Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Free Classic E-books

The Gospels in the Second Century by William Sanday

Part 1 out of 7

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 0.8 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

Produced by PG Distributed Proofreaders





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


_I had hoped to inscribe in this book the revered and cherished
name of my old head master, DR. PEARS of Repton. His consent had
been very kindly and warmly given, and I was just on the point of
sending the dedication to the printers when I received a telegram
naming the day and hour of his funeral. His health had for some
time since his resignation of Repton been seriously failing, but I
had not anticipated that the end was so near. All who knew him
will deplore his too early loss, and their regret will be shared
by the wider circle of those who can appreciate a life in which
there was nothing ignoble, nothing ungenerous, nothing unreal. I
had long wished that he should receive some tribute of regard from
one whom he had done his best by precept, and still more by
example, to fit and train for his place and duty in the world.
This pleasure and this honour have been denied me. I cannot place
my book, as I had hoped, in his hand, but I may still lay it
reverently upon his tomb._





















It will be well to explain at once that the following work has
been written at the request and is published at the cost of the
Christian Evidence Society, and that it may therefore be classed
under the head of Apologetics. I am aware that this will be a
drawback to it in the eyes of some, and I confess that it is not
altogether a recommendation in my own.

Ideally speaking, Apologetics ought to have no existence distinct
from the general and unanimous search for truth, and in so far as
they tend to put any other consideration, no matter how high or
pure in itself, in the place of truth, they must needs stand aside
from the path of science.

But, on the other hand, the question of true belief itself is
immensely wide. It is impossible to approach what is merely a
branch of a vast subject without some general conclusions already
formed as to the whole. The mind cannot, if it would, become a
sheet of blank paper on which the writing is inscribed by an
external process alone. It must needs have its _praejudicia_--
i.e. judgments formed on grounds extrinsic to the special matter
of enquiry--of one sort or another. Accordingly we find that an
absolutely and strictly impartial temper never has existed and
never will. If it did, its verdict would still be false, because
it would represent an incomplete or half-suppressed humanity.
There is no question that touches, directly or indirectly, on the
moral and spiritual nature of man that can be settled by the bare
reason. A certain amount of sympathy is necessary in order to
estimate the weight of the forces that are to be analysed: yet
that very sympathy itself becomes an extraneous influence, and the
perfect balance and adjustment of the reason is disturbed.

But though impartiality, in the strict sense, is not to be had,
there is another condition that may be rightly demanded--resolute
honesty. This I hope may be attained as well from one point of
view as from another, at least that there is no very great
antecedent reason to the contrary. In past generations indeed
there was such a reason. Strongly negative views could only be
expressed at considerable personal risk and loss. But now, public
opinion is so tolerant, especially among the reading and thinking
classes, that both parties are practically upon much the same
footing. Indeed for bold and strong and less sensitive minds
negative views will have an attraction and will find support that
will go far to neutralise any counterbalancing disadvantage.

On either side the remedy for the effects of bias must be found in
a rigorous and searching criticism. If misleading statements and
unsound arguments are allowed to pass unchallenged the fault will
not lie only with their author.

It will be hardly necessary for me to say that the Christian
Evidence Society is not responsible for the contents of this work,
except in so far as may be involved in the original request that I
should write it. I undertook the task at first with some hesitation,
and I could not have undertaken it at all without stipulating for
entire freedom. The Society very kindly and liberally granted me
this, and I am conscious of having to some extent availed myself
of it. I have not always stayed to consider whether the opinions
expressed were in exact accordance with those of the majority of
Christians. It will be enough if they should find points of contact
in some minds, and the tentative element in them will perhaps be
the more indulgently judged now that the reconciliation of the
different branches of knowledge and belief is being so anxiously
sought for.

The instrument of the enquiry had to be fashioned as the enquiry
itself went on, and I suspect that the consequences of this will
be apparent in some inequality and incompleteness in the earlier
portions. For instance, I am afraid that the textual analysis of
the quotations in Justin may seem somewhat less satisfactory than
that of those in the Clementine Homilies, though Justin's
quotations are the more important of the two. Still I hope that
the treatment of the first may be, for the scale of the book,
sufficiently adequate. There seemed to be a certain advantage in
presenting the results of the enquiry in the order in which it was
conducted. If time and strength are allowed me, I hope to be able
to carry several of the investigations that are begun in this book
some stages further.

