth ,gospel1 ------1 in any part
 of his writings4  ,there can be no     
doubt that1 however the ,christian      
doctrine of the ,logos may at one period
 of its development have been influenced
 by ,greek philosophy1 it was in its    
central idea mainly of ,jewish origin1  
and the mere application to an          
individual of a theory which had long   
occupied the ,hebrew mind4 ,after the   
original simplicity which represented   
,god as holding personal intercourse    

with the ,patriarchs1 and communing face
 to face with the great leaders of      
,israel1 had been outgrown1 an          
increasing tendency set in to shroud the
 ,divinity in impenetrable mystery1 and 
to regard him as unapproachable and     
undiscernible by man4 ,this led to the  
recognition of a ,divine representative 
and substitute of the ,highest ,god and 
,father1 who communicated with his      
creatures1 and through whom alone he    
revealed himself4 ,a new system of      
interpretation of the ancient traditions
 of the nation was rendered necessary1  
and in the ,septuagint translation of   
the ,bible we are fortunately able to   
trace  #bhj  the progress of the theory 
which culminated in the ,christian      
doctrine of the ,logos4 ,wherever in the
 sacred records ,god had been           
represented as holding intercourse with 
man1 the translators either symbolized  
the appearance or interposed an angel1  
who was afterwards understood to be the 
,divine ,word4 ,the first name under    

which the ,divine ,mediator was known in
 the ,old ,testament was ,wisdom ------1
 although in its ,apocrypha the term    
,logos was not unknown4 ,the            
personification of the idea was very    
rapidly effected1 and in the ,book of   
,proverbs1 as well as in the later      
,apocrypha based upon it3 the ,wisdom of
 ,solomon1 and the ,wisdom of ,sirach1  
,ecclesiasticus3 we find it in ever     
increasing clearness and concretion4 ,in
 the ,school of ,alexandria the active  
,jewish intellect eagerly occupied      
itself with the speculation1 and in the 
writings of ,philo especially we find   
the doctrine of the ,logos--the term    
which by that time had almost entirely  
supplanted that of ,wisdom--elaborated  
to almost its final point1 and wanting  
little or nothing but its application in
 an incarnate form to an individual man 
to represent the doctrine of the earlier
 ,canonical writings of the ,new        
,testament1 and notably the ,epistle to 
the ,hebrews1--the work of a ,christian 

,philo17#a7--the ,pauline ,epistles1 and
 lastly the fourth ,gospel7#b7  #bha    
,in ,proverbs viii4 #bb ff41 we have a  
representation of ,wisdom corresponding 
closely with the prelude to the fourth  
,gospel1 and still more so with the     
doctrine enunciated by ,justin3 #bb4    
,the ,lord created me the ,beginning of 
his ways for his works4 #bc4 ,before the
 ages he established me1 in the         
beginning before he made the earth4 #bd4
 ,and before he made the abysses1 before
 the springs of the waters issued forth4
 #be4 ,before the mountains were        
settled1 and before all the hills he    
begets me4 #bf4 ,the ,lord made the     
lands1 both those which are uninhabited 
and the inhabited heights of the earth  
beneath the sky4 #bg4 ,when he prepared 
the heavens ,i was present with him1 and
 when he set his throne upon the winds1 
#bh1 and made strong the high clouds1   
and the deeps under the heaven made     
secure1 #bi1 and made strong the        
foundations of the earth1 #cj1 ,i was   

with him adjusting1 ,i was that in which
 he delighted2 daily ,i rejoiced in his 
presence at all times47#a7 ,in the      
,wisdom of ,solomon we find the writer  
addressing ,god3 ix4 #a444 ,who madest  
all things by thy ,word ------2 and     
further on in the same chapter1 v4 #i1  
,and ,wisdom was with thee who knoweth  
thy works1 and was present when thou    
madest the world1 and knew what was     
acceptable  #bhb  in thy sight1 and     
right in thy commandments4 7#a7 ,in     
verse #d1 the writer prays3 ,give me    
,wisdom that sitteth by thy thrones     
-----47#b7 ,in a similar way the son of 
,sirach makes ,wisdom say 7,ecclesiast4 
xxiv4 #i73 ,he 7the ,most ,high7 created
 me from the beginning before the world1
 and as long as the world ,i shall not  
fail47#c7 ,we have already incidentally 
seen how these thoughts grew into an    
elaborate doctrine of the ,logos in the 
works of ,philo4  ,now ,justin1 whilst  
he nowhere adopts the terminology of the
 fourth ,gospel1 and nowhere refers to  

its introductory condensed statement of 
the ,logos doctrine1 closely follows    
,philo and1 like him1 traces it back to 
the ,old ,testament in the most direct  
way1 accounting for the interposition of
 the divine ,mediator in precisely the  
same manner as ,philo1 and expressing   
the views which had led the ,seventy to 
modify the statement of the ,hebrew     
original in their ,greek translation4   
,he is1 in fact1 thoroughly acquainted  
with the history of the ,logos doctrine 
and its earlier enunciation under the   
symbol of ,wisdom1 and his knowledge of 
it is clearly independent of1 and       
antecedent to1 the statements of the    
fourth ,gospel4  ,referring to various  
episodes of the ,old ,testament in which
 ,god is represented as appearing to    
,moses and the ,patriarchs1 and in which
 it is said that ,god went up from      
,abraham17#d7 or ,the ,lord spake to    
,moses17#e7 or ,the ,lord came down to  
behold the town1 c417#f7 or ,god  #bhc  
shut ,noah into the ark17#a7 and so on1 

,justin warns his antagonist that he is 
not to suppose that the unbegotten ,god 
------ did any of these things1 for he  
has neither to come to any place1 nor   
walks1 but from his own place1 wherever 
it may be1 knows everything although he 
has neither eyes nor ears4 ,therefore   
he4 could not talk with anyone1 nor be  
seen by anyone1 and none of the         
,patriarchs saw the ,father at all1 but 
they saw him who was according to his   
will both his ,son 7being ,god7 and the 
,angel1 in that he ministered to his    
purpose1 whom also he willed to be born 
man by the ,virgin1 who became fire when
 he spoke with ,moses from the bush47#b7
 ,he refers throughout his writings to  
the various appearances of ,god to the  
,patriarchs1 all of which he ascribes to
 the pre-existent ,jesus1 the ,word17#c7
 and in the very next chapter1 after    
alluding to some of these1 he says3 he  
is called ,angel because he came to men1
 since by him the decrees of the ,father
 are announced to men444 ,at other times

 he is also called ,man and human being1
 because he appears clothed in these    
forms as the ,father wills1 and they    
call him ,logos because  #bhd  he bears 
the communications of the ,father to    
mankind47#a7  ,justin1 moreover1        
repeatedly refers to the fact that he   
was called ,wisdom by ,solomon1 and     
quotes the passage we have indicated in 
,proverbs4 ,in one place he says1 in    
proof of his assertion that the ,god who
 appeared to ,moses and the ,patriarchs 
was distinguished from the ,father1 and 
was in fact the ,word 7ch4 #ff--gj73    
,another testimony ,i will give you1 my 
friends1 ,i said1 from the ,scriptures  
that ,god begat before all of the       
creatures ------ a ,beginning           
------17#b7 a certain rational ,power   
------ out of himself1 who is called by 
the ,holy ,spirit1 now the ,glory of the
 ,lord1 then the ,son1 again ,wisdom1   
again ,angel1 again ,god1 and again     
,lord and ,logos2 c41 and a little      
further on3 ,the ,word of ,wisdom will  

testify to me1 who is himself this ,god 
begotten of the ,father of the universe1
 being ,word1 and ,wisdom1 and ,power   
------1 and the ,glory of the ,begetter1
 c417#c7 and he quotes1 from the        
,septuagint version1 ,proverbs viii4    
#bb--cf1 part of which we have given    
above1 and indeed1 elsewhere 7ch4 #abi71
 he quotes the passage a second time as 
evidence1 with a similar context4       
,justin refers to it  #bhe  again in the
 next chapter1 and the peculiarity of   
his terminology in all these passages1  
so markedly different from1 and indeed  
opposed to1 that of the fourth ,gospel1 
will naturally strike the reader3 ,but  
this offspring ------ being truly       
brought forth by the ,father was with   
the ,father before all created beings   
------1 and the ,father communes with   
him1 as the ,logos declared through     
,solomon1 that this same1 who is called 
,wisdom by ,solomon1 had been begotten  
of ,god before all created beings       
------1 both ,beginning ------ and      

,offspring ------1 ,c47#a7 ,in another  
place after quoting the words3 ,no man  
knoweth the ,father but the ,son1 nor   
the ,son but the ,father1 and they to   
whom the ,son will reveal him1 ,justin  
continues3 ,therefore he revealed to us 
all that we have by his grace understood
 out of the ,scriptures1 recognizing him
 to be indeed the first-begotten ------ 
of ,god1 and before all creatures       
------4444 and calling him ,son1 we have
 understood that he proceeded from the  
,father by his power and will before all
 created beings ------1 for in one form 
or another he is spoken of in the       
writings of the prophets as ,wisdom1    
c427#b7 and again1 in two other places  
he refers to the same fact47#c7 ,on     
further examination1 we find on every   
side still  #bhf  stronger confirmation 
of the conclusion that ,justin derived  
his ,logos doctrine from the ,old       
,testament and ,philo1 together with    
early ,new ,testament writings4 ,we have
 quoted several passages in which       

,justin details the various names of the
 ,logos1 and we may add one more4       
,referring to ,ps4 lxxii41 which the    
,jews apply to ,solomon1 but which      
,justin maintains to be applicable to   
,christ1 he says3 ,for ,christ is ,king1
 and ,priest1 and ,god1 and ,lord1 and  
,angel1 and ,man1 and ,captain1 and     
,stone1 and a ,son born ------1 c4 c41  
as ,i prove by all of the               
,scriptures47#a7 ,now these             
representations1 which are constantly   
repeated throughout ,justin's writings1 
are quite opposed to the ,spirit of the 
fourth ,gospel1 but are on the other    
hand equally common in the works of     
,philo1 and many of them also to be     
found in the ,philonian ,epistle to the 
,hebrews4 ,taking the chief amongst them
 we may briefly illustrate them4 ,the   
,logos as ,king1 ,justin avowedly       
derives from ,ps4 lxxii41 in which he   
finds that reference is made to the     
,everlasting ,king1 that is to say      
,christ47#b7 ,we find this              

representation of the ,logos throughout 
the writings of ,philo4 ,in one place   
already briefly referred to17#c7 but    
which we shall now more fully quote1 he 
says3 ,for ,god as ,shepherd and ,king  
governs according to ,law and justice   
like a flock of sheep1 the earth1 and   
water1 and air1 and fire1 and all the   
plants and living things that are in    
them1 whether they be mortal or divine1 
as well as the course of heaven1 and the
 periods of sun and moon1 and the       
variations and harmonious revolutions of
 the other stars2 having appointed his  
true ,word ------  #bhg  ------ his     
first-begotten ,son ------ to have the  
care of this sacred flock as the        
,vicegerent of a great ,king27#a7 and a 
little further on1 he says3 very        
reasonably1 therefore1 he will assume   
the name of a ,king1 being addressed as 
a ,shepherd47#b7 ,in another place1     
,philo speaks of the ,logos of the      
,governor1 and his creative and kingly  
power1 for of these is the heaven and   

the whole world47#c7  ,then if we take  
the second epithet1 the ,logos as       
,priest ------1 which is quite foreign  
to the fourth ,gospel1 we find it       
repeated by ,justin1 as for instance3   
,christ the eternal ,priest ------17#d7 
and it is not only a favourite          
representation of ,philo1 but is almost 
the leading idea of the ,epistle to the 
,hebrews1 in connection with the episode
 of ,melchisedec1 in whom also both     
,philo17#e7 and ,justin17#f7 recognize  
the ,logos4 ,in the ,epistle to the     
,hebrews1 vii4 #c1 speaking of          
,melchisedec3 but likened to the ,son of
 ,god1 abideth a ,priest for ever37#g7  
again in iv4 #ad3 ,seeing then that we  
have a great ,high ,priest that is      
passed through the heavens1 ,jesus the  
,son  #bhh  of ,god1 c427#a7 ix4 #aa3   
,christ having appeared a ,high ,priest 
of the good things to come27#b7 xii4    
#ba3 ,thou art a ,priest for ever47#c7  
,the passages are indeed far too        
numerous to quote47#d7 ,they are equally

 numerous in the writings of ,philo4 ,in
 one place already quoted17#e7 he says3 
,for there are as it seems two temples  
of ,god1 one of which is this world1 in 
which the ,high ,priest is the divine   
,word1 his first-begotten ,son          
------47#f7 ,elsewhere1 speaking of the 
period for the return of fugitives1 the 
death of the high priest1 which taken   
literally would embarrass him in his    
allegory1 ,philo says3 ,for we maintain 
the ,high ,priest not to be a man1 but  
the divine ,word1 who is without        
participation not only in voluntary but 
also in involuntary sins27#g7 and he    
goes on to speak of this priest as the  
most sacred ,word ------47#h7 ,indeed1  
in many long passages he descants upon  
the high priest ,word ------47#i7       
,proceeding to the next representations 
of the ,logos  #bhi  as ,god and ,lord1 
we meet with the idea everywhere4 ,in   
,hebrews i4 #h3 ,but regarding the ,son 
he saith3 ,thy throne1 ,o ,god1 is for  
ever and ever ------1 and again in the  

,epistle to the ,philippians1 ii4 #f1   
,who 7,jesus ,christ7 being in the form 
of ,god1 deemed it not grasping to be   
equal with ,god ------47#a7 ,philo1 in  
the fragment preserved by ,eusebius1 to 
which we have already referred17#b7     
calls the ,logos the ,second ,god       
------47#c7 ,in another passage he has3 
,but he calls the most ancient ,god his 
present ,logos1 c4 ------27#d7 and a    
little further on1 speaking of the      
inability of men to look on the ,father 
himself3 thus they regard the image of  
,god1 his ,angel ,word1 as himself      
------47#e7 ,elsewhere discussing the   
possibility of ,god's swearing by       
himself1 which he applies to the ,logos1
 he says3 ,for in regard to us imperfect
 beings he will be a ,god1 but in regard
 to wise and perfect beings the first4  
,and yet ,moses1 in awe of the          
superiority of the unbegotten ------    
,god1 says3 ',and thou shalt swear by   
his name1' not by himself2 for it is    
sufficient for the creature to receive  

assurance and testimony by the divine   
,word47#f7  ,it must be remarked1       
however1 that both ,justin and  #bij    
,philo place the ,logos in a position   
more clearly secondary to ,god the      
,father1 than the prelude to the fourth 
,gospel i4 #a4 ,both ,justin and ,philo 
apply the term ------ to the ,logos     
without the article4 ,justin distinctly 
says that ,christians worship ,jesus    
,christ as the ,son of the true ,god1   
holding him in the second place         
------17#a7 and this secondary position 
is systematically defined through       
,justin's writings in a very decided    
way1 as it is in the works of ,philo by 
the contrast of the begotten ,logos with
 the unbegotten ,god4 ,justin speaks of 
the ,word as the first-born of the      
unbegotten ,god ------17#b7 and the     
distinctive appellation of the          
unbegotten ,god applied to the ,father  
is most common throughout his           
writings47#c7 ,we may in continuation of
 this remark point out another phrase of

 ,justin which is continually repeated1 
but is thoroughly opposed both to the   
spirit and to the terminology of the    
fourth ,gospel1 and which likewise      
indicates the secondary consideration in
 which he held the ,logos4 ,he calls the
 ,word constantly the first-born of all 
created beings ------ the first-born of 
all creation1 echoing the expression of 
,col4 i4 #ae4 7,the ,son7 who is the    
image of the invisible ,god1 the        
first-born of all creation ------4      
,this is a totally different view from  
that of the fourth ,gospel1 which in so 
emphatic a manner  #bia  enunciates the 
doctrine3 ,in the beginning was the     
,word and the ,word was with ,god1 and  
the ,word was ,god1 a statement which   
,justin1 with ,philo1 only makes in a   
very modified sense4  ,to return1       
however1 the next representation of the 
,logos by ,justin is as ,angel4 ,this   
perpetually recurs in his writings47#a7 
,in one place1 to which we have already 
referred1 he says3 ,the ,word of ,god is

 his ,son1 as we have already stated1   
and he is also called ,messenger ------ 
and ,apostle1 for he brings the message 
of all we need to know1 and is sent an  
,apostle to declare all the message     
contains47#b7 ,in the same chapter      
reference is again made to passages     
quoted for the sake of proving3 that    
,jesus ,christ is the ,son of ,god and  
,apostle1 being aforetime the ,word and 
having appeared now in the form of fire1
 and now in the likeness of incorporeal 
beings27#c7 and he gives many           
illustrations47#d7 ,the passages1       
however1 in which the ,logos is called  
,angel1 are too numerous to be more     
fully dealt with here4 ,it is scarcely  
necessary to point out that this        
representation of the ,logos as ,angel1 
is not only foreign to1 but opposed to  
the spirit of1 the fourth ,gospel1      
although it is thoroughly in harmony    
with the writings of ,philo4 ,before    
illustrating this1 however1 we may      
incidentally remark that the ascription 

to the ,logos of the name ,apostle which
 occurs in the two passages just quoted 
above1 as well as in other parts of the 
writings of ,justin17#e7  #bib  is      
likewise opposed to the fourth ,gospel1 
although it is found in earlier         
writings1 exhibiting a less developed   
form of the ,logos doctrine2 for the    
,epistle to the ,hebrews iii4 #a1 has3  
,consider the ,apostle and ,high ,priest
 of our confession1 ,jesus1 c4 ------4  
,we are1 in fact1 constantly directed by
 the remarks of ,justin to other sources
 of the ,logos doctrine1 and never to   
the fourth ,gospel1 with which his tone 
and terminology do not agree4           
,everywhere in the writings of ,philo we
 meet with the ,logos as ,angel4 ,he    
speaks of the ,angel ,word of ,god in a 
sentence already quoted17#a7 and        
elsewhere in a passage1 one of many     
others1 upon which the lines of ,justin 
which we are now considering 7as well as
 several similar passages77#b7 are in   
all probability moulded4 ,philo calls   

upon men to strive earnestly to be      
fashioned according to ,god's           
first-begotten ,word1 the eldest ,angel1
 who is the ,archangel bearing many     
names1 for he is called  #bic  the      
,beginning ------1 and ,name of ,god1   
and ,logos1 and the ,man according to   
his image1 and the ,seer of ,israel47#a7
 ,elsewhere1 in a remarkable passage1 he
 says3 ,to his ,archangel and eldest    
,word1 the ,father1 who created the     
universe1 gave the supreme gift that    
having stood on the confine he may      
separate the creature from the ,creator4
 ,the same is an intercessor on behalf  
of the ever wasting mortal to the       
immortal2 he is also the ambassador of  
the ,ruler to his subjects4 ,and he     
rejoices in the gift1 and the majesty of
 it he describes1 saying3 ',and ,i stood
 in the midst between the ,lord and you'
 7,numbers xvi #dh72 being neither      
unbegotten like ,god1 nor begotten like 
you1 but between the two extremes1      
c47#b7 ,we have been tempted to give    

more of this passage than is necessary  
for our immediate purpose1 because it   
affords the reader another glimpse of   
,philo's doctrine of the ,logos1 and    
generally illustrates its position in   
connection with the ,christian doctrine4
  ,the last of ,justin's names which we 
shall here notice is the ,logos as ,man 
as well as ,god4 ,in another place      
,justin explains that he is sometimes   
called a ,man and human being1 because  
he appears in these forms as the ,father
 wills47#c7 ,but here confining         
ourselves merely  #bid  to the concrete 
idea1 we find a striking representation 
of it in #a ,tim4 ii4 #e3 ,for there is 
one ,god and one mediator between ,god  
and man1 the ,man ,christ ,jesus2       
------2 and again in ,rom4 v4 #ae3 444  
by the grace of the one man ,jesus      
,christ ------1 as well as other        
passages47#a7 ,we have already seen in  
the passage quoted above from ,de       
,confus4 ,ling4 ,sec4 #bh1 that ,philo  
mentions1 among the many names of the   

,logos1 that of the ,man according to   
7,god's7 image ------17#b7 or the       
typical man74 ,if1 however1 we pass to  
the application of the ,logos doctrine  
to ,jesus1 we have the strongest reason 
for inferring ,justin's total           
independence of the fourth ,gospel4 ,we 
have already pointed out that the title 
of ,logos is given to ,jesus in ,new    
,testament writings earlier than the    
fourth ,gospel4 ,we have remarked that1 
although the passages are innumerable in
 which ,justin speaks of the ,word      
having become man through the ,virgin1  
he never once throughout his writings   
makes use of the peculiar expression of 
the fourth ,gospel3 the ,word became    
flesh ------4  ,on the few occasions on 
which he speaks of the ,word having been
 made flesh1 he uses the term           
------47#c7 ,in one instance he has     
------17#d7 and speaking of the         
,eucharist ,justin once explains that it
 is in memory of ,christ's having made  
himself body1 ------#e ,justin's most   

common phrase1  #bie  however1 and he   
repeats it in numberless instances1 is  
that the ,logos submitted to be born1   
and become man ------1 by a ,virgin1 or 
he uses variously the expressions3      
------47#a7 ,in several places he speaks
 of him as the first production or      
offspring ------ of ,god before all     
created beings1 as1 for instance3 ,the  
,logos444 who is the first offspring of 
,god ------27#b7 and again1 and that    
this offspring was begotten of the      
,father absolutely before all creatures 
the ,word was declaring ------47#c7 ,we 
need not say more of the expressions3   
first-born ------1 first-begotten       
------1 so constantly applied to the    
,logos by ,justin1 in agreement with    
,philo2 nor to only begotten ------1    
directly derived from ,ps4 xxii994 #bj  
7,ps4 xxi4 #bj1 ,sept474  ,it must be   
apparent to everyone who seriously      
examines the subject1 that ,justin's    
terminology is markedly different from1 
and in spirit sometimes opposed to1 that

 of the fourth ,gospel1 and in fact that
 the peculiarities of the ,gospel are   
not found in ,justin's writings at      
all47#d7 ,on the  #bif  other hand1 his 
doctrine of the ,logos is precisely that
 of ,philo17#a7 and of writings long    
antecedent to the fourth ,gospel1 and   
there can be no doubt1 we think1 that it
 was derived from them47#b7   #big  ,we 
may now proceed to consider other       
passages adduced by ,tischendorf to     
support his assertion that ,justin made 
use of the fourth ,gospel4 ,he says3    
,passages of the ,johannine ,gospel1    
however1 are also not wanting to which  
passages in ,justin refer back4 ,in the 
,dialogue1 ch4 #hh1 he writes of ,john  
the ,baptist3 ',the people believed that
 he was the ,christ1 but he cried to    
them3 ,i am not the ,christ1 but the    
voice of a preacher4' ,this is connected
 with ,john i4 #bj and #bc2 for no other
 ,evangelist has reported the first     
words in the ,baptist's reply47#a7 ,now 
the passage in ,justin1 with its        

context1 reads as follows3 ,for ,john   
sat by the ,jordan ------ and preached  
the ,baptism of repentance1 wearing only
 a leathern girdle and raiment of       
camel's hair1 and eating nothing but    
locusts and wild honey2 men supposed    
------ him to be the ,christ1 wherefore 
he himself cried to them3 ',i am not the
 ,christ1 but the voice of one crying3  
,for he shall come ------ who is        
stronger than ,i1 whose shoes ,i am not 
meet ------ to bear4'7#b7 ,now the only 
ground upon which this passage can be   
compared with the fourth ,gospel is the 
reply3 ,i am not the ,christ ------1    
which in ,john i4 #bj reads3------  #bih
  ------3 and it is perfectly clear     
that1 if the direct negation occurred in
 any other ,gospel1 the difference of   
the whole passage in the ,dialogue would
 prevent even an apologist from         
advancing any claim to its dependence on
 that ,gospel4 ,in order to appreciate  
the nature of the two passages1 it may  
be well to collect the nearest parallels

 in the ,gospel1 and compare them with  
,justin's narrative4 ------  #bii  ,the 
introductory description of ,john's     
dress and habits is quite contrary to   
the fourth ,gospel1 but corresponds to  
some extent with ,matt4 iii4 #d4 ,it is 
difficult to conceive two accounts more 
fundamentally different1 and the        
discrepancy becomes more apparent when  
we consider the scene and actors in the 
episode4 ,in ,justin1 it is evident that
 the hearers of ,john had received the  
impression that he was the ,christ1 and 
the ,baptist becoming aware of it       
voluntarily disabused their minds of    
this idea4 ,in the fourth ,gospel the   
words of ,john are extracted from him   
7he confessed and denied not7 by        
emissaries sent by the ,pharisees of    
,jerusalem specially to question him on 
the subject4 ,the account of ,justin    
betrays no knowledge of any such        
interrogation4 ,the utter difference is 
brought to a climax by the concluding   
statement of the fourth ,gospel3--      

------  ,in fact the scene in the two   
narratives is as little the same as     
their details4 ,one can scarcely avoid  
the conclusion1 in reading the fourth   
,gospel1 that it quotes some other      
account and does not pretend to report  
the scene direct4 ,for instance1 i4 #ae1
 ,john beareth witness of him1 and      
cried1 saying3 ',this was he of whom ,i 
said3 ,he that cometh after me is become
 before me1 because he was before me1'  
c4 ,v4 #ai3 ,and this is the testimony  
of ,john1 when the ,jews sent priests   
and ,levites from ,jerusalem to ask him3
 ,who art thou8 and he confessed and    
denied not1 and confessed that ,i am not
 the ,christ1 c4 ,now1 as usual1 the    
,gospel which ,justin uses more nearly  
approximates to our first ,synoptic     
#cjj  than the other ,gospels1 although 
it differs in very important points from
 that also--still1 taken in connection  
with the third ,synoptic1 and ,acts     
xiii4 #be1 this indicates the great     
probability of the existence of other   

writings combining the particulars as   
they occur in ,justin4 ,luke iii4 #ae1  
reads3 ,and as the people were in       
expectation1 and all mused in their     
hearts concerning ,john whether he were 
the ,christ1 #af4 ,john answered1 saying
 to them all3 ,i indeed baptize you with
 water1 but he that is stronger than ,i 
cometh1 the latchet of whose shoes ,i am
 not worthy to unloose3 he shall baptize
 you with the ,holy ,spirit and with    
fire1 c4  ,whilst1 however1 with the    
sole exception of the simple statement  
of the ,baptist that he was not the     
,christ1 which in all the accounts is   
clearly involved in the rest of the     
reply1 there is no analogy whatever     
between the parallel in the fourth      
,gospel and the passage in ,justin1 many
 important circumstances render it      
certain that ,justin did not derive his 
narrative from that source4 ,we have    
already7#a7 fully discussed the         
peculiarities of ,justin's account of   
the ,baptist1 and in the context to the 

very passage before us there are details
 quite foreign to our ,gospels which    
show that ,justin made use of another   
and different work4 ,when ,jesus stepped
 into the water to be baptized a fire   
was kindled in the ,jordan1 and the     
voice from heaven makes use of words not
 found in our ,gospels2 but both the    
incident and the words are known to have
 been contained in the ,gospel according
 to the ,hebrews and other works4       
,justin likewise states1 in immediate   
continuation of the passage before us1  
that ,jesus was considered the son of   
#cja  ,joseph the carpenter1 and himself
 was a carpenter and accustomed to make 
ploughs and yokes47#a7 ,the ,evangelical
 work of which ,justin made use was     
obviously different from our ,gospels1  
therefore1 and the evident conclusion to
 which any impartial mind must arrive   
is1 that there is not only not the      
slightest ground for affirming that     
,justin quoted the passage before us    
from the fourth ,gospel1 from which he  

so fundamentally differs1 but every     
reason on the contrary to believe that  
he derived it from a ,gospel different  
from ours47#b7  ,the next point advanced
 by ,tischendorf is1 that on two        
occasions he speaks of the restoration  
of sight to persons born blind1#c the   
only instance of which in our ,gospels  
is that recorded1 ,john ix4 #a4 ,the    
references in ,justin are very vague and
 general4 ,in the first place he is     
speaking of the analogies in the life of
 ,jesus with events believed in         
connection with mythological deities1   
and he says that he would appear to     
relate acts very similar to those       
attributed to ,a,esculapius when he says
 that ,jesus healed the lame and        
paralytic1 and the maimed from birth    
------1 and raised the dead47#d7 ,in the
 ,dialogue1 again referring to          
,a,esculapius1 he says that ,christ     
healed those who were from birth and    
according to the flesh blind ------1 and
 deaf1 and lame47#e7 ,in the fourth     

,gospel  #cjb  the born-blind is        
described as ------4 ,there is a        
variation it will be observed in the    
term employed by ,justin1 and that such 
a remark should be seized upon as an    
argument for the use of the fourth      
,gospel serves to show the poverty of   
the evidence for the existence of that  
work4 ,without seeking any further1 we  
might at once reply that such general   
references as those of ,justin might    
well be referred to the common tradition
 of the ,church1 which certainly        
ascribed all kinds of marvellous cures  
and miracles to ,jesus4 ,it is moreover 
unreasonable to suppose that the only   
,gospel in which the cure of one born   
blind was narrated was that which is the
 fourth in our ,canon4 ,such a miracle  
may have formed part of a dozen similar 
collections extant at the time of       
,justin1 and in no case could such an   
allusion be recognized as evidence of   
the use of the fourth ,gospel4 ,but in  
the ,dialogue1 along with this remark1  

,justin couples the statement that      
although the people saw such cures3     
,they asserted them to be magical       
illusion2 for they also ventured to call
 him a magician and deceiver of the     
people47#a7 ,this is not found in our   
,gospels1 but traces of the same        
tradition are met with elsewhere1 as we 
have already mentioned27#b7 and it is   
probable that ,justin either found all  
these particulars in the ,gospel of     
which he made use1 or that he refers to 
traditions familiar amongst the early   
,christians4  ,tischendorfs next point  
is that ,justin quotes the words of     
,zechariah xii4 #aj1 with the same      
variation from the text of the          
,septuagint as ,john xix4 #cg--,they    
shall look on him whom they pierced     
------  #cjc  ------ instead of ------1 
arising out of an emendation of the     
translation of the ,hebrew original4    
,tischendorf says3 ,nothing can be more 
opposed to probability1 than the        
supposition that ,john and ,justin have 

here1 independently of each other1      
followed a translation of the ,hebrew   
text which elsewhere has remained       
unknown to us47#b7 ,the fact is1        
however1 that the translation which has 
been followed is not elsewhere unknown4 
,we meet with the same variation1 much  
earlier1 in the only book of the ,new   
,testament which ,justin mentions1 and  
with which1 therefore1 he was beyond any
 doubt well acquainted1 ,rev4 i4 #g3    
,behold he cometh with clouds1 and every
 eye shall see him ------1 and they     
which pierced ------ him1 and all the   
tribes of the earth shall bewail him4   
,yea1 ,amen4 ,this is a direct reference
 to the passage in ,zech4 xii4 #aj4 ,it 
will be remembered that the quotation in
 the ,gospel3 ,they shall look upon him 
whom they pierced1 is made solely in    
reference to the thrust of the lance in 
the side of ,jesus1 while that of the   
,apocalypse is a connection of the      
prophecy with the second coming of      
,christ1 which1 except in a spiritual   

sense1 is opposed to the fourth ,gospel4
 ,now1 ,justin upon each occasion quotes
 the whole passage also in reference to 
the second coming of ,christ as the     
,apocalypse does1 and this alone settles
 the point so far as these two sources  
are concerned4 ,if ,justin derived his  
variation from either of the ,canonical 
works1  #cjd  therefore1 we should be   
bound to conclude that it must have been
 from the ,apocalypse4 ,the correction  
of the ,septuagint version1 which has   
thus been traced back as far as a4d4 #fh
 when the ,apocalypse was composed1 was 
noticed by ,jerome in his ,commentary on
 the text27#a7 and ,aquila1 a           
contemporary of ,irenaeus1 and later    
,symmachus and ,theodotion1 as well as  
others1 similarly adopted ------4 ,ten  
important ,,mss41 of the ,septuagint1 at
 least1 have the reading of ,justin and 
of the ,apocalypse1 and these ,,mss4    
likewise frequently agree with the other
 peculiarities of ,justin's text4 ,in   
all probability1 as ,credner1 who long  

ago pointed out all these circumstances1
 conjectured1 an emendation of the      
rendering of the ,,lxx4 had early been  
made1 partly in ,christian interest and 
partly for the critical improvement of  
the text17#b7 and this amended version  
was used by ,justin and earlier         
,christian writers4 ,ewald7#c7c and some
 others suggest that probably ------    
originally stood in the ,septuagint     
text4 ,every consideration is opposed to
 the dependence of ,justin upon the     
fourth ,gospel for the variation47#d7   
,the next and last point advanced by    
,tischendorf is a passage in ,apol4 i4  
#fa1 which is compared with ,john iii4  
#cje  #c--e1 and in order to show the   
exact character of the two passages1 we 
shall at once place them in parallel    
columns3--------  ,this is the most     
important passage by which apologists   
endeavour to establish the use by       
,justin of the  #cjf  fourth ,gospel1   
and it is that upon which the whole     
claim may be said to rest4 ,we shall be 

able to appreciate the nature of the    
case by the weakness of its strongest   
evidence4 ,the first point which must   
have struck any attentive reader1 must  
have been the singular difference of the
 language of ,justin1 and the absence of
 the characteristic peculiarities of the
 ,johannine ,gospel4 ,the double verily1
 verily1 which occurs twice even in     
these three verses1 and constantly      
throughout the ,gospel7#a71 is absent in
 ,justin2 and apart from the total      
difference of the form in which the     
whole passage is given 7the episode of  
,nicodemus being entirely ignored71 and 
omitting minor differences1 the         
following linguistic variations occur3  
,justin has3 ------  ,indeed it is      
almost impossible to imagine a more     
complete difference1 both in form and   
language1 and it seems to us that there 
does not exist a single linguistic trace
 by which the passage in ,justin can be 
connected with the fourth ,gospel4 ,the 
fact that ,justin knows nothing of the  

expression ------ 7born from above71    
upon which the whole statement in the   
fourth ,gospel turns1 but uses a totally
 different word1 ------ 7born again71   
#cjg  is of great significance4         
,tischendorf wishes to translate ------ 
anew 7or again71 as the version of      
,luther and the authorised ,english     
translation read1 and thus render the   
------ of ,justin a fair equivalent for 
it2 but even this would not alter the   
fact that so little does ,justin quote  
the fourth ,gospel1 that he has not even
 the test word of the passage4 ,the word
 ------1 however1 certainly cannot here 
be taken to signify anything but from   
above7l7--from ,god1 from heaven1--and  
this is not only its natural meaning1   
but the term is several times used in   
other parts of the fourth ,gospel1      
always with this same sense17#b7 and    
there is nothing which warrants a       
different interpretation in this place4 
,on the contrary1 the same signification
 is manifestly indicated by the context1

 and forms the point of the whole       
lesson4 ,except a man be born of water  
and of ,spirit7#c7 he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of ,god4 #f4 ,that which    
hath been born of the flesh is flesh1   
and that which hath been born of the    
,spirit is ,spirit4 #g4 ,marvel not that
 ,i said unto thee3 ye must be born from
 above ------4  ,the explanation of     
------ is given in verse #f4 ,the birth 
of the ,spirit is the birth from above1 
which is essential to entrance into the 
kingdom of ,god47#d7  #cjh  ,the sense  
of the passage in ,justin is different  
and much more simple4 ,he is speaking of
 regeneration through baptism1 and the  
manner in which converts are consecrated
 to ,god when they are made new ------  
through ,christ4 ,after they are taught 
to fast and pray for the remission of   
their sins1 he says3 ,they are then     
taken by us where there is water1 that  
they may be regenerated 7born again1    
------71 by the same manner of          
regeneration 7being born again1 ------7 

by which we also were regenerated 7born 
again1 ------4 ,for in the name of the  
,father of the ,universe the ,lord ,god1
 and of our ,saviour ,jesus ,christ1 and
 of the ,holy ,spirit they then make the
 washing with the water4 ,for the       
,christ also said1 'unless ye be born   
again ------1 ye shall not enter into   
the kingdom of heaven41 ,now that it is 
impossible for those who have once been 
born to go into the matrices of the     
parents is evident to all4 ,and then he 
quotes ,isaiah i4 #af--bj1 ,wash you1   
make you clean1 c41 and then proceeds3  
,and regarding this 7,baptism7 we have  
been taught this reason4 ,since at our  
first birth we were born without our    
knowledge1 and perforce1 c41 and brought
 up in evil habits and wicked ways1     
therefore in order that we should not   
continue children of necessity and      
ignorance1 but become children of       
election and knowledge1 and obtain in   
the water remission of sins which we had
 previously committed1 the name of the  