I ought perhaps to explain that I was prevented by other engagements
from beginning seriously to work upon the subject until the latter
end of December in last year. The first of Dr. Lightfoot's articles
in the Contemporary Review had then appeared. The next two articles
(on the Silence of Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles) were also
in advance of my own treatment of the same topics. From this point
onwards I was usually the first to finish, and I have been compelled
merely to allude to the progress of the controversy in notes. Seeing
the turn that Dr. Lightfoot's review was taking, and knowing how
utterly vain it would be for any one else to go over the same ground,
I felt myself more at liberty to follow a natural bent in confining
myself pretty closely to the internal aspect of the enquiry. My object
has been chiefly to test in detail the alleged quotations from our
Gospels, while Dr. Lightfoot has taken a wider sweep in collecting
and bringing to bear the collateral matter of which his unrivalled
knowledge of the early Christian literature gave him such command.
It will be seen that in some cases, as notably in regard to the
evidence of Papias, the external and the internal methods have
led to an opposite result; and I shall look forward with much
interest to the further discussion of this subject.

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

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

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

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

_November_, 1875.

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



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

I shall correct, where I am able to do so, such mistakes as may
happen to come under my notice and have not already been pointed
out by other reviewers, only dilating upon them where what seem to
be false principles of criticism are involved. On the general
subject of these mistakes--misleading references and the like--I
think that enough has been said [Endnote 2:1]. Much is perhaps
charged upon the individual which is rather due to the system of
theological training and the habits of research that are common in
England at the present day. Inaccuracies no doubt have been found,
not a few. But, unfortunately, there is only one of our seats of
learning where--in theology at least--the study of accuracy has
quite the place that it deserves. Our best scholars and ablest
men--with one or two conspicuous exceptions--do not write, and the
work is left to be done by _litterateurs_ and clergymen or
laymen who have never undergone the severe preliminary discipline
which scientific investigation requires. Thus a low standard is
set; there are but few sound examples to follow, and it is a
chance whether the student's attention is directed to these at the
time when his habits of mind are being formed.

Again, it was claimed for 'Supernatural Religion' on its first
appearance that it was impartial. The claim has been indignantly
denied, and, I am afraid I must say, with justice. Any one
conversant with the subject (I speak of the critical portion of
the book) will see that it is deeply coloured by the author's
prepossessions from beginning to end. Here again he has only imbibed
the temper of the nation. Perhaps it is due to our political
activity and the system of party-government that the spirit of
party seems to have taken such a deep root in the English mind. An
Englishman's political opinions are determined for him mainly
(though sometimes in the way of reaction) by his antecedents and
education, and his opinions on other subjects follow in their
train. He takes them up with more of practical vigour and energy
than breadth of reflection. There is a contagion of party-spirit
in the air. And thus advocacy on one side is simply met by
advocacy on the other. Such has at least been hitherto the history
of English thought upon most great subjects. We may hope that at
last this state of things is coming to an end. But until now, and
even now, it has been difficult to find that quiet atmosphere in
which alone true criticism can flourish.

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

* * * * *

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' starts from a rigid and
somewhat antiquated view of Revelation--Revelation is 'a direct
and external communication by God to man of truths undiscoverable
by human reason. The divine origin of this communication is proved
by miracles. Miracles are proved by the record of Scripture,
which, in its turn, is attested by the history of the Canon.--This
is certainly the kind of theory which was in favour at the end of
the last century, and found expression in works like Paley's
Evidences. It belongs to a time of vigorous and clear but
mechanical and narrow culture, when the philosophy of religion was
made up of abrupt and violent contrasts; when Christianity
(including under that name the Old Testament as well as the New)
was thought to be simply true and all other religions simply
false; when the revelation of divine truth was thought to be as
sudden and complete as the act of creation; and when the presence
of any local and temporary elements in the Christian documents or
society was ignored.

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

The old idea of the _Aufklaerung_ that Christianity was nothing
more than a code of morals, has now long ago been given up, and
the self-complacency which characterised that movement has
for the most part, though not entirely, passed away. The
nineteenth century is not in very many quarters regarded as the
goal of things. And it will hardly now be maintained that
Christianity is adequately represented by any of the many sects
and parties embraced under the name. When we turn from even the
best of these, in its best and highest embodiment, to the picture
that is put before us in the Gospels, how small does it seem! We
feel that they all fall short of their ideal, and that there is a
greater promise and potentiality of perfection in the root than
has ever yet appeared in branch or flower.