,father of the ,universe and ,lord ,god 
is pronounced over him who desires to be
 born again ------1 and has repented of 
his sins1 c47#a7 ,now it is clear that  
whereas ,justin speaks simply of        
regeneration by baptism1 the fourth     
,gospel indicates a later development of
 the doctrine by spiritualizing the     
idea1  #cji  and requiring not only     
regeneration through the water 7,except 
a man be born of water71 but that a man 
should be born from above 7and of the   
,spirit71 not merely ------1 but ------4
 ,the word used by ,justin is that which
 was commonly employed in the ,church   
for regeneration1 and other instances of
 it occur in the ,new ,testament47#a7   
,the idea of regeneration or being born 
again1 as essential to conversion1 was  
quite familiar to the ,jews themselves1 
and ,lightfoot gives instances of this  
from ,talmudic writings3 ,if any one    
become a proselyte he is like a child   
'new born4' ,the ,gentile that is made a
 proselyte and the servant that is made 

free he is like a child new born47#b7   
,this is1 of course1 based upon the     
belief in special privileges granted to 
the ,jews1 and the ,gentile convert     
admitted to a share in the benefits of  
the ,messiah became a ,jew by spiritual 
new birth4 ,justin in giving the words  
of ,jesus clearly professed to make an  
exact quotation37#c7 ,for ,christ also  
said3 ,unless ye be born again1 c4 ,it  
must be remembered1 however1 that       
,justin is addressing the ,roman        
emperors1 who would not understand the  
expression that it was necessary to be  
born again in order to enter the kingdom
 of heaven4 ,he1 therefore1 explains    
that he does not mean a physical new    
birth by men already born2 and this     
explanation may be regarded as natural1 
under the circumstances1 and independent
 of any written source4 ,in any case1   
the striking difference of his language 
from that of the fourth ,gospel at least
 forbids the inference that it must     
necessarily have been derived from that 

,gospel4  #caj  ,to argue otherwise     
would be to assume the utterly untenable
 premiss that sayings of ,jesus which   
are maintained to be historical were not
 recorded in more than four ,gospels1   
and indeed in this instance were limited
 to one4 ,this is not only in itself    
inadmissible1 but historically          
untrue17#a7 and a moment of             
consideration must convince every       
impartial mind that it cannot           
legitimately be asserted that an express
 quotation of a supposed historical     
saying must have been taken from a      
parallel in one of our ,gospels1 from   
which it differs so materially in       
language and circumstance1 simply       
because that ,gospel happens to be the  
only one now surviving which contains   
particulars somewhat similar4 ,the      
express quotation fundamentally differs 
from the fourth ,gospel1 and the natural
 explanation of ,justin which follows is
 not a quotation at all1 and likewise   
fundamentally differs from the          

,johannine parallel4 ,justin not only   
ignores the peculiar episode in the     
fourth ,gospel in which the passage     
occurs1 but neither here nor anywhere   
throughout his writings makes any       
mention of ,nicodemus4 ,the accident of 
survival is almost the only             
justification of the affirmation that   
the fourth ,gospel is the source of     
,justin's quotation4 ,on the other hand1
 we have many strong indications of     
another source4 ,in our first ,synoptic 
7xviii4 #c71 we find traces of another  
version of the saying of ,jesus1 much   
more nearly corresponding with the      
quotation of ,justin3 ,and he said1     
verily ,i say unto you3 ,except ye be   
turned and become as the little children
 ye shall not enter into the kingdom of 
heaven47#b7 ,the last phrase of this    
saying is literally the same as the     
quotation of ,justin1  #caa  and gives  
his expression1 kingdom of heaven1 so   
characteristic of his ,gospel1 and so   
foreign to the ,johannine4 ,we meet with

 a similar quotation in connection with 
baptism1 still more closely agreeing    
with ,justin1 in the ,clementine        
,homilies1 xi4 #bf3 ,verily ,i say unto 
you3 ,except ye be born again ------ by 
living water in the name of ,father1    
,son1 and ,holy ,spirit1 ye shall not   
enter into the kingdom of heaven47#a7   
,here again we have both the ------1 and
 the ------ as well as the reference    
only to water in the baptism1 and this  
is strong confirmation of the existence 
of a version of the passage1 different  
from the ,johannine1 from which ,justin 
quotes4 ,as both the author of the      
,clementines and ,justin probably made  
use of the ,gospel according to the     
,hebrews1 some most competent critics   
have1 with reason1 adopted the          
conclusion that the passage we are      
discussing was probably derived from    
that ,gospel2 at any rate it cannot be  
maintained as a quotation from our      
fourth ,gospel17#b7 and it is1          
therefore1 of no value as evidence even 

#cab  for its existence4 ,were it       
successfully traced to that work1       
however1 the passage would throw no     
light on the authorship and character of
 the fourth ,gospel4  ,if we turn for a 
moment from this last of the points of  
evidence adduced by ,tischendorf for the
 use of the fourth ,gospel by ,justin1  
to consider how far the circumstances of
 the history of ,jesus narrated by      
,justin bear upon this quotation1 we    
have a striking confirmation of the     
results we have otherwise attained4 ,not
 only is there a total absence from his 
writings of the peculiar terminology and
 characteristic expressions of the      
fourth ,gospel1 but there is not an     
allusion made to any one of the         
occurrences exclusively narrated by that
 ,gospel1 although many of these1 and   
many parts of the ,johannine discourses 
of ,jesus1 would have been peculiarly   
suitable for his purpose4 ,we have      
already pointed out the remarkable      
absence of any use of the expressions by

 which the ,logos doctrine is stated in 
the prologue4 ,we may now point out that
 ,justin makes no reference whatever to 
any of the special miracles of the      
fourth ,gospel4 ,he is apparently quite 
ignorant even of the raising of         
,lazarus3 on the other hand1 he gives   
representations of the birth1 life1 and 
death of ,jesus1 which are ignored by   
the ,johannine ,gospel1 and are indeed  
opposed to its whole conception of      
,jesus as the ,logos2 and when he refers
 to circumstances which are also        
narrated in that ,gospel1 his account is
 different from that which it gives4    
,justin perpetually refers to the birth 
of ,jesus by the ,virgin of the race of 
,david and the ,patriarchs2 his ,logos  
thus becomes man17#a7 7not              
flesh--------1not ------72 he is born in
 a cave in ,bethlehem27#b7 he grows in  
stature and intellect by the use of     
ordinary means like other men2 he is    
accounted   #cac  the son of ,joseph the
 carpenter and ,mary3 he himself works  

as a carpenter1 and makes ploughs and   
yokes47#a7 ,when ,jesus is baptized by  
,john1 a fire is kindled in ,jordan2 and
 ,justin evidently knows nothing of     
,john's express declaration in the      
fourth ,gospel1 that ,jesus is the      
,messiah1 the ,son of ,god47#b7 ,justin 
refers to the change of name of ,simon  
in connection with his recognition of   
the ,master as ,christ the ,son of      
,god17#c7 which is narrated quite       
differently in the fourth ,gospel 7i4   
#dj--db71 where1 indeed1 such a         
declaration is put into the mouth of    
,nathaniel 7i4 #di71 which ,justin      
ignores4 ,justin does not mention       
,nicodemus either in connection with the
 statement regarding the necessity of   
being born from above1 or with the      
entombment 7xix4 #ci74 ,he has the      
prayer and agony in the garden17#d7     
which the fourth ,gospel excludes1 as   
well as the cries on the cross1 which   
that ,gospel ignores4 ,then1 according  
to ,justin1 the last supper takes place 

on the #adth ,nisan17#e7 whilst the     
fourth ,gospel1 ignoring the ,passover  
and last supper1 represents the last    
meal as eaten on the #acth ,nisan 7,john
 xiii4 #a f41 cf4 xviii4 #bh74 ,he      
likewise contradicts the fourth ,gospel1
 in limiting the work of ,jesus to one  
year4 ,in fact1 it is impossible for    
writings1 so full of quotations of the  
words of ,jesus and of allusions to the 
events of his life1 more completely to  
ignore or vary from the fourth ,gospel  
throughout2 and if it could be shown    
that ,justin was acquainted with such a 
work1 it would follow certainly that he 
did not consider it an ,apostolical or  
authoritative composition4       #e     
,and it is written that on the day of   
the ,passover you      seized him1 and  
likewise during the ,passover you       
crucified      him4 ,dial41 ,ill2 cf4   
,dial4 #gj2 ,matt1 xxvi4 #b1 #ag ff41   
#cj1      #eg4  #cad  ,we may add that1 
as ,justin so distinctly and directly   
refers to the ,apostle ,john as the     

author of the ,apocalypse17#a7 there is 
confirmation of the conclusion1         
otherwise arrived at1 that he did not1  
and could not1 know the ,gospel and also
 ascribe it to him4 ,finally1 the       
description which ,justin gives of the  
manner of teaching of ,jesus excludes   
the idea that he knew the fourth        
,gospel4 ,brief and concise were the    
sentences uttered by him3 for he was no 
,sophist1 but his word was the power of 
,god47#b7 ,no one could for a moment    
assert that this description applies to 
the long and artificial discourses of   
the fourth ,gospel1 whilst1 on the other
 hand1 it eminently describes the style 
of teaching in the ,synoptics1 with     
which the numerous ,gospels in          
circulation amongst early ,christians   
were1 of course1 more nearly allied4    
,the inevitable conclusion at which we  
must arrive is that1 so far from        
indicating any acquaintance with the    
fourth ,gospel1 the writings of ,justin 
not only do not furnish the slightest   

evidence of its existence1 but offer    
presumptive testimony against its       
,apostolical origin4  ,tischendorf only 
devotes a short note to ,hegesippus17#c7
 and does not pretend to find in the    
fragments of his writings1 preserved to 
us by ,eusebius1 or the details of his  
life which he has recorded1 any evidence
 for our ,gospels4 ,apologists generally
 admit that this source1 at least1 is   
barren of all testimony for the fourth  
,gospel1 but ,canon ,westcott cannot    
renounce so important a witness without 
an effort1 and he therefore boldly says3
 ,when he1 7,hegesippus7 speaks of 'the 
door of ,jesus' in his account of the   
death of ,st4 ,james1 there can be      
little  #cae  doubt that he alludes to  
the language of our ,lord recorded by   
,st4 ,john47#a7 ,the passage to which   
,canon ,westcott refers1 but which he   
does not quote1 is as                   
follows3--,certain1 therefore1 of the   
seven heretical parties amongst the     
people1 already described by me in the  

,memoirs1 inquired of him1 what was the 
door of ,jesus2 and he declared this    
7--------,jesus7 to be the ,saviour4    
,from which some believed that ,jesus is
 the ,christ4 ,but the aforementioned   
heretics did not believe either a       
resurrection1 or that he shall come to  
render to every one according to his    
works4 ,as many as believed1 however1   
did so1 through ,james4 ,the rulers     
fearing that the people would cause a   
tumult1 from considering ,jesus to be   
the ,messiah ------1 entreat ,james to  
persuade them concerning ,jesus1 and    
prevent their being deceived by him2 and
 in order that he may be heard by the   
multitude1 they place ,james upon a wing
 of the temple1 and cry to him3 ,o just 
man1 whom we all are bound to believe1  
inasmuch as the people are led astray   
after ,jesus1 the crucified1 declare    
plainly to us what is the door of       
,jesus47#b7 ,to find in this a reference
 to the fourth ,gospel1 requires a good 
deal of apologetic ingenuity4 ,it is    

perfectly clear that1 as an allusion to 
,john x4 #g1 #i3 ,i am the door1 the    
question3 ,what is the door of ,jesus8  
is mere nonsense1 and the reply of      
,james totally irrelevant4 ,such a      
question in reference to the discourse  
#caf  in the fourth ,gospel1 moreover1  
in the mouths of the antagonistic       
,scribes and ,pharisees1 is quite       
inconceivable1 and it is unreasonable to
 suppose that it has any connection with
 it4 ,various emendations of the text   
have been proposed to obviate the       
difficulty of the question1 but none of 
these have been adopted1 and it has now 
been generally accepted1 that ------ is 
used in an idiomatic sense4 ,the word is
 very frequently employed in such a     
manner1 or symbolically1 in the ,new    
,testament17#a7 and by the ,fathers4    
,the ,jews were well acquainted with a  
similar use of the word in the ,old     
,testament1 in some of the ,messianic   
,psalms1 as for instance3 ,ps4 cxviii4  
#ai1 #bj 7cxvii4 #ai1 #bj ,sept474 #ai1 

,open to me the gates ------ of         
righteousness2 entering into them1 ,i   
will give praise to the ,lord2 #bj1     
,this is the gate ------ of the ,lord1  
the righteous shall enter into it7#b7   
,quoting this passage1 ,clement of      
,alexandria remarks3 ,but explaining the
 saying of the prophet1 ,barnabas adds3 
,many gates ------ being open1 that     
which is in righteousness is in ,christ1
 in which all those who enter are       
blessed47#c7 ,grabe explains the passage
 of ,hegesippus1 by a reference to the  
frequent allusions in ,scripture to the 
two ways3 one of light1 the other of    
darkness2 the one leading to life1 the  
other to death2 as well as the simile of
 two gates which is coupled with them1  
as in ,matt4 vi,l #ac ff4 ,he1          
therefore1 explains the question of the 
rulers3 ,what is the door of ,jesus8 as 
an inquiry into the judgment of ,james  
concerning him3  #cag  whether he was a 
teacher of truth or a deceiver of the   
people2 whether belief in him was the   

way and gate of life and salvation1 or  
of death and perdition47#a7 ,he refers  
as an illustration to the ,epistle of   
,barnabas1 xviii43 ,there are two ways  
of teaching and of power3 one of light1 
the other of darkness4 ,but there is a  
great difference between the two        
ways47#b7 ,the ,epistle1 under the      
symbol of the two ways1 classifies the  
whole of the moral law47#c7 ,in the     
,clementine ,homilies1 xviii4 #ag1 there
 is a version of the saying1 ,matt4 vii4
 #ac;f1 derived from another source1 in 
which way is more decidedly even than in
 our first ,synoptic made the equivalent
 of gate3 ,enter ye through the narrow  
and straitened way ------ through which 
ye shall enter into life4 ,eusebius     
himself1 who has preserved the fragment1
 evidently understood it distinctly in  
the same sense1 and he gave its true    
meaning in another of his works1 where  
he paraphrases the question into an     
enquiry1 as to the opinion which ,jamas 
held concerning ,jesus ------47#d7      

,this view is supported by many learned 
men1 and ,routh has pointed out that    
,ernesti considered he would have been  
right in making ------1 doctrine1       
teaching1 the equivalent of ------1     
although he admits that ,eusebius does  
not once use it in his history1 in      
connection with ,christian doctrine47#e7
  #cah  ,he might1 however1 have        
instanced this passage1 in which it is  
clearly used in this sense1 and so      
explained by ,eusebius4 ,in any other   
sense the question is simple nonsense4  
,there is evidently no intention on the 
part of the ,scribes and ,pharisees here
 to ridicule1 in asking3 ,what is the   
door of ,jesus8 but they desire ,james  
to declare plainly to the people1 what  
is the teaching of ,jesus1 and his      
personal pretension4 ,to suppose that   
the rulers of the ,jews set ,james upon 
a wing of the temple1 in order that they
 might ask him a question1 for the      
benefit of the multitude1 based upon a  
discourse in the fourth ,gospel1 unknown

 to the ,synoptics1 and even in relation
 to which such an inquiry as3 ,what is  
the door of ,jesus8 becomes mere        
ironical nonsense1 surpasses all that we
 could have imagined even of apologetic 
zeal4  ,we have already7#a7 said all    
that is necessary with regard to        
,hegesippus1 in connection with the     
,synoptics1 and need not add more here4 
,it is certain that had he said anything
 interesting about our ,gospels and1 we 
may say1 particularly about the fourth1 
the fact would have been recorded by    
,eusebius4  ,nor need we add much to our
 remarks regarding ,papias of           
,hierapolis47#b7 ,it is perfectly clear 
that the works of ,matthew and          
,mark17#c7 regarding which he records   
#c ,it is evident that ,papias did not  
regard the works by      ,matthew and   
,mark which he mentions1 as of any      
authority4      ,indeed1 all that he    
reports regarding the latter is merely  
apologetic1 and in deprecation of       
criticism4  #cai  such important        

particulars1 are not the ,gospels in our
 ,canon1 which pass under their names2  
he does not seem to have known anything 
of the third ,synoptic2 and there is no 
reason to suppose that he referred to   
the fourth ,gospel or made use of it4   
,he is1 therefore1 at least1 a total    
blank so far as the ,johannine ,gospel  
and our third ,synoptic are concerned1  
but he is more than this1 and it may1 we
 think1 be concluded that ,papias was   
not acquainted with any such ,gospels   
which he regarded as ,apostolic         
compositions1 or authoritative          
documents4 ,had he said anything        
regarding the composition or authorship 
of the fourth ,gospel1 ,eusebius would  
certainly have mentioned the fact1 and  
this silence of ,papias is strong       
presumptive evidence against the        
,johannine ,gospel47#a7 ,tischendorfs   
argument in regard to the ,phrygian     
,bishop is mainly directed to this      
point1 and he maintains that the silence
 of ,eusebius does not make ,papias a   

witness against the fourth ,gospel1 and 
does not involve the conclusion that he 
did not know it1 inasmuch as it was not1
 he affirms1 the purpose of ,eusebius to
 record the mention or use of the books 
of the ,new ,testament which were not   
disputed47#b7 ,it might be contended    
that this reasoning is opposed to the   
practice and express declaration of     
,eusebius himself1 who says3 ,but in the
 course of the history ,i shall1 with   
the successions 7from the ,apostles71   
carefully intimate what ecclesiastical  
writers of the various periods made use 
of  #cbj  the ,antilegomena 7or disputed
 writings71 and which of them1 and what 
has been stated by these as well        
regarding the collected ------ and      
,homologumena 7or accepted writings71 as
 regarding those which are not of this  
kind47#a7 ,it is not worth while1       
however1 to dwell upon this1 here4 ,the 
argument in the case of ,papias stands  
upon a broader basis4 ,it is admitted   
that ,eusebius engages carefully to     

record what ecclesiastical writers state
 regarding the ,homologumena1 and that  
he actually does so4 ,now ,papias has   
himself expressed the high value he     
attached to tradition1 and his eagerness
 in seeking information from the        
,presbyters4 ,the statements regarding  
the ,gospels composed by ,matthew and   
,mark1 quoted by ,eusebius1 are         
illustrative at once both of the        
information collected by ,papias and of 
that cited by ,eusebius4 ,how comes it1 
then1 that nothing whatever is said     
about the fourth ,gospel1 a work so     
peculiar and of such exceptional        
importance1 said to be composed by the  
,apostle whom ,jesus loved8 ,is it      
possible to suppose that when ,papias   
collected from the ,presbyter the facts 
which he has recorded concerning        
,matthew and ,mark he would not also    
have inquired about a ,gospel by ,john  
had he known of it8 ,is it possible that
 he could have had nothing interesting  
to tell about a work presenting so many 

striking and distinctive features8 ,had 
he collected any information on the     
subject he would certainly have recorded
 it1 and as certainly ,eusebius would   
have quoted what he said17#b7 as he did 
the account of the other two ,gospels1  
for he even mentions that ,papias  #cba 
made use of the #ast ,epistle of ,john1 
and #ast ,epistle of ,peter1 two equally
 accepted writings4 ,the legitimate     
presumption1 therefore1 is that1 as     
,eusebius did not mention the fact1 he  
did not find anything regarding the     
fourth ,gospel in the work of ,papias1  
and that ,papias was not acquainted with
 it4 ,this presumption is confirmed by  
the circumstance that when ,eusebius    
writes1 elsewhere 7,h4 ,e4 iii4 #bd71 of
 the order of the ,gospels1 and the     
composition of ,john's ,gospel1 he has  
no greater authority to give for his    
account than mere tradition3 they say   
------4  ,proceeding from this merely   
negative argument1 ,tischendorf         
endeavours to show that not only is     

,papias not a witness against the fourth
 ,gospel1 but that he presents testimony
 in its favour4 ,the first reason he    
advances is that ,eusebius states3 ,the 
same 7,papias7 made use of testimonies  
out of the first ,epistle of ,john1 and 
likewise out of that of ,peter47l7 ,on  
the supposed identity of the authorship 
of the ,epistle and ,gospel1            
,tischendorf1 as in the case of         
,polycarp1 claims this as evidence for  
the fourth ,gospel4 ,eusebius1 however1 
does not quote the passages upon which  
he bases this statement1 and knowing his
 inaccuracy and the hasty and uncritical
 manner in which he and the ,fathers    
generally jump at such conclusions1 we  
must reject this as sufficient evidence 
that ,papias really did use the         
,epistle1 and that ,eusebius did not    
adopt his opinion from a mere           
superficial analogy of passages47#b7    
,but if it were certain that ,papias    
actually quoted from the ,epistle1 it   
does not in the least follow that he    

#cbb  ascribed it to the ,apostle ,john1
 and the use of the ,epistle would      
scarcely affect the question as to the  
character and authorship of the fourth  
,gospel  ,the next testimony advanced by
 ,tischendorf is indeed of an           
extraordinary character4 ,there is a    
,latin ,,ms4 7,vat4 ,alex4 #ad7 in the  
,vatican1 which ,tischendorf assigns to 
the ninth century1 in which there is a  
preface by an unknown hand to the       
,gospel according to ,john1 which       
commences as follows3 ,evangelium       
iohannis manifestatum et datum est      
ecclesiis ab iohannc ad hue in corpore  
constituto1 sicut papias nomine         
hicrapolitanus discipulus iohannis carus
 in exotericis id est in extremis       
quinque libris retulit4 ,the ,gospel of 
,john was published and given to the    
churches by ,john whilst he was still in
 the flesh1 as ,papias1 named of        
,hierapolis1 an esteemed disciple of    
,john1 related in his ',exoterics' that 
is his last five books4 ,tischendorf    

says3 ,there can1 therefore1 be no more 
decided declaration made of the         
testimony of ,papias for the ,johannine 
,gospel47#a7 ,he wishes to end the      
quotation here1 and only refers to the  
continuation1 which he is obliged to    
admit to be untenable1 in a note4 ,the  
passage proceeds3 ,disscripsit vero     
evangelium dictante iohanne recte4 ,he  
7,papias7 indeed wrote out the ,gospel1 
,john duly dictating2 then follows      
another passage regarding ,marcion1     
representing him also as a contemporary 
of ,john1 which ,tischendorf likewise   
confesses to be untrue47#b7 ,now        
,tischendorf admits that the writer     
desires it to be understood that he     
derived the information that ,papias    
wrote the fourth ,gospel at the         
dictation of ,john likewise from the    
work of ,papias1 and as it is perfectly 
impossible1 by his own admissions1 that 
,papias1 who was not a  #cbc            
contemporary of the ,apostle1 could have
 stated this1 the whole passage is      

clearly fabulous and written by a person
 who never saw the book at all4 ,this   
extraordinary piece of evidence is so   
obviously absurd that it is passed over 
in silence by other critics1 even of the
 strongest apologetic tendency1 and it  
stands here a pitiable instance of the  
arguments to which destitute criticism  
can be reduced4  ,in order to do full   
justice to the last of the arguments of 
,tischendorf1 we shall give it in his   
own words3 ,before we separate from     
,papias1 we have still to consider one  
testimony for the ,gospel of ,john which
 ,irenaeus1 v4 #cf1 ,sec4 #b1 quotes out
 of the very mouth of the ,presbyters1  
those high authorities of ,papias3 ',and
 therefore1 say they1 the ,lord         
declared3 ,in my ,father's house are    
many mansions7#a7 7,john xiv4 #b74 ,as  
the ,presbyters set this declaration in 
connection with the blessedness of the  
righteous in the ,city of ,god1 in      
,paradise1 in ,heaven1 according as they
 bear thirty1 sixty1 or one hundred-fold

 fruit1 nothing is more probable than   
that ,irenaeus takes this whole         
declaration of the ,presbyters1 which he
 gives1 ,sec4,sec4 #a-b1 like the       
preceding description of the thousand   
years' reign1 from the work of ,papias4 
,but whether this be its origin or not1 
the authority of the ,presbyters is in  
any case higher than that of ,papias1   
c47#a7 ,now in the quotation from       
,irenseus given in this  #cbd  passage1 
,tischendorf renders the oblique        
construction of the text by inserting   
say they1 referring to the ,presbyters  
of ,papias1 and1 as he does not give the
 original1 he should at least have      
indicated that these words are          
supplementary4 ,we shall endeavour as   
briefly as possible to state the facts  
of the case4  ,irenaeus1 with many      
quotations from ,scripture1 is arguing  
that our bodies are preserved1 and that 
the ,saints who have suffered so much in
 the flesh shall in that flesh receive  
the fruits of their labours4 ,in v4 #cc1

 ,sec4 #b1 he refers to the saying given
 in ,matt4 xix4 #bi 7,luke xviii4 #bi1  
#cj7 that whosoever has left lands1 c41 
because of ,christ shall receive a      
hundred-fold in this world1 and in the  
next1 eternal life2 and then1 enlarging 
on the abundance of the blessings in the
 ,millennial kingdom1 he affirms that   
,creation will be renovated1 and the    
,earth acquire wonderful fertility1 and 
he adds3 ,sec4 #c1 ,as the ,presbyters  
who saw ,john the disciple of the ,lord1
 remember that they heard from him1 how 
the ,lord taught concerning those times 
and said3 c4 7,quemadmodum pres-byteri  
meminerunt1 qui ,joannem discipulum     
,domini viderunt1 audisse se ab eo1     
quemadmodum de temporibus illis docebat 
,dominus1 et dicebat1 c471 and then he  
quotes the passage3 ,the days will come 
in which vines will grow each having ten
 thousand ,branches1 c42 and ,in like   
manner that a grain of wheat would      
produce ten thousand ears1 c4 ,with     
regard to these he says1 at the         

beginning of the next paragraph1 v4 #cc1
 ,sec4 #d1 ,these things are testified  
in writing by ,papias1 a hearer of ,john
 and associate of ,polycarp1 an ancient 
#cbc  man1 in the fourth of his books3  
for there were five books composed by   
him47#a7 ,and he added saying3 ',but    
these things are credible to believers4 
,and ,judas the traitor not believing1  
and asking how shall such growths be    
effected by the ,lord1 the ,lord said3  
,they who shall come to them shall see4'
 ,prophesying of these times1 therefore1
 ,isaiah says3 ',the ,wolf also shall   
feed with the ,lamb1' c4 c4 7quoting    
,isaiah xi4 #f--i71 and again he says1  
recapitulating3 ',wolves and lambs shall
 then feed together1' c4 7quoting       
,isaiah lxv4 #be71 and so on1 continuing
 his argument4 ,it is clear that        
,irenaeus introduces the quotation from 
,papias1 and ending his reference at3   
,they who shall come to them shall see1 
he continues1 with a quotation from     
,isaiah1 his own train of reasoning4 ,we

 give this passage to show the manner in
 which ,irenaeus proceeds4 ,he then     
continues with the same subject1 quoting
 7v4 #cd1ce7 ,isaiah1 ,ezekiel1         
,jeremiah1 ,daniel1 the ,apocalypse1 and
 sayings found in the ,new ,testament   
bearing upon the ,millennium4 ,in c4 #ce
 he argues that the prophecies he quotes
 of ,isaiah1 ,jeremiah1 and the         
,apocalypse must not be allegorized     
away1 but that they literally describe  
the blessings to be enjoyed1 after the  
coming of ,antichrist and the           
resurrection1 in the ,new ,jerusalem on 
earth1 and he quotes ,isaiah vi4 #ab1   
lx4 #e1 #ba1 and a long passage from    
,baruch iv4 #cf1 v4 #i 7which he        
ascribes to ,jeremiah71 ,isaiah xlix4   
#af1 ,gala-tians iv4 #bf1 ,rev4 xxi4 #b1
 xx4 #b--ae1 xxi4 #a--f1 all            
descriptive1 as he maintains1 of the    
,millennial kingdom prepared for the    
,saints2 and then in v4 #cf1 the last   
chapter of his work on ,heresies1 as if 
resuming his       #a ,eusebius has     

preserved the ,greek of this passage    
7,h4 ,e41      iii4 #ci71 and goes on to
 contradict the statement of ,irenaeus  
that ,papias was a hearer and           
contemporary of the ,apostles4          
,eusebius states that ,papias in his    
prefaco by no means      asserts that he
 was4  #cbf  previous argument1 he      
proceeds37#a7 ,sec4 #a4 ,and that these 
things shall ever remain without end    
,isaiah says3 ',for like as the new     
heaven and the new earth which ,i make  
remain before me1 saith the ,lord1 so   
shall your seed and your name           
continue1'7#b7 and as the ,presbyters   
say1 then those who have been deemed    
worthy of living in heaven shall go     
thither1 and others shall enjoy the     
delights of ,paradise1 and others shall 
possess the glory of the ,city2 for     
everywhere the ,saviour shall be seen as
 those who see him shall be worthy4     
,sec4 #b4 ,but that there is this       
distinction of dwelling ------ of those 
bearing fruit the hundred fold1 and of  

the 7bearers7 of the sixty fold1 and of 
the 7bearers of7 the thirty fold3 of    
whom some indeed shall be taken up into 
the heavens1 some shall live in         
,paradise1 and some shall inhabit the   
,city1 and that for this reason ------  
propter hoc7 the ,lord declared3 ,in    
the444 7plural7 of my ,father are many  
mansions ------47#c7 ,for all things are
 of ,god1 who prepares for all the      
fitting habitation1 as his ,word says1  
that distribution is made to all by the 
,father according  #cbg  as each is or  
shall be worthy4 ,and this is the couch 
upon which they recline who are invited 
to banquet at the ,wedding4 ,the        
,presbyters disciples of the ,apostles  
state that this is the order and        
arrangement of those who are saved1 and 
that by such steps they advance17#a7 c4 
c4  ,now it is impossible for any one   
who attentively considers the whole of  
this passage1 and who makes himself     
acquainted with the manner in which     
,irenaeus conducts his argument1 and    

interweaves it with quotations1 to      
assert that the phrase we are           
considering must have been taken from a 
book referred to three chapters earlier1
 and was not introduced by ,irenaeus    
from some other source4 ,in the passage 
from the commencement of the second     
paragraph ,irenaeus enlarges upon1 and  
illustrates1 what the ,presbyters say   
regarding the blessedness of the saints1
 by quoting the view held as to the     
distinction between those bearing fruit 
thirty fold1 sixty fold1 and one hundred
 fold17#b7 and the interpretation given 
of the  #cbh  saying regarding many     
mansions1 but the source of his         
quotation is quite indefinite1 and may  
simply be the exegesis of his own day4  
,that this is probably the case is shown
 by the continuation3 ,and this is the  
,couch upon which they recline who are  
invited to banquet at the ,wedding--an  
allusion to the marriage supper upon    
which ,irenaeus had previously          
enlarged27#a7 immediately after which   

phrase1 introduced by ,irenaeus himself1
 he says3 ,the ,presbyters1 the         
disciples of the apostles1 state that   
this is the order and arrangement of    
those who are saved1 c4 ,now1 if the    
preceding passages had been a mere      
quotation from the ,presbyters of       
,papias1 such a remark would have been  
out of place and useless1 but being the 
exposition of the prevailing views1     
,irenaeus confirms it and prepares to   
wind up the whole subject by the general
 statement that the ,presbyters1 the    
disciples of the ,apostles1 affirm that 
this is the order and arrangement of    
those who are saved1 and that by such   
steps they advance and ascend through   
the ,spirit to the ,son1 and through the
 ,son to the ,father1 c41 and a few     
sentences after he closes his work4  ,in
 no case1 however1 can it be            
legitimately affirmed that the citation 
of the ,presbyters1 and the ,presbyters1
 disciples of the ,apostles1 is a       
reference to the work of ,papias4 ,when 

quoting the ,presbyters who saw ,john   
the disciple of the ,lord1 three        
chapters before1 ,irenaeus distinctly   
states that ,papias testifies what he   
quotes in writing in the fourth of his  
books1 but there is nothing whatever to 
indicate that the ,presbyters1 and the  
,presbyters1 disciples of the ,apostles1
 subsequently referred to1 after a      
complete change of context1 have        
anything to do with ,papias4 ,the       
references to ,presbyters in this  #cbi 
work of ,irenaeus are very numerous1 and
 when we remember the importance which  
the ,bishop of ,lyons attached to that  
tradition which comes from the          
,apostles1 which is preserved in the    
churches by a succession of             
,presbyters17#a7 the reference before us
 assumes a very different complexion4   
,in one place1 ,irenaeus quotes the     
divine ,presbyter ------1 the           
,god-loving ,presbyter ------17#b7 who  
wrote verses against the heretic        
,marcus4 ,elsewhere he supports his     

extraordinary statement that the public 
career of ,jesus1 instead of being      
limited to a single year1 extended over 
a period of twenty years1 and that he   
was nearly fifty when he suffered17#c7  
by the appeal3 ,as the gospel and all   
the ,presbyters testify1 who in ,asia   
met with ,john the disciple of the ,lord
 7stating7 that these things were       
transmitted to them by ,john4 ,for he   
continued among them till the times of  
,trajan47#d7 ,that these ,presbyters are
 not quoted from the work of ,papias may
 be inferred from the fact that         
,eusebius1 who had his work1 quotes the 
passage from ,irenseus without allusion 
to ,papias1 and as he adduces two       
witnesses only1 ,irenaeus and ,clement  
of ,alexandria1 to prove the assertion  
regarding ,john1 he would certainly have
 referred to the earlier authority1 had 
the work of ,papias contained the       
statement1 as he does for the stories   
regarding the  #ccj  daughters of the   
,apostle ,philip2 the miracle in favour 

of ,justus1 and other matters47#a7 ,we  
need not refer to ,clement1 nor to      
,polycarp1 who had been taught by       
,apostles1 and the latter of whom       
,irenaeus knew in his youth47#b7        
,irenaeus in one place also gives a long
 account of the teaching of some one    
upon the sins of ,david and other men of
 old1 which he introduces3 ,as ,i have  
heard from a certain ,presbyter1 who had
 heard it from those who had seen the   
,apostles1 and from those who learnt    
from them47#c7 c4 ,further on1 speaking 
evidently of a different person1 he     
says3 ,in this manner also a ,presbyter 
disciple of the ,apostles1 reasoned     
regarding the two ,testaments37#d7 and  
quotes fully4 ,in another place         
,irenaeus1 after quoting ,gen4 ii4 #h1  
,and ,god planted a ,paradise eastward  
in ,eden1 c41 states3 ,wherefore the    
,presbyters who are disciples of the    
,apostles ------1 say that those who    
were translated had been translated     
thither1 there to remain till the       

consummation of all things awaiting     
immortality1 and ,irenaeus explains that
 it was into this ,paradise that ,paul  
was caught up 7#b ,cor4 xii4 #d747e7 ,it
 seems highly probable that these       
,presbyters the disciples of the        
,apostles who are quoted on ,paradise1  
are the same ,presbyters the disciples  
of the ,apostles referred to on the same
 subject 7v4 #cf1 ,sec4,sec4 #a1b7 whom 
we  #cca  are discussing1 but there is  
nothing whatever to connect them with   
,papias4 ,he also speaks of the         
,scptuagint translation of the ,bible as
 the version of the ,presbyters17#a7 and
 on several occasions he calls ,luke the
 follower and disciple of the ,apostles 
7,sectator et discipulus                
apostolorum77#b71 and characterizes     
,mark as the interpreter and follower of
 ,peter 7interpres et sectator          
,petri77#c71 and refers to both as      
having learnt from the words of the     
,apostles47#d7 ,here is1 therefore1 a   
wide choice of ,presbyters1 including   

even ,evangelists1 to whom the reference
 of ,irenaeus may with equal right be   
ascribed17#e7 so that it is unreasonable
 to claim it as an allusion to the work 
of ,papias47#f7 ,in fact1 ,dr4          
,tischendorf and ,canon ,westcott7#g7   
stand almost alone in       #e   ,in the
 ,new ,testament the term ,presbyter is 
even used in      reference to          
,patriarchs and ,prophets4   ,heb4 xi4  
#b2 cf4      ,matt xv4 #b2 ,mark vii4   
#c1 #e4       #f  ,with regard to the   
,presbyters quoted by ,irenaeus         
generally4 ,cf4 ,routh1 ,reliq4 ,sacrse1
 i4 p4 #dg ff4  #ccb  advancing this    
passage as evidence that either ,papias 
or his ,presbyters7#a7 were acquainted  
with the fourth ,gospel1 and this       
renders the statement which is made by  
them without any discussion all the more
 indefensible4 ,scarcely a single       
writer1 however apologetic1 seriously   
cites it amongst the external           
testimonies for the early existence of  
the ,gospel1 and the few who do refer to

 the passage merely mention1 in order to
 abandon1 it47#b7 ,so far as the        
question as to whether the fourth       
,gospel was mentioned in the work of    
,papias is concerned1 the passage has   
practically never entered into the      
controversy at all1 the great mass of   
critics having recognized that it is of 
no evidential value whatever1 and1 by   
common consent1 tacitly excluded it47#c7
 ,it is  #ccc  admitted that the ,bishop
 of ,hierapolis cannot be shown to have 
known the fourth ,gospel1 and the       
majority affirm that he actually was not
 acquainted with it4 ,being1 therefore1 
so completely detached from ,papias1 it 
is obvious that the passage does not in 
any way assist the fourth ,gospel1 but  
becomes assignable to vague tradition1  
and subject to the cumulative force of  
objections1 which prohibit an early date
 being ascribed to so indefinite a      
reference4  ,before passing on there is 
one other point to mention3 ,andrew of  
,caesarea1 in the preface to his        

,commentary on the ,apocalypse1 mentions
 that ,papias maintained the credibility
 ------ of that book1 or in other words1
 its apostolic origin47#a7 ,his strong  
millenarian opinions would naturally    
make such a composition stand high in   
his esteem1 if indeed it did not        
materially contribute to the formation  
of his views1 which is still more       
probable4 ,apologists admit the         
genuineness of this statement1 nay1     
claim it as undoubted evidence of the   
acquaintance of ,papias with the        
,apocalypse47#b7 ,canon ,westcott1 for  
instance1 says3 ,he maintained1         
moreover1 'the divine inspiration' of   
the ,apocalypse1 and commented1 at      
least1 upon part of it47#c7 ,now1 he    
must1 therefore1 have recognized the    
book as the work of the ,apostle ,john1 
and we shall1 hereafter1 show that it is
 impossible that the author of the      
,apocalypse is the author of the        
,gospel2 therefore1 in this way also1   
,papias  #ccd  is a witness against the 

,apostolic origin of the fourth ,gospel4
  ,we must now turn to the ,clementine  
,homilies1 although1 as we have         
shown17#a7 the uncertainty as to the    
date of this spurious work1 and the late
 period which must undoubtedly he       
assigned to its composition1 render its 
evidence of very little value for the   
canonical ,gospels4 ,the passages       
pointed out in the ,homilies as         
indicating acquaintance with the fourth 
,gospel were long advanced with         
hesitation1 and were generally felt to  
be inconclusive1 but on the discovery of
 the concluding portion of the work and 
its publication by ,dressel in #ahec1 it
 was found to contain a passage which   
apologists now claim as decisive        
evidence of the use of the ,gospel1 and 
which even succeeded in converting some 
independent critics47#b7                
,tischendorf7#c7 and ,canon             
,westcott17#d7 in the few lines devoted 
to the ,clementines1 do not refer to the
 earlier proof passages1 but rely       

entirely upon that last discovered4     
,with a view1 however1 to making the    
whole of the evidence clear1 we shall   
give all of the supposed allusions to   
the fourth ,gospel1 confronting them    
with the text4 ,the first is as         
follows3-- ------  #cce  ------  ,the   
first point which is apparent here is   
that there is a total difference both in
 the language and real meaning of these 
two passages4 ,the ,homily uses the word
 ------ instead of the ------ of the    
,gospel1 and speaks of the gate of life1
 instead of the door of the ,sheepfold4 
,we have already7#a7 discussed the      
passage in the ,pastor of ,hernias in   
which similar reference is made to the  
gate ------ into the kingdom of ,god1   
and need not here repeat our argument4  
,in ,matt4 vii4 #ac1 #ad1 we have the   
direct description of the gate ------   
which leads to life ------1 and we have 
elsewhere quoted the ,messianic ,psalm  
cxviii4 #ai1 #bj3 ,this is the gate of  
the ,lord ------17#b7 the righteous     

shall enter into it4 ,in another place1 
the author of the ,homilies1 referring  
to a passage parallel to1 but differing 
from1 ,matt4 xxiii4 #b1 which we have   
elsewhere considered17#c7 and which is  
derived from a ,gospel different from   
ours1 says3 ,hear them 7,scribes and    
,pharisees who sit upon ,moses' seat71  
he said1 as entrusted with the key of   
the kingdom which is knowledge1 which   
alone is able to open the gate of life  
------1 through which alone is the      
entrance to ,eternal life47#d7 ,now in  
the very next chapter to that in which  
the saying which we are discussing      
occurs1 a very few lines after it       
indeed1 we have the following passage3  
,indeed he said further3 ',i am he  #ccf
  concerning whom ,moses prophesied1    
saying3 'a prophet shall the ,lord our  
,god raise up to you from among your    
brethren as also 7he raised7 me2 hear ye
 him regarding all things1 but whosoever
 will not hear that prophet he shall    
die4'7#a7 ,there is no such saying in   

the canonical ,gospels or other books of
 the ,new ,testament attributed to      
,jesus1 but a quotation from            
,deuteronomy xviii4 #ae f41 materially  
different from this1 occurs twice in the
 ,acts of the ,apostles1 once being put 
into the mouth of ,peter applied to     
,jesus17#b7 and the second time also    
applied to him1 being quoted by         
,stephen47#c7 ,it is quite clear that   
the writer is quoting from uncanonical  
sources1 and here is another express    
declaration regarding himself3 ,i am he1
 c41 which is quite in the spirit of the
 preceding passage which we are         
discussing1 and probably derived from   
the same source4 ,in another place we   
find the following argument3 ,but the   
way is the manner of life1 as also      
,moses says3 ',behold ,i have set before
 thy face the way of life1 and the way  
of death'7#d7 and in agreement the      
teacher said3 ',enter ye through the    
narrow and straitened way through which 
ye shall enter into life1' and in       

another place a certain person          
inquiring3 ',what shall ,i do to inherit
 eternal life8' he intimated the        
,commandments of the ,law47#e7 ,it has  
to be observed that the ,homilies teach 
the doctrine  #ccg  that the spirit in  
,jesus ,christ had already appeared in  
,adam1 and by a species of              
transmigration passed through ,moses and
 the ,patriarchs and prophets3 who from 
the beginning of the world1 changing    
names and forms1 passes through ,time   
------ until1 attaining his own seasons1
 being on account of his labours        
anointed by the mercy of ,god1 he shall 
have rest for ever47#a7 ,just in the    
same way1 therefore1 as the ,homilies   
represent ,jesus as quoting a prophecy  
of ,moses1 and altering it to a personal
 declaration3 ,i am the prophet1 c41 so 
here again they make him adopt this     
saying of ,moses and1 being the true    
prophet1 declare3 ,i am the gate or the 
way of life1--inculcating the same      
commandments of the law which the       

,gospel of the ,homilies represents     
,jesus as coming to confirm and not to  
abolish4 ,the whole system of doctrine  
of the ,clementines1 as we shall        
presently see1 indicated here even by   
the definition of the true prophet1 is  
so fundamentally opposed to that of the 
fourth ,gospel that there is no         
reasonable ground for supposing that the
 author made use of it1 and this brief  
saying1 varying as it does in language  
and sense from the parallel in that     
work1 cannot prove acquaintance with it4
 ,there is good reason to believe that  
the author of the fourth ,gospel1 who   
most undeniably derived materials from  
earlier ,evangelical works1 may have    
drawn from a source likewise used by the
 ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 and 
thence many analogies might well be     
presented with quotations from that or  
kindred ,gospels47#b7 ,we find1 further1
 this community of source in the fact1  
#cch  that in the fourth ,gospel1       
without actual quotation1 there is a    

reference to ,moses1 and1 no doubt1 to  
the very passage 7,deut4 xviii4 #ae71   
which the ,gospel of the ,clementines   
puts into the mouth of ,jesus1 ,john v4 
#df3 ,for had ye believed ,moses ye     
would believe me1 for he wrote of me4   
,whilst the ,ebionite ,gospel gave      
prominence to this view of the case1 the
 dogmatic system of the ,logos ,gospel  
did not permit of more than mere        
reference to it4  ,the next passage     
pointed out as derived from the         
,johannine ,gospel occurs in the same   
chapter3 ,my sheep hear my voice4 ------
  ,there was no more common             
representation amongst the ,jews of the 
relation between ,god and his people    
than that of a ,shepherd and his        
,sheep17#a7 nor any more current        
expression than3 hearing his voice4     
,this brief anonymous saying was in all 
probability derived from the same source
 as the preceding17#b7 which cannot be  
identified with the fourth ,gospel4     
,tradition1 and the acknowledged        

existence of other written records of   
the teaching of ,jesus oppose any       
exclusive claim to this fragmentary     
saying4  ,we have already discussed the 
third passage regarding the new birth in
 connection with ,justin17#c7 and may   
therefore pass on to the last and most  
important passage1 to which we have     
referred as contained in the concluding 
portion of the ,homilies first published
 by ,dressel in  #cci  #ahec4 ,we       
subjoin it in contrast with the parallel
 in the fourth ,gospel ------  ,it is   
necessary that we should consider the   
context of this passage in the ,homily1 
the characteristics of which are        
markedly opposed to the theory that it  
was derived from the fourth ,gospel ,we 
must mention that1 in the ,clementines1 
the ,apostle ,peter is represented as   
maintaining that the ,scriptures are not
 all true1 but are mixed up with what is
 false1 and that on this account1 and in
 order to inculcate the necessity of    
distinguishing between the true and the 

false1 ,jesus taught his disciples1 ,be 
ye approved money changers17#a7 an      
injunction not found in our ,gospels4   
,one of the points which ,peter denies  
is the fall of ,adam1 a doctrine which1 
as ,neander remarked1 he must combat as 
blasphemy47#b7 ,at the part we are  #cdj
  considering he is discussing with     
,simon1--under whose detested           
personality1 as we have elsewhere shown1
 the ,apostle ,paul is really           
attacked1--and refuting the charges he  
brings forward regarding the origin and 
continuance of evil4 ,the ,apostle      
,peter in the course of the discussion  
asserts that evil is the same as pain   
and death1 but that evil does not exist 
eternally and1 indeed1 does not really  
exist at all1 for pain and death are    
only accidents without permanent        
force--pain is merely the disturbance of
 harmony1 and death nothing but the     
separation of soul from body47#a7 ,the  
passions also must be classed amongst   
the things which are accidental1 and are

 not always to exist2 but these1        
although capable of abuse1 are in       
reality beneficial to the soul when     
properly restrained1 and carry out the  
will of ,god4 ,the man who gives them   
unbridled course ensures his own        
punishment47#b7 ,simon inquires why men 
die prematurely and periodical diseases 
come1 and also visitations of demons and
 of madness and other afflictions2 in   
reply to which ,peter explains that     
parents by following their own pleasure 
in all things and neglecting proper     
sanitary considerations1 produce a      
multitude of evils for their children1  
and this either through  #cda           
carelessness or ignorance47#a7 ,and then
 follows the passage we are discussing3 
,wherefore also our ,teacher1 c41 and at
 the end of the quotation1 he continues3
 and truly such sufferings ensue in     
consequence of ignorance1 and giving an 
instance17#b7 he proceeds3 ,now the     
sufferings which you before mentioned   
are the consequence of ignorance1 and   

certainly not of an evil act1 which has 
been committed17#c7 c4 ,now it is quite 
apparent that the peculiar variation    
from the parallel in the fourth ,gospel 
in the latter part of the quotation is  
not accidental1 but is the point upon   
which the whole propriety of the        
quotation depends4 ,in the ,gospel of   
the ,clementines the man is not blind   
from his birth1 that the works of ,god  
might be made manifest in him1--a       
doctrine which would be revolting to the
 author of the ,homilies1--but the      
calamity has befallen him in consequence
 of some error of ignorance on the part 
of his parents which brings its         
punishment2 but the power of ,god is    
made manifest in healing the sins of    
ignorance4 ,the reply of ,jesus is a    
professed quotation1 and it varies very 
substantially from the parallel in the  
,gospel1 presenting evidently a         
distinctly different version of the     
episode4 ,the substitution of ------ for
 ------ in the opening is also          

significant1 more especially as ,justin 
likewise in his general remark1 which we
 have discussed1 uses the same word4    
,assuming the passage in the fourth     
,gospel to be the account of a          
historical episode1 as apologists1 of   
course1 maintain1 the case stands       
thus3--,the author of the ,homilies     
introduces a narrative of a historical  
#cdb  incident in the life of ,jesus1   
which may have been1 and probably was1  
reported in many early gospels in       
language which1 though analogous to1 is 
at the same time decidedly different1 in
 the part which is a professed          
quotation1 from that of the fourth      
,gospel1 and presents another and       
natural comment upon the central event4 
,the reference to the historical        
incident is1 of course1 no evidence     
whatever of dependence on the fourth    
,gospel1 which1 although it may be the  
only accidentally surviving work which  
contains the narrative1 had no          
prescriptive and exclusive property in  

it1 and so far from the partial         
agreement in the narrative proving the  
use of the fourth ,gospel1 the only     
remarkable point is1 that all narratives
 of the same event and reports of words 
actually spoken do not more perfectly   
agree1 while1 on the other hand1 the    
very decided variation in the reply of  
,jesus1 according to the ,homily1 from  
that given in the fourth ,gospel leads  
to the distinct presumption that it is  
not the source of the quotation4  ,it is
 perfectly unreasonable to assert that  
such a reference1 without the slightest 
indication of the source from which the 
author derived his information1 must be 
dependent on one particular work1 more  
especially when the part which is given 
as distinct quotation substantially     
differs from the record in that work4   
,we have already illustrated this on    
several occasions1 and may once more    
offer an instance4 ,if the first        
,synoptic had unfortunately perished1   
like so many other gospels of the early 

,church1 and in the ,clementines we met 
with the quotation3 ,blessed are the    
poor in spirit1 for theirs is the       
kingdom of heaven ------1 apologists    
would certainly assert1 according to the
 principle upon which they act in  #cdc 
the present case1 that this quotation   
was clear evidence of the use of ,luke  
vi4 #bj3 ,blessed are ye poor1 for yours
 is the kingdom of ,god4 ------1 more   
especially as a few codices actually    
insert ------1 the slight variations    
being merely ascribed to free quotation 
from memory4 ,in point of fact1 however1
 the third ,synoptic might not at the   
time have been in existence1 and the    
quotation might have been derived1 as it
 is1 from ,matt4 v4 #c4 ,nothing is more
 certain and undeniable than the fact   
that the author of the fourth ,gospel   
made use of materials derived from oral 
tradition and earlier records for its   
composition47#a7 ,it is equally         
undeniable that other gospels had access
 to the same materials1 and made use of 

them2 and a comparison of our three     
,synoptics renders very evident the     
community of materials1 including the   
use of the one by the other1 as well as 
the diversity of literary handling to   
which those materials were subjected4   
,it is impossible with reason to deny   
that the ,gospel according to the       
,hebrews1 for instance1 as well as other
 earlier evangelical works now lost1 may
 have drawn from the same sources as the
 fourth ,gospel1 and that narratives    
derived from the one may1 therefore1    
present analogies with the other whilst 
still perfectly independent of it47#b7  
,whatever private opinion1 therefore1   
any one may form as to the source of the
 anonymous quotations which we have been
 considering1 it is evident that they   
are totally insufficient to prove that  
the ,author of  #cdd  the ,clementine   
,homilies must have made use of the     
fourth ,gospel1 and consequently they do
 not establish even the contemporary    
existence of that work4 ,if such        

quotations1 moreover1 could be traced   
with fifty times greater probability to 
the fourth ,gospel1 it is obvious that  
they could do nothing towards           
establishing its historical character   
and apostolic origin4  ,leaving1        
however1 the few and feeble analogies by
 which apologists vainly seek to        
establish the existence of the fourth   
,gospel and its use by the author of the
 pseudo-,clementine ,homilies1 and      
considering the question for a moment   
from a wider point of view1 the results 
already attained are more than          
confirmed4 ,the doctrines held and      
strongly enunciated in the ,clementines 
seem to us to exclude the supposition   
that the author can have made use of a  
work so fundamentally at variance with  
all his views as the fourth ,gospel1 and
 it is certain that1 holding those      
opinions1 he could hardly have regarded 
such a ,gospel as an apostolic and      
authoritative document4 ,space will not 
permit our entering adequately into this

 argument1 and we must refer our readers
 to works more immediately devoted to   
the examination of the ,homilies for a  
close analysis of their dogmatic        
teaching17#a7 but we may in the briefest
 manner point out some of their more    
prominent doctrines in contrast with    
those of the ,johannine ,gospel4  #cde  
,one of the leading and most            
characteristic ideas of the ,clementine 
,homilies is the essential identity of  
,judaism and ,christianity4 ,christ     
revealed nothing new with regard to     
,god1 but promulgated the very same     
truth concerning him as ,adam1 ,moses1  
and the ,patriarchs1 and in fact the    
right belief is that ,moses and ,jesus  
were essentially one and the same47#a7  
,indeed1 it may be said that the        
teaching of the ,homilies is more       
,jewish than ,christian47#b7 ,in the    
preliminary ,epistle of the ,apostle    
,peter to the ,apostle ,james1 when     
sending the book1 ,peter entreats that  
,james will not give it to any of the   

,gentiles17#c7 and ,james says3         
,necessarily and rightly our ,peter     
reminded us to take precautions for the 
security of the truth1 that we should   
not communicate the books of his        
preachings1 sent to us1 indiscriminately
 to all1 but to him who is good and     
discreet and chosen to teach1 and who is
 circumcised17#d7 being faithful47#e7 c4
 ,clement also is represented as        
describing his conversion to            
,christianity in the following terms3   
,for this cause ,i fled for refuge to   
the ,holy ,god and ,law of the ,jews1   
with faith in the certain conclusion    
that1 by the righteous judgment of ,god1
 both the ,law is prescribed1 and the   
soul beyond doubt everywhere receives   
#cdf  the desert of its actions47#a7    
,peter recommends the inhabitants of    
,tyre to follow what are really ,jewish 
rites1 and to hear as the ,god-fearing  
,jews have heard 7#b7 ,the ,jew has the 
same truth as the ,christian3 ,for as   
there is one teaching by both 7,moses   

and ,jesus71 ,god accepts him who       
believes either of these47#c7 ,the ,law 
was in fact given by ,adam as a true    
prophet knowing all things1 and it is   
called ,eternal1 and neither to be      
abrogated by enemies nor falsified by   
the impious47#d7 ,the author1 therefore1
 protests against the idea that         
,christianity is any new thing1 and     
insists that ,jesus came to confirm1 not
 abrogate1 the ,mosaic ,law47#e7 ,on the
 other hand the author of the fourth    
,gospel represents ,christianity in     
strong contrast and antagonism to       
,judaism47#f7 ,in his antithetical      
system1 the religion of ,jesus is       
opposed to ,judaism as well as all other
 belief1 as ,light to ,darkness and     
,life to ,death47#g7 ,the ,law which    
,moses gave is treated as merely        
national1 and neither of  #cdg  general 
application nor intended to be          
permanent1 being only addressed to the  
,jews4 ,it is perpetually referred to as
 the ,law of the ,jews1 your ,law1--and 

the ,jewish festivals as ,feasts of the 
,jews1 and ,jesus neither held the one  
in any consideration nor did he scruple 
to shew his indifference to the         
other47#a7 ,the very name of the ,jews  
indeed is used as an equivalent for the 
enemies of ,christ47#b7 ,the religion of
 ,jesus is not only absolute1 but it    
communicates knowledge of the ,father   
which the ,jews did not previously      
possess47#c7 ,the inferiority of        
,mosaism is everywhere represented3 and 
out of his fulness all we received1 and 
grace for grace4 ,because the ,law was  
given through ,moses2 grace and truth   
came through ,jesus ,christ47#d7 ,verily
 verily ,i say unto you3 ,moses did not 
give you the bread from heaven1 but my  
,father giveth you the true bread from  
heaven47#f7 ,the fundamental difference 
of ,christianity from ,judaism will     
further appear as we proceed4  ,the most
 essential principle of the             
,clementines1 again1 is                 
,monotheism1--the absolute oneness of   

,god1--which the author vehemently      
maintains as well against the ascription
 of divinity to ,christ as against      
heathen ,polytheism and the ,gnostic    
theory of the ,demiurge as distinguished
 from the ,supreme ,god47#f7 ,christ not
 only is not ,god1  #cdh  but he never  
asserted himself to be so47#a7 ,he      
wholly ignores the doctrine of the      
,logos1 and his speculation is confined 
to the ------1 the ,wisdom of ,proverbs 
viii41 c41 and is1 as we shall see1 at  
the same time a less developed and very 
different doctrine from that of the     
fourth ,gospel47#b7 ,the idea of a      
hypostatic ,trinity seems to be quite   
unknown to him1 and would have been     
utterly abhorrent to his mind as sheer  
,polytheism4 ,on the other hand1 the    
fourth ,gospel proclaims the doctrine of
 a hypostatic ,trinity in a more        
advanced form than any other writing of 
the ,new ,testament4 ,it is1 indeed1 the
 fundamental principle of the work17#c7 
as the doctrine of the ,logos is its    

most characteristic feature4 ,in the    
beginning the ,word not only was with   
,god1 but the ,word was ,god ------47#d7
  ,he is the only begotten ,god         
------17#e7 equivalent to the ,second   
,god ------ of ,philo1 and1 throughout1 
his absolutely divine nature is asserted
 both by the ,evangelist1 and in express
 terms in the discourses of ,jesus47#f7 
,nothing could be more opposed to the   
principles of the ,clementines4  #cdi   
,according to the ,homilies1 the same   
,spirit1 the ------1 appeared in ,adam1 
,enoch1 ,noah1 ,abraham1 ,isaac1 ,jacob1
 ,moses1 and finally in ,jesus1 who are 
the only true prophets and are called   
the seven ,pillars ------ of the        
world47#a7 ,these seven7#b7 persons1    
therefore1 are identical1 the same true 
,prophet and ,spirit who from the       
beginning of the world1 changing names  
and forms1 passes through ,time17#c7 and
 these men were thus essentially the    
same as ,jesus47#d7 ,as ,neander rightly
 observes1 the author of the ,homilies  

saw in ,jesus a new appearance of that  
,adam whom he had ever venerated as the 
source of all the true and divine in    
man47#e7 ,we need not point out how     
different these views are from the      
,logos doctrine of the fourth           
,gospel47#f7 ,in other points there is  
an equally wide gulf between the        
,clementines and the fourth ,gospel4    
,according to the author of the         
,homilies1 the chief dogma of       #f  
,it is very uncertain by what means the 
author of the      ,homilies considered 
this periodical reappearance to be      
effected1 whether by a kind of          
transmigration or otherwise4            
,critics consider it very doubtful      
whether he admitted the                 
supernatural birth of ,jesus 7though    
some hold it to be      probable71 but  
at any rate he does not explain the     
matter3      ,uhlhorn1 ,die ,homilien1  
p4 #bji f42 ,neander1 ,k4 ,g41 ii4 p4   
#fah1 anm4 #a2 ,credner thought that he 
did not admit it1 #a4 c4      p4 #bec2  

,schliemann1 whilst thinking that he did
 admit it1      considers that in that  
case he equally attributed a            
supernatural birth to the other seven   
prophets3 ,die      ,clementinen1 p4    
#bjg ff4  #cej  true ,religion is       
,monotheism4 ,belief in ,christ1 in the 
specific ,johannine sense1 is nowhere   
inculcated1 and where belief is spoken  
of1 it is merely belief in ,god4 ,no    
dogmatic importance whatever is attached
 to faith in ,christ or to his          
sufferings1 death1 and resurrection1 and
 of the doctrines of ,atonement and     
,redemption there is nothing in the     
,homilies17#a7--;everyone must make his 
own reconciliation with ,god1 and bear  
the punishment of his own sins47#b7 ,on 
the other hand1 the representation of   
,jesus as the ,lamb of ,god taking away 
the sins of the world17#c7 is the very  
basis of the fourth ,gospel4 ,the       
passages are innumerable in which belief
 in ,jesus is insisted upon as          
essential4 ,he that believeth in the    

,son hath eternal life1 but he that     
believeth not the ,son shall not see    
life1 but the wrath of ,god abideth on  
him 7#d74444;for if ye believe not that 
,i am he1 ye shall die in your sins47#e7
 ,in fact1 the whole of ,christianity   
according to the author of the fourth   
,gospel is concentrated in the          
possession of faith in ,christ47#f7     
,belief in ,god alone is never held to  
be sufficient2 belief in ,christ is     
necessary for salvation2 he died for the
 sins of the world1 and is the object of
 faith1 by which alone forgiveness and  
justification before ,god can be        
secured47#g7 ,the same discrepancy is   
apparent in smaller details4 ,in the    
,clementines the ,apostle ,peter  #cea  
is the principal actor1 and is          
represented as the chief amongst the    
,apostles4 ,in the ,epistle of ,clement 
to ,james1 which precedes the ,homilies1
 ,peter is described in the following   
terms3 ,simon1 who1 on account of his   
true faith and of the principles of his 

doctrine1 which were most sure1 was     
appointed to be the foundation of the   
,church1 and for this reason his name   
was by the unerring voice of ,jesus     
himself changed to ,peter2 the          
first-fruit of our ,lord2 the first of  
the ,apostles to whom first the ,father 
revealed the ,son2 whom the ,christ     
deservedly pronounced blessed2 the      
called and chosen and companion and     
fellow-traveller 7of ,jesus72 the       
admirable and approved disciple1 who as 
fittest of all was commanded to         
enlighten the ,west1 the darker part of 
the world1 and was enabled to guide it  
aright1 ,c47#a7 ,he is here represented 
as the ,apostle to the ,heathen1 the    
hated ,apostle ,paul being robbed of    
that honourable title1 and he is1 in the
 spirit of this introduction1 made to   
play1 throughout1 the first part amongst
 the ,apostles47#b7 ,in the fourth      
,gospel1 however1 he is assigned a place
 quite secondary to ,john17#c7 who is   
the disciple whom ,jesus loved and who  

leans on his bosom47#d7 ,we shall only  
mention one other point ,the ,homilist1 
when attacking the ,apostle ,paul1 under
 the  #ceb  name of ,simon the          
,magician1 for his boast that he had not
 been taught by man1 but by a revelation
 of ,jesus ,christ17#a7 whom he had only
 seen in a vision1 inquires3 ,why1 then1
 did the ,teacher remain and discourse a
 whole year to us who were awake1 if you
 became his ,apostle after a single hour
 of instruction87#b7 ,as ,neander aptly 
remarks3 ,but if the author had known   
from the ,johannine ,gospel that the    
teaching of ,christ had continued for   
several years1 he would certainly have  
had particularly good reason instead of 
one year to set several47#c7 ,it is     
obvious that an author with so vehement 
an animosity against ,paul would        
assuredly have strengthened his         
argument1 by adopting the more          
favourable statement of the fourth      
,gospel as to the duration of the       
ministry of ,jesus1 had he been         

acquainted with that work4  ,our        
attention must now be turned to the     
anonymous composition1 known as the     
,epistle to ,diognetus1 general         
particulars regarding which we have     
elsewhere given47#d7 ,this epistle1 it  
is admitted1 does not contain any       
quotation from any evangelical work1 but
 on the strength of some supposed       
references it is claimed by apologists  
as evidence for the existence of the    
fourth ,gospel4 ,tischendorf1 who only  
devotes a dozen lines to this work1     
states his case as follows3 ,although   
this short apologetic epistle contains  
no precise quotation from any gospel1   
yet it contains repeated references to  
evangelical1 and particularly to        
,johannine1 passages4 ,for when the     
author writes1 ch4 #f3 ',christians     
dwell in the world1 but they are not of 
the world2' and in  #cec  ch4 #aj3 ',for
 ,god has loved men1 for whose sakes he 
made the world4444 to whom he sent his  
only begotten ,son1' the reference to   

,john xvii4 #aa 7',but they are in the  
world'72 #ad 7',the world hateth them1  
for they are not of the world'72 #af    
7',they are not of the world as ,i am   
not of the world'72 and to ,john iii4   
#af 7',god so loved the world that he   
gave his only begotten ,son'71 is hardly
 to be mistaken47#a7  ,dr4 ,westcott    
still more emphatically claims the      
epistle as evidence for the fourth      
,gospel1 and we shall1 in order         
impartially to consider the question1   
likewise quote his remarks in full upon 
the point1 but as he introduces his own 
paraphrase of the context in a manner   
which does not properly convey its true 
nature to a reader who has not the      
epistle before him1 we shall take the   
liberty of putting the actual quotations
 in italics1 and the rest must be taken 
as purely the language of ,canon        
,westcott4 ,we shall hereafter show also
 the exact separation which exists      
between phrases which are here1 with the
 mere indication of some omission1      

brought together to form the supposed   
references to the fourth ,gospel4 ,canon
 ,westcott says3 ,in one respect the two
 parts of the book are united17#b7      
inasmuch as they both exhibit a         
combination of the teaching of ,st4     
,paul and ,st4 ,john4 ,the love of ,god1
 it is said in the letter to ,diognetus1
 is the source of love in the           
,christian1 who must needs 'love ,god   
who thus first loved him' ------1 and   
find an expression for this love by     
loving his neighbour1  #ced  whereby he 
will be 'an imitator of ,god6' ,for ,god
 loved men1 for whose sakes ,he made the
 world1 to whom ,he subjected all things
 that are in the earth4444 unto whom    
------ ,he sent ,his only begotten ,son1
 to whom ,he promised the kingdom in    
heaven ------1 and will give it to those
 who love ,him4' ,god's will is mercy2  
',he sent ,his ,son as wishing to save  
------4444 and not to condemn' and as   
witnesses of this1 ',christians dwell in
 the world1 though they are not of the  

world67#a7 ,at the close of the         
paragraph he proceeds3 ,the presence of 
the teaching of ,st4 ,john is here      
placed beyond all doubt4 ,there are1    
however1 no direct references to the    
,gospels throughout the letter1 nor     
indeed any allusions to our ,lord's     
discourses47#b7  ,it is clear that as   
there is no direct reference to any     
,gospel in the ,epistle to ,diognetus1  
even if it were ascertained to be a     
composition dating from the middle of   
the second century1 which it is not1 and
 even if the indirect allusions were ten
 times more probable than they are1 this
 anonymous work could do nothing towards
 establishing the apostolic origin and  
historical character  #cee  of the      
fourth ,gospel4 ,written1 however1 as we
 believe it to have been1 at a much     
later period1 it scarcely requires any  
consideration here4  ,we shall1 however1
 for those who may be interested in more
 minutely discussing the point1 at once 
proceed to examine whether the          

composition even indicates the existence
 of the ,gospel1 and for this purpose we
 shall take each of the passages in     
question and place them with their      
context before the reader2 and we only  
regret that the examination of a        
document which1 neither from its date   
nor evidence can be of any real weight1 
should detain us so long4 ,the first    
passage is3 ,christians dwell in the    
world but are not of the world ------4  
,dr4 ,westcott1 who reverses the order  
of all the passages indicated1          
introduces this sentence 7which occurs  
in chapter vi47 as the consequence of a 
passage following it in chapter vii4 by 
the words and as witnesses of this3     
,christians1 c4444 ,the first parallel  
which is pointed out in the ,gospel     
reads1 ,john xvii4 #aa3 ,and ,i am no   
more in the world1 and these are in the 
world ------1 and ,i come to thee1 ,holy
 ,father keep them1c4 ,now it must be   
evident that in mere direct point of    
language and sense there is no parallel 

here at all4 ,in the ,gospel1 the       
disciples are referred to as being left 
behind in the world by ,jesus who goes  
to the ,father1 whilst1 in the ,epistle1
 the object is the antithesis that while
 ,christians dwell in the world they are
 not of the world4 ,in the second       
parallel1 which is supposed to complete 
the analogy1 the ,gospel reads3 v4 #ad1 
,i have given them thy word3 and the    
world hated them because they are not of
 the world1 ------ even as ,i am not of 
the world4 ,here1 again1 the parallel   
words are merely introduced as a reason 
why the world hated them1 and not       
antithetically1 and from this very      
connection we shall see that the        
resemblance between the ,epistle and the
 ,gospel is merely superficial4  ,in    
order to form a correct judgment        
regarding the nature of the passage in  
the ,epistle1 we must carefully examine 
the context4 ,in chapter v4 the author  
is speaking of the manners of           
,christians1 and he says that they are  

not distinguished from others either    
#cef  by country or language or by their
 customs1 for they have neither cities  
nor speech of their own1 nor do they    
lead a singular life4 ,they dwell in    
their native countries1 but only as     
sojourners ------1 and the writer       
proceeds by a long sequence of          
antithetical sentences to depict their  
habits4 ,every foreign land is as their 
native country1 yet the land of their   
birth is a foreign land ------1 and so  
on4 ,now this epistle is in great part a
 mere plagiarism of the ,pauline and    
other canonical epistles1 whilst        
professing to describe the actual life  
of ,christians1 and the fifth and sixth 
chapters1 particularly1 are based upon  
the epistles of ,paul and notably the   
#bnd ,epistle to the ,corinthians1 from 
which even the antithetical style is    
derived4 ,we may give a specimen of this
 in referring to the context of the     
passage before us1 and it is important  
that we should do so4 ,after a few      

sentences like the above the fifth      
chapter continues3 ,they are in the     
flesh1 but do not live according to the 
flesh4 ,they continue on earth1 but are 
citizens of heaven ------47#a7  ,it is  
very evident here1 and throughout the   
,epistle1 that the ,epistles of ,paul   
chiefly1 together with the other        
canonical ,epistles1 are the sources of 
the writer's inspiration4 ,the next     
chapter 7vi7 begins and proceeds as     
follows3 ,to say all in a word3 what the
 soul is in the body1 that ,christians  
are in the world4 ,the soul is dispersed
 throughout all the members of the body1
 and ,christians throughout all the     
cities of the world4 ,the soul dwells in
 the body but is not of the body1 and   
,christians dwell in the world1 but are 
not of the world4 ------4 ,the invisible
 soul is kept in the visible body1 and  
,christians are known1 indeed1 to be in 
the world1 but their worship of ,god    
remains invisible4 ,the flesh hates the 
soul and wages war against it1 although 

in no way wronged by it1 because it is  
restrained from indulgence in sensual   
pleasures1 and the world hates          
,christians1  #ceh  although in no way  
wronged by them1 because they are       
opposed to sensual pleasures ------4    
,the soul loves the flesh that hates it1
 and the members1 and ,christians love  
those who hate them ------4 ,and so on  
with three or four similar sentences1   
one of which1 at least1 is taken from   
the ,epistle to the ,corinthians17#a7 to
 the end of the chapter4  ,now the      
passages pointed out as references to   
the fourth ,gospel1 it will be          
remembered1 distinctly differ from the  
parallels in the ,gospel1 and it seems  
to us clear that they arise naturally   
out of the antithetical manner which the
 writer adopts from the ,epistles of    
,paul1 and are based upon passages in   
those ,epistles closely allied to them  
in sense and also in language4 ,the     
simile in connection with which the     
words occur is commenced at the         

beginning of the preceding chapter1     
where ,christians are represented as    
living as strangers even in their native
 land1 and the very essence of the      
passage in dispute is given in the two  
sentences3 ,they are in the flesh1 but  
do not live according to the flesh      
------1 which is based upon #b ,cor4 x4 
#c1 ,for we walk in the flesh1 but do   
not war7#b7 according to the flesh      
------1 and similar passages abound2 as 
for instance1 ,rom4 viii4 #d444 in us   
who walk not according to the flesh1 but
 according to the ,spirit2 #i4 ,but ye  
are not in the flesh but in the ,spirit 
------3 #ab444  ,so then1 brethren1 we  
are debtors not to the flesh1 that we   
should live after the flesh ------ c41  
c4 7,cf4 #d1 #ad474 ,and the second3    
,they continue on earth but are citizens
 of heaven ------1 which recall ,philip1
 iii4 #bj3 ,for our country 7our        
citizenship7 is in heaven ------47#c7   
,the sense of the passage is everywhere 
found1 and nothing is more natural than 

#cei  the use of the words arising both 
out of the previous reference to the    
position of ,christians as mere         
sojourners in the world1 and as the     
antithesis to the preceding part of the 
sentence3 ,the soul dwells in the body1 
but is not of the body1 and3 ,christians
 dwell in the world but are not of the  
world4 ,cf4 #a ,cor4 ii4 #ab2 vii4 #ca2 
#b ,cor4 ,l #ab4 ,gal4 iv4 #bi1 v4 #af  
ff4 #bd1 #be1 vi4 #ad4 ,rom4 viii4 #c   
ff4 ,ephes4 ii4 #b1 #c1 #aa ff4 ,coloss4
 iii4 #b ff3 ,titus ii4 #ab4 ,james i4  
#bg4 ,there is one point1 however1 which
 we think shows that the words were not 
derived from the fourth ,gospel4 ,the   
parallel with the ,epistle can only be  
made by taking a few words out of xvii4 
#aa and adding to them a few words in   
verse #ad1 where they stand in the      
following connection ,and the world     
hated them1 because they are not of the 
world ------4 ,in the ,epistle1 in a    
passage quoted above1 we have3 ,the     
flesh hates the soul1 and wages war     

against it1 although unjustly1 because  
it is restrained from indulgence in     
sensual pleasures1 and the world hates  
,christians1 although in no way wronged 
by them1 because they are opposed to    
sensual pleasures4 ------4,now nothing  
could more clearly show that these      
analogies are mere accidental           
coincidence1 and not derived from the   
fourth ,gospel1 than this passage4 ,if  
the writer had really had the passage in
 the ,gospel in his mind1 it is         
impossible that he could in this manner 
have completely broken it up and changed
 its whole context and language4 ,the   
phrase3 they are not of the world would 
have been introduced here as the reason 
for the hatred1 instead of being used   
with quite different context elsewhere  
in the passage4 ,in fact1 in the only   
place in which the words would have     
presented a true parallel with the      
,gospel1 they are not used4 ,not the    
slightest reference is made throughout  
the ,epistle to ,diognetus to any of the

 discourses of ,jesus4 ,on the other    
hand1 we have seen that the whole of the
 passage in the ,epistle in which these 
sentences occur is based both in matter1
 and in its peculiar antithetical form1 
upon the ,epistles of ,paul1 and in     
these and other canonical ,epistles     
again1 we find the source of the        
sentence just quoted3 ,gal4 iv4 #bi4    
,but as then1 he that was born after the
 flesh  #cfj  persecuted him 7that was  
born7 after the ,spirit1 even so it is  
now47#a7 v4 #af4 ,walk by the ,spirit1  
and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the
 flesh4 #ag4 ,for the flesh lusteth     
against the ,spirit and the ,spirit     
against the flesh3 for these are        
contrary the one to the other1 that ye  
may not do the things that ye would47#b7
 ,there are innumerable passages in the 
,pauline ,epistles to the same effect4  
,we pass on now to the next passage in  
the order of the ,epistle4 ,it is not   
mentioned at all by ,tischendorf3 ,dr4  
,west-cott introduces it with the words3