No doubt theology follows philosophy. The special conception of
the relation of man to God naturally takes its colour from the
wider conception as to the nature of all knowledge and the
relation of God to the universe. It has been so in every age, and
it must needs be so now. Some readjustment, perhaps a considerable
readjustment, of theological and scientific beliefs may be
necessary. But there is, I think, a strong presumption that the
changes involved in theology will be less radical than often seems
to be supposed. When we look back upon history, the world has gone
through many similar crises before. The discoveries of Darwin and
the philosophies of Mill or Hegel do not mark a greater relative
advance than the discoveries of Newton and the philosophies of
Descartes and Locke. These latter certainly had an effect upon
theology. At one time they seemed to shake it to its base; so much
so that Bishop Butler wrote in the Advertisement to the first
edition of his Analogy that 'it is come to be taken for granted
that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that
it is now at length discovered to be fictitious.' Yet what do we
see after a lapse of a hundred and forty years? It cannot be said
that there is less religious life and activity now than there was
then, or that there has been so far any serious breach in the
continuity of Christian belief. An eye that has learnt to watch
the larger movements of mankind will not allow itself to be
disturbed by local oscillations. It is natural enough that some of
our thinkers and writers should imagine that the last word has
been spoken, and that they should be tempted to use the word
'Truth' as if it were their own peculiar possession. But Truth is
really a much vaster and more unattainable thing. One man sees a
fragment of it here and another there; but, as a whole, even in
any of its smallest subdivisions, it exists not in the brain of
any one individual, but in the gradual, and ever incomplete but
ever self-completing, onward movement of the whole. 'If any man
think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought
to know.' The forms of Christianity change, but Christianity
itself endures. And it would seem as if we might well be content
to wait until it was realised a little less imperfectly before we
attempt to go farther afield.

Yet the work of adaptation must be done. The present generation
has a task of its own to perform. It is needful for it to revise
its opinions in view of the advances that have been made both in
general knowledge and in special theological criticism. In so far
as 'Supernatural Religion' has helped to do this, it has served
the cause of true progress; but its main plan and design I cannot
but regard as out of date and aimed in the air.

The Christian miracles, or what in our ignorance we call miracles,
will not bear to be torn away from their context. If they are
facts we must look at them in strict connection with that Ideal
Life to which they seem to form the almost natural accompaniment.
The Life itself is the great miracle. When we come to see it as it
really is, and to enter, if even in some dim and groping way, into
its inner recesses, we feel ourselves abashed and dumb. Yet this
self-evidential character is found in portions of the narrative
that are quite unmiraculous. These, perhaps, are in reality the
most marvellous, though the miracles themselves will seem in place
when their spiritual significance is understood and they are
ranged in order round their common centre. Doubtless some elements
of superstition may be mixed up in the record as it has come down
to us. There is a manifest gap between the reality and the story
of it. The Evangelists were for the most part 'Jews who sought
after a sign.' Something of this wonder-seeking curiosity may very
well have given a colour to their account of events in which the
really transcendental element was less visible and tangible. We
cannot now distinguish with any degree of accuracy between the
subjective and the objective in the report. But that miracles, or
what we call such, did in some shape take place, is, I believe,
simply a matter of attested fact. When we consider it in its
relation to the rest of the narrative, to tear out the miraculous
bodily from the Gospels seems to me in the first instance a
violation of history and criticism rather than of faith.

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

It would have been a far more profitable enquiry if the author had
asked himself, What is Revelation? The time has come when this
should be asked and an attempt to obtain a more scientific
definition should be made. The comparative study of religions has
gone far enough to admit of a comparison between the Ethnic
religions and that which had its birth in Palestine--the religion
of the Jews and Christians. Obviously, at the first blush, there
is a difference: and that difference constitutes what we mean by
Revelation. Let us have this as yet very imperfectly known
quantity scientifically ascertained, without any attempt either to
minimise or to exaggerate. I mean, let the field which Mr. Matthew
Arnold has lately been traversing with much of his usual insight
but in a light and popular manner, be seriously mapped out and
explored. Pioneers have been at work, such as Dr. Kuenen, but not
perhaps quite without a bias: let the same enquiry be taken up so
widely as that the effects of bias may be eliminated; and instead
of at once accepting the first crude results, let us wait until
they are matured by time. This would be really fruitful and
productive, and a positive addition to knowledge; but reasoning
such as that in 'Supernatural Religion' is vitiated at the outset,
because it starts with the assumption that we know perfectly well
the meaning of a term of which our actual conception is vague and
indeterminate in the extreme--Divine Revelation. [Endnote 10:1]