 ,god's will is mercy1 by which we      
presume that he means to paraphrase the 
context ,he sent his ,son as wishing to 
save ------4444 and not to condemn47#c7 
,this sentence1 however1 which is given 
as quotation without any explanation1 is
 purely a composition by ,canon         
,westcott himself out of different      
materials which he finds in the         
,epistle1 and is not a quotation at all4
 ,the actual passage in the ,epistle1   
with its immediate context1 is as       
follows3 ,this 7,messenger--the ,truth1 
the holy ,word7 he sent to them2 now1   
was it1 as one of men might reason1 for 
tyranny and to cause fear and           
consternation8 ,not so1 but in clemency 
and gentleness1 as a ,king sending his  
,son ------ a king1 he sent ------2 as  
,god he sent 7him72 as towards men he   
sent2 as saving he sent------ 7him72 as 
persuading ------1  not forcing1 for    
violence has no place with ,god4 ,he    
sent as inviting1 not vindictively      
pursuing2 he sent as loving1 not        

condemning ------4 ,for he will send him
 to judge1 and who shall abide his      
presence87#d7 ,the supposed parallel in 
the ,gospel is as follows 7,john iii4   
#ag73 ,for ,god sent not his ,son into  
the world that he might condemn the     
#cfa  world1 but that the world through 
him might be saved7#a7 ------4  ,now1 it
 is obvious at a glance that the passage
 in the ,epistle is completely different
 from that in the ,gospel in every      
material point of construction and      
language1 and the only similarity       
consists in the idea that ,god's        
intention in sending his ,son was to    
save and not to condemn1 and it is      
important to notice that the letter does
 not1 either here or elsewhere1 refer to
 the condition attached to salvation so 
clearly enunciated in the preceding     
verse3 ,that whosoever believeth in him 
might not perish4 ,the doctrine         
enunciated in this passage is the       
fundamental principle of much of the    
,new ,testament1 and it is expressed    

with more especial clearness and force1 
and close analogy with the language of  
the letter1 in the ,epistles of ,paul1  
to which the letter more particularly   
leads us1 as well as in other canonical 
,epistles1 and in these we find         
analogies with the context quoted above1
 which confirm our belief that they1 and
 not the ,gospel1 are the source of the 
passage--,rom4 v4 #h3 ,but ,god proveth 
his own love towards us1 in that while  
we were yet sinners ,christ died for us4
 #i4 ,much more then4444444 shall we be 
saved ------ through him from the wrath 
7to come74' ,cf4 #af1ag4 ,rom4 viii4 #a3
 ,there is1 therefore1 now no           
condemnation ------ to them which are in
 ,christ ,jesus47#b7 #c4444 ,god sending
 his own ,son ------ c4 ,and coming to  
the very #bnd ,epistle to the           
,corinthians1 from which we find the    
writer borrowing wholesale1 we meet with
 the different members of the passage we
 have quoted3 v4 #ai4444 ,god was       
reconciling the world unto himself in   

,christ1 not reckoning unto them their  
trespasses44444 #bj4 ,on ,christ's      
behalf1 then1 we are ambassadors1 as    
though ,god were entreating by us2 we   
pray on ,christ's behalf3 ,be reconciled
 to ,god4 v4 #aj4 ,for we must all      
appear before the judgment seat of      
,christ1 c4 #aa4 ,knowing1 then1 the    
fear of  #cfb  the ,lord1 we persuade   
------ men1 c4 ,galatians iv4 #d3 ,but  
when the fulness of time came1 ,god sent
 out his ,son ------1 #e4 ,that he might
 redeem them that were under the law1   
that we might receive the adoption of   
sons17#a7 c4 ,ephes4 ii4 #d4 ,but ,god  
being rich in mercy because of his great
 love wherewith he loved us1 #e4 ,even  
when we were dead in our trespasses1    
quickened us together with ,christ--by  
grace ye have been saved--cf4 verses    
#g1h4 #a ,thess4 v4 #i4 ,for ,god       
appointed us not to wrath1 but to the   
obtaining salvation ------ through our  
,lord ,jesus ,christ4 #a ,tim4 i4 #ae4  
,this is a faithful saying4444 that     

,christ ,jesus came into the world to   
save sinners ------4 #a ,tim4 ii4 #c4   
,for this is good and acceptable in the 
sight of ,god our ,saviour ------4 #d4  
,who willeth all men to be saved ------4
 ,cf4 v4 #e1 #f4 #b ,tim4 i4 #i4 ,who   
saved us ------1 and called us with a   
holy calling1 not according to our      
works1 but according to his own purpose1
 and the grace which was given to us in 
,christ ,jesus before time began2 #aj4  
,but hath been made manifest by the     
appearing of our ,saviour ------ ,jesus 
,christ#c ,these passages might be      
indefinitely multiplied2 and they       
contain the sense of the passage1 and in
 many cases the language1 more closely  
than the fourth ,gospel1 with which the 
construction and form of the sentence   
has no analogy4 ,now1 with regard to the
 ,logos doctrine of the ,epistle to     
#cfc  ,diognetus1 to which we may       
appropriately here refer1 although we   
must deal with it in the briefest manner
 possible1 so far is it from connecting 

the ,epistle with the fourth ,gospel1   
that it much more proves the writer's   
ignorance of that ,gospel4 ,the peculiar
 terminology of the prologue to the     
,gospel is nowhere found in the         
,epistle1 and we have already seen that 
the term ,logos was applied to ,jesus in
 works of the ,new ,testament1          
acknowledged by all to have been written
 long before the fourth ,gospel4        
,indeed1 it is quite certain1 not only  
historically1 but also from the abrupt  
enunciation of the doctrine in the      
prologue1 that the theory of the ,logos 
was well known and already applied to   
,jesus before the ,gospel was composed4 
,the author knew that his statement     
would be understood without explanation4
 ,although the writer of the ,epistle   
makes use of the designation ,logos1 he 
shows his ,greek culture by giving the  
precedence to the term ,truth or        
,reason4 ,it has indeed been            
remarked7#a7 that the name ,jesus or    
,christ does not occur anywhere in the  

,epistle4 ,by way of showing the manner 
in which the ,word is spoken of1 we will
 give the entire passage1 part of which 
is quoted above2 the first and only one 
in the first ten chapters in which the  
term is used3 ,for1 as ,i said1 this was
 not an earthly invention which was     
delivered to them 7,christians71 neither
 is it a mortal system which they deem  
it right to maintain so carefully2 nor  
is an administration of human mysteries 
entrusted to them1 but the ,almighty and
 invisible ,god himself1 the ,creator of
 all things ------ has implanted in men1
 and established in their hearts from   
heaven1 the ,truth and the ,word1 the   
holy and incomprehensible ------1 not as
 one might suppose1 sending to men some 
servant or angel or ruler ------1 or one
 of those ordering earthly affairs1 or  
one of those entrusted with the         
government of heavenly things1 but the  
artificer and creator of the universe   
------ himself1 by whom he created the  
heavens ------27#c7 by  #cfd  whom he   

confined the sea within its own bounds2 
whose commands ------ all the stars     
--------elements7 faithfully observe2   
from whom 7the sun7 has received the    
measure of the daily course to observe2 
whom the moon obeys1 being bidden to    
shine at night2 whom the stars obey1    
following in the course of the moon2 by 
whom all things have been arranged and  
limited and subjected1 the heavens and  
the things in the heavens1 the earth and
 the things in the earth1 the sea and   
the things in the sea ------1 fire1 air1
 abyss1 the things in the heights1 the  
things in the depths1 the things in the 
space between4 ,this 7,messenger--the   
truth1 the ,word7 he sent to them4 ,now1
 was it1 as one of men might reason1 for
 tyranny and to cause fear and          
consternation8 ,not so1 but in clemency 
and gentleness1 as a ,king sending his  
,son1 a king1 he sent2 as ,god he sent  
7him72 as towards men he sent1 as saving
 he sent 7him72 as persuading1 c41      
c47#a7 ,the description here given1 how 

,god in fact by ,reason or ,wisdom      
created the ,universe1 has much closer  
analogy with earlier representations of 
the doctrine than with that in the      
fourth ,gospel1 and if the writer does  
also represent the ,reason in a         
hypostatic form1 it is by no means with 
the concreteness of the ,gospel doctrine
 of the ,logos1 with which              
linguistically1 moreover1 as we have    
observed1 it has no similarity4 ,there  
can be no doubt that his ,christology   
presents differences from that of the   
fourth ,gospel47#b7  ,we have already   
seen how ,jesus is called the ,word in  
works of the ,new ,testament earlier    
than the fourth ,gospel17#c7 and how the
 doctrine is constantly referred to in  
the ,pauline ,epistles and the ,epistle 
to the ,hebrews1 and it is to these1 and
 not to the fourth ,gospel1 that the    
account in the ,epistle to ,diognetus   
may be more properly traced4 ,heb4 ,l   
#b4 ,the ,son of ,god by whom also he   
made the worlds4 #aj4 ,the heavens are  

works of thy hands ------4 xi4 #c4 ,by  
faith we understand that the worlds were
 framed ------1 by the word of ,god     
------4 #a ,cor4 viii4 #f4 ,jesus       
,christ by whom are all things ------4  
,coloss4 i4 #ac4 444 ,the  #cfe  ,son of
 his love3 #ae4 ,who is the image of the
 invisible ,god ------ the first-born of
 all creation2 #af4 ,because in him were
 all things created1 the things in the  
heavens1 and the things in the earth1   
the things visible and the things       
invisible ------ whether they be thrones
 or dominions1 or principalities1 or    
powers2 ,all things have been created by
 him and for him ------4 #ag4 ,and he is
 before all things1 and in him all      
things subsist4 #ah4 ,and he is the head
 of the body1 the ,church1 who is the   
,beginning7#a7 ------2 the first-born   
from the dead2 that in all things he    
might be the first4 #ai4 ,because he was
 well pleased that in him should all the
 fulness dwell4 #bj4 ,and through him to
 reconcile all things unto himself1 c41 

c4 ,these passages might be greatly     
multiplied1 but it is unnecessary1 for  
the matter of the letter is             
substantially here4 ,as to the titles of
 ,king and ,god they are everywhere to  
be found4 ,in the ,apocalypse1 the ,lamb
 whose name is ,the ,word of ,god       
------1 7xix4 #ah7 has also his name    
written 7xix4 #af71 ,king of kings and  
,lord of lords ------47#b7 ,we have     
already quoted the views of ,philo      
regarding the ,logos1 which also merit  
comparison with the passage of the      
,epistle1 but we cannot repeat them     
here4  ,the last passage to which we    
have to refer is the following3 ,for    
,god loved men1 for whose sakes ,he made
 the world1 to whom ,he subjected all   
things that are in the earth444 ,unto   
whom ------ ,he sent his only-begotten  
,son1 to whom ,he promised the kingdom  
in heaven ------ and will give it to    
those who love ,him47#c7 ,the context is
 as follows3 ,for ,god loved men ------ 
for whose sake he made the world1 to    

whom he subjected all things that are in
 it1 to whom he gave reason and         
intelligence1 to whom alone he granted  
the right of looking towards him1 whom  
he formed after his own image1 to whom  
he sent his only begotten son ------1 to
 whom he has promised the kingdom in    
heaven1 and will give it to those who   
have loved him4 ,and when you know this1
 with what  #cff  gladness1 think you1  
you will be filled8 ,or how will you    
love him1 who beforehand so loved you8  
------4 ,but if you love1 you will be an
 imitator of his kindness1 c4           
------47#a7 ,this is claimed as a       
reference to ,john iii4 #af f4 ,for ,god
 so loved the world ------ that he gave 
his only begotten son ------ that       
whosoever believeth in him might not    
perish1 c4 #ag4 ,for ,god sent not his  
son into the world that he might judge  
the world1 c4 ------4 ,here1 again1 a   
sentence is patched together by taking  
fragments from the beginning and middle 
of a passage1 and finding in them a     

superficial resemblance to words in the 
,gospel4 ,we find parallels for the     
passage1 however1 in the ,epistles from 
which the unknown writer obviously      
derives so much of his matter4 ,rom4 v4 
#h3 ,but ,god giveth proof of his love  
towards us1 in that while we were yet   
sinners ,christ died for us4 #aj4444    
through the death of his son4 ,chap4    
viii4 #h1 ,god sending his son1 c4      
#bi4444 ,them he also foreordained to   
bear the likeness of the image of his   
son1 c4 #cb4 ,he that spared not his own
 son1 but delivered him up for us all1  
c4 #ci4 7,nothing can separate us7 from 
the love of ,god which is in ,christ    
,jesus our ,lord4 ,gal4 ii4 #bj4444 by  
the faith of the ,son of ,god who loved 
me and gave himself for me4 ,chap4 iv4  
#d4 ,god sent out his son ------ 4444   
that he might redeem1 c4 ,ephes4 ii4 #d4
 ,but ,god being rich in mercy because  
of his great love wherewith he loved us4
 #e4 ,even when we were dead in our     
trespasses hath quickened us together   

with ,christ4 #g4 ,that he might show   
forth the exceeding riches of his grace 
in kindness ------ towards us in ,christ
 ,jesus4 ,chap4 iv4 #cb4 ,be ye kind    
------ one to another1 tender-hearted1  
forgiving one another1 even as ,god also
 in ,christ forgave you499 ,chap4 v4 #a4
 ,beye therefore imitators ------ of    
,god as beloved children4 #b4 ,and walk 
#cfg  in love ------ even as ,christ    
also loved you ------1 and gave himself 
for us1 c41 c4 ,titus iii4 #d4 ,but when
 the kindness ------ and love towards   
men ------ of our ,saviour ,god was     
manifested4 #e444 according to his mercy
 he saved us4444 #f4444 through ,jesus  
,christ our ,saviour4 #g4 ,that being   
justified by his grace1 we should become
 heirs according to the hope of ,eternal
 life4  ,the words3 ,or how will you    
love him who so beforehand loved you8   
------1 ,canon ,westcott refers to #a   
,john iv4 #ai1 ,we love ,god7#b7 because
 he first loved us ------4 ,the         
linguistic differences1 however1 and    

specially the substitution of ------1   
distinctly oppose the claim4 ,the words 
are a perfectly natural comment upon the
 words in ,ephesians1 from which it is  
obvious the writer derived other parts  
of the sentence1 as the striking word   
kindness ------1 which is commonly used 
in the ,pauline ,epistles1 but nowhere  
else in the ,new ,testament17#c7 shows4 
,dr4 ,westcott cannot call to mind1 a   
parallel to the phrase 'the kingdom in  
heaven'7#d7 which occurs above in the   
phrase to whom he has promised the      
kingdom in heaven1 and will give it to  
those who have loved him ------4 ,this  
also we find in the ,epistles to which  
the writer exclusively refers in this   
letter3 ,james il #e1 heirs of the      
kingdom which he promised to them that  
love him ------ i4 #ab4 444 he shall    
receive the crown of life which he      
promised to them that love him ------4  
,in #b ,tim4 iv4 #ah1 we have3 ,the     
,lord444 shall preserve me safe unto his
 heavenly kingdom ------7#e7  ,the very 

fact that there is no exact parallel to 
the phrase kingdom in heaven in our     
,gospels is unfavourable to the argument
 that they were used by the author4     
,whatever evangelical works he may have 
read1  #cfh  it is indisputable that the
 writer of this ,epistle does not quote 
any of them1 and he uses no expressions 
and no terminology which warrants the   
inference that he must have been        
acquainted with the fourth ,gospel4  ,as
 we have already stated1 the writer of  
the ,epistle to ,diognetus is unknown2  
,diognetus1 the friend to whom it is    
addressed1 is equally unknown2 the      
letter is neither mentioned nor quoted  
by any of the ,fathers1 nor by any      
ancient writer1 and there is no external
 evidence as to the date of the         
composition4 ,it existed only in one    
codex1 destroyed at ,strasburg during   
the ,franco-,german war1 the handwriting
 of which was referred to the thirteenth
 or fourteenth century1 but it is far   
from certain that it was so old4 ,the   

last two chapters are a falsification by
 a later writer than the author of the  
first ten4 ,there is no internal        
evidence whatever in this brief didactic
 composition requiring or even          
suggesting its assignment to the second 
or third centuries1 but on the contrary1
 we venture to assert that there is     
evidence1 both internal and external1   
justifying the belief that it was       
written at a comparatively recent date4 
,apart from the uncertainty of date1    
however1 there is no allusion in it to  
any ,gospel4 ,even if there were1 the   
testimony of a letter by an unknown     
writer at an unknown period could not   
have any weight1 but under the actual   
circumstances the ,epistle to ,diognetus
 furnishes absolutely no testimony at   
all for the apostolical origin and      
historical character of the fourth      
,gospel47#a7  ,the fulness with which we
 have discussed the supposed testimony  
of ,basilides7#b7 renders it unnecessary
 for us to re-enter at any length into  

the argument as to his knowledge of the 
fourth ,gospel4 ,tischendorf7#c7 and    
#cfi  ,canon ,westcott7l7 assert that   
two passages1 namely3 ,the true light   
which lighteth every man came into the  
world1 corresponding with ,john i4 #i1  
and3 mine hour is not yet come1 agreeing
 with ,john ii4 #d1 which are introduced
 by ,hippolytus in his work against     
,heresies7#b7 with a subjectless ------ 
he says1are quotations made in some lost
 work by ,basilides4 ,we have shown that
 ,hippolytus and other writers of his   
time were in the habit of quoting       
passages from works by the founders of  
sects and by their later followers      
without any distinction1 an utterly     
vague ------ doing service equally for  
all4 ,this is the case in the present   
instance1 and there is no legitimate    
reason for assigning these passages to  
,basilides himself17#c7 but on the      
contrary many considerations which      
forbid our doing so1 which we have      
elsewhere detailed4  ,these remarks most

 fully apply to ,valentinus1 whose      
supposed quotations we have exhaustively
 discussed17#d7 as well as the one      
passage given by ,hippolytus containing 
a sentence found in ,john x4 #h17e7 the 
only one which can be pointed out4 ,we  
have distinctly proved that the         
quotations in question are not          
assignable to ,valentinus himself1 a    
fact which even apologists admit4 ,there
 is no just ground for asserting that   
his terminology was derived from the    
fourth ,gospel1 the whole having been in
 current use long before that ,gospel   
was composed4  #cgj  ,there is no       
evidence whatever that ,valentin us was 
acquainted with such a work47#a7  ,we   
must generally remark1 however1 with    
regard to ,basilides1 ,valentinus and   
all such ,heresiarchs and writers1 that1
 even if it could be shown1 as actually 
it cannot1 that they were acquainted    
with the fourth ,gospel1 the fact would 
only prove the existence of the work at 
a late period in the second century1 but

 would furnish no evidence of the       
slightest value regarding its apostolic 
origin1 or towards establishing its     
historical value4 ,on the other hand1   
if1 as apologists assert1 these heretics
 possessed the fourth ,gospel1 their    
deliberate and total rejection of the   
work furnishes evidence positively      
antagonistic to its claims4 ,it is      
difficult to decide whether their       
rejection of the ,gospel1 or their      
ignorance of its existence is the more  
unfavourable alternative4  ,the dilemma 
is the very same in the case of         
,marcion4 ,we have already fully        
discussed his knowledge of our          
,gospels17#b7 and need not add anything 
here4 ,it is not pretended that he made 
any use of the fourth ,gospel1 and the  
only ground upon which it is argued that
 he supplies evidence even of its       
existence is the vague general statement
 of ,tertullian1 that ,marcion rejected 
the ,gospels which are put forth as     
genuine1 and under the name of ,apostles

 or at least of contemporaries of the   
,apostles1 denying their truth and      
integrity1 and maintaining the sole     
#cga  authority of his own ,gospel47#a7 
,we have shown7#b7 how unwarrantable it 
is to affirm from such data that        
,marcion knew1 and deliberately         
repudiated1 the four canonical ,gospels4
 ,the ,fathers1 with uncritical haste   
and zeal1 assumed that the ,gospels     
adopted by the ,church at the close of  
the second and beginning of the third   
centuries must equally have been        
invested with canonical authority from  
the first1 and ,tertullian took it for  
granted that ,marcion1 of whom he knew  
very little1 must have actually rejected
 the four ,gospels of his own ,canon4   
,even ,canon ,westcott admits that3 it  
is uncertain whether ,tertullian in the 
passage quoted speaks from a knowledge  
of what ,marcion may have written on the
 subject1 or simply from his own point  
of sight47#c7 ,there is not the         
slightest evidence that ,marcion knew   

the fourth ,gospel17#d7 and if he did1  
it is perfectly inexplicable that he did
 not adopt it as peculiarly favourable  
to his own views47#e7 ,if he was        
acquainted with the work and1           
nevertheless1 rejected it as false and  
adulterated1 his testimony is obviously 
opposed to the ,apostolic origin and    
historical accuracy of the fourth       
,gospel1 and the critical acumen which  
he exhibited in his selection of the    
,pauline ,epistles renders his judgment 
of greater weight than that of most of  
the ,fathers4  ,we have now reached an  
epoch when no evidence regarding the    
fourth ,gospel can have much weight1    
#cgb  and the remaining witnesses need  
not detain us long4 ,we have discussed  
at length the ,diatessaron of           
,tatian17#a7 and shown that whilst there
 is no evidence that it was based upon  
our four ,gospels1 there is reason to   
believe that it may have been identical 
with the ,gospel according to the       
,hebrews1 by which name1 as             

,epiphanius7#b7 states1 it was actually 
called4 ,we have only now briefly to    
refer to the address to the ,greeks     
------1 and  to ascertain what testimony
 it bears regarding the fourth ,gospel4 
,it was composed after the death of     
,justin1 and scarcely dates earlier than
 the beginning of the last quarter of   
the second century4 ,no ,gospel and no  
work of the ,new ,testament is mentioned
 in this composition1 but               
,tischendorf7#c7 and others point out   
one or two supposed references to       
passages in the fourth ,gospel4 ,the    
first of these in order1 is one         
indicated by ,canon ,westcott17#d7 but  
to which ,tischendorf does not call     
attention3 ,god was in the beginning1   
but we have learned that the beginning  
is the power of ,reason ------4 ,for the
 ,lord of the ,universe ------ being    
himself the substance ------ of all1 in 
that creation had not been accomplished 
was alone1 but inasmuch as he was all   
power1 and himself the substance of     

things visible and invisible1 all things
 were with him ------4  ,with him by    
means of rational power the ,reason     
------ itself also which was in him     
subsisted4 ,but by the will of his      
simplicity1 ,reason ------ springs      
forth2 but the ,reason ------ not  #cgc 
proceeding in vain1 because the         
first-born work ------ of the ,father4  
,him we know to be the ,beginning of the
 world ------4 ,but he came into        
existence by division1 not by cutting   
off1 for that which is cut off is       
separated from the first3 but that which
 is divided1 receiving the choice of    
administration1 did not render him      
defective from whom it was taken1 c41 c4
 ,and as the ,logos 7,reason71 in the   
beginning begotten1 begat again our     
creation1 himself for himself creating  
the matter ------1 so ,i1 c41 ,c47#a7   
,it is quite evident that this doctrine 
of the ,logos is not that of the fourth 
,gospel1 from which it cannot have been 
derived4 ,tatian himself7#b7 seems to   

assert that he derived it from the ,old 
,testament4 ,we have quoted the passage 
at length that it might be clearly  #cgd
  understood2 and with the opening      
words1 we presume1 for he does not quote
 at all but merely indicates the        
chapter1 ,canon ,westcott compares ,john
 i4 #a3 ,in the beginning was the ,word1
 and the ,word was with ,god1 and the   
,word was ,god ------4 ,the statement of
 ,tatian is quite different2 ,god was in
 the beginning ------1 and he certainly 
did not identify the ,word with ,god1 so
 as to transform the statement of the   
,gospel into this simple affirmation4   
,in all probability his formula was     
merely based upon ,genesis i4 #a3 ,in   
the beginning ,god created the heavens  
and the earth ------47#a7a ,the         
expressions3 ,but we have learned that  
the ,beginning ------ was the power of  
,reason1 c41 but the ,reason ------ not 
proceeding in vain became the first-born
 work ------ of the ,father4 ,him we    
know to be the ,beginning ------ of the 

world1 recall many early representations
 of the ,logos1 to which we have        
already1 referred3 ,pro v4 viii4 #bb3   
,the ,lord created me the ,beginning    
------ of ways for his works ------1    
#bc4 ,before the ages he established me1
 in the beginning ------ before he made 
the earth1 c41 c4 ,in the ,apocalypse   
also the ,word is called the ,beginning 
------ of the creation of ,god1 and it  
will be remembered that ,justin gives   
testimony from ,prov4 viii4 #ba if4 that
 ,god begat before all the creatures a  
,beginning ------ a certain rational    
,power ------1 out of himself1 #b c41   
c41 and elsewhere3 ,as the ,logos       
declared through ,solomon1 that this    
same4444 had been begotten of ,god1     
before all created beings1 both         
,beginning ------ c47#c7 ,we need not1  
however1 refer to  #cge  the numerous   
passages in ,philo and in ,justin1 not  
derived from the fourth ,gospel1 which  
point to a different source for         
,tatian's doctrine4 ,it is sufficient   

that both his opinions and his          
terminology differ distinctly from that 
,gospel47#a7  ,the next passage we at   
once subjoin in contrast with the       
parallel in the fourth ,gospel3 ------  
,the context to this passage in the     
,oration is as follows3 ,tatian is      
arguing about the immortality of the    
soul1 and he states that the soul is not
 in itself immortal but mortal1 but that
 nevertheless it is possible for it not 
to die4 ,if it do not know the truth it 
dies1 but rises again at the end of the 
world1 receiving eternal death as a     
punishment4 ,again1 however1 it does not
 die1 though it be for a time dissolved1
 if it has acquired knowledge of ,god2  
for in itself it is darkness1 and there 
is nothing luminous in it1 and this1    
therefore1 is 7the meaning of7 the      
saying3 ,the darkness comprehends not   
the light4 ,for the soul ------ did not 
itself save the spirit ------1 but was  
saved by it1 and the light comprehended 
the darkness4 ,the ,logos 7,reason7     

truly is the light of ,god1 but the     
ignorant soul is darkness ------4 ,for  
this reason1 if it remain       #a ,we  
have already mentioned that the ,gospel 
according to      ,peter contained the  
doctrine of the ,logos4  #cgf  alone1 it
 tends downwards to matter1 dying with  
the flesh1 c41 c47#a7 ,the source of the
 saying is not mentioned1 and it is     
evident that1 even if it were taken to  
be a reference to the fourth ,gospel1   
nothing would thereby be proved but the 
mere existence of the ,gospel4 ,the     
saying1 however1 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 calls the ,logos the ,light17#b7 
and quoting in a peculiar form ,ps4     
xxvi4 #a3 ,for the ,lord is my light    
------ and my ,saviour1 he goes on to   
say that1 as the sun divides day and    
night1 so1 ,moses says1 ,god divides    
light and darkness ------47#c7 ,when we 
turn away to things of sense we use     

another light1 which is in no way       
different from darkness47#d7 ,the       
constant use of the same similitude of  
,light and darkness in the ,canonical   
,epistles7#e7 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  ,the third and last
 passage is as follows3  ------  #cgg   
,tatian here speaks of ,god1 and not of 
the ,logos1 and in this respect1 as well
 as in language and context1 the passage
 differs from the fourth ,gospel4 ,the  
phrase is not introduced as a quotation1
 and no reference is made to any        
,gospel4 ,the purpose for which the     
words are used1 again1 rather points to 
the first chapters of ,genesis than to  
the dogmatic prologue enunciating the   
doctrine of the ,logos47#a7 ,under all  
these circumstances1 the source from    
which the expression may have been      
derived cannot with certainty be        
ascertained and1 as in the preceding    

instance1 even if it be assumed that the
 words show acquaintance with the fourth
 ,gospel1 nothing could be proved but   
the mere existence of the work about a  
century and a half after the events     
which it records4 ,it is obvious that in
 no case does ,tatian afford the        
slightest evidence of the ,apostolic    
origin or historical veracity of the    
fourth ,gospel4  ,dr4 ,lightfoot points 
out another passage1 ,sec4 #d1 ------1  
which he compares with ,john iv4 #bd1   
where the same words occur4 ,it is right
 to add that he himself remarks3 ,if it 
had stood alone ,i should certainly not 
have regarded it as decisive4 ,but the  
epigrammatic form is remarkable1 and it 
is a characteristic passage of the      
fourth ,gospel47#b7 ,neither            
,tischendorf nor ,dr4 ,westcott refer to
 it4 ,the fact is1 however1 that the    
epigrammatic form only exists when the  
phrase is quoted without its context4   
,god is a spirit1 not pervading matter1 
but the creator of material spirits1 and

 of the forms that are in it4 ,he is    
invisible and impalpable1 c4 c4 ,further
 on1 ,tatian says 7,sec4#ae71 ,for the  
perfect ,god is without flesh1 but man  
is flesh4 c4 ,a large  #cgh  part of the
 oration is devoted to discussing the   
nature of ,god1 and the distinction     
between spirit ------ and soul ------1  
and it is unreasonable to assert that a 
man like ,tatian could not make the     
declaration that ,god is a spirit       
without quoting the fourth ,gospel4  ,we
 have generally discussed the testimony 
of ,dionysius of ,corinth17#a7 ,melito  
of ,sardis17#b7 and ,claudius           
,apol-linaris17#c7 and need not say more
 here4 ,the fragments attributed to them
 neither mention nor quote the fourth   
,gospel1 but in no case could they      
furnish evidence to authenticate the    
work4 ,the same remarks apply to        
,athenagoras47#d7 ,canon ,westcott only 
ventures to say that he appears to      
allude to passages in ,st4 ,mark and    
,st4 ,john1 but they are all            

anonymous47#e7 ,the passages in which he
 speaks of the ,logos1 which are those  
referred to here1 are certainly not     
taken from the fourth ,gospel1 and his  
doctrine is expressed in terminology    
which is different from that of the     
,gospel1 and is deeply tinged with      
,platonism47#f7 ,he appeals to ,proverbs
 viii4 #bb1 already so frequently quoted
 by us1 for confirmation by the         
,prophetic ,spirit of his exposition of 
the ,logos doctrine47#g7 ,he nowhere    
identifies the ,logos with ,jesus27#h7  
indeed he does not once make use of the 
name of ,christ in his works4 ,he does  
not show the slightest knowledge of the 
doctrine of salvation so constantly     
enunciated in the fourth ,gospel4 ,there
 can be no doubt1 as we have already    
shown17#i7 that he considered the ,old  
,testament to  #cgi  be the only        
inspired ,holy ,scriptures4 ,not only   
does he not mention nor quote any of our
 ,gospels1 but the only instance in     
which he makes any reference to sayings 

of ,jesus1 otherwise than by the        
indefinite ------ he says1 is one in    
which he introduces a saying which is   
not found in our ,gospels by the words3 
,the ,logos again saying to us3 ------1 
c4 ,from the same source1 which was     
obviously not our ,canonical ,gospels1  
we have1 therefore1 reason to conclude  
that ,athenagoras derived all his       
knowledge of ,gospel history and        
doctrine4 ,we need not add that this    
writer affords no testimony whatever as 
to the origin or character of the fourth
 ,gospel4  ,it is scarcely worth while  
to refer to the ,epistle of ,vienne and 
,lyons1 a composition dating at the     
earliest a4d4 #agg-agh1 in which no     
direct reference is made to any writing 
of the ,new ,testament47#a7             
,acquaintance with the fourth ,gospel is
 argued from the following passage3     
------  ,now such a passage cannot prove
 the use of the fourth ,gospel4 ,no     
source is indicated in the ,epistle from
 which the saying of ,jesus1 which of   

course apologists assert to be          
historical1 was derived4 ,it presents   
decided variations from the parallel in 
the fourth ,gospel2 and in the  #chj    
,synoptics we find sufficient           
indications of similar discourses l to  
render it very probable that other      
,gospels may have contained the passage 
quoted in the ,epistle4 ,in no case     
could an anonymous reference like this  
be of any weight as evidence for the    
,apostolic origin of the fourth ,gospel4
  ,we need not further discuss          
,ptolemoeus and ,heracleon4 ,we have    
shown7#b7 that the date at which these  
heretics flourished places them beyond  
the limits within which we propose to   
confine ourselves4 ,in regard to        
,ptolemaeus  all that is affirmed is    
that1 in the ,epistle to ,flora ascribed
 to him1 expressions found in ,john i4  
#c are used4 ,the passage as it is given
 by ,epiphanius is as follows3 ,besides1
 that the world was created by the same1
 the ,apostle states 7saying all things 

have been made ------ by him and without
 him nothing was made74 ------47#c7 ,now
 the supposed quotation is introduced   
here in a parenthesis interrupting the  
sense1 and there is every probability   
that it was added as an illustration by 
,epiphanius1 and was not in the ,epistle
 to ,flora at all4 ,omitting the        
parenthesis1 the sentence is a very     
palpable reference to the ,apostle      
,paul1 and ,coloss4 i4 #af47d7 ,in      
regard to ,heraclcon1 it is asserted    
from the unsupported references of      
,origen7#e7 that he wrote a commentary  
on the fourth ,gospel4 ,even if this be 
a fact1 there is not a single word of it
 preserved by ,origen which in the least
 degree bears upon the ,apostolic origin
  #cha  and trustworthiness of the      
,gospel4 ,neither of these heresiarchs1 
therefore1 is of any value as a witness 
for the authenticity of the fourth      
,gospel4  ,the heathen ,celsus1 as we   
have shown17#a7 wrote at a period when  
no evidence which he could well give of 

his own could have been of much value in
 supporting our ,gospels4 ,he is pressed
 into service17#b7 however1 because     
after alluding to various circumstances 
of ,gospel history he says3 ,these      
things1 therefore1 being taken out of   
your own writings1 we have no need of   
other testimony1 for you fall upon your 
own swords17#c7 and in another place he 
says that certain ,christians alter the 
,gospel from its first written form in  
three-fold1 four-fold1 and many-fold    
ways1 and re-mould it in order to have  
the means of contradicting the arguments
 7of opponents74 7#d7 ,this is supposed 
to refer to the four ,canonical         
,gospels4 ,apart from the fact that     
,origen replies to the first of these   
passages1 that ,celsus has brought      
forward much concerning ,jesus which is 
not in accordance with the narratives of
 the ,gospels1 it is unreasonable to    
limit the accusation of many-fold       
corruption to four ,gospels1 when it is 
undeniable that the ,gospels and        

writings long current in the ,church    
were very numerous4 ,in any case1 what  
could such a statement as this do       
towards establishing the ,apostolic     
origin and credibility of the fourth    
,gospel8  ,we might pass over the ,canon
 of ,muratori entirely1  #chb  as being 
beyond the limit of time to which we    
confine ourselves17#a7 but the unknown  
writer of the fragment gives a legend   
with regard to the composition of the   
fourth ,gospel which we may quote here1 
although its obviously mythical         
character renders it of no value as     
evidence regarding the authorship of the
 ,gospel4 ,the writer says3  ,quarti    
euangeliorum ,iohannis ex decipolis     
,cohortantibus condescipulis et         
episcopis suis dixit conieiunate mihi   
hodie triduo et quid cuique fuerit      
reuelatum alterutrum nobis ennarremus   
eadem nocte reue latum ,andrew ex       
apostolis ut recognis centibus cunctis  
,iohannis suo nomine cuncta describeret 
et ideo 7#b7 licit uaria sin culis      

euangeliorum libris principia docoantur 
nihil tamen diffort creden tium fidei   
cum uno ac principali spiritu de clarata
 sint in omnibus omnia de natiui tate de
 passione de resurrectione de           
conuersatione cum decipulis suis ac de  
gemino eius aduentu primo in humilitate 
dispectus quod fo444 4u 7#c7 secundum   
potestate regali444 pre clarum quod     
futurum est 7#d7 quid ergo minim si     
,iohannes tarn constanter sincula etiam 
in epistulis suis proferat dicens in    
semeipsu quae uidimus oculis nostris et 
auribus audiuimus et manus nostra       
palpauerunt heec scripsimus nobis sic   
enim non solum uisurem sed et auditorem 
sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium     
domini per ordi nem profetetur  #chc    
,the fourth of the ,gospels1 of ,john1  
one of the disciples4 ,to his           
fellow-disciples and bishops            
7,episcopis7 urging him he said3 ',fast 
with me to-day for three days1 and let  
us relate to each other that which shall
 be revealed to each4' ,on the same     

night it was revealed to ,andrew1 one of
 the ,apostles1 that1 with the          
supervision of all1 ,john should relate 
all things in his own name4 ,and1       
therefore1 though various principles    
7principia7 are taught by each book of  
the ,gospels1 nevertheless it makes no  
difference to the faith of believers1   
since1 in all1 all things are declared  
by one ruling ,spirit concerning the    
nativity1 concerning the passion1       
concerning the resurrection1 concerning 
the intercourse with the disciples1 and 
concerning his double advent2 the first 
in lowliness of estate1 which has taken 
place1 the second in regal power and    
splendour1 which is still future4 ,what 
wonder1 therefore1 if ,john should so   
constantly bring forward each thing     
7singula7 also in his ,epistles1 saying 
in regard to himself3 ,the things which 
we have seen with our eyes1 and have    
heard with our ears1 and our hands have 
handled1 these things have we written   
unto you4 ,for thus he professes himself

 not only an eye-witness and hearer1 but
 also a writer of all the wonders of the
 ,lord in order4  ,it is obvious that in
 this passage we have an apologetic     
defence of the fourth ,gospel17#a7 which
 unmistakably implies antecedent denial 
of its authority and apostolic origin4  
,the writer not only ascribes it to     
,john1 but he clothes it with the united
 authority of the rest of the ,apostles1
 in  #chd  a manner which very possibly 
aims at explaining the supplementary    
chapter xxi41 with its testimony to the 
truth of the preceding narrative4 ,in   
his zeal1 the writer goes so far as to  
falsify a passage of the ,epistle1 and  
convert it into a declaration by the    
author of the letter himself that he had
 written the ,gospel4 ',the things which
 we have seen1 c41 these things have we 
written unto you' 7haec scripsi-mus     
vobis747#a7 ,for thus he professes      
himself not only an eye-witness and     
hearer1 but also a writer of all the    
wonders of the ,lord in order4 ,credner 

argues that in speaking of ,john as one 
of the disciples 7ex discipulis71 and of
 ,andrew as one of the ,apostles1 the   
writer intends to distinguish between   
,john the disciple1 who wrote the       
,gospel and ,epistle1 and ,john the     
,apostle1 who wrote the ,apocalypse1 and
 that it was for this reason that he    
sought to dignify him by a special      
revelation1 through the ,apostle        
,andrew1 selecting him to write the     
,gospel4 ,credner1 therefore1 concludes 
that here we have an ancient            
ecclesiastical tradition ascribing the  
,gospel and first ,epistle to one of the
 disciples of ,jesus different from the 
,apostle ,john47#b7 ,into this1 however1
 we need not enter1 nor is it necessary 
for us to demonstrate the mythical      
nature of this narrative regarding the  
origin of the ,gospel4 ,we have merely  
given this extract from the fragment to 
make our statement regarding it         
complete4 ,not only is the evidence of  
the fragment of no value1 from the      

lateness of its date and the uncritical 
character of its author1 but a vague and
 fabulous tradition recorded by an      
unknown writer could not1 in any case1  
furnish testimony calculated to         
establish the ,apostolic origin and     
trustworthiness of the fourth ,gospel4  
#che     ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,authorship   
,,and ,,character ,,of ,,the ,,fourth   
,,gospel  ,the result of our inquiry    
into the evidence for the fourth ,gospel
 is sufficiently decided to render      
further examination unnecessary4 ,we    
have seen that1 for some century and a  
half after the events recorded in the   
work1 there is not only no testimony    
whatever connecting the fourth ,gospel  
with the ,apostle ,john1 but no certain 
trace even of the existence of the      
,gospel4 ,there has not been the        
slightest evidence in any of the        
writings of the ,fathers which we have  
examined even of a tradition that the   
,apostle ,john had composed any         
evangelical work at all1 and the claim  

advanced in favour of the ,christian    
miracles to contemporaneous evidence of 
extraordinary force and veracity by     
undoubted eye-witnesses so completely   
falls to the ground1 that we might here 
well bring this part of our inquiry to a
 close4 ,there are1 however1 so many    
peculiar circumstances connected with   
the fourth ,gospel1 both in regard to   
its authorship and to its relationship  
with the three ,synoptics1 which invite 
further attention1 that we propose      
briefly to review some of them4 ,we     
must1 however1 carefully restrict       
ourselves to the limits of our inquiry1 
and resist any temptation to enter upon 
an exhaustive discussion of the problem 
presented by the fourth ,gospel from a  
more general literary point of view4    
#chf  ,the endeavour to obtain some     
positive1 or at least negative1         
information regarding the author of the 
fourth ,gospel is facilitated by the    
fact that several other works in the    
,new ,testament ,canon are ascribed to  

him4 ,these works present such marked   
and distinct characteristics that1 apart
 from the fact that their number extends
 the range of evidence1 they afford an  
unusual opportunity of testing the      
tradition which assigns them all to the 
,apostle ,john1 by comparing the clear  
indications which they give of the      
idiosyncrasies of their author with the 
independent data which we possess       
regarding the history and character of  
the ,apostle4 ,it is asserted by the    
,church that ,john the son of ,zebedee1 
one of the disciples of ,jesus1 is the  
composer of no less than five of our    
canonical writings1 and it would be     
impossible to select any books of our   
,new ,testament presenting more distinct
 features1 or more widely divergent     
views1 than are to be found in the      
,apocalypse on the one hand1 and the    
,gospel and three ,epistles on the      
other4 ,whilst a strong family likeness 
exists between the ,epistles and the    
,gospel1 and they exhibit close         

analogies both in thought and language1 
the ,apocalypse1 on the contrary1 is so 
different from them in language1 in     
style1 in religious views and           
terminology1 that it is almost          
impossible to believe that the writer of
 the one could be the author of the     
other4 ,the translators of our ,new     
,testament have laboured1 and not in    
vain1 to eliminate as far as possible   
all individuality of style and language1
 and to reduce the various books of     
which it is composed to one uniform     
smoothness of diction4 ,it is1          
therefore1 impossible for the mere      
,english reader to appreciate the       
immense difference which exists between 
the harsh and ,hebraistic ,greek of the 
,apocalypse and the polished  #chg      
elegance of the fourth ,gospel1 and it  
is to be feared that the rarity of      
critical study has prevented any general
 recognition of the almost equally      
striking contrast of thought between the
 two works4 ,the remarkable             

peculiarities which distinguish the     
,apocalypse and ,gospel of ,john1       
however1 were very early appreciated1   
and almost the first application of     
critical judgment to the ,canonical     
books of the ,new ,testament is the     
argument of ,dionysius ,bishop of       
,alexandria1 about the middle of the    
third century1 that the author of the   
fourth ,gospel could not be the writer  
of the ,book of ,revelation47#a7 ,the   
dogmatic predilections which at that    
time had begun to turn against the      
,apocalypse1 the nonfulfilment of the   
prophecies of which disappointed and    
puzzled the early ,church1 led          
,dionysius to solve the difficulty by   
deciding in favour of the authenticity  
of the ,gospel1 but at least he         
recognized the dilemma which has since  
occupied so much of biblical criticism4 
,it is not necessary to enter upon any  
exhaustive analysis of the ,apocalypse  
and ,gospel to demonstrate anew that    
both works cannot have emanated from the

 same mind4 ,this has already been      
conclusively done by others4 ,some      
apologetic writers1--greatly influenced1
 no doubt1 by the express declaration of
 the ,church1 and satisfied by analogies
 which could scarcely fail to exist     
between two works dealing with a similar
 theme1--together with a very few       
independent critics1 have asserted the  
authenticity of both works47#b7 ,the    
great majority of  #chh  critics1       
however1 have fully admitted the        
impossibility of recognizing a common   
source for the fourth ,gospel and the   
,apocalypse of ,john47#a7 ,the critical 
question regarding the two works has1 in
 fact1 reduced itself to the dilemma    
which may be expressed as follows1 in   
the words of ,llicke3 ,either the       
,gospel and the first ,epistle are      
genuine writings of the ,apostle ,john1 
and in that case the ,apocalypse is no  
genuine work of that ,apostle1 or the   
inverse47#b7 ,after an elaborate        
comparison of the two writings1 the same

 writer1 who certainly will not be      
suspected of wilfully subversive        
criticism1 resumes3 ,the difference     
between the language1 way  #chi  of     
expression1 and mode of thought and     
doctrine of the ,apocalypse and the rest
 of the ,johannine writings1 is so      
comprehensive and intense1 so individual
 and so radical2 the affinity and       
agreement1 on the contrary1 are so      
general1 and in details so fragmentary  
and uncertain 7zuruckweichend71 that the
 ,apostle ,john1 if he really he the    
author of the ,gospel and of the        
,epistle--which we here assume--cannot  
have composed the ,apocalypse either    
before or after the ,gospel and the     
,epistle4 ,if all critical experience   
and rules in such literary questions are
 not deceptive1 it is certain that the  
,evangelist and ,apocalyptist are two   
different persons of the name of        
,john17l7 c4  ,de ,wette1 another       
conservative critic1 speaks with equal  
decision4 ,after an able comparison of  

the two works1 he says3 ,from all this  
it follows 7and in ,new ,testament      
criticism no result is more certain71   
that the ,apostle ,john1 if he be the   
author of the fourth ,gospel and of the 
,johannine ,epistles1 did not write the 
,apocalypse1 or1 if the ,apocalypse be  
his work1 that he is not the author of  
the other writings47#b7 ,ewald is       
equally positive3 ,above all1 he says1  
we should err in tracing this work 7the 
,gospel7 to the ,apostle1 if the        
,apocalypse of the ,new ,testament were 
by him4 ,that this much earlier writing 
cannot have been composed by the author 
of the later is an axiom which ,i       
consider ,i have already1 7in #ahbf-bh7 
so convincingly demonstrated1 that it   
would be superfluous now to return to   
it1 especially as1 since then1 all men  
capable of forming a judgment are of the
 same opinion1 and what has been brought
 forward by a few writers against it too
 clearly depends upon  #cij  influences 
foreign to science47#a7 ,we may1        

therefore1 consider the point generally 
admitted1 and proceed very briefly to   
discuss the question upon this basis4   
,the external evidence that the ,apostle
 ,john wrote the ,apocalypse is more    
ancient than that for the authorship of 
any book of the ,new ,testament1        
excepting some of the ,epistles of      
,paul1 and this is admitted even by     
critics who ultimately deny the         
authenticity of the work47#b7 ,passing  
over the very probable statement of     
,andrew of ,caesarea17#c7 that ,papias  
recognized the ,apocalypse as an        
inspired work1 and the inference drawn  
from this fact that he referred it to   
the ,apostle1 we at once proceed to     
,justin ,martyr1 who affirms in the     
clearest and most positive manner the   
,apostolic origin of the work4 ,he      
speaks to ,tryphon of a certain man     
whose name was ,john1 one of the        
,apostles of ,christ1 who prophesied by 
a revelation made to him1 of the        
,millennium1 and subsequent general     

resurrection and judgment47#d7 ,the     
statement of ,justin is all the more    
important from the fact that he does not
 name any other writing of the ,new     
,testament1 and that the ,old ,testament
 was still for him the only ,holy       
,scripture4 ,the genuineness of this    
#cia  testimony is not called in        
question by any one4 ,eusebius states   
that ,melito of ,sardis wrote a work on 
the ,apocalypse of ,john17#a7 and       
,jerome mentions the treatise47#b7      
,there can be no doubt that had ,melito 
thrown the slightest doubt on the       
,apostolic origin of the ,apocalypse1   
,eusebius1 whose dogmatic views led him 
to depreciate that writing1 would have  
referred to the fact4 ,eusebius also    
mentions that ,apollonius1 a ,presbyter 
of ,ephesus1 quoted the ,apocalypse     
against the ,montanists1 and there is   
reason to suppose that he did so as an  
,apostolic work47#c7 ,eusebius further  
states that ,theophilus of ,antioch made
 use of testimony from the ,apocalypse  

of ,john27#d7 but although1 as ,eusebius
 does not mention anything to the       
contrary1 it is probable that           
,theophilus really recognized the book  
to be by ,john the ,apostle1 the        
uncritical haste of ,eusebius renders   
his vague statement of little value4 ,we
 do not think it worth while to quote   
the evidence of later writers4 ,although
 ,irenaeus1 who repeatedly assigns the  
,apocalypse to ,john1 the disciple of   
the ,lord17#e7 is cited by ,apologists  
as a very important witness1 more       
especially from his intercourse with    
,polycarp1 we do not attribute any value
 to his testimony1 both from the late   
date at which he wrote1 and from the    
uncritical and credulous character of   
his mind4 ,although he appeals to the   
testimony of those who saw ,john face to
 face with regard to the number of the  
name of the ,beast1 his own utter       
ignorance of the interpretation shows   
how little information he can have      
derived from ,polycarp47#f7 ,the same   

remarks apply still more strongly to    
,tertullian1 who1 however1 most  #cib   
unhesitatingly assigns the ,apocalypse  
to the ,apostle ,john47#a7 ,it would be 
useless more particularly to refer to   
later evidence1 however1 or quote even  
the decided testimony in its favour of  
,clement of ,alexandria17#b7 or         
,origen47#c7  ,the first doubt cast upon
 the authenticity of the ,apocalypse    
occurs in the argument of ,dionysius of 
,alexandria1 one of the disciples of    
,origen1 in the middle of the third     
century4 ,he mentions that some had     
objected to the whole work as without   
sense or reason1 and as displaying such 
dense ignorance1 that it was impossible 
that an ,apostle or even one in the     
,church1 could have written it1 and they
 assigned it to ,cerinthus1 who held the
 doctrine of the reign of ,christ on    
earth47#d7 ,these objections1 it is     
obvious1 are merely dogmatic1 and do not
 affect to be historical4 ,they are in  
fact a good illustration of the method  

by which the ,canon was formed4 ,if the 
doctrine of any writing met with the    
approval of the early ,church1 it was   
accepted with unhesitating faith1 and   
its pretension to ,apostolic origin was 
admitted as a natural consequence2 but  
if1 on the other hand1 the doctrine of  
the writing was not clearly that of the 
community1 it was rejected without      
further examination4 ,it is an          
undeniable fact1 that not a single trace
 exists of the application of historical
 criticism to any book of the ,new      
,testament in the early ages of         
,christianity4 ,the case of the         
,apocalypse is most intelligible3--so   
long as the expectation and hope of a   
second advent and of a personal reign of
 the risen and glorified ,christ1 of the
 prevalence of which we have abundant   
testimony in the ,pauline ,epistles and 
other early works1 continued to animate 
the ,church1 the  #cic  ,apocalypse     
which excited and fostered them was a   
popular volume3 but as years passed away

 and the general longing of ,christians1
 eagerly marking the signs of the times1
 was again and again disappointed1 and  
the hope of a ,millennium began either  
to be abandoned or indefinitely         
postponed1 the ,apocalypse              
proportionately lost favour1 or was     
regarded as an incomprehensible book    
misleading the world by illusory        
promises4 ,its history is that of a     
highly dogmatic treatise esteemed or    
contemned in proportion to the ebb and  
flow of opinion regarding the doctrines 
which it expresses4  ,the objections of 
,dionysius1 resting first upon dogmatic 
grounds and his inability to understand 
the ,apocalyptic utterances of the book1
 took the shape we have mentioned of a  
critical dilemma3--,the author of the   
,gospel could not at the same time be   
the author of the ,apocalypse4 ,dogmatic
 predilection decided the question in   
favour of the apostolic origin of the   
fourth ,gospel1 and the reasoning by    
which that decision is arrived at has1  

therefore1 no critical force or value4  
,the fact still remains that ,justin    
,martyr distinctly refers to the        
,apocalypse as the work of the ,apostle 
,john and1 as we have seen1 no similar  
testimony exists in support of the      
claims of the fourth ,gospel4  ,as      
another most important point1 we may    
mention that there is probably not      
another work of the ,new ,testament the 
precise date of the composition of      
which1 within a very few weeks1 can so  
positively be affirmed4 ,no result of   
criticism rests upon a more secure basis
 and is now more universally accepted by
 all competent critics than the fact    
that the ,apocalypse was written in     
,a4,d4 #fh-fi47a7 ,the writer distinctly
 and repeatedly mentions his name3 i4   
#a1 ,the revelation of ,jesus           
,christ4444  #cid  unto his servant     
,john27#a7 i4 #d1 ,john to the seven    
churches which are in ,asia27#b7 and he 
states that the work was written in the 
island of ,patmos where he was on       

account of the ,word of ,god and the    
testimony of ,jesus47#c7 ,ewald1 who    
decides in the most arbitrary manner    
against the authenticity of the         
,apocalypse and in favour of the        
,johannine authorship of the ,gospel1   
objects that the author1 although he    
certainly calls himself ,john1 does not 
assume to be an ,apostle1 but merely    
terms himself the servant ------ of     
,christ like other true ,christians1 and
 distinctly classes himself amongst the 
,prophets7#d7 and not amongst the       
,apostles47#e7 ,we find1 however1 that  
,paul1 who was not apt to waive his     
claims to the ,apostolate1 was content  
to call himself3 ,paul a servant ------ 
of ,jesus ,christ1 called to be an      
,apostle1 in writing to the ,romans2 7i4
 #a7 and the superscription of the      
,epistle to the ,philippians is3 ,paul  
and ,timothy servants ------ of ,christ 
,jesus47#f7 ,there was1 moreover1 reason
 why  #cie  the author of the ,book of  
,revelation1 a work the form of which   

was decidedly based upon that of ,daniel
 and other ,jewish ,apocalyptic         
writings1 should rather adopt the       
character of ,prophet than the less     
suitable designation of ,apostle upon   
such an occasion4 ,it is clear that he  
counted fully upon being generally known
 under the simple designation of ,john1 
and when we consider the unmistakeable  
terms of authority with which he        
addresses the ,seven ,churches1 it is   
scarcely possible to deny that the      
writer either was the ,apostle1 or      
distinctly desired to assume his        
personality4 ,it is not necessary for us
 here to enter into any discussion      
regarding the ,presbyter ,john1 for it  
is generally admitted that even he could
 not have had at that time any position 
in ,asia ,minor which could have        
warranted such a tone4 ,if the name of  
,apostle1 therefore1 be not directly    
assumed--and it was not necessary to    
assume it--the authority of one is      
undeniably inferred4  ,ewald1 however1  

argues that1 on the contrary1 the author
 could not more clearly express that he 
was not one of the ,twelve1 than when he
 imagines 7,apoc4 xxi4 #ad7 the names of
 the 'twelve apostles of the ,lamb'     
shining upon the twelve foundation      
stones of the wall of the future        
heavenly ,jerusalem4 ,he considers that 
no intelligent person could thus        
publicly glorify himself or anticipate  
the honour which ,god alone can bestow4 
,and can any one seriously believe1 he  
indignantly inquires1 that one of the   
,twelve1 yea1 that even he whom we know 
as the most delicate and refined amongst
 them could have written this of        
himself87#a7 ,now1 in the first place1  
we must remark that in this discussion  
#cif  it is not permissible to speak of 
our knowing ,john the ,apostle as       
distinguished above all the rest of the 
,twelve for such qualities4 ,nowhere do 
we find such a representation of him    
except in the fourth ,gospel1 if even   
there1 but1 as we shall presently see1  

rather the contrary1 and the fourth     
,gospel cannot here be received as      
evidence4 ,we might1 by way of retort1  
point out to those who assert the       
inspiration of the ,apocalypse1 that the
 symbolical representation of the       
heavenly ,jerusalem is held to be       
practically objective1 a revelation of  
things that must shortly come to pass1  
and not a mere subjective sketch        
coloured according to the phantasy of   
the writer4 ,passing on1 however1 it    
must be apparent that the whole account 
of the heavenly city is typical1 and    
that in basing its walls upon the       
,twelve1 he does not glorify himself    
personally1 but simply gives its place  
to the idea which was symbolised when   
,jesus is represented as selecting      
twelve disciples1 the number of the     
twelve tribes1 upon whose preaching the 
spiritual city was to be built up4 ,the 
,jewish belief in a special preference  
of the ,jews before all nations         
doubtless suggested this1 and it forms a

 leading feature in the strong          
,hebraistic form of the writer's        
,christianity4 ,the heavenly city is    
simply a glorified ,jerusalem2 the      
twelve ,apostles1 representatives of the
 twelve tribes1 set apart for the       
regeneration of ,israel1 are the        
foundation-stones of the ,new ,city with
 its twelve gates1 on which are written 
the names of the twelve tribes of       
,israel7#a7 for whom the city is more   
particularly provided4 ,for #add1jjj of 
,israel are first sealed1 #ab1jjj of    
each of the twelve tribes before the    
,seer beholds the great multitude of all
 nations and tribes and peoples47#b7    
,the whole description is a  #cig  mere 
allegory characterized by the strongest 
,jewish dogmatism1 and it is of singular
 value for the purpose of identifying   
the author4  ,moreover1 the apparent    
glorification of the ,twelve is more    
than justified by the promise which     
,jesus is represented by the            
,synoptics7l7 as making to them in      

person4 ,when ,peter1 in the name of the
 ,twelve1 asks what is reserved for     
those who have forsaken all and followed
 him1 ,jesus replies3 ,verily ,i say    
unto you that ye which have followed me1
 in the regeneration when the ,son of   
,man shall sit in the throne of his     
glory1 ye also shall be set upon twelve 
thrones judging the twelve tribes of    
,israel47#b7 ,ewald himself1 in his     
distribution of the materials of our    
existing first ,synoptic to the supposed
 original sources1 assigns this passage 
to the very oldest ,gospel47#c7 ,what   
impropriety is there1 and what          
improbability1 therefore1 that an       
,apostle1 in an apocalyptic allegory1   
should represent the names of the twelve
 ,apostles as inscribed upon the twelve 
foundation stones of the spiritual      
,jerusalem1 as the names of the twelve  
tribes of ,israel were inscribed upon   
the twelve gates of the city8 ,on the   
contrary1 we submit that it is probable 
under the circumstances that an ,apostle

 should make such a representation1 and 
in view of the facts regarding the      
,apostle ,john himself which we have    
from the ,synoptics1 it is particularly 
in harmony with his character1 and these
 characteristics directly tend to       
establish his identity with the author4 
,how much less is it credible of the    
,apostle ,john1 says ,ewald1 elsewhere1 
pursuing the same argument1 who1 as a   
writer1 is so incomparably modest and   
#cih  delicate in feeling1 and does not 
in a single one of the writings really  
emanating from him name himself as the  
author1 or even proclaim his own        
praise47l7 ,this is merely sentimental  
assumption of facts to which we shall   
hereafter allude1 but if the            
incomparable modesty of which he speaks 
really existed1 nothing could more      
conclusively separate the author of the 
fourth ,gospel from the son of ,zebedee 
whom we know in the ,synoptics1 or more 
support the claims of the ,apocalypse4  
,in the first place1 we must assert     

that1 in writing a serious history of   
the life and teaching of ,jesus1 full of
 marvellous events and astounding       
doctrines1 the omission of his name by  
an ,apostle can not only not be         
recognized as genuine modesty1 but must 
be condemned as culpable neglect4 ,it is
 perfectly incredible that an ,apostle  
could have written such a work without  
attaching his name as the guarantee of  
his intimate acquaintance with the      
events and statements he records4 ,what 
would be thought of a historian who     
published a history without a single    
reference to recognized authorities1 and
 yet who did not declare even his own   
name as some evidence of his truth8 ,the
 fact is1 that the first two ,synoptics 
bear no author's name because they are  
not the work of any one man1 but the    
collected materials of many2 the third  
,synoptic only pretends to be a         
compilation for private use2 and the    
fourth ,gospel bears no simple signature
 because it is neither the work of an   

,apostle1 nor of an eye-witness of the  
events and hearer of the teaching it    
records4  ,if it be considered          
incredible1 however1 that an ,apostle   
could1 even in an ,allegory1 represent  
the names of the ,twelve as written on  
the foundation stones of the ,new       
,jerusalem1 and the incomparable modesty
 and delicacy  #cii  of feeling of the  
assumed author of the fourth ,gospel be 
contrasted with it so much to the       
disadvantage of the writer of the       
,apocalypse1 we ask whether this        
reference to the collective ,twelve can 
be considered at all on a par with the  
self-glorification of the disguised     
author of the ,gospel1 who1 not content 
with the simple indication of himself as
 ,john a servant of ,jesus ,christ1 and 
with sharing distinction equally with   
the rest of the ,twelve1 assumes to     
himself alone a pre-eminence in the     
favour and affection of his ,master1 as 
well as a distinction amongst his fellow
 disciples1 of which we first hear from 

himself1 and which is anything but      
corroborated by the three ,synoptics8   
,the supposed author of the fourth      
,gospel1 it is true1 does not plainly   
mention his name1 but he distinguishes  
himself as the disciple whom ,jesus     
loved1 and represents himself as leaning
 on ,jesus' breast at supper47#a7 ,this 
distinction assumed to himself1 and this
 preference over the other disciples in 
the love of him whom he represents as   
,god1 is much greater self-glorification
 than that of the author of the         
,apocalypse4 ,we shall presently see how
 far ,ewald is right in saying1         
moreover1 that the author does not      
clearly indicate the person for whom at 
least he desires to be mistaken4  ,we   
must conclude that these objections have
 no weight1 and that there is no        
internal evidence whatever against the  
supposition that the ,john who announces
 himself as the author of the           
,apocalypse was the ,apostle4 ,on the   
contrary1 the tone of authority adopted 

throughout1 and the evident certainty   
that his identity would everywhere be   
recognized1 denote a position in the    
,church which no other person of the    
name of ,john could well have held at   
the time when the ,apocalypse was       
written4  #djj  ,the external evidence1 
therefore1 which indicates the ,apostle 
,john as the author of the ,apocalypse  
is quite in harmony with the internal   
testimony of the book itself4 ,we have  
already pointed out the strong colouring
 of ,judaism in the views of the writer4
 ,its imagery is thoroughly ,jewish1 and
 its allegorical representations are    
entirely based upon ,jewish traditions1 
and hopes4 ,the heavenly ,city is a ,new
 ,jerusalem2 its twelve gates are       
dedicated to the twelve tribes of       
,israel2 ,god and the ,lamb are the     
,temple of it2 and the sealed of the    
twelve tribes have the precedence over  
the nations1 and stand with the ,lamb on
 ,mount ,zion 7xiv4 #a7 having his name 
and his ,father's written on their      

foreheads4 ,the language in which the   
book is written is the most ,hebraistic 
,greek of the ,new ,testament1 as its   
contents are the most deeply tinged with
 ,judaism4 ,if1 finally1 we seek for    
some traces of the character of the     
writer1 we see in every page the impress
 of an impetuous fiery spirit1 whose    
symbol is the ,eagle1 breathing forth   
vengeance against the enemies of the    
,messiah and impatient till it be       
accomplished1 and the whole of the      
visions of the ,apocalypse proceed to   
the accompaniment of the rolling        
thunders of ,god's wrath4  ,we may now  
turn to examine such historical data as 
exist regarding ,john the son of        
,zebedee1 and to inquire whether they   
accord better with the character and    
opinions of the author of the           
,apocalypse or of the ,evangelist4 ,john
 and his brother ,james are represented 
by the ,synoptics as being the sons of  
,zebedee and ,salome4 ,they were        
fishermen on the sea of ,galilee1 and at

 the call of ,jesus they left their ship
 and their father and followed him47#a7 
,their fiery and impetuous character led
  #dja  ,jesus to give them the surname 
of ------3 ,sons of thunder17#a7 an     
epithet justified by several incidents  
which are related regarding them4 ,upon 
one occasion1 ,john sees one casting out
 devils in his master's name1 and in an 
intolerant spirit forbids him because he
 did not follow them1 for which he is   
rebuked by ,jesus47#b7 ,another time1   
when the inhabitants of a ,samaritan    
village would not receive them1 ,john   
and ,james angrily turn to ,jesus and   
say3 ,lord1 wilt thou that we command   
fire to come down from heaven1 and      
consume them1 even as ,elijah did87#c7  
,a remarkable episode will have         
presented itself already to the mind of 
every reader1 which the second ,synoptic
 ,gospel narrates as follows3 ,mark x4  
#ce1 ,and ,james and ,john the sons of  
,zebedee come unto him saying unto him3 
,teacher1 we would that thou shouldest  

do for us whatsoever we shall ask thee4 
#cf4 ,and he said unto them3 ,what would
 ye that ,i should do for you8 #cg4     
,they said unto him3 ,grant that we may 
sit1 one on thy right hand1 and the     
other on thy left hand in thy glory4    
#ch4 ,but ,jesus said to them3 ,ye know 
not what ye ask3 can ye drink the cup   
that ,i drink8 or be baptized with the  
baptism that ,i am baptized with8 #ci4  
,and they said unto him3 ,we can4 ,and  
,jesus said unto them3 ,the cup that ,i 
drink ye shall drink2 and with the      
baptism that ,i am baptized withal shall
 ye be baptized3 #dj4 ,but to sit on my 
right hand or on my left hand is not    
mine to give1 but for whom it has been  
prepared4 #da4 ,and when the ten heard  
it they began to be much displeased with
 ,james and ,john4 ,it is difficult to  
say whether the  #djb  effrontery and   
selfishness of the request1 or the      
assurance with which the brethren assert
 their power to emulate the ,master is  
more striking in this scene4            

,apparently1 the grossness of the       
proceeding already began to be felt when
 our first ,gospel was edited1 for it   
represents the request as made by the   
mother of ,james and ,john2 but that is 
a very slight decrease of the offence1  
inasmuch as the brethren are obviously  
consenting1 if not inciting1 parties to 
the prayer1 and utter their ,we can1    
with the same absence of incomparable   
modesty47#a7 ,after the death of ,jesus1
 ,john remained in ,jerusalem17#b7 and  
chiefly confined his ministry to the    
city and its neighbourhood47#c7 ,the    
account which ,hegesippus gives of      
,james the brother of ,jesus who was    
appointed overseer of the ,church in    
,jerusalem will not be forgotten17#d7   
and we refer to it merely in            
illustration of primitive ,christianity4
 ,however mythical elements are worked  
up into the narrative1 one point is     
undoubted fact1 that the ,christians of 
that community were but a sect of       
,judaism1 merely superadding to ,mosaic 

doctrines belief in the actual advent of
 the ,messiah whom ,moses and the       
prophets had foretold2 and we find1 in  
the ,acts of the ,apostles1 ,peter and  
,john represented as going up into the  
,temple at the hour of prayer17#f7 like 
other ,jews4 ,in the ,epistle of ,paul  
to the ,galatians1 we have most valuable
 evidence with regard to the ,apostle   
,john4 ,paul found him still in         
,jerusalem on the occasion of the visit 
referred to in that letter1 about a4d4  
#ej--ec4 ,we need not quote at length   
the important passage ,gal4 ii4 #a ff41 
but the fact  #djc  is undeniable1 and  
stands upon stronger evidence than      
almost any other particular regarding   
the early ,church1 being distinctly and 
directly stated by ,paul himself3 that  
the three pillar ,apostles representing 
the ,church there were ,james1 ,peter1  
and ,john4 ,peter is markedly termed the
 ,apostle of the circumcision1 and the  
differences between him and ,paul are   
evidence of the opposition of their     

views4 ,james and ,john are clearly     
represented as sharing the views of     
,peter1 and whilst ,paul finally agrees 
with them that he is to go to the       
,gentiles1 the three ------ elect to    
continue their ministry to the          
circumcision47#a7 ,here is ,john1       
therefore1 clearly devoted to the       
,apostleship of the circumcision as     
opposed to ,paul1 whose views1 as we    
gather from the whole of ,paul's        
account1 were little more than tolerated
 by the ------4 ,before leaving ,new    
,testament data1 we may here point out  
the statement in the ,acts of the       
,apostles that ,peter and ,john were    
known to be unlettered and ignorant     
men7#b7 ------4 ,later tradition        
mentions one or two circumstances       
regarding ,john to which we may briefly 
refer4 ,irenaeus states3 ,there are     
those who heard him 7,polycarp7 say that
 ,john1 the disciple of the ,lord1 going
 to bathe at ,ephesus and perceiving    
,cerinthus within1 rushed forth from the

 bath-house without bathing1 but crying 
out3 ',let us fly lest the bath-house   
fall down3 ,cerinthus1 the enemy of the 
truth1 being within it4'444 ,so great   
was the care which the ,apostles and    
their disciples took not to hold even   
verbal intercourse with any of the      
corrupters of the truth17#c7 c4         
,polycrates1 who was ,bishop of ,ephesus
  #djd  about the beginning of the third
 century1 states that the ,apostle ,john
 wore the mitre and petalon of the high 
priest ------17#a7 a tradition which    
agrees with the ,jewish tendencies of   
the ,apostle of the circumcision as     
,paul describes him47#b7  ,now if we    
compare these data regarding ,john the  
son of ,zebedee with the character of   
,john the author of the ,apocalypse1 as 
we trace it in the work itself1 it is   
impossible not to be struck by the      
singular agreement4 ,the ,hebraistic    
,greek and abrupt inelegant diction are 
natural to the unlettered fisherman of  
,galilee1 and the fierce and intolerant 

spirit which pervades the book is       
precisely that which formerly forbade   
the working of miracles1 even in the    
name of the ,master1 by any not of the  
immediate circle of ,jesus1 and which   
desired to consume an inhospitable      
village with fire from heaven47#c7 ,the 
,judaistic form of ,christianity which  
is represented throughout the           
,apocalypse1 and the ,jewish elements   
which enter so largely into its whole   
composition1 are precisely those        
#b ,we need not refer to any of the     
other legends regarding      ,john1 but 
it may be well to mention the tradition 
common      amongst the ,fathers which  
assigned to him the cognomen of      the
 ,virgin4 ,one ,codex gives as the      
superscription of the      ,apocalypse3 
t------ and we know that it is reported 
in      early writings that1 of all the 
,apostles1 only ,john and the           
,apostle ,paul remained unmarried1      
whence probably1 in part1      this     
title4 ,in connection with this we may  

point to the      importance attached to
 virginity in the ,apocalypse1 xiv4 #d2 
cf4 ,schwegler1 ,das naohap4 ,zeit1 ii4 
p4 #bfd2 ,lilcke1 ,comm4      lib4 d4   
,br4 ,joh41 #ahcf1 p4 #cb f42 ,craftier1
 ,einl4 ,n4 ,t41 i4      p4 #ba4        
#c ,the very objection of ,ewald        
regarding the glorification of      the 
,twelve1 if true1 would be singularly in
 keeping with the      audacious request
 of ,john and his brother1 to sit on the
      right and left hand of the        
glorified ,jesus1 for we find none      
of the  incomparable modesty which the  
imaginative critic      attributes to   
the author of the fourth ,gospel in the 
,john of      the ,synoptics4  #dje     
which we might expect from ,john the    
,apostle of the circumcision and the    
associate of ,james and of ,peter in the
 very centre of ,judaism4 ,parts of the 
,apocalypse1 indeed1 derive a new       
significance when we remember the       
opposition which the ,apostle of the    
,gentiles met with from the ,apostles of

 the circumcision1 as plainly declared  
by ,paul in his ,epistle to the         
,galatians ii4 #a4 ff41 and apparent in 
other parts of his writings4  ,we have  
already seen the scarcely disguised     
attack which is made on ,paul in the    
,clementine ,homilies under the name of 
,simon the ,magician1 the ,apostle      
,peter following him from city to city  
for the purpose of denouncing and       
refuting his teaching4 ,there can be no 
doubt that the animosity against ,paul  
which was felt by the ,ebionitic party1 
to which ,john as well as ,peter        
belonged1 was extreme1 and when the     
novelty of the doctrine of justification
 by faith alone1 taught by him1 is      
considered1 it is very comprehensible4  
,in the ,apocalypse1 we find undeniable 
traces of it which accord with what     
,paul himself says1 and with the        
undoubted tradition of the early        
,church4 ,not only is ,paul silently    
excluded from the number of the         
,apostles1 which might be intelligible  

when the typical nature of the number   
twelve is considered1 but allusion is   
undoubtedly made to him1 in the         
,epistles to the ,churches4 ,it is clear
 that ,paul is referred to in the       
address to the ,church of ,ephesus3 ,and
 thou didst try them which say that they
 are ,apostles and are not1 and didst   
find them false27#a7 and also in the    
words to the ,church of ,smyrna3 ,but ,i
 have a few things against thee1 because
 thou hast there them that hold the     
teaching of ,balaam1 who taught  #djf   
,balak to cast a stumbling block before 
the sons of ,israel1 to eat things      
sacrificed unto idols17#a7 c41 as well  
as elsewhere47#b7 ,without dwelling on  
this point1 however1 we think it must be
 apparent to every unprejudiced person  
that the ,apocalypse singularly         
corresponds in every respect--language1 
construction1 and thought--with what we 
are told of the character of the        
,apostle ,john by the ,synoptic ,gospels
 and by tradition1 and that the internal

 evidence1 therefore1 accords with the  
external in attributing the composition 
of the ,apocalypse to that ,apostle4#c  
#djg  ,we may without hesitation affirm1
 at least1 that with the exception of   
one or two of the ,epistles of ,paul    
there is  #djh  no work of the ,new     
,testament which is supported by such   
close evidence4  ,we need not discuss   
the tradition as to the residence of the
 ,apostle ,john in ,asia ,minor1        
regarding which much might be said4     
,those who accept the authenticity of   
the ,apocalypse of course admit its     
composition in the neighbourhood of     
,ephesus17#a7 and see in this the       
confirmation of the wide-spread         
tradition that the ,apostle spent a     
considerable period of the latter part  
of his life in that city4 ,we may merely
 mention1 in passing1 that a historical 
basis for the tradition has occasionally
 been disputed1 and has latterly again  
been denied by some able critics47#b7   
,the evidence for this1 as for          

everything else connected with the early
 ages of ,christianity1 is extremely    
unsatisfactory4 ,nor need we trouble    
ourselves with the dispute as to the    
,presbyter ,john1 to whom many ascribe  
the composition1 on the one hand1 of the
 ,apocalypse and1 on the other1 of the  
,gospel1 according as they finally      
accept the one or the other alternative 
of the critical dilemma which we have   
explained4 ,we have only to do with the 
,apostle ,john and his connection with  
either of the two writings4  ,if we     
proceed to compare the character of the 
,apostle ,john1 as we have it depicted  
in the ,synoptics and other writings to 
which we have referred1 with that of the
 author of the fourth ,gospel1 and to   
contrast the peculiarities of both1 we  
have a very different result4 ,instead  
of the ,hebraistic ,greek and harsh     
diction which might  #dji  be expected  
from the unlettered and ignorant        
fisherman of ,galilee1 we find1 in the  
fourth ,gospel1 the purest and least    

,hebraistic ,greek of any of the        
,gospels 7some parts of the third       
,synoptic1 perhaps1 alone excepted71 and
 a refinement and beauty of composition 
whose charm has captivated the world1   
and in too many cases prevented the calm
 exercise of judgment ,instead of the   
fierce and intolerant temper of the ,son
 of thunder1 we find a spirit breathing 
forth nothing but gentleness and love4  
,instead of the ,judaistic ,christianity
 of the ,apostle of ,circumcision who   
merely tolerates ,paul1 we find a mind  
which has so completely detached itself 
from ,judaism that the writer makes the 
very appellation of ,jew equivalent to  
that of an enemy of the truth4 ,not only
 are the customs and feasts of the ,jews
 disregarded and spoken of as           
observances of a people with whom the   
writer has no concern1 but he           
anticipates the day when neither on     
,mount ,gerizim nor yet at ,jerusalem   
men shall worship the ,father1 but when 
it shall be recognized that the only    

true worship is that which is offered in
 spirit and in truth4 ,faith in ,jesus  
,christ and the merits of his death is  
the only way by which man can attain to 
eternal life1 and the ,mosaic ,law is   
practically abolished4 ,we venture to   
assert that1 taking the portrait of     
,john the son of ,zebedee1 which is     
drawn in the ,synoptics and the ,epistle
 of ,paul to the ,galatians1            
supplemented by later tradition1 to     
which we have referred1 and comparing it
 with that of the writer of the fourth  
,gospel1 no unprejudiced mind can fail  
to recognize that there are not two     
features alike4  ,it is the misfortune  
of this case1 that the beauty of the    
,gospel under trial has too frequently  
influenced the decision of the judges1  
and men who have1 in other  #daj        
matters1 exhibited sound critical       
judgment1 in this abandon themselves to 
sheer sentimentality1 and indulge in    
rhapsodies when reasons would be more   
appropriate4 ,bearing in mind that we   

have given the whole of the data        
regarding ,john the son of ,zebedee     
furnished by ,new ,testament            
writings1--excluding merely the fourth  
,gospel itself1 which1 of course1 cannot
 at present be received in evidence1--as
 well as the only traditional           
information possessing1 from its date   
and character1 any appreciable value1 it
 will become apparent that every        
argument which proceeds on the          
assumption that ,john was the beloved   
disciple1 and possessed of              
characteristics quite different from    
those we meet with in the writings to   
which we have referred1 is worthless and
 a mere petitio principii4 ,we can1     
therefore1 appreciate the state of the  
case when1 for instance1 we find an able
 man like ,credner commencing his       
inquiry as to who was the author of the 
fourth ,gospel1 with such words as the  
following3 ,were we entirely without    
historical data regarding the author of 
the fourth ,gospel1 who is not named in 

the writing itself1 we should still1    
from internal grounds in the ,gospel    
itself--from the nature of the language1
 from the freshness and perspicacity of 
the narrative1 from the exactness and   
precision of the statements1 from the   
peculiar4manner of the mention of the   
,baptist and of the sons of ,zebedee1   
from the love and fervour rising to     
ecstacy which the writer manifests      
towards ,jesus1 from the irresistible   
charm which is poured out over the whole
 ideally-composed evangelical history1  
from the philosophical considerations   
with which the ,gospel begins--be led to
 the result3 that the author of such a  
,gospel can only be a native of         
,palestine1 can only be a direct        
eye-witness1 can only be an ,apostle1   
can  #daa  only be a favourite of       
,jesus1 can only be that ,john whom     
,jesus held captivated to himself by the
 whole heavenly spell of his teaching1  
that ,john who rested on the bosom of   
,jesus1 stood beneath his cross1 and    

whose later residence in a city like    
,ephesus proves that philosophical      
speculation not merely attracted him1   
but that he also knew how to maintain   
his place amongst philosophically       
cultivated ,greeks47#a7 ,it is almost   
impossible to proceed further in        
building up theory upon baseless        
assumption2 but we shall hereafter see  
that he is kept in countenance by       
,ewald1 who outstrips him in the        
boldness and minuteness of his          
conjectures4 ,we must now more carefully
 examine the details of the case4  ,the 
language in which the ,gospel is        
written1 as we have already mentioned1  
is much less ,hebraic than that of the  
other ,gospels1 with the exception of   
parts of the ,gospel according to ,luke1
 and its ,hebraisms are not on the whole
 greater than was almost invariably the 
case with ,hellenistic ,greek1 but its  
composition is distinguished by peculiar
 smoothness1 grace1 and beauty1 and in  
this respect it is assigned the first   

rank amongst the ,gospels4 ,it may be   
remarked that the connection which      
,credner finds between the language and 
the ,apostle ,john arises out of the    
supposition1 that long residence in     
,ephesus had enabled him to acquire that
 fecility of composition in the ,greek  
language which is one of its            
characteristics4 ,ewald1 who exaggerates
 the ,hebraism of the work1 resorts     
nevertheless to the conjecture1 which we
 shall hereafter more fully consider1   
that the ,gospel was written from       
dictation by young friends of ,john in  
,ephesus1 who put the aged ,apostle's   
thoughts1 in many places1 into purer    
,greek as they  #dab  wrote them        
down47#a7 ,the arbitrary nature of such 
an explanation1 adopted in one shape or 
another by many apologists1 requires no 
remark1 but we shall at every turn meet 
with similar assumptions advanced to    
overcome difficulties4 ,now1 although   
there is no certain information as to   
the time when1 if ever1 the ,apostle    

removed into ,asia ,minor1 it is at     
least pretty certain that he did not    
leave ,palestine before a4d4 #fj47b7 ,we
 find him still at ,jerusalem about a4d4
 #ej--ec1 when ,paul went thither1 and  
he had not at that time any intention of
 leaving1 but1 on the contrary1 his     
dedication of himself to the ministry of
 the circumcision is distinctly         
mentioned by the ,apostle47#c7 ,the     
unlettered and ignorant fisherman of    
,galilee1 therefore1 had obviously      
attained an age when habits of thought  
and expression have become fixed1 and   
when a new language cannot without great
 difficulty be acquired4 ,if we consider
 the ,apocalypse to be his work1 we find
 positive evidence of such markedly     
different thought and language actually 
existing when the ,apostle must have    
been between sixty and seventy years of 
age1 that it is quite impossible to     
conceive that he could have subsequently
 acquired the language and mental       
characteristics of the fourth           

,gospel47#d7 ,it would be perfectly     
absurd1 so far as language goes1 to find
 in the fourth ,gospel the slightest    
indication of the ,apostle ,john1 of    
whose language we have no information   
whatever except from the ,apocalypse1 a 
composition  #dac  which1 if accepted as
 written by the ,apostle1 would at once 
exclude all consideration of the ,gospel
 as his work4 ,there are many           
circumstances1 however1 which seem      
clearly to indicate that the author of  
the fourth ,gospel was neither a native 
of ,palestine nor a ,jew1 and to some of
 these we must briefly refer4 ,the      
philosophical statements with which the 
,gospel commences1 it will be admitted1 
are anything but characteristic of the  
,son of thunder1 the ignorant and       
unlearned fisherman of ,galilee who1 to 
a comparatively advanced period of life1
 continued preaching in his native      
country to his brethren of the          
circumcision4 ,attempts have been made  
to trace the ,logos doctrine of the     

fourth ,gospel to the purely ,hebraic   
source of the ,old ,testament1 but every
 impartial mind must perceive that here 
there is no direct and simple           
transformation of the theory of ,wisdom 
of the ,proverbs and ,old ,testament    
,apocrypha1 and no mere development of  
the later ,memra of the ,targums1 but a 
very advanced application to            
,christianity of ,alexandrian           
philosophy1 with which we have become   
familiar through the writings of ,philo1
 to which reference has so frequently   
been made4 ,it is quite true that a     
decided step beyond the doctrine of     
,philo is made when the ,logos is       
represented as ------ in the person of  
,jesus1 but this argument is equally    
applicable to the ,jewish doctrine of   
,wisdom1 and that step had already been 
taken before the composition of the     
,gospel4 ,in the ,alexandrian philosophy
 everything was prepared for the final  
application of the doctrine1 and nothing
 is more clear than the fact that the   

writer of the fourth ,gospel was well   
acquainted with the teaching of the     
,alexandrian school1 from which he      
derived his philosophy1 and its         
elaborate and systematic application to 
,jesus alone indicates a late  #dad     
development of ,christian doctrine1     
which we maintain could not have been   
attained by the ,judaistic son of       
,zebedec47#a7  ,we have already on      
several occasions referred to the       
attitude which the writer of the fourth 
,gospel assumes towards the ,jews4      
,apart from the fact that he places     
,christianity generally in strong       
antagonism to ,judaism1 as light to     
darkness1 truth to a lie1 and presents  
the doctrine of a hypostatic ,trinity in
 the most developed form to be found in 
the ,new ,testament1 in striking        
contrast to the three ,synoptics1 and in
 contradiction to ,hebrew ,monotheism1  
he writes at all times as one who not   
only is not a ,jew himself1 but has     
nothing to do with their laws and       

customs4 ,he speaks everywhere of the   
feasts of the ,jews1 the passover of the
 ,jews1 the manner of the purifying of  
the ,jews1 the ,jews' feast of          
tabernacles1 as the manner of the ,jews 
is to bury1 the ,jews' preparation day1 
and so on47#b7 ,the ,law of ,moses is   
spoken of as your law1 their law1 as of 
a people with which the writer was not  
connected47#c7 ,moreover1 the ,jews are 
represented as continually in virulent  
opposition to ,jesus1 and seeking to    
kill him2 and the word ,jew is the      
unfailing indication of the enemies of  
the truth1 and the persecutors of the   
,christ47#d7 ,the ,jews are not once    
spoken of as the favoured people of     
,god1 but they are denounced as children
 of the devil1 who is the father of lies
 and a murderer from the beginning47#e7 
,the author makes ,caiaphas and the     
chief       #a  ,most critics agree that
 the characteristics of the fourth      
,gospel render the supposition that it  
was the work of an old      man         

untenable4  #dae  priests and ,pharisees
 speak of the ,jewish people not as     
------1 but as ------1 the term employed
 by the ,jews to designate the          
,gentiles47#a7 ,we need scarcely point  
out that the ,jesus of the fourth       
,gospel is no longer of the race of     
,david1 but the ,son of ,god4 ,the      
expectation of the ,jews that the       
,messiah should be of the seed of ,david
 is entirely set aside1 and the         
genealogies of the first and third      
,synoptics tracing his descent are not  
only ignored1 but the whole idea        
absolutely excluded4  ,then the writer  
calls ,annas the high priest1 although  
at the same time ,caiaphas is           
represented as holding that office47#b7 
,the expression which he uses is3       
,caiaphas being the high priest that    
year------4 ,this statement1 made more  
than once1 indicates the belief that the
 office was merely annual1 which is     
erroneous4 ,josephus states with regard 
to ,caiaphas1 that he was high priest   

for ten years from ,a4,d4 #be--cf47c7   
,ewald and others argue that the        
expression that year refers to the year 
in which the  #daf  death of ,jesus1 so 
memorable to the writer1 took place1 and
 that it does not exclude the           
possibility of his having been high     
priest for successive years also47#a7   
,this explanation1 however1 is quite    
arbitrary and insufficient1 and this is 
shown by the additional error in        
representing ,annas as also high priest 
at1the same time4 ,the ,synoptists know 
nothing of the preliminary examination  
before ,annas1 and the reason given by  
the writer of the fourth ,gospel why the
 soldiers first took ,jesus to ,annas3  
for he was father-in-law to ,caiaphas1  
who was high priest that same year17#b7 
is inadmissible4 ,the assertion is a    
clear mistake1 and it probably          
originated in a stranger1 writing of    
facts and institutions with which he was
 not well acquainted1 being misled by an
 error equally committed by the author  

of the third ,gospel and of the ,acts of
 the ,apostles4 ,in ,luke iii4 #b1 the  
word of ,god is said to come to ,john   
the ,baptist3 in the high priesthood of 
,annas and ,caiaphas ------1 and again1 
in ,acts iv4 #f1 ,annas is spoken of as 
the high priest when ,peter and ,john   
healed the lame man at the gate of the  
,temple which was called ,beautiful1 and
 ,caiaphas is mentioned immediately     
after3 and ,annas the high priest1 and  
,caiaphas1 and ,john1 and ,alexander1   
and as many as were of the kindred of   
the high priest4 ,such statements1      
erroneous in themselves and not         
understood by the author of the fourth  
,gospel1 may have led to the confusion  
in the narrative4 ,annas had previously 
been high priest1 as we know from       
,josephus17#c7 but nothing is more      
certain than the fact that the title was
 not continued after the office was     
resigned2 aud ,ishmael  #dag  ,eleazar1 
and ,simon1 who succeeded ,annas and    
separated his term of office from that  

of ,caiaphas1 did not subsequently bear 
the title4 ,the narrative is a mistake1 
and such an error could not have been   
committed by a native of ,palestine17#a7
 and much less by an acquaintance of the
 high priest47#b7  ,there are also      
several geographical errors committed   
which denote a foreigner4 ,in i4 #bh1   
the writer speaks of a ,bethany beyond  
,jordan1 where ,john was baptizing4 ,the
 substitution of ,bethabara1 mentioned  
by ,origen1 which has erroneously crept 
into the vulgar text1 is of course      
repudiated by critics1 ,bethany standing
 in all the older codices4 ,the         
alteration was evidently proposed to    
obviate the difficulty that1 even in    
,origen's time1 there did not exist any 
trace of a ,bethany beyond ,jordan in   
,peraea4 ,the place could not be the    
,bethany near  #dah  ,jerusalem1 and it 
is supposed that the writer either      
mistook its position or1 inventing a    
second ,bethany1 which he described as  
beyond ,jordan1 displayed an ignorance  

of the locality improbable either in a  
,jew or a ,palestinian47#a7 ,again1 in  
iii4 #bc1 the writer says that ,john was
 baptizing in ,a,enon1 near to ,salim1  
because there was much water there4     
,this ,a,enon near to ,salim was in     
,judaea1 as is clearly stated in the    
previous verse4 ,the place1 however1 was
 quite unknown even in the third        
century1 and the nearest locality which 
could be indicated as possible was in   
the north of ,samaria and1 therefore1   
differing from the statements in iii4   
#bb1 iv4 #c47b7 ,a,enon1 however1       
signifies springs1 and the question     
arises whether the writer of the fourth 
,gospel1 not knowing the real meaning of
 the word1 did not simply mistake it for
 the name of a place47#c7 ,in any case1 
there seems to be here another error    
into which the author of the fourth     
,gospel1 had he been the ,apostle ,john1
 could not have fallen47#d7  #dai  ,the 
account of the miracle of the pool of   
,bethesda is a remarkable one for many  

reasons4 ,the words which most pointedly
 relate the miraculous phenomena        
characterizing the pool1 are rejected by
 many critics as an interpolation4 ,in  
the following extract we put them in    
italics3 v4 #c4--;,in these 7five       
porches7 lay a multitude of the sick1   
halt1 withered1 waiting for the moving  
of the water4 #d4 ,for an angel went    
down at certain seasons into the pool   
and was troubling the water3 he1        
therefore1 who first went in after the  
troubling of the water was made whole of
 whatsoever disease he had4 ,we         
maintain1 however1 that the obnoxious   
passage is no spurious interpolation1   
but that there is ample evidence1       
external and internal1 to substantiate  
its claim to a place in the text4 ,it is
 true that the whole passage is omitted 
by the ,sinaitic and ,vatican ,codices1 
and by ,c3 that ,a7#a71 ,l1 #ah1 and    
others omit the last phrase of verse #c1
 and that ,d1 #cc1 which contain that   
phrase1 omit the whole of verse #d1     

together with #aeg1 #cad and some other 
,,mss43 that in many codices in which   
the passage is found it is marked by an 
asterisk or obelus1 and that it presents
 considerable variation in readings4 ,it
 is also true that it is omitted by     
,cureton's ,syriac1 by the ,thebaic1 and
 by most of the ,memphitic versions4    
,but1 on the other hand1 it exists in   
the ,alexandrian ,codex1 ,c#c1 ,e1 ,f1  
,g1 ,h1 ,i1 ,k1 ,l1 ,m1 ,,it1 ,v1 r1 ,a 
and other ,,mss7#a71 and it forms part  
of the ,peschito1 ,jerusalem ,syriac1   
,vulgate1 ,watkin's ,memphitic1         
,a,ethiopic and ,armenian versions47#b7 
#dbj  ,more important still is the fact 
that it existed in the ancient ,latin   
version of ,tertillian1 who refers to   
the passage27#a7 and it is quoted by    
,didymus1 ,chrysostom1 ,cyril1 ,ambrose1
 ,theophylact1 ,euthymius1 and other    
,fathers4 ,its presence in the          
,alexandrian ,codex alone might not     
compensate for the omission of the      
passage by the ,sinaitic and ,vatican   

,codices and ,c1 ,d1 but when the       
,alexandrian ,,ms4 is supported by the  
version used by ,tertullian1 which is a 
couple of centuries older than any of   
the other authorities1 as well as by the
 ,peschito1 not to mention other        
codices1 the balance of external        
evidence is distinctly in its favour4   
,the internal evidence is altogether on 
the side of the authenticity of the     
passage4 ,it is true that there are a   
considerable number of ------ in the few
 lines3 ------ and perhaps ------2 but  
it must be remembered that the phenomena
 described are exceptional1 and may well
 explain exceptional phraseology4 ,on   
the other hand1 ------ is specially a   
,johannine word1 used v4 #d and six     
times more in the fourth ,gospel1 but   
only five times in the rest of the ,new 
,testament2 and ------ with ------      
occurs in v4 #d1 #f1 #i1 #ad1 and with  
------ in v4 #aa1 #ae1 vii4 #bc and     
nowhere else4 ------ also may be        
indicated as employed in v4 #d1 #g and  

five times more in other parts of the   
,gospel1 and only eleven times in the   
rest of the ,new ,testament1 and the use
 of ------ in v4 #d is thus perhaps     
naturally  #dba  accounted for4 ,the    
context1 however1 forbids the removal of
 this passage4 ,it is in the highest    
degree improbable that verse #c could   
have ended with withered ------1 and    
although many critics wish to retain the
 last phrase in verse #c1 in order to   
explain verse #g1 this only shows the   
necessity1 without justifying the       
arbitrary maintenance1 of these words1  
whilst verse #d1 which is still better  
attested1 is excluded to get rid of the 
inconvenient angel4 ,it is evident1     
however1 that the expression3 when the  
water was troubled ------ of the        
undoubted verse #g is unintelligible    
without the explanation that the angel  
was troubling the water1 ------ of verse
 #d1 and also that the statement of the 
verse #g1 but while ,i am coming1       
another goeth down before me ------     

absolutely requires the account3 he1    
therefore1 who first went in c4 ------  
of verse #d4 ,the argument that the     
interpolation was made to explain the   
statement in verse #g is untenable1 for 
that statement necessarily presupposes  
the account in the verses under         
discussion1 and cannot be severed from  
it4 ,even if the information that the   
water was troubled at certain seasons   
only could have been dispensed with1 it 
is obvious that the explanation of the  
condition of healing1 given in verse #d1
 is indispensable to the appreciation of
 the lame man's complaint in verse #g1  
for without knowing that priority was   
essential1 the reason for the protracted
 waiting is inconceivable4 ,it is also  
argued1 that the passage about the angel
 may have been interpolated to bring    
outthe presence of supernatural agency1 
but it is much more reasonable to       
believe that attempts have been made to 
omit these verses1 of which there is    
such ancient attestation1 in order to   

eliminate an embarrassing excess of     
#dbb  supernatural agency1 and get rid  
of the difficulty presented by the fact1
 for which even ,tertullian7#a7         
endeavoured to account1 that the        
supposed pool had ceased to exhibit any 
miraculous phenomena4 ,this natural     
explanation is illustrated by the       
alacrity with which apologists at the   
present day abandon the obnoxious       
passage47#b7 ,the combined force of the 
external and internal evidence1 however1
 cannot1 we think1 be fairly            
resisted47#c7  ,now1 not only is the    
pool of ,bethesda totally unknown at the
 present day1 but although possessed of 
such miraculous properties1 it was not  
known even to ,josephus1 or any other   
writer of that time4 ,it is             
inconceivable that1 were the narrative  
genuine1 the phenomena could have been  
unknown and unmentioned by the ,jewish  
historian47#d7 ,there is here evidently 
neither the narrative of an ,apostle nor
 of an eye-witness4  ,another very      

significant mistake occurs in the       
account of the conversation with the    
,samaritan woman1 which is said to have 
taken place 7iv4 #e7 near a city of     
,samaria       #b  ,the ,biblical critic
 is glad that he can remove these       
words from the record1 and cannot be    
called upon to explain      them4--,rev4
 ,h4 ,w4 ,watkins1 ,m4,a41 in ,a ,new   
,test4 ,commentary      for ,english    
,readers1 edited by ,charles ,john      
,ellicott1 ,d4,d41      ,lord ,bishop of
 ,gloucester and ,bristol1 i4 p4 #daf4  
#dbc  which is called ,sychar4 ,it is   
evident that there was no such          
place--and apologetic ingenuity is      
severely taxed to explain the           
difficulty4 ,the common conjecture has  
been that the town of ,sichem is        
intended1 but this is rightly rejected  
by ,delitzsch17#a7 and ,ewald47#b7      
,credner17#c7 not unsupported by others1
 and borne out in particular by the     
theory of ,ewald1 conjectures that      
,sychar is a corruption of ,sichem1     

introduced into the ,gospel by a ,greek 
secretary to whom this part of the      
,gospel was dictated1 and who mistook   
the ,apostle's pronunciation of the     
final syllable4 ,we constantly meet with
 this elastic explanation of            
difficulties in the ,gospel1 but its    
mere enunciation displays at once the   
reality of the difficulties and the     
imaginary nature of the explanation4    
,hengstenberg adopts the view1 and      
presses it with pious earnestness1 that 
the term is a mere nickname for the city
 of ,sichem1 and that1 by so slight a   
change in the pronunciation1 the        
,apostle called the place a city of     
,lies ------ a lie71 a play upon words  
which he does not consider unworthy47#d7
 ,the only support which this latter    
theory can secure from internal evidence
 is to be derived from the fact that the
 whole discourse with the woman is      
ideal4 ,hengstenberg7#e7 conjectures    
that the five husbands of the woman are 
typical of the ,gods of the five nations

 with which the ,king of ,assyria       
peopled ,samaria1 ,,ii4 ,kings1 xvii4   
#bd--da1 and which they worshipped      
instead of the ,god of ,israel1 and as  
the actual ,god of the ,samaritans was  
not recognized as the true ,god by the  
,jews1 nor their  #dbd  worship of him  
on ,mount ,gerizim held to be valid1 he 
considers that under the name of the    
,city of ,sychar1 their whole religion1 
past and present1 was denounced as a    
lie4 ,there can be little doubt that the
 episode is allegorical1 but such a     
defence of the geographical error1 the  
reality of which is everywhere felt1    
whilst it is quite insufficient on the  
one hand1 effectually destroys the      
historical character of the ,gospel on  
the other47#a7 ,the inferences from all 
of the foregoing examples are           
strengthened by the fact that1 in the   
quotations from the ,old ,testament1 the
 fourth ,gospel in the main follows the 
,septuagint version1 or shows its       
influence1 and nowhere can be shown     

directly to translate from the ,hebrew4 
,these instances might be multiplied1   
but we must proceed to examine more     
closely the indications given in the    
,gospel as to the identity of its       
author4 ,we need not point out that the 
writer nowhere clearly states who he is1
 nor mentions his name1 but expressions 
are frequently used which evidently show
 the desire that a particular person    
should be understood4 ,he generally     
calls himself the other disciple1 or the
 disciple whom ,jesus loved47#b7 ,it is 
universally understood that he  #dbe    
represents himself as having previously 
been a disciple of ,john the ,baptist   
7i4 #ce ff4717#a7 and also that he is   
the other disciple who was acquainted   
with the high priest 7xviii4 #ae1       
#af717b7 if not an actual relative as   
,ewald and others assert47#c7 ,the      
assumption that the disciple thus       
indicated is ,john1 rests principally on
 the fact that whilst the author        
mentions the other ,apostles1 he seems  

studiously to avoid directly naming     
,john1 and also that he never           
distinguishes ,john the ,baptist by the 
appellation ------1 whilst he carefully 
distinguishes the two disciples of the  
name of ,judas1 and always speaks of the
 ,apostle ,peter as ,simon ,peter1 or   
,peter1 but rarely as ,simon only47#d7  
,without pausing to consider the        
slightness of this evidence1 it is      
obvious that1 supposing the disciple    
indicated to be ,john the son of        
,zebedee1 the fourth ,gospel gives a    
representation of him quite different   
from the ,synoptics and other writings4 
,in the fourth ,gospel 7i4 #ce ff47 the 
calling of the ,apostle is described in 
a peculiar manner4 ,john 7the ,baptist7 
is standing with two of his disciples1  
and points out ,jesus to them as the    
,lamb of ,god1 whereupon the two        
disciples follow ,jesus and1 finding out
 where he lives1  #dbf  abide with him  
that day and subsequently attach        
themselves to his person4 ,in verse #dj 

it is stated3 ,one of the two which     
heard ,john speak1 and followed him1 was
 ,andrew1 ,simon ,peter's brother4 ,we  
are left to imagine who was the other1  
and the answer of critics is3 ,john4    
,now1 the calling of ,john is related in
 a totally different manner in the      
,synoptics--,jesus1 walking by the ,sea 
of ,galilee1 sees two brethren1 ,simon  
called ,peter and ,andrew his brother1  
casting a net into the sea1 for they    
were fishers1 and he saith unto them3   
,follow me1 and ,i will make you fishers
 of men4 ,and they straightway left     
their nets and followed him4 ,and when  
he had gone from thence1 he saw other   
two brethren1 ,james the son of ,zebedee
 and ,john his brother1 in the ship with
 ,zebedee their father mending their    
nets2 and he called them4 ,and they     
immediately left the ship and their     
father and followed him47#a7 ,these     
accounts are in complete contradiction  
to each other1 and both cannot be true4 
,we see1 from the first introduction of 

the other disciple on the scene1 in the 
fourth ,gospel1 the evident design to   
give him the precedence before ,peter   
and the rest of the ,apostles4 ,we have 
above given the account of the first two
 ,synoptists of the calling of ,peter1  
according to which he is the first of   
the disciples who is selected1 and he is
 directly invited by ,jesus to follow   
him and become1 with his brother        
,andrew1 fishers of men4 ,james and     
,john are not called till later in the  
day1 and without the record of any      
special address4 ,in the third ,gospel1 
the calling of ,peter is introduced with
 still more important details4 ,jesus   
enters the boat of ,simon and bids him  
push out into the ,lake and let down his
 net1 and the miraculous draught of     
fishes is taken3 ,when ,simon ,peter    
#dbg  saw it1 he fell down at ,jesus'   
knees1 saying3 ,depart from me1 for ,i  
am a sinful man1 ,o ,lord4 ,for he was  
astonished1 and all that were with him1 
at the draught of fishes which they had 

taken4 ,the calling of the sons of      
,zebedee becomes even less important    
here1 for the account simply continues3 
,and so was also ,james and ,john1 the  
sons of ,zebedee1 who were partners with
 ,simon4 ,jesus then addresses his      
invitation to ,simon1 and the account   
concludes3 ,and when they had brought   
their boats to land1 they forsook all1  
and followed him47#a7 ,in the fourth    
,gospel1 the calling of the two         
disciples of ,john is first narrated1 as
 we have seen and the first call of     
,peter is from his brother ,andrew1 and 
not from ,jesus himself4 ,he 7,andrew7  
first findeth his own brother ,simon1   
and saith unto him3 ,we have found the  
,messias 7which is1 being interpreted1  
,christ71 and he brought him to ,jesus4 
,jesus looked on him and said3 ,thou art
 ,simon1 the son of ,jonas27#b7 thou    
shalt be called ,cephas 7which is by    
interpretation1 ,peter747#c7 ,this      
explanation of the manner in which the  
cognomen ,peter is given1 we need not   

point out1 is likewise contradictory to 
the ,synoptics1 and betrays the same    
purpose of suppressing the prominence of
 ,peter4  ,the fourth ,gospel states    
that the other disciple1 who is declared
 to be ,john1 the author of the ,gospel1
 was known to the high priest1 another  
trait amongst many others elevating him 
above the son of ,zebedee as he is      
depicted elsewhere in the ,new          
,testament4 ,the  #dbh  account which   
the fourth ,gospel gives of the trial of
 ,jesus is in very many important       
particulars at variance with that of the
 ,synoptics4 ,we need only mention here 
the point that the latter know nothing  
of the preliminary examination by       
,annas4 ,we shall not discuss the       
question as to where the denial of      
,peter is represented as taking place in
 the fourth ,gospel1 but may merely say 
that no other disciple but ,peter is    
mentioned in the ,synoptics as having   
followed ,jesus2 and ,peter enters      
without difficulty into the high        

priest's palace47#a7 ,in the fourth     
,gospel1 ,peter is made to wait without 
at the door until ,john1 who is a friend
 of the high priest and freely enters1  
obtains permission for ,peter to go in1 
another instance of the precedence which
 is systematically given to ,john4 ,the 
,synoptics do not in this particular    
case give any support to the statement  
in the fourth ,gospel1 and certainly in 
nothing that is said of ,john elsewhere 
do they render his acquaintance with the
 high priest in the least degree        
probable4 ,it is1 on the contrary1      
improbable in the extreme that the young
 fisherman of ,galilee1 who shows very  
little enlightenment in the anecdotes   
told of him in the ,synoptics1 and who  
is described as an unlettered and       
ignorant man in the ,acts of the        
,apostles1 could have any acquaintance  
with the high priest4 ,ewald1 who1 on   
the strength of the word ------17#b7 at 
once elevates him into a relation of the
 high priest1 sees in the statement of  

,polycrates that late in life he wore   
the priestly ------1 a confirmation of  
the supposition that he was of the high 
priest's race and family47#c7 ,the  #dbi
  evident ,judaistic tendency1 however1 
which made ,john wear the priestly mitre
 may distinguish him as author of the   
,apocalypse1 but it is fatal to the     
theory which makes him author of the    
fourth ,gospel1 in which there is so    
complete a severance from ,judaism4  ,a 
much more important point1 however1 is  
the designation of the author of the    
fourth ,gospel1 who is identified with  
the ,apostle ,john1 as the disciple whom
 ,jesus loved4 ,it is scarcely too much 
to say1 that this suggestive appellation
 alone has done more than any arguments 
to ensure the recognition of the work1  
and to overcome doubts as to its        
authenticity4 ,religious sentimentality1
 evoked by the influence of this tender 
epithet1 has been blind to historical   
incongruities1 and has been willing to  
accept with little question from the    

beloved disciple a portrait of ,jesus   
totally unlike that of the ,synoptics1  
and to elevate the dogmatic mysticism   
and artificial discourses of the one    
over the sublime morality and simple    
eloquence of the other4 ,it is          
impossible to reflect seriously upon    
this representation of the relations    
between one of the disciples and ,jesus 
without the conviction that every record
 of the life of the great ,teacher must 
have borne distinct traces of the       
preference1 and that the disciple so    
honoured must have attracted the notice 
of every early writer acquainted with   
the facts4 ,if we seek for any evidence1
 however1 that ,john was distinguished  
with such special affection1--that he   
lay on the breast of ,jesus at          
supper--that even the ,apostle ,peter   
recognised his superior intimacy and    
influence7#a7--;and that he received at 
the foot of the cross the care of his   
mother from the dying ,jesus17#b7--we   
seek in vain4 ,the ,synoptic ,gospels1  

which minutely record the details  #dcj 
of the last supper and of the           
crucifixion1 so far from reporting any  
such circumstances or such distinction  
of ,john1 do not even mention his name1 
and ,peter everywhere has precedence    
before the sons of ,zebedee4 ,almost the
 only occasions upon which any          
prominence is given to them are episodes
 in which they incur the ,master's      
displeasure1 and the cognomen of ,sons  
of thunder has certainly no suggestion  
in it of special affection1 nor of      
personal qualities likely to attract the
 great ,teacher4 ,the selfish ambition  
of the brothers who desire to sit on    
thrones on his right and on his left1   
and the intolerant temper which would   
have called down fire from heaven to    
consume a ,samaritan village1 much      
rather contradict than support the      
representation of the fourth ,gospel4   
,upon one occasion1 indeed1 ,jesus in   
rebuking them1 adds3 ,ye know not what  
manner of spirit ye are of47#a7 ,it is  

perfectly undeniable that ,john nowhere 
has any such position accorded to him in
 the ,synoptics as this designation in  
the fourth ,gospel implies4 ,in the     
lists of the disciples he is always put 
in the fourth place17#c7 and in the     
first two ,gospels his only             
distinguishing designation is that of   
the brother of ,james1 or one of the    
sons of ,zebedee4 ,the ,apostle ,peter  
in all of the ,synoptics is the leader  
of the disciples4 ,he it is who alone is
 represented as the mouth-piece of the  
twelve or as holding conversation with  
,jesus2 and the only occasions on which 
the sons of ,zebedee address ,jesus are 
those to which we have referred1 upon   
which  #a ,luke ix4 #ee4 ,these words   
are omitted from some of the oldest     
,,mss41 but they are in ,cod4 ,d        
7,bezae7 and many other very important  
texts1 as well as in some of the oldest 
,torsions1 besides being quoted by the  
,fathers4 ,they were probably omitted   
after the claim of ,john to be the      

beloved disciple became admitted4  #dca 
his displeasure was incurred4 ,the angel
 who appears to the women after the     
resurrection desires them to tell his   
disciples and ,peter that ,jesus will   
meet them in ,galilee17#a7 but there is 
no message for any disciple whom he     
loved4 ,if ,peter1 ,james1 and ,john    
accompany the ,master to the mount of   
transfiguration1 and are witnesses of   
his agony in the garden1 regarding      
which1 however1 the fourth ,gospel is   
totally silent1 the two brethren remain 
in the back ground1 and ,peter alone    
acts a prominent part4 ,if we turn to   
the ,epistles of ,paul1 we do not find a
 single trace of acquaintance with the  
fact that ,jesus honoured ,john with any
 special affection1 and the opportunity 
of referring to such a distinction was  
not wanting when he writes to the       
,galatians of his visit to the ,pillar  
,apostles in ,jerusalem4 ,here again1   
however1 we find no prominence given to 
,john1 but the contrary1 his name still 

being mentioned last and without any    
special comment4 ,in none of the        
,pauline or other ,epistles is there any
 allusion1 however distant1 to any      
disciple whom ,jesus specially loved4   
,the ,apocalypse1 which1 if any book of 
the ,new ,testament can be traced to    
him1 must be ascribed to the ,apostle   
,john1 makes no claim whatever to such a
 distinction4 ,in none of the           
,apocryphal ,gospels is there the       
slightest indication of knowledge of the
 fact1 and if we come to the ,fathers   
even1 it is a striking circumstance that
 there is not a trace of it in any early
 work1 and not the most remote          
indication of any independent tradition 
that ,jesus distinguished ,john or any  
other individual disciple with peculiar 
friendship4 ,the ,roman ,clement1 in    
referring to the example of the         
,apostles1 only mentions ,peter and     
,paul47#b7 ,polycarp1 who is described  
as a disciple of the  #dcb  ,apostle    
,john1 apparently knows nothing of his  

having been especially loved by ,jesus4 
,pseudo-,ignatius does not refer to him 
at all in the ,syriac ,epistles1 or in  
either version of the seven             
,epistles47#a7 ,papias1 in describing   
his interest in hearing what the        
,apostles said1 gives ,john no          
prominence3 ,i inquired minutely after  
the words of the ,presbyters3 ,what     
,andrew1 or what ,peter said1 or what   
,philip or what ,thomas or ,james1 or   
what ,john or ,matthew1 or what any     
other of the disciples of the ,lord1 and
 what ,aristion and the ,presbyter      
,john1 the disciples of the ,lord1      
say17#b7 c4  ,as a fact1 it is undenied 
and undeniable that the representation  
of ,john1 or of any other disciple1 as  
specially beloved by ,jesus1 is limited 
solely and entirely to the fourth       
,gospel1 and that there is not even a   
trace of independent tradition to       
support the claim1 whilst on the other  
hand the total silence of the earlier   
,gospels and of the other ,new          

,testament writings on the point1 and   
indeed their data of a positive and     
unmistakeable character1 oppose rather  
than support the correctness of the     
later and mere personal assertion4      
,those who abandon sober criticism1 and 
indulge in mere sentimental rhapsodies  
on the impossibility of the author of   
the fourth ,gospel being any other than 
the disciple whom ,jesus loved1         
strangely ignore the fact that we have  
no reason whatever1 except the assurance
 of the author himself1 to believe that 
,jesus specially loved any disciple1 and
 much less ,john the ,son of ,zebedee4  
,indeed1 the statements of the fourth   
,gospel itself on the subject are       
#a  ,indeed in the universally          
repudiated ,epistles1 beyond the        
fact that two are addressed to ,john1 in
 which he is not      called the        
disciple whom ,jesus loved1 the only    
mention of      him is the statement1   
,john was banished to ,patmos4   ,ad    
,tars41 iii4  #dcc  so indirect and     

intentionally vague that it is not      
absolutely clear what disciple is       
indicated as the beloved1 and it has    
even been maintained that not ,john the 
son of ,zebedee1 but ,andrew the brother
 of ,simon ,peter was the disciple whom 
,jesus loved1 and consequently the      
supposed author of the fourth           
,gospel47#a7  ,we have hitherto         
refrained from referring to one of the  
most singular features of the fourth    
,gospel1 the chapter xxi41 which is by  
many cited as the most ancient testimony
 for the authenticity of the work1 and  
which requires particular consideration4
 ,it is obvious that the ,gospel is     
brought to a conclusion by verses #cj1  
#ca of chapter xx41 and critics are     
universally agreed at least that1       
whoever may be its author1 chapter xxi4 
is a supplement only added after an     
interval4 ,by whom was it written8 ,as  
may be supposed1 critics have given very
 different replies to this important    
question4 ,many affirm1 and with much   

probability1 that chapter xxi4 was      
subsequently added to the ,gospel by the
 author himself47#b7 ,a few1 however1   
exclude the last two verses1 which they 
consider to have been added by another  
hand47#c7 ,a much larger number assert  
that the whole  #dcd  chapter is an     
ancient appendix to the ,gospel by a    
writer who was not the author of the    
,gospel47#a7 ,a few likewise reject the 
last two verses of the preceding        
chapter4 ,in this supplement 7v4 #bj71  
the disciple whom ,jesus loved1 who also
 leaned on his breast at the supper and 
said3 ,lord1 which is he that betrayeth 
thee8 is 7v4 #bd7 identified with the   
author of the ,gospel4  ,we may here    
state the theory of ,ewald with regard  
to the composition of the fourth        
,gospel1 which is largely deduced from  
considerations connected with the last  
chapter1 and which1 although more       
audaciously minute in its positive and  
arbitrary statement of details than any 
other with which we are acquainted1     

introduces more or less the explanations
 generally given regarding the          
composition of chapter xxi4 ,out of all 
the indications in the work1 ,ewald     
decides3  #a4 ,that the ,gospel1        
completed at the end of chapter xx41 was
 composed by the ,apostle about the year
 #hj1 with the free help of friends1 not
 to be immediately circulated  #dce     
throughout the world1 but to remain     
limited to the narrower circle of       
friends until his death1 and only then  
to be published as his legacy to the    
whole of ,christendom4 ,in this position
 it remained ten years1 or even longer4 
#b4 ,as the preconceived opinion        
regarding the life or death of the      
,apostle 7xxi4 #bc7 had perniciously    
spread itself throughout the whole of   
,christendom1 the ,apostle himself      
decided1 even before his death1 to      
counteract it in the right way by giving
 a correct statement of the             
circumstances4 ,the same friends1       
therefore1 assisted him to design the   

very important supplement1 chapter xxi41
 and this could still be very easily    
added1 as the book was not yet          
published4 ,his friends proceeded1      
nevertheless1 somewhat more freely in   
its composition than previously in      
writing the book itself1 and allowed    
their own hand more clearly to gleam    
through1 although here1 as in the rest  
of the work1 they conformed to the will 
of the ,apostle1 and did not1 even in   
the supplement1 openly declare his name 
as the author4 ,as the supplement1      
however1 was to form a closely connected
 part of the whole work1 they gave at   
its end 7verses #bd f471 as it now      
seemed to them suitable1 a new          
conclusion to the augmented work4  #c4  
,as the ,apostle himself desired that   
the preconceived opinion regarding him1 
which had been spread abroad to the     
prejudice of ,christendom1 should be    
contradicted as soon as possible1 and   
even before his death1 he now so far    
departed from his earlier wish1 that he 

permitted the circulation of his ,gospel
 before his death4 ,we can accept this  
with all certainty1 and have therein    
trustworthy testimony regarding the     
whole original history of our book4  #d4
 ,when the ,gospel was thus published it
 was for  #dcf  the first time gradually
 named after our ,apostle1 even in its  
external superscription3 a nomination   
which had then become all the more      
necessary and permanent for the purpose 
of distinction1 as it was united in one 
whole with the other ,gospels4 ,the     
world1 however1 has at all times known  
it only under this wholly right title1  
and could in no way otherwise know it   
and otherwise name it47#a7  ,in         
addressing ourselves to each of these   
points in detail1 we shall be able to   
discuss the principal questions         
connected with the fourth ,gospel4  ,the
 theory of ,ewald1 that the fourth      
,gospel was written down with the       
assistance of friends in ,ephesus1 has  
been imagined solely to conciliate      

certain phenomena presented throughout  
the ,gospel1 and notably in the last    
chapter1 with the foregone conclusion   
that it was written by the ,apostle     
,john4 ,it is apparent that there is not
 a single word in the work itself       
explaining such a mode of composition1  
and that the hypothesis proceeds purely 
from the ingenious imagination of the   
critic4 ,the character of the language1 
the manner in which the writer is       
indirectly indicated in the third       
person1 and the reference1 even in the  
body of the work 7xix4 #ce71 to the     
testimony of a third person1 combined   
with the similarity of the style of the 
supplementary chapter1 which is an      
obvious addition intended1 however1 to  
be understood as written by a different 
hand1 have rendered these conjectures   
necessary to reconcile such obvious     
incongruities with the ascription of the
 work to the ,apostle4 ,the substantial 
identity of the style and vocabulary of 
chapter xxi4 with the rest of the       

,gospel is asserted by a multitude of   
the most competent critics4 ,ewald1     
whilst he recognizes the great  #dcg    
similarity1 maintains at the same time a
 real dissimilarity1 for which he       
accounts in the manner just quoted4 ,the
 language1 ,ewald admits1 agrees fully  
in many rare nuances with that of the   
rest of the ,gospel1 but he does not    
take the trouble to prove the decided   
dissimilarities which1 he asserts1      
likewise exist4 ,a less difference than 
that which he finds might1 he thinks1 be
 explained by the interval which had    
elapsed between the writing of the work 
and of the supplement1 but the wonderful
 similarity1 in the midst of even       
greater dissimilarity1 of the whole tone
 and particularly of the style of the   
composition is not thereby accounted    
for4 ,this1 therefore1 leads us1 he     
continues1 to the opinion3 ,the ,apostle
 made use1 for writing down his words1  
of the hand and even of the skill of a  
trusted friend who later1 on his own    

authority 7fur sich allein71 wrote the  
supplement4 ,the great similarity1 as   
well as dissimilarity1 of the style of  
both parts in this way becomes          
intelligible3 the trusted friend        
7probably a ,presbyter in ,ephesus7     
adopted much of the language and mode of
 expression of the youthful old         
,apostle1 without1 however1 where he    
wrote more in his own person1 being     
carefully solicitous of imitating them4 
,but even through this contrast1 and the
 definite declaration in v4 #bd1 the    
,apostolical origin of the book itself  
becomes all the more clearly apparent2  
and thus the supplement proves from the 
most diverse sides how certainly this   
,gospel was written by the trusted      
disciple47#a7 ,elsewhere1 ,ewald more   
clearly explains the share in the work  
which he assigns to the ,apostle's      
disciple3 ,the proposition that the     
,apostle composed in a unique way our   
likewise unique ,gospel is to be        
understood only with the  #dch          

important limitation upon which ,i have 
always laid so much stress3 for ,john   
himself did not compose this work quite 
so directly as ,paul did most of his    
,epistles1 but the young friend who     
wrote it down from his lips1 and who1 in
 the later appendix1 chapter xxi41 comes
 forward in the most open way1 without  
desiring in the slightest to conceal his
 separate identity1 does his work at    
other times somewhat freely1 in that he 
never introduces the narrator speaking  
of himself and his participation in the 
events with ',i' or 'we' but only       
indirectly indicates his presence at    
such events and1 towards the end1 in    
preference refers to him1 from his      
altogether peculiar relation to ,christ1
 as 'the disciple whom the ,lord loved1'
 so that1 in one passage1 in regard to  
an important historical testimony 7xix4 
#ce71 he even speaks of him as of a     
third person4 ,ewald then maintains that
 the agreement between the ,gospel and  
the ,epistles1 and more especially the  

first1 which he affirms1 without        
vouchsafing a word of evidence1 to have 
been written down by a different hand1  
proves that we have substantially only  
the ,apostle's very peculiar            
composition1 and that his friend as much
 as possible gave his own words47#a7    
,it is obvious from this elaborate      
explanation1 which we need scarcely say 
is composed of mere assumptions1 that1  
in order to connect the ,apostle ,john  
with the ,gospel1 ,ewald is obliged to  
assign him a very peculiar position in  
regard to it3 he recognizes that some of
 the characteristics of the work exclude
 the supposition that the ,apostle could
 himself have written the ,gospel1 so he
 represents him as dictating it1 and his
 ,secretary as taking considerable      
liberties with the composition as he    
writes it  #dci  down1 and even as      
introducing references of his own2 as1  
for instance1 in the passage to which he
 refers1 where1 in regard to the        
statement that at the ,crucifixion a    

soldier pierced the side of the already 
dead ,jesus and that forthwith there    
came out blood and water 7xix4 #ce71 it 
is said3 ,and he that saw it hath borne 
witness1 and his witness is true2 and he
 knoweth that he saith true1 that ye may
 believe47#a7 ,it is perfectly clear    
that the writer refers to the testimony 
of another person7#b7--the friend who is
 writing down the narrative1 says ,herr 
,ewald1 refers to the ,apostle who is   
actually dictating it4 ,again1 in the   
last chapter1 as elsewhere throughout   
the work1 the disciple whom ,jesus      
loved1 who is the author1 is spoken of  
in the third person1 and also in verse  
#bd3 ,this is the disciple which        
testifieth of these things1 and wrote   
these things ------4 ,this1 according to
 ,ewald1 is the same secretary1 now     
writing in his own person4 ,the         
similarity between this declaration and 
the appeal to the testimony of another  
person in xix4 #ce1 is certainly        
complete1 and there can be no doubt that

 both proceed from the same pen2 but    
beyond the assertion of ,herr ,ewald    
there is not the slightest evidence that
 a secretary wrote the ,gospel from the 
dictation of another1 and ventured to   
interrupt the narrative by such a       
reference to testimony1 which1 upon the 
supposition that the  #ddj  ,apostle    
,john was known as the actual author1 is
 singularly out of place4 ,if ,john     
wrote the ,gospel1 why should he appeal 
in utterly vague terms to his own       
testimony1 and upon such a point1 when  
the mere fact that he himself wrote the 
statement was the most direct testimony 
in itself8 ,an author who composed a    
work which he desired to ascribe to a   
disciple whom ,jesus loved might have   
made such a reference as xix4 #ce1 in   
his anxiety to support such an          
affirmation1 without supposing that he  
had really compromised his design1 and  
might have naturally added such a       
statement as that in the last two       
verses1 but nothing but the foregone    

conclusion that the ,apostle ,john was  
the real author could have suggested    
such an explanation of these passages4  
,it is throughout assumed by ,ewald and 
others1 that ,john wrote in the first   
instance1 at least1 specially for a     
narrow circle of friends1 and the proof 
of this is considered to be the         
statement of the object with which it   
was written3 that ye may believe17l7 c41
 a phrase1 we may remark1 which is      
identical with that of the very verse   
7xix4 #ce7 with which the secretary is  
supposed to have had so much to do4 ,it 
is very remarkable1 upon this           
hypothesis1 that in xix4 #ce1 it is     
considered necessary even for this      
narrow circle1 who knew the ,apostle so 
well1 to make such an appeal1 as well as
 to attach at its close 7xxi4 #bd71 for 
the benefit of the world in general as  
,ewald will have it1 a certificate of   
the trustworthiness of the ,gospe,l     
,upon no hypothesis which supposes the  
,apostle ,john the author of the fourth 

,gospel is such an explanation credible4
 ,that the ,apostle himself could have  
written of himself the words in xix4 #ce
 is impossible4 ,after  #dda  having    
stated so much that is much more        
surprising and contradictory to all     
experience without reference to any     
witness1 it would indeed have been      
strange had he here appealed to himself 
as to a separate individual1 and on the 
other hand it is quite inadmissible to  
assume that a ,mend to whom he is       
dictating should interrupt the narrative
 to introduce a passage so inappropriate
 to the work1 and so unnecessary for any
 circle acquainted with the ,apostolic  
author4 ,if1 as ,ewald argues1 the      
peculiarities of his style of           
composition were so well known that it  
was unnecessary for the writer more     
clearly to designate himself either for 
the first readers or for the ,christian 
world1 the passages we are discussing   
are all the more inappropriate4 ,that   
any guarantee of the truth of the       

,gospel should have been thought        
desirable for readers who knew the work 
is to be composed by the ,apostle ,john1
 and who believed him to be the disciple
 whom ,jesus loved1 is inconceivable1   
and that any anonymous and quite        
indirect testimony to its genuineness   
should either have been considered      
necessary or of any value is still more 
incredible4 ,it is impossible that      
nameless ,presbyters of ,ephesus could  
venture to accredit a ,gospel written by
 the ,apostle ,john2 and any intended   
attestation must have taken the simple  
and direct course of stating that the   
work had been composed by the ,apostle4 
,the peculiarities we are discussing    
seem to us explicable only upon the     
supposition that the unknown writer of  
the ,gospel desired that it should be   
understood to be written by a certain   
disciple whom ,jesus loved1 but did not 
choose distinctly to name him or        
directly to make such an affirmation4   
,it is1 we assert1 impossible that an   

,apostle who composed a history of the  
life and teaching of ,jesus could  #dab 
have failed to attach his name1         
naturally and simply1 as testimony of   
the trustworthiness of his statements1  
and of his fitness as an eye-witness to 
compose such a record4 ,as the writer of
 the fourth ,gospel does not state his  
name1 ,herr ,ewald ascribes the omission
 to the incomparable modesty and        
delicacy of feeling of the ,apostle     
,john4 ,we must further briefly examine 
the validity of this explanation4 ,it is
 universally admitted1 and by ,ewald    
himself1 that although the writer does  
not directly name himself1 he very      
clearly indicates that he is the other  
disciple and the disciple whom ,jesus   
loved4 ,we must affirm that such a mode 
of indicating himself is incomparably   
less modest than the simple statement of
 his name1 and it is indeed a           
glorification of himself beyond anything
 in the ,apocalypse4 ,but not only is   
the explanation thus discredited but1 in

 comparing the details of the ,gospel   
with those of the ,synoptics1 we find   
still more certainly how little modesty 
had to do with the suppression of his   
name4 ,in the ,synoptics a very marked  
precedence of the rest of the disciples 
is ascribed to the ,apostle ,peter2 and 
the sons of ,zebedee are represented in 
all of them as holding a subordinate    
place4 ,this representation is confirmed
 by the ,pauline ,epistles and by       
tradition4 ,in the fourth ,gospel1 a    
very different account is given1 and the
 author studiously elevates the ,apostle
 ,john1--that is to say1 according to   
the theory that he is the writer of the 
,gospel1 himself1--in every way above   
the ,apostle ,peter4 ,apart from the    
general pre-eminence claimed for himself
 in the very name of the disciple whom  
,jesus loved1 we have seen that he      
deprives ,peter in his own favour of the
 honour of being the first of the       
disciples who was called2 he suppresses 
the account of the circumstances under  

which  #ddc  that ,apostle was named    
,peter1 and gives another and trifling  
version of the incident1 reporting      
elsewhere indeed in a very subdued and  
modified form1 and without the          
commendation of the ,master1 the        
recognition of the divinity of ,jesus1  
which in the first ,gospel is the cause 
of his change of name47#a7 ,he is the   
intimate friend of the ,master1 and even
 ,peter has to beg him to ask at the    
,supper who was the betrayer4 ,he       
describes himself as the friend of the  
,high ,priest1 and while ,peter is      
excluded1 he not only is able to enter  
into his palace1 but he is the means of 
introducing ,peter4 ,the denial of      
,peter is given without mitigation1 but 
his bitter repentance is not mentioned4 
,he it is who is singled out by the     
dying ,jesus and entrusted with the     
charge of his mother4 ,he outruns ,peter
 in their race to the ,sepulchre1 and in
 the final appearance of ,jesus 7xxi4   
#ae7 the more important position is     

assigned to the disciple whom ,jesus    
loved4 ,it is1 therefore1 absurd to     
speak of the incomparable modesty of the
 writer1 who1 if he does not give his   
name1 not only clearly indicates        
himself1 but throughout assumes a       
pre-eminence which is not supported by  
the authority of the ,synoptics and     
other writings1 but is heard of alone   
from his own narrative4  ,ewald argues  
that chapter xxi4 must have been        
written1 and the ,gospel as we have it1 
therefore1 have been completed1 before  
the death of the ,apostle ,john4 ,he    
considers the supplement to have been   
added specially to contradict the report
 regarding ,john 7xxi4 #bc74 ,the       
supplement must have been written whilst
 ,john still lived1 he asserts1 for only
 before his death was it worth while to 
contradict such a false hope2 and if his
 death had actually taken place1 the    
result itself would  #ddd  have already 
refuted so erroneous an interpretation  
of the words of ,christ1 and it would   

then have been much more appropriate to 
explain afresh the sense of the words   
'till ,i come4' ,moreover1 there is no  
reference here to the death as having   
already occurred1 although a small      
addition to that effect in ver4 #bd     
would have been so easy4 ,but if we were
 to suppose that ,john had long been    
dead when this was written1 the whole   
rectification as it is given would be   
utterly without sense47#a7 ,on the      
contrary1 we affirm that the whole      
history of the first two centuries      
renders it certain that the ,apostle was
 already dead1 and that the explanation 
was not a rectification of false hopes  
during his lifetime1 but an explanation 
of the failure of expectations which had
 already taken place1 and probably      
excited some scandal4 ,we know how the  
early ,church looked for the immediate  
coming of the glorified ,christ1 and how
 such hopes sustained persecuted        
,christians in their sorrow and         
suffering4 ,this is very clearly        

expressed in #a ,thess4 iv4 #ae--ah1    
where the expectation of the second     
coming within the lifetime of the writer
 and readers of the ,epistle is         
confidently stated1 and elsewhere1 and  
even in #a ,john ii4 #ah1 the belief    
that the last times had arrived is      
expressed4 ,the history of the          
,apocalypse in relation to the ,canon   
illustrates the case4 ,so long as the   
belief in the early consummation of all 
things continued strong1 the ,apocalypse
 was the favourite writing of the early 
,church1 but when time went on1 and the 
second coming of ,christ did not take   
place1 the opinion of ,christendom      
regarding the work changed1 and         
disappointment1 as well as the desire to
 explain the non-fulfilment of          
prophecies upon which so much hope had  
been based1 led many to reject the      
,apocalypse  #dde  as an unintelligible 
and fallacious book4 ,we venture to     
conjecture that the tradition that ,john
 should not die until the second coming 

of ,jesus may have originated with the  
,apocalypse1 where that event is        
announced to ,john as immediately to    
take place1 xxii4 #g1 #aj1 #ab1 and the 
words with which the book ends are of   
this nature1 and express the expectation
 of the writer1 #bj3 ,he which          
testifieth these things saith3 ,surely  
,i come quickly4 ,amen4 ,come1 ,lord    
,jesus4 ,it was not in the spirit of the
 age to hesitate about such             
anticipations1 and so long as the       
,apostle lived1 such a tradition would  
scarcely have required or received      
contradiction from any one1 the belief  
being universal that the coming of      
,jesus might take place any day1 and    
assuredly would not be long delayed4    
,when the ,apostle was dead1 however1   
and the tradition that it had been      
foretold that he should live until the  
coming of the ,lord exercised men's     
minds1 and doubt and disappointment at  
the non-fulfilment of what may have been
 regarded as prophecy produced a        

prejudicial effect upon ,christendom1 it
 seemed to the writer of this ,gospel a 
desirable thing to point out that too   
much stress had been laid upon the      
tradition1 and that the words which had 
been relied upon in the first instance  
did not justify the expectations which  
had been formed from them4 ,this also   
contradicts the hypothesis that the     
,apostle ,john was the author of the    
,gospel4  ,such a passage as xix4 #ce1  
received in any natural sense1 or       
interpreted in any way which can be     
supported by evidence1 shows that the   
writer of the ,gospel was not an        
eye-witness of the events recorded1 but 
appeals to the testimony of others4 ,it 
is generally admitted that the          
expressions in ch4 i4 #ad are of        
universal application1 and capable of   
being adopted by all ,christians1 and1  
#ddf  consequently1 that they do not    
imply any direct claim on the part of   
the writer to personal knowledge of     
,jesus4 ,we must now examine whether the

 ,gospel itself bears special marks of  
having been written by an eye-witness1  
and how far in this respect it bears out
 the assertion that it was written by   
the ,apostle ,john4 ,it is constantly   
asserted that the minuteness of the     
details in the fourth ,gospel indicates 
that it must have been written by one   
who was present at the scenes he        
records4 ,with regard to this point we  
need only generally remark1 that in the 
works of imagination of which the world 
is full1 and the singular realism of    
many of which is recognized by all1 we  
have the most minute and natural details
 of scenes which never occurred1 and of 
conversations which never took place1   
the actors in which never actually      
existed4 ,ewald admits that it is       
undeniable that the fourth ,gospel was  
written with a fixed purpose1 and with  
artistic design and1 indeed1 he goes    
further and recognizes that the ,apostle
 could not possibly so long have        
recollected the discourses of ,jesus and

 verbally reproduced them1 so that1 in  
fact1 we have only1 at best1 a          
substantial report of the matter of     
those discourses coloured by the mind of
 the author himself47#a7 ,details of    
scenes at which we were not present may 
be admirably supplied by imagination1   
and as we cannot compare what is here   
described as taking place with what     
actually took place1 the argument that  
the author must have been an eyewitness 
because he gives such details is without
 validity4 ,moreover1 the details of the
 fourth ,gospel in many cases do not    
agree with those of the three           
,synoptics1 and it is an undoubted fact 
that the author of the fourth ,gospel   
gives the details of scenes at which the
 ,apostle ,john was not  #ddg  present1 
and reports the discourses and          
conversations on such occasions1 with   
the very same minuteness as those at    
which he is said to have been present2  
as1 for instance1 the interview between 
,jesus and the woman of ,samaria4 ,it is

 perfectly undeniable that the writer   
had other ,gospels before him when he   
composed his work1 and that he made use 
of other materials than his own47#a7    
,it is by no means difficult1 however1  
to point out very clear indications that
 the author was not an eye-witness1 but 
constructed his scenes and discourses   
artistically and for effect4 ,we shall  
not1 at present1 dwell upon the almost  
uniform artifice adopted in most of the 
dialogues1 in which the listeners either
 misunderstand altogether the words of  
,jesus1 or interpret them in a foolish  
and material way1 and thus afford him an
 opportunity of enlarging upon the      
theme4 ,for instance1 ,nicodemus1 a     
ruler of the ,jews1 misunderstands the  
expression of ,jesus1 that in order to  
see the kingdom of ,god a man must be   
born from above1 and asks3 ,how can a   
man be born when he is old8 can he enter
 a second time into his mothers womb and
 be born87#b7 ,now1 as it is well known1
 and as we have already shown1 the      

common expression used in regard to a   
proselyte to ,judaism was that of being 
born again1 with which every ,jew1 and  
more especially every ruler of the      
,jews1 must have been well acquainted4  
,the stupidity which he displays  #ddh  
in his conversation with ,jesus1 and    
with which the author endowed all who   
came in contact with him1 in order1 by  
the contrast1 to mark more strongly the 
superiority of the ,master1 even draws  
from ,jesus the remark3 ,art thou the   
teacher of ,israel and understandest not
 these things87l7 ,there can be no doubt
 that the scene was ideal1 and it is    
scarcely possible that a ,jew could have
 written it4 ,in the ,synoptics1 ,jesus 
is reported as quoting against the      
people of his own city1 ,nazareth1 who  
rejected him1 the proverb3 ,a prophet   
has no honour in his own country47#b7   
,the appropriateness of the remark here 
is obvious4 ,the author of the fourth   
,gospel1 however1 shows clearly that he 
was neither an eye-witness nor          

acquainted with the subject or country  
when he introduces this proverb in a    
different place4 ,jesus is represented  
as staying two days at ,sychar after his
 conversation with the ,samaritan woman4
 ,now after the two days he departed    
thence into ,galilee4 ,for ------ ,jesus
 himself testified that a prophet hath  
no honour in his own country4 ,when1    
therefore ------1 he came into ,galilee1
 the ,galilaeans received him1 having   
seen all the things that he did in      
,jerusalem1 at the feast--for they also 
went unto the feast47#c7 ,now it is     
manifest that the quotation here is     
quite out of place1 and none of the     
ingenious but untenable explanations of 
apologists can make it appropriate4 ,he 
is made to go into ,galilee1 which was  
his country1 because a prophet has no   
honour in his country1 and the          
,galilaeans are represented as receiving
 him1 which is a contradiction of the   
proverb4 ,the writer evidently          
misunderstood the facts of the case or  

#ddi  deliberately desired to deny the  
connection of ,jesus with ,nazareth and 
,galilee1 in accordance with his evident
 intention of associating the ,logos    
only with the ,holy ,city4 ,we must not 
pause to show that the author is        
generally unjust to the ,galilaeans1 and
 displays an ignorance regarding them   
very unlike what we should expect from  
the fisherman of ,galilee47#a7 ,we have 
already alluded to the artificial       
character of the conversation with the  
woman of ,samaria1 which1 although given
 with so much detail1 occurred at a     
place totally unknown 7perhaps          
allegorically called the ,city of       
,lies71 at which the ,apostle ,john was 
not present1 and the substance of which 
was typical of ,samaria and its five    
nations and false gods4 ,the            
continuation in the ,gospel is as unreal
 as the conversation4  ,another instance
 displaying personal ignorance is the   
insertion into a discourse at the ,last 
,supper1 and without any appropriate    

connection with the context1 the passage
 ,verily1 verily1 ,i say unto you3 he   
that receiveth whomsoever ,i send1      
receiveth me1 and he that receiveth me  
receiveth him that sent me47#b7 ,in the 
,synoptics1 this sentence is naturally  
represented as part of the address to   
the disciples who are to be sent forth  
to preach the ,gospel27#c7 but it is    
clear that its insertion here is a      
mistake47#d7 ,again1 a very obvious     
slip1 which betrays that what was       
intended for realistic detail is nothing
 but a reminiscence of some earlier     
,gospel misapplied1 occurs in a later   
part  #dej  of the discourses very      
inappropriately introduced as being     
delivered on the same occasion4 ,at the 
end of xiv4 #ca1 ,jesus is represented1 
after saying that he would no more talk 
much with the disciples1 as suddenly    
breaking off with the words3 ,arise1 let
 us go hence ------4 ,they  do not1     
however1 arise and go thence1 but1 on   
the contrary1 ,jesus at once commences  

another long discourse3 ,i am the true  
vine1 c4 ,the expression is merely      
introduced artistically to close one    
discourse1 and enable the writer to     
begin another1 and the idea is taken    
from some earlier work4 ,for instance1  
in our first ,synoptic1 at the close of 
the ,agony in the ,garden which the     
fourth ,gospel ignores altogether1      
,jesus says to the awakened disciples3  
,rise1 let us go ------47#a7 ,we need   
not go on with these illustrations1 but 
the fact that the author is not an      
eyewitness recording scenes which he    
beheld and discourses which he heard1   
but a writer composing an ideal ,gospel 
on a fixed plan1 will become more       
palpable as we proceed4  ,it is not     
necessary to enter upon any argument to 
prove the fundamental difference which  
exists in every respect between the     
,synoptics and the fourth ,gospel4 ,this
 is admitted even by apologists1 whose  
efforts to reconcile the discordant     
elements are totally unsuccessful4 ,it  

is impossible to pass from the ,synoptic
 ,gospels to that of ,st ,john1 says    
,canon ,westcott1 without feeling that  
the transition involves the passage from
 one world of thought to another4 ,no   
familiarity with the general teaching of
 the ,gospels1 no wide conception of the
 character of the ,saviour is sufficient
 to destroy the  #dea  contrast which   
exists in form and spirit between the   
earlier and later narratives47l7 ,the   
difference between the fourth ,gospel   
and the ,synoptics1 not only as regards 
the teaching of ,jesus but also the     
facts of the narrative1 is so great that
 it is impossible to harmonize them1 and
 no one who seriously considers the     
matter can fail to see that both cannot 
be accepted as correct4 ,if we believe  
that the ,synoptics give a truthful     
representation of the life and teaching 
of ,jesus1 it follows of necessity that1
 in whatever category we may decide to  
place the fourth ,gospel1 it must be    
rejected as a historical work4 ,the     

theories which are most in favour as    
regards it may place the ,gospel in a   
high position as an ideal composition1  
but sober criticism must infallibly     
pronounce that they exclude it          
altogether from the province of history4
 ,there is no option but to accept it as
 the only genuine report of the sayings 
and doings of ,jesus1 rejecting the     
,synoptics1 or to remove it at once to  
another department of literature4 ,the  
,synoptics certainly contradict each    
other in many minor details1 but they   
are not in fundamental disagreement with
 each other and evidently present the   
same portrait of ,jesus1 and the same   
view of his teaching derived from the   
same sources4  ,the vast difference     
which exists between the representation 
of ,jesus in the fourth ,gospel and in  
the ,synoptics is too well recognized to
 require minute demonstration4 ,we must1
 however1 point out some of the         
distinctive features4 ,we need not do   
more here than refer to the fact that1  

whilst the ,synoptics relate the        
circumstances of the birth of ,jesus1   
two of them at least1 and give some     
history of his family and origin1 the   
fourth ,gospel1 ignoring all this1      
introduces the great  #deb  ,teacher at 
once as the ,logos who from the         
beginning was with ,god and was himself 
,god4 ,the key-note is struck from the  
first1 and in the philosophical prelude 
to the ,gospel we have the announcement 
to those who have ears to hear1 that    
here we need expect no simple history1  
but an artistic demonstration of the    
philosophical postulate4 ,according to  
the ,synoptics1 ,jesus is baptized by   
,john1 and as he goes out of the water  
the ,holy ,ghost descends upon him like 
a dove4 ,the fourth ,gospel says nothing
 of the baptism1 and makes ,john the    
,baptist narrate vaguely that he saw the
 ,holy ,ghost descend like a dove and   
rest upon ,jesus1 as a sign previously  
indicated to him by ,god by which to    
recognize the ,lamb of ,god47#a7 ,from  

the very first1 ,john the ,baptist1 in  
the fourth ,gospel1 recognizes and      
declares ,jesus to be the ,christ17#b7  
the ,lamb of ,god which taketh away the 
sins of the world47#c7 ,according to the
 ,synoptics1 ,john comes preaching the  
baptism of repentance1 and so far is he 
from making such declarations1 or       
forming such distinct opinions          
concerning ,jesus1 that even after he   
has been cast into prison and just      
before his death1--when in fact his     
preaching was at an end1--he is         
represented as sending disciples to     
,jesus1 on hearing in prison of his     
works1 to ask him3 ,art thou he that    
should come1 or look we for another8    
7#d7 ,jesus carries on his ministry and 
baptizes simultaneously with ,john1     
according to the fourth ,gospel1 but his
 public career1 according to the        
,synoptics1 does not begin until after  
the ,baptist's has concluded1 and ,john 
is cast into prison47#e7 ,the ,synoptics
 clearly  #dec  represent the ministry  

of ,jesus as having been limited to a   
single year17#a7 and his preaching is   
confined to ,galilee and ,jerusalem1    
where his career culminates at the fatal
 ,passover4 ,the fourth ,gospel         
distributes the teaching of             
,jesus-between ,galilee1 ,samaria1 and  
,jerusalem1 makes it extend at least    
over three years1 and refers to three   
,passovers spent by ,jesus at           
,jerusalem47#b7 ,the ,fathers felt this 
difficulty and expended a good deal of  
apologetic ingenuity upon it2 but no one
 is now content with the explanation of 
,eusebius1 that the ,synoptics merely   
intended to write the history of ,jesus 
during the one year after the           
imprisonment of the ,baptist1 whilst the
 fourth ,evangelist recounted the events
 of the time not recorded by the others1
 a theory which is totally contradicted 
by the four ,gospels themselves47#c7    
,the fourth ,gospel represents the      
expulsion of the money-changers by      
,jesus as taking place at the very      

outset of his career17#d7 when he could 
not have been known1 and when such a    
proceeding is incredible2 whilst the    
,synoptics place it at the very close of
 his ministry1 after his triumphal entry
 into ,jerusalem1 when1 if ever1 such an
 act1 which might have contributed to   
the final catastrophe1 becomes          
conceivable47#e7 ,the variation from the
 parallels in the ,synoptics1 moreover1 
is exceedingly instructive1 and further 
indicates the amplification of a later  
writer imperfectly acquainted with the  
circumstances4 ,the  #ded  first and    
second ,synoptists1 in addition to the  
general expression those buying and     
selling in the ,temple1 mention only    
that ,jesus overthrew the tables of the 
money-changers and the seats of those   
selling doves4 ,the third ,synoptist    
does not even give these particulars4   
,the author of the fourth ,gospel1      
however1 not only-makes ,jesus expel the
 sellers of doves and the moneychangers1
 but adds3 those selling oxen and sheep4

 ,now1 not only is there not the        
slightest evidence that sheep and oxen  
were bought and sold in the ,temple1 but
 it is obvious that there was no room   
there to do so4 ,on the contrary1 it is 
known that the market for cattle was not
 only distant from the ,temple1 but even
 from the city47#a7 ,the author himself 
betrays the foreign element in his      
account by making ,jesus address his    
words1 when driving them all out1 only  
to them selling doves4 ,why single these
 out and seem to exclude the sellers of 
sheep and oxen8 ,he has apparently      
forgotten his own interpolation4 ,in the
 first ,gospel1 the connection of the   
words of ,jesus with the narrative      
suggests an explanation3 xxi4 #ab 444   
and overthrew the tables of the         
moneychangers1 and the seats of those   
selling doves1 and saith to them1 c4    
,upon the occasion of this episode1 the 
fourth ,gospel represents ,jesus as     
replying to the demand of the ,jews for 
a sign why he did such things3 ,destroy 

this temple1 and within three days ,i   
will raise it up1 which the ,jews       
understand very naturally only in a     
material sense1 and which even the      
disciples only comprehended and believed
 after the resurrection4 ,the           
,synoptists not only know nothing of    
this1 but represent the saying as the   
false testimony which the false         
witnesses bare  #dee  against           
,jesus47#a7 ,no such charge is brought  
against ,jesus at all in the fourth     
,gospel4 ,so little do the ,synoptists  
know of the conversation of ,jesus with 
the ,samaritan woman1 and his sojourn   
for two days at ,sychar1 that in his    
instructions to his disciples1 in the   
first ,gospel1 ,jesus positively forbids
 them either to go to the ,gentiles or  
to enter into any city of the           
,samaritans47#b7 ,the fourth ,gospel has
 very few miracles in common with the   
,synoptics1 and those few present       
notable variations4 ,after the feeding  
of the five thousand1 ,jesus1 according 

to the ,synoptics1 constrains his       
disciples to enter a ship and to go to  
the other side of the ,lake of          
,gennesaret1 whilst he himself goes up a
 mountain apart to pray4 ,a storm       
arises1 and ,jesus appears walking to   
them over the sea1 whereat the disciples
 are troubled1 but ,peter says to him3  
,lord1 if it be thou1 bid me come unto  
thee over the water1 and on his going   
out of the ship over the water1 and     
beginning to sink1 he cries3 ,lord save 
me2 ,jesus stretched out his hand and   
caught him1 and when they had come into 
the ship1 the wind ceased1 and they that
 were in the ship came and worshipped   
him1 saying3 ,of a truth thou art the   
,son of ,god4 7#c7 ,the fourth ,gospel1 
instead of representing ,jesus as       
retiring to the mountain to pray1 which 
would have been opposed to the authors  
idea of the ,logos1 makes the motive for
 going thither the knowledge of ,jesus  
that the people would come and take him 
by force that they might make him a     

king47#d7 ,the writer altogether ignores
 the episode of ,peter walking on the   
sea1 and adds a new miracle by stating  
that1 as soon as ,jesus was received on 
#def  board1 the ship was at the land   
whither they were going47#a7 ,the       
,synoptics go on to describe the devout 
excitement and faith of all the country 
round1 but the fourth ,gospel1 limiting 
the effect on the multitude in the first
 instance to curiosity as to how ,jesus 
had crossed the lake1 represents ,jesus 
as upbraiding them for following him1   
not because they saw miracles1 but      
because they had eaten of the loaves and
 been filled17#b7 and makes him deliver 
one of those long dogmatic discourses1  
interrupted by1 and based upon1 the     
remarks of the crowd1 which so          
peculiarly distinguish the fourth       
,gospel4  ,without dwelling upon such   
details of miracles1 however1 we proceed
 with our slight comparison4 ,whilst the
 fourth ,gospel from the very           
commencement asserts the foreknowledge  

of ,jesus as to who should betray him1  
and makes him inform the ,twelve that   
one of them is a devil1 alluding to     
,judas ,iscariot17#c7 the ,synoptists   
represent ,jesus as having so little    
foreknowledge that ,judas should betray 
him that1 shortly before the end and1   
indeed1 according to the third ,gospel1 
only at the last supper1 ,jesus promises
 that the disciples shall sit upon      
twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes
 of ,israel17#d7 and it is only at the  
last supper1 after ,judas has actually  
arranged with the chief priests1 and    
apparently from knowledge of the fact1  
that ,jesus for the first time speaks of
 his betrayal by him47#e7 ,on his way to
 ,jerusalem1 two days before the        
,passover17#f7 ,jesus comes to ,bethany 
where1  #deg  according to the          
,synoptics1 being in the house of ,simon
 the leper1 a woman with an alabaster   
box of very precious ointment came and  
poured the ointment upon his head1 much 
to the indignation of the disciples1 who

 say3 ,to what purpose is this waste8   
,for this might have been sold for much1
 and given to the poor47#a7 ,in the     
fourth ,gospel the episode takes place  
six days before the ,passover17#b7 in   
the house of ,lazarus1 and it is his    
sister ,mary who takes a pound of very  
costly ointment1 but she anoints the    
feet of ,jesus and wipes his feet with  
her hair4 ,it is ,judas ,iscariot1 and  
not the disciples1 who says3 ,why was   
not this ointment sold for three hundred
 pence and given to the poor8 ,and      
,jesus makes a similar reply to that in 
the ,synoptics1 showing the identity of 
the occurrence described so             
differently47#c7  ,the ,synoptics       
represent most clearly that ,jesus on   
the evening of the #adth ,nisan1 after  
the custom of the ,jews1 ate the        
,passover with his disciples17#d7 and   
that he was arrested in the first hours 
of the #aeth ,nisan1 the day on which he
 was put to death4 ,nothing can be more 
distinct than the statement that the    

last supper was the ,paschal feast4     
,they made ready the ,passover ------1  
and when the hour was come1 he sat down 
and the apostles with him1 and he said  
to them3 ,with desire ,i desired to eat 
this ,passover with you before ,i suffer
 ------47#e7 ,the fourth ,gospel1       
however1 in accordance with the         
principle which is dominant throughout1 
represents the last repast  #deh  which 
,jesus eats with his disciples as a     
common supper ------1 which takes place1
 not on the #adth1 but on the #acth     
,nisan1 the day before the feast of the 
,passover ------17#a7 and his death     
takes place on the #adth1 the day on    
which the ,paschal lamb was slain4      
,jesus is delivered by ,pilate to the   
,jews to be crucified about the sixth   
hour of the preparation of the ,passover
 ------17#b7 and because it was the     
preparation1 the legs of the two men    
crucified with ,jesus were broken1 that 
the bodies might not remain on the cross
 on the great day of the feast47#c7 ,the

 fourth ,gospel totally ignores the     
institution of the ,christian festival  
at the last supper1 but1 instead1       
represents ,jesus as washing the feet of
 the disciples1 enjoining them also to  
wash each other's feet3 ,for ,i gave you
 an example that ye should do according 
as ,i did to you47#d7 ,the ,synoptics   
have no knowledge of this incident4     
,immediately after the warning to ,peter
 of his future denial1 ,jesus goes out  
with the disciples to the ,garden of    
,gethsemane  and1 taking ,peter and the 
two sons of ,zebedee apart1 began to be 
sorrowful and very depressed and1 as he 
prayed in his agony that if possible the
 cup might pass from him1 an angel      
comforts him4 ,instead of this1 the     
fourth ,gospel represents ,jesus as     
delivering1 after the warning to ,peter1
 the longest discourses in the ,gospel3 
,let not your heart be troubled1 c2 ,i  
am the true vine17#e7 c2 and1 although  
said to be written by one of the sons of
 ,zebedee who were with ,jesus on the   

occasion1 the fourth ,gospel does not   
mention the agony in the garden but1 on 
the contrary1 makes ,jesus utter the    
long  #dei  prayer xvii4 #a--bf1 in a   
calm and even exulting spirit very far  
removed from the sorrow and depression  
of the more natural scene in            
,gethsemane4 ,the prayer1 like the rest 
of the prayers in the ,gospel1 is a mere
 didactic and dogmatic address for the  
benefit of the hearers4  ,the arrest of 
,jesus presents a similar contrast4 ,in 
the ,synoptics1 ,judas comes with a     
multitude from the chief priests and    
elders of the people armed with swords  
and staves1 and1 indicating his ,master 
by a kiss1 ,jesus is simply arrested    
and1 after the slight resistance of one 
of the disciples1 is led away47#a7 ,in  
the fourth ,gospel1 the case is very    
different4 ,judas comes with a band of  
men from the chief priests and          
,pharisees1 with lanterns and torches   
and weapons1 and ,jesus--knowing all    
things which were coming to             

pass--himself goes towards them and     
asks3 ,whom seek ye8 ,judas plays no    
active part1 and no kiss is given4 ,the 
fourth ,evangelist is1 as ever1 bent on 
showing that all which happens to the   
,logos is predetermined by himself and  
voluntarily encountered4 ,as soon as    
,jesus replies3 ,i am he1 the whole band
 of soldiers go backwards and fall to   
the ground1 an incident thoroughly in   
the spirit of the early apocryphal      
,gospels still extant1 and of an        
evidently legendary character4 ,he is   
then led away first to ,annas1 who sends
 him to ,caiaphas1 whilst the ,synoptics
 naturally know nothing of ,annas1 who  
was not the high priest and had no      
authority4 ,we need not follow the      
trial1 which is fundamentally different 
in the ,synoptics and fourth ,gospel2   
and we have already pointed out that1 in
 the ,synoptics1 ,jesus is crucified on 
the #aeth ,nisan1 whereas in the fourth 
,gospel he is put to death--the         
spiritual ,paschal lamb--on the #adth   

,nisan4 ,according  #dfj  to the fourth 
,gospel1 ,jesus bears his own cross to  
,calvary17#a7 but the ,synoptics        
represent it as being borne by ,simon of
 ,cyrene47#b7 ,as a very singular       
illustration of the inaccuracy of all   
the ,gospels1 we may point to the       
circumstance that no two of them agree  
even about so simple a matter of fact as
 the inscription on the cross1 assuming 
that there was one at all4 ,they give it
 respectively as follows3 ,this is      
,jesus the ,king of the ,jews2 ,the     
,king of the ,jews2 ,this 7is7 the ,king
 of the ,jews2 and the fourth ,gospel3  
,jesus the ,nazarene the ,king of the   
,jews47#c7 ,the occurrences during the  
,crucifixion are profoundly different in
 the fourth ,gospel from those narrated 
in the ,synoptics4 ,in the latter1 only 
the women are represented as beholding  
afar off17#d7 but the beloved disciple  
is added in the fourth ,gospel1 and     
instead of being far off1 they are close
 to the cross2 and for the last cries of

 ,jesus reported in the ,synoptics we   
have the episode in which ,jesus        
confides his mother to the disciple's   
care4 ,we need not at present compare   
the other details of the ,crucifixion   
and ,resurrection1 which are differently
 reported by each of the ,gospels4  ,we 
have only indicated a few of the more   
salient differences between the fourth  
,gospel and the ,synoptics1 which are   
rendered much more striking1 in the     
,gospels themselves1 by the profound    
dissimilarity of the sentiments uttered 
by ,jesus4 ,we merely point out1 in     
passing1 the omission of important      
episodes from the fourth  #dfa  ,gospel1
 such as the ,temptation in the         
wilderness2 the ,transfiguration1 at    
which1 according to the ,synoptics1 the 
sons of ,zebedee were present2 the last 
,supper2 the agony in the garden2 the   
mournful cries on the cross2 and1 we may
 add1 the ,ascension2 and if we turn to 
the miracles of ,jesus1 we find that    
almost all of those narrated by the     

,synoptics are ignored1 whilst an almost
 entirely new series is introduced4     
,there is not a single instance of the  
cure of demoniacal possession in any    
form recorded in the fourth ,gospel4    
,indeed the number of miracles is       
reduced in that ,gospel to a few typical
 cases2 and although at the close it is 
generally said that ,jesus did many     
other signs in the presence of his      
disciples1 these alone are written with 
the declared purpose3 that ye might     
believe that ,jesus is the ,christ1 the 
,son of ,god47#a7  ,we may briefly refer
 in detail to one miracle of the fourth 
,gospel--the raising of ,lazarus4 ,the  
extraordinary fact that the ,synoptists 
are utterly ignorant of this the        
greatest of the miracles attributed to  
,jesus has been too frequently discussed
 to require much comment here4 ,it will 
be remembered that1 as the case of the  
daughter of ,jairus is1 by the express  
declaration of ,jesus1 one of mere      
suspension of consciousness17#b7 the    

only instance in which a dead person is 
distinctly said1 in any of the          
,synoptics1 to have been restored to    
life by ,jesus is that of the son of the
 widow of ,nain47#c7 ,it is1 therefore1 
quite impossible to suppose that the    
,synoptists could have known of the     
raising of ,lazarus and wilfully omitted
 it4 ,it is equally impossible to       
believe that the authors of the         
,synoptic ,gospels1 from whatever       
sources they may have drawn their       
materials1  #dfb  could have been       
ignorant of such a miracle had it       
really-taken place4 ,this astounding    
miracle1 according to the fourth        
,gospel1 created such general excitement
 that it was one of the leading events  
which led to the arrest and crucifixion 
of ,jesus47#a7 ,if1 therefore1 the      
,synoptics had any connection with the  
writers to whom they are referred1 the  
raising of ,lazarus must have been      
personally known to their reputed       
authors either directly or through the  

,apostles who are supposed to have      
inspired them1 or even if they have any 
claim to contemporary origin the        
tradition of the greatest miracle of    
,jesus must have been fresh throughout  
the ,church1 if such a wonder had ever  
been performed47#b7 ,the total ignorance
 of such a miracle displayed by the     
whole of the works of the ,new          
,testament1 therefore1 forms the        
strongest presumptive evidence that the 
narrative in the fourth ,gospel is a    
mere imaginary scene1 illustrative of   
the dogma3 ,i am the resurrection and   
the life1 upon which it is based4 ,this 
conclusion is confirmed by the          
peculiarities of the narrative itself4  
,when ,jesus first hears1 from the      
message of the sisters1 that ,lazarus   
whom he loved was sick1 he declares1 xi4
 #d3 ,this sickness is not unto death1  
but for the glory of ,god1 that the ,son
 of ,god may be glorified thereby2 and  
v4 #f3 ,when1 therefore ------1 he heard
 that he was sick1 at that time he      

continued two days in the place where he
 was4 ,after that time he proposes to go
 into ,judaea1 and explains to the      
disciples1 v4 #aa3 ,our friend ,lazarus 
is fallen asleep2 but ,i go that ,i may 
awake him out of sleep4 ,the disciples  
reply1 with the stupidity with which the
 fourth ,evangelist endows all those who
 hold colloquy with ,jesus1  #dfc  v4   
#ab3 ,lord1 if he is fallen asleep1 he  
will recover4 ,howbeit1 ,jesus spake of 
his death2 but they thought that he was 
speaking of the taking of rest in sleep4
 ,then said ,jesus unto them plainly3   
,lazarus is dead1 and ,i am glad for    
your sakes that ,i was not there1 to the
 intent that ye may believe4 ,the       
artificial nature of all this           
introductory matter will not have       
escaped the reader1 and it is further   
illustrated by that which follows4      
,arrived at ,bethany1 they find that    
,lazarus has lain in the grave already  
four days4 ,martha says to ,jesus 7v4   
#ba ,l73 ,lord1 if thou hadst been here1

 my brother had not died4 ,and ,i know  
that even now whatsoever thou shalt ask 
of ,god1 ,god will give thee4 ,jesus    
saith unto her3 ,they brother shall rise
 again4 ,martha1 of course1 as usual1   
misunderstands this saying as applying  
to the resurrection at the last day1 in 
order to introduce the reply3 ,i am the 
resurrection and the life1 c4 ,when they
 come to the house1 and ,jesus sees     
,mary and the ,jews weeping1 he groaned 
in spirit and troubled himself1 and on  
reaching the grave itself 7v4 #ce4 f471 
,jesus wept3 ,then said the ,jews3      
,behold how he loved him6 ,now this     
representation1 which has ever since    
been the admiration of ,christendom1    
presents the very strongest marks of    
unreality4 ,jesus1 who loves ,lazarus so
 much1 disregards the urgent message of 
the sisters and1 whilst openly declaring
 that his sickness is not unto death1   
intentionally lingers until his friend  
dies4 ,when he does go to ,bethany1 and 
is on the very point of restoring       

,lazarus to life and dissipating the    
grief of his family and friends he      
actually weeps and groans in his spirit4
 ,there is so total an absence of reason
 for such grief at such a moment that   
these tears1 to any sober reader1 are   
unmistakably mere theatrical adjuncts of
 a scene  #dfd  elaborated out of the   
imagination of the writer4 ,the         
suggestion of the bystanders 7v4 #cg71  
that he might have prevented the death1 
is not more probable than the           
continuation 7v4 #ch73 ,jesus1          
therefore1 again groaning in himself    
cometh to the grave4 ,there1 having     
ordered the stone to be removed1 he     
delivers a prayer avowedly intended     
merely for the bystanders 7v4 #da ff73  
,and ,jesus lifted up his eyes and said1
 ,father1 ,i thank thee that thou hast  
heard me1 and ,i knew that thou hearest 
me always3 but for the sake of the      
multitude which stand around ,i said    
this1 that they may believe that thou   
hast sent me4 ,this prayer is as        

evidently artificial as the rest of the 
details of the miracle but1 as in other 
elaborately arranged scenic             
representations1 the charm is altogether
 dispelled when closer examination shows
 the character of the dramatic elements4
 ,a careful consideration of the        
narrative and of all the facts of the   
case must1 we think1 lead to the        
conclusion that this miracle is not even
 a historical tradition of the life of  
,jesus1 but is wholly an ideal          
composition by the author of the fourth 
,gospel4 ,this being the case1 the other
 miracles of the ,gospel need not detain
 us4  ,if the historical part of the    
fourth ,gospel be in irreconcilable     
contradiction to the ,synoptics1 the    
didactic is infinitely more so4 ,the    
teaching of the one is totally different
 from that of the others1 in spirit1    
form1 and terminology2 and although     
there are undoubtedly fine sayings      
throughout the work1 in the prolix      
discourses of the fourth ,gospel there  

is not a single characteristic of the   
simple eloquence of the ,sermon on the  
,mount4 ,in the diffuse mysticism of the
 ,logos1 we can scarcely recognise a    
trace of the terse practical wisdom of  
,jesus of ,nazareth4 ,it must1 of       
course1 be apparent even to the most    
superficial  #dfe  observer that1 in the
 fourth ,gospel1 we are introduced to a 
perfectly new system of instruction1 and
 to an order of ideas of which there is 
not a vestige in the ,synoptics4        
,instead of short and concise lessons   
full of striking truth and point1 we    
find nothing but long and involved      
dogmatic discourses of little practical 
utility4 ,the limpid spontaneity of that
 earlier teaching1 with its fresh       
illustrations and profound sentences    
uttered without effort and untinged by  
art1 is exchanged for diffuse addresses 
and artificial dialogues1 in which      
labour and design are everywhere        
apparent4 ,from pure and living morality
 couched in brief incisive sayings1     

which enter the heart and dwell upon the
 ear1 we turn to elaborate philosophical
 orations without clearness or order1   
and to doctrinal announcements unknown  
to the ,synoptics4 ,to the inquiry3     
,what shall ,i do to inherit eternal    
life8 ,jesus replies1 in the ,synoptics3
 ,thou shalt love the ,lord thy ,god    
with all thy heart1 and with all thy    
soul1 and with all thy mind2 and thy    
neighbour as thyself1444 this do1 and   
thou shalt live47#a7 ,in the fourth     
,gospel1 to the question3 ,what must we 
do1 that we may work the works of ,god8 
,jesus answers1 ,this is the work of    
,god1 that ye should believe in him whom
 he sent47#b7 ,the teaching of ,jesus1  
in the ,synoptics1 is almost wholly     
moral and1 in the fourth ,gospel1 it is 
almost wholly dogmatic4 ,if             
,christianity consist of the doctrines  
preached in the fourth ,gospel1 it is   
not too much to say that the ,synoptics 
do not teach ,christianity at all4 ,the 
extraordinary phenomenon is presented of

 three ,gospels1 each professing to be  
complete in itself and to convey the    
good tidings of salvation to man1  #dff 
which have actually omitted the         
doctrines which are the condition of    
that salvation4 ,the fourth ,gospel     
practically expounds a new religion4 ,it
 is undeniable that morality and        
precepts of love and charity for the    
conduct of life are the staple of the   
teaching of ,jesus in the ,synoptics1   
and that dogma occupies so small a place
 that it is regarded as a subordinate   
and secondary consideration4 ,in the    
fourth ,gospel1 however1 dogma is the   
one thing needful1 and forms the whole  
substance of the preaching of the       
,logos4 ,the burden of his teaching is3 
,he that believeth on the ,son1 hath    
eternal life1 but he that believeth not 
the ,son1 shall not see life1 but the   
wrath of ,god abideth on him47#a7 ,it is
 scarcely possible to put the contrast  
between the ,synoptics and the fourth   
,gospel in too strong a light ,if we    

possessed the ,synoptics without the    
fourth ,gospel1 we should have the      
exposition of pure morality based on    
perfect love to ,god and man4 ,if we had
 the fourth ,gospel without the         
,synoptics1 we should have little more  
than a system of dogmatic theology      
without morality4 ,not only is the      
doctrine and the terminology of the     
,jesus of the fourth ,gospel quite      
different from that of the ,jesus of the
 ,synoptics1 but so is the teaching of  
,john the ,baptist4 ,in the ,synoptics1 
he comes preaching the ,baptism of      
repentance7#b7 and1 like the ,master1   
inculcating principles of morality27#c7 
but in the fourth ,gospel he has adopted
 the peculiar views of the author1      
proclaims the ,lamb of ,god which taketh
 away the sins of the world17#d7 and    
bears witness that he is the ,son of    
,god47#e7 ,we hear of the ,paraclete for
 the first time in the fourth ,gospel   
,it is so impossible to ignore the      
distinct individuality  #dfg  of the    

,jesus of the fourth ,gospel1 and of his
 teaching1 that even apologists are     
obliged to admit that the peculiarities 
of the author have coloured the         
portrait1 and introduced an element of  
subjectivity into the discourses4 ,it   
was impossible1 they confess1 that the  
,apostle could remember verbally such   
long orations for half a century1 and at
 best that they can only be accepted as 
substantially correct reports of the    
teaching of ,jesus47#a7 ,above all1 says
 ,ewald1 the discourses of ,christ and  
of others in this ,gospel are clothed as
 by an entirely new colour3 on this     
account also scepticism has desired to  
conclude that the ,apostle cannot have  
composed the ,gospel2 and yet no        
conclusion is more unfounded4 ,when the 
,apostle at so late a period determined 
to compose the work1 it was certainly   
impossible for him to reproduce all the 
words exactly as they were spoken1 if he
 did not perhaps desire not merely to   
recall a few memorable sentences but1 in

 longer discussions of more weighty     
subjects1 to charm back all the         
animation with which they were once     
given4 ,so he availed himself of that   
freedom in their revivification which is
 both quite intelligible in itself1 and 
sufficiently warranted by the precedent 
of so many great examples of antiquity3 
and where the discourses extend to      
greater length1 there entered           
involuntarily into the structure much of
 that fundamental conception and        
language regarding the  #dfh            
manifestation of ,christ1 which had long
 become deeply rooted in the ,apostle's 
soul4 ,but as certainly as these        
discourses bear upon them the colouring 
of the ,apostle's mind1 so certainly do 
they agree in their substantial contents
 with his best recollections--because   
the ,spruchsammlung proves that the     
discourses of ,christ in certain moments
 really could rise to the full          
elevation1 which in ,john only surprises
 us throughout more than in ,matthew4   

,to deny the apostolical authorship of  
the ,gospel for such reasons1 therefore1
 were pure folly1 and in the highest    
degree unjust4 ,moreover1 the           
circumstance that1 in the drawing up of 
such discourses1 we sometimes see him   
reproduce or further develop sayings    
which had already been recorded in the  
older ,gospels1 can prove nothing       
against the apostolical origin of the   
,gospel1 as he was indeed at perfect    
liberty1 if he pleased1 to make use of  
the contents of such older writings when
 he considered it desirable1 and when   
they came to the help of his own memory 
of those long passed days3 for he       
certainly retained many or all of such  
expressions also in his own memory47#a7 
,elsewhere1 he describes the work as    
glorified ,gospel history1 composed out 
of glorified recollection47#b7  ,another
 strenuous defender of the authenticity 
of the fourth ,gospel wrote of it as    
follows3 ,nevertheless1 everything is   
reconcilable1 says ,gfroerer1 if one    

accepts that testimony of the elders as 
true4 ,for as ,john must have written   
the ,gospel as an old man1 that is to   
say not before the year #ij--ie of our  
era1 there is an interval of more than  
half a century between the time  #dfi   
when the events which he relates really 
happened1 and the time of the           
composition of his book1--space enough  
certainly to make a few mistakes        
conceivable1 even presupposing a good   
memory and unshaken love of truth4 ,let 
us imagine1 for instance1 that to-day   
7in #ahda7 an old man of eighty to      
ninety years of age should write down   
from mere memory the occurrences of the 
,american ,war 7of ,independence71 in   
which he himself in his early youth     
played a part4 ,certainly in his        
narrative1 even though it might         
otherwise be true1 many traits would be 
found which would not agree with the    
original event4 ,moreover1 another      
particular circumstance must be added in
 connection with the fourth ,gospel4    

,two-thirds of it consist of discourses1
 which ,john places in the mouth of     
,jesus ,christ4 ,now every day's        
experience proves that oral impressions 
are much more fleeting than those of    
sight4 ,the happiest memory scarcely    
retains long orations after three or    
four years3 how1 then1 could ,john with 
verbal accuracy report the discourses of
 ,jesus after fifty or sixty years6 ,we 
must be content if he truly render the  
chief contents and spirit of them1 and  
that he does this1 as a rule1 can be    
proved4 ,it has been shown above that   
already1 before ,christ1 a very peculiar
 philosophy of religion had been formed 
among the ,egyptian ,jews1 which found  
its way into ,palestine through the     
,essenes1 and also numbered numerous    
adherents amongst the ,jews of the      
adjacent countries of ,syria and ,asia  
,minor4 ,the ,apostle ,paul professed   
this3 not less the ,evangelist ,john4   
,undoubtedly1 the latter allowed this   
,theosophy to exercise a strong         

influence upon his representation of the
 life-history of ,jesus17#a7 c4  #dgj   
,now all such admissions1 whilst they   
are absolutely requisite to explain the 
undeniable phenomena of the fourth      
,gospel1 have one obvious consequence3  
,the fourth ,gospel1 by whomsoever      
written1--even if it could be traced to 
the ,apostle ,john himself1--has no real
 historical value1 being at best the    
glorified recollections of an old man1  
written down half a century after the   
events recorded4 ,the absolute          
difference between the teaching of this 
,gospel and of the ,synoptics becomes   
perfectly intelligible1 when the long   
discourses are recognized to be the     
result of ,alexandrian ,philosophy      
artistically interwoven with developed  
,pauline ,christianity1 and put into the
 mouth of ,jesus4 ,it will have been    
remarked that along with the admission  
of great subjectivity in the report of  
the discourses1 and the plea that       
nothing beyond the mere substance of the

 original teaching can reasonably be    
looked for1 there is1 in the extracts we
 have given1 an assertion that there    
actually is a faithful reproduction in  
this ,gospel of the original substance4 
,there is not a shadow of proof of this1
 but on the contrary the strongest      
reason for denying the fact2 for1 unless
 it be admitted that the ,synoptics have
 so completely omitted the whole        
doctrinal part of the teaching of       
,jesus1 have so carefully avoided the   
very peculiar terminology of the ,logos 
,gospel1 and have conveyed so           
unhistorical and erroneous an impression
 of the life and religious system of    
,jesus that1 without the fourth ,gospel1
 we should not actually have had an idea
 of his fundamental doctrines1 we must  
inevitably recognize that the fourth    
,gospel cannot possibly be a true       
reproduction of his teaching4 ,it is    
impossible that ,jesus can have had two 
such diametrically opposed systems of   
teaching1--one purely moral1 the other  

wholly dogmatic2 one expressed in  #dga 
wonderfully terse1 clear1 brief sayings 
and parables1 the other in long1        
involved1 and diffuse discourses2 one   
clothed in the great language of        
humanity1 the other concealed in obscure
 philosophic terminology2--and that     
these should have been kept so distinct 
as they are in the ,synoptics1 on the   
one hand1 and the fourth ,gospel1 on the
 other4 ,the tradition of ,justin       
,martin applies solely to the system of 
the ,synoptics3 ,brief and concise were 
the sentences uttered by him3 for he was
 no ,sophist1 but his word was the power
 of ,god47#a7  ,we have already pointed 
out the evident traces of artificial    
construction in the discourses and      
dialogues of the fourth ,gospel1 and the
 more closely these are examined1 the   
more clear does it become that they are 
not genuine reports of the teaching of  
,jesus1 but mere ideal compositions by  
the author of the fourth ,gospel4 ,the  
speeches of ,john the ,baptist1 the     

discourses of ,jesus1 and the           
reflections of the ,evangelist          
himself17#b7 are marked by the same     
peculiarity of style and proceed from   
the same mind4 ,it is scarcely possible 
to determine where the one begins and   
the other ends47#c7 ,it is quite clear1 
for instance1 that the author himself1  
without a break1 continues the words    
which he puts into the mouth of ,jesus1 
in the colloquy with ,nicodemus1 but it 
is not easy to determine where4 ,the    
whole dialogue is artificial in the     
extreme1 and is certainly not genuine1  
and this is apparent not only from the  
replies attributed to the teacher of    
,israel1 but to the irrelevant manner in
 which the reflections loosely ramble   
from the new birth to the dogmatic      
statements in the thirteenth and        
following verses1 which are the         
never-failing resource of the  #dgb     
,evangelist when other subjects are     
exhausted4 ,the sentiments and almost   
the words either attributed to ,jesus1  

or added by the writer1 to which we are 
now referring1 iii4 #ab ff41 we find    
again in the very same chapter1 either  
put into the mouth of ,john the         
,baptist1 or as reflections of the      
author1 verses #ca--cf1 for again we add
 that it is difficult anywhere to       
discriminate the speaker4 ,indeed1 while
 the ,synoptics are rich in the         
abundance of practical counsel and      
profound moral insight1 as well as in   
variety of illustrative parables1 it is 
remarkable how much sameness there is in
 all the discourses of the fourth       
,gospel1 a very few ideas being         
constantly reproduced4 ,whilst the      
teaching of ,jesus in the ,synoptics is 
singularly universal and impersonal1 in 
the fourth ,gospel it is purely         
personal1 and rarely passes beyond the  
declaration of his own dignity1 and the 
inculcation of belief in him as the only
 means of salvation4 ,there are         
certainly some sayings of rare beauty   
which tradition or earlier records may  

have preserved1 but these may easily be 
distinguished from the mass of the work4
 ,a very distinct trace of ideal        
composition is found in xvii4 #c3 ,and  
this is eternal life1 to know thee the  
only true ,god1 and him whom thou didst 
send1 even ,jesus ,christ4 ,even        
apologists admit that it is impossible  
that ,jesus could speak of himself as   
,jesus ,christ4 ,we need not1 however1  
proceed further with such analysis4 ,we 
believe that no one can calmly and      
impartially examine the fourth ,gospel  
without being convinced of its          
artificial character4 ,if some portions 
possess real charm1 it is of a purely   
ideal kind1 and their attraction        
consists chiefly in the presence of a   
certain vague but suggestive mysticism4 
,the natural longing of humanity for any
 revelation regarding a future state has
 not been  #dgc  appealed to in vain4   
,that the diffuse and often monotonous  
discourses of this ,gospel1 however1    
should ever have been preferred to the  

grand simplicity of the teaching of the 
,synoptics1 illustrated by such parables
 as the wise and foolish virgins1 the   
sower1 and the ,prodigal ,son1 and      
culminating in the ,sermon on the       
,mount1 each sentence of which is so    
full of profound truth and beauty1 is   
little to the credit of critical sense  
and judgment4  ,the elaborate           
explanations by which the phenomena of  
the fourth ,gospel are reconciled with  
the assumption that it was composed by  
the ,apostle ,john are in vain1 and     
there is not a single item of evidence  
within the first century and a half     
which does not agree with internal      
testimony in opposing the supposition4  
,to one point1 however1 we must briefly 
refer in connection with this statement4
 ,it is asserted that the ,gospel and   
,epistles--or at least the first        
,epistle--of the ,canon ascribed to the 
,apostle ,john are by one author1       
although this is not without            
contradiction17#a7 and very many of     

those who agree as to the identity of   
authorship by no means admit the author 
to have been the ,apostle ,john4 ,it is 
argued1 therefore1 that the use of the  
,epistle by ,polycarp and ,papias is    
evidence of the apostolic origin of the 
,gospel4 ,we have1 however1 seen1 that  
not only is it very uncertain that      
,polycarp made use of the ,epistle at   
all1 but that he does not in any case   
mention its author's name4 ,there is not
 a particle of evidence that he ascribed
 the ,epistle1 even supposing he knew   
it1 to the  #dgd  ,apostle ,john4 ,with 
regard to ,papias1 the only authority   
for the assertion that he knew the      
,epistle is the statement of ,eusebius  
already quoted and discussed1 that3 ,he 
used testimonies out of ,john's first   
,epistle17#a7 ,there is no evidence1    
however1 even supposing the statement of
 ,eusebius to be correct1 that he       
ascribed it to the ,apostle4 ,the       
earliest undoubted references to the    
,epistle1 in fact1 are by ,irenaeus and 

,clement of ,alexandria1 so that this   
evidence is of little avail for the     
,gospel4 ,there is no name attached to  
the first ,epistle1 and the second and  
third have the superscription of the    
,presbyter1 which1 applying the argument
 of ,ewald regarding the author of the  
,apocalypse1 ought to be conclusive     
against their being written by an       
,apostle4 ,as all three are evidently by
 the same writer1 and intended to be    
understood as by the author of the      
,gospel1 and that writer does not       
pretend to be an ,apostle1 but calls    
himself a simple ,presbyter1 the        
,epistles likewise give presumptive     
evidence against the apostolic          
authorship of the ,gospel4  ,there is   
another important testimony against the 
,johannine origin of the fourth ,gospel 
to which we must briefly refer4 ,we have
 pointed out that1 according to the     
fourth ,gospel1 ,jesus did not eat the  
,paschal ,supper with his disciples1 but
 that being arrested on the #acth       

,nisan1 he was put to death on the      
#adth1 the actual day upon which the    
,paschal lamb was sacrificed4 ,the      
,synoptics1 on the contrary1 represent  
that ,jesus ate the ,passover with his  
disciples on the evening of the #adth1  
and was crucified on the #aeth ,nisan4  
,the difference of opinion indicated by 
these contradictory accounts actually   
prevailed in various ,churches1 and in  
the  #dge  second half of the second    
century a violent discussion arose as to
 the day upon which the true ,passover  
of the ,lord should be celebrated1 the  
,church in ,asia ,minor maintaining that
 it should be observed on the #adth     
,nisan1--the day on which1 according to 
the ,synoptics1 ,jesus himself          
celebrated the ,passover and instituted 
the ,christian festival1--whilst the    
,roman ,church as well as most other    
,christians1--following the fourth      
,gospel1 which represents ,jesus as not 
celebrating the last ,passover1 but     
being himself slain upon the #adth      

,nisan1 the true ,paschal lamb1--had    
abandoned the day of the ,jewish feast  
altogether1 and celebrated the          
,christian festival on ,easter ,sunday1 
upon which the ,resurrection was        
supposed to have taken place4 ,polycarp1
 who went to ,rome to represent the     
,churches of ,asia ,minor in the        
discussions upon the subject1 could not 
be induced to give up the celebration on
 the #adth ,nisan1 the day which1       
according to tradition1 had always been 
observed1 and he appealed to the        
practice of the ,apostle ,john himself  
in support of that date4 ,eusebius      
quotes from ,irenaeus the statement of  
the case3 ,for neither could ,anicetus  
persuade ,polycarp not to observe it    
7the #adth ,nisan71 because he had ever 
observed it with ,john the disciple of  
our ,lord1 and with the rest of the     
,apostles with whom he consorted47#a7   
,towards the end of the century1        
,polycrates1 the ,bishop of ,ephesus1   
likewise appeals to the practice of     

,john who reclined upon the bosom of the
 ,lord1 as well as of the ,apostle      
,philip and his daughters1 and of       
,polycarp and others in support of the  
same day3 ,all these observed  #dgf  the
 #adth day of the ,passover1 according  
to the ,gospel1 deviating from it in no 
respect1 but following according to the 
rule of the faith47l7 ,now it is evident
 that1 according to this undoubted      
testimony1 the ,apostle ,john by his own
 practice1 ratified the account of the  
,synoptics1 and contradicted the data of
 the fourth ,gospel1 and upon the       
supposition that he so long lived in    
,asia ,minor it is probable that his    
authority largely contributed to        
establish the observance of the #adth   
,nisan there4 ,we must1 therefore1      
either admit that the ,apostle ,john by 
his practice reversed the statement of  
his own ,gospel1 or that he was not its 
author1 which of course is the natural  
conclusion4 ,without going further into 
the discussion1 which would detain us   

too long1 it is clear that the ,paschal 
controversy is opposed to the           
supposition that the ,apostle ,john was 
the author of the fourth ,gospel47#b7   
,we have seen that1 whilst there is not 
one particle of evidence during a       
century and a half after the events     
recorded in the fourth ,gospel that it  
was composed by the son of ,zebedee1    
there is1 on the contrary1 the strongest
 reason for believing that he did not   
write it4 ,the first writer who quotes a
 passage of the ,gospel with the mention
 of his name is ,theophilus of ,antioch1
 who gives the few words3 ,in the       
beginning was the ,word and the ,word   
was with ,god1 as spoken by ,john1 whom 
he considers amongst the divinely       
inspired ------  #dgg  ------17#a7      
though even he does not distinguish4 him
 as the ,apostle4 ,we have seen the     
legendary nature of the late traditions 
regarding the composition of the        
,gospel1 of which a specimen was given  
in the defence of it in the ,canon of   

,muratori1 and we must not further quote
 them4 ,the first writer who distinctly 
classes the four ,gospels together is   
,irenaeus2 and the reasons which he     
gives for the existence of precisely    
that number in the ,canon of the ,church
 illustrate the thoroughly uncritical   
character of the ,fathers1 and the      
slight dependence which can be placed   
upon their judgments4 ,but neither can  
the ,gospels be more in number than they
 are1 says ,irenaeus1 nor1 on the other 
hand1 can they be fewer4 ,for as there  
are four quarters of the world in which 
we are1 and four general winds ------1  
and the ,church is disseminated         
throughout all the world1 and the       
,gospel is the pillar and prop of the   
,church and the spirit of life1 it is   
right that she should have four pillars1
 on all sides breathing out immortality 
and revivifying men4 ,from which it is  
manifest that the ,word1 the maker of   
all1 he who sitteth upon the ,cherubim  
and containeth all things1 who was      

manifested to man1 has given to us the  
,gospel1 four-formed but possessed by   
one spirit2 as ,david also says1        
supplicating his advent3 ',thou that    
sittest between the ,cherubim1 shine    
forth4' ,for the ,cherubim also are     
four-faced1 and their faces are symbols 
of the working of the ,son of ,god4444  
and the ,gospels1 therefore1 are in     
harmony with these amongst which ,christ
 is seated4 ,for the ,gospel according  
to ,john relates his first effectual and
 glorious generation from the ,father1  
saying3 ',in the       #a ,ad ,autolyc1 
ii4 #bb4    ,tischendorf dates this work
 about      a4d4 #ahj4 ,wann wurden1 a4 
s4 w41 p4 #af1 anm4 #a4  #dgh  beginning
 was the ,word1 and the ,word was with  
,god1 and the ,word was ,god1' and 'all 
things were made by him1 and without him
 nothing was made4' ,on this account    
also this ,gospel is full of all        
trustworthiness1 for such is his        
person47#a7 ,but the ,gospel according  
to ,luke1 being as it were of priestly  

character1 opened with ,zacharias the   
priest sacrificing to ,god4444 ,but     
,matthew narrates his generation as a   
man1 saying3 ',the book of the          
generation of ,jesus ,christ1 the son of
 ,david1 the son of ,abraham1' and 'the 
birth of ,jesus ,christ was on this     
wise1' ,this ,gospel1 therefore1 is     
anthropomorphic1 and on this account a  
man1 humble and mild in character1 is   
presented throughout the ,gospel4 ,but  
,mark makes his commencement after a    
prophetic ,spirit coming down from on   
high unto men1 saying3 ',the beginning  
of the ,gospel of ,jesus ,christ1 as it 
is written in ,isaiah the prophet2'     
indicating the winged form of the       
,gospel2 and for this reason he makes a 
compendious and precursory declaration1 
for this is the prophetic character4444 
,such1 therefore1 as was the course of  
the ,son of ,god1 such also is the form 
of the living creatures2 and such as is 
the form of the living creatures1 such  
also is the character of the ,gospel4   

,for quadriform are the living          
creatures1 quadriform is the ,gospel1   
and quadriform the course of the ,lord4 
,and on this account four covenants were
 given to the human race4444 ,these     
things being thus3 vain and ignorant    
and1 moreover1 audacious are those who  
set aside the form of the ,gospel1 and  
declare the aspects of the ,gospels as  
either more or less than has been       
said47#b7 ,as such principles of        
criticism presided       #a ,the ,greek 
of this rather unintelligible sentence  
is not      preserved4 ,the ,latin      
version reads as follows3 ,propter hoc  
et omni fiducia plenum est ,evangelium  
istud2 talis est enim      persona ejus4
  #dgi  over the formation of the       
,canon1 it is not singular that so many 
of the decisions of the ,fathers have   
been reversed4 ,irenaeus himself        
mentioned the existence of heretics who 
rejected the fourth ,gospel17#a7 and    
,epiphanius7#b7 refers to the ,alogi1   
who equally denied its authenticity1 but

 it is not needful for us further to    
discuss this point4 ,enough has been    
said to show that the testimony of the  
fourth ,gospel is of no value towards   
establishing the truth of miracles and  
the reality of ,divine ,revelation4     
,,end ,,of ,,vol4 ,,ii4