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

Again, in considering the evidence for the age of the Synoptic
Gospels, that which is derived from external sources is only a
part, and not perhaps the more important part, of the whole. It
points backwards indeed, and we shall see with what amount of
force and range. But there is still an interval within which only
approximate conclusions are possible. These conclusions need to be
supplemented from the phenomena of the documents themselves. In
the relation of the Gospels to the growth of the Christian society
and the development of Christian doctrine, and especially to the
great turning-point in the history, the taking of Jerusalem, there
is very considerable internal evidence for determining the date
within which they must have been composed. It is well known that
many critics, without any apologetic object, have found a more or
less exact criterion in the eschatological discourses (Matt. xxiv,
Mark xiii, Luke xxi. 5-36), and to this large additions may be
made. As I hope some day to have an opportunity of discussing the
whole question of the origin and composition of the Synoptic
Gospels, I shall not go into this at present: but in the mean time
it should be remembered that all these further questions lie in
the background, and that in tracing the formation of the Canon of
the Gospels the whole of the evidence for miracles--even from this
_ab extra_ point of view--is very far from being exhausted.

There is yet another remaining reason which makes the present
enquiry of less importance than might be supposed, derived from
the particular way in which the author has dealt with this
external evidence. In order to explain the _prima facie_
evidence for our canonical Gospels, he has been compelled to
assume the existence of other documents containing, so far as
appears, the same or very similar matter. In other words, instead
of four Gospels he would give us five or six or seven. I do not
know that, merely as a matter of policy, and for apologetic
purposes only, the best way to refute his conclusion would not be
to admit his premisses and to insist upon the multiplication of
the evidence for the facts of the Gospel history which his
argument would seem to involve. I mention this however, not with
any such object, but rather to show that the truth of Christianity
is not intimately affected, and that there are no such great
reasons for partiality on one side or on the other.

I confess that it was a relief to me when I found that this must
be the case. I do not think the time has come when the central
question can be approached with any safety. Rough and ready
methods (such as I am afraid I must call the first part of
'Supernatural Religion') may indeed cut the Gordian knot, but they
do not untie it. A number of preliminary questions will have to be
determined with a greater degree of accuracy and with more general
consent than has been done hitherto. The Jewish and Christian
literature of the century before and of the two centuries after
the birth of Christ must undergo a more searching examination, by
minds of different nationality and training, both as to the date,
text, and character of the several books. The whole balance of an
argument may frequently be changed by some apparently minute and
unimportant discovery; while, at present, from the mere want of
consent as to the data, the state of many a question is
necessarily chaotic. It is far better that all these points should
be discussed as disinterestedly as possible. No work is so good as
that which is done without sight of the object to which it is
tending and where the workman has only his measure and rule to
trust to. I am glad to think that the investigation which is to
follow may be almost, if not quite, classed in this category; and
I hope I may be able to conduct it with sufficient impartiality.
Unconscious bias no man can escape, but from conscious bias I
trust I shall be free.



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

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

* * * * *

At the outset the question will occur to us, On what principle is
the enquiry to be conducted? What sort of rule or standard are we
to assume? In order to prove either the existence or the authority
of the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine the
quotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations from
them, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriously
lax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, what
degree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what does
not, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source.

The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' indeed, has not felt the
necessity for this preliminary step. He has taken up, as it were,
at haphazard, the first standard that came to his hand; and, not
unnaturally, this is found to be very much the standard of the
present literary age, when both the mechanical and psychological
conditions are quite different from those that prevailed at the
beginning of the Christian era. He has thus been led to make a
number of assertions which will require a great deal of
qualification. The only sound and scientific method is to make an
induction (if only a rough one) respecting the habit of early
quotation generally, and then to apply it to the particular cases.

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

This method of procedure however is not by any means so plain and
straightforward as it might seem. The whole subject of Old
Testament quotations is highly perplexing. Most of the quotations
that we meet with are taken from the LXX version; and the text of
that version was at this particular time especially uncertain and
fluctuating. There is evidence to show that it must have existed
in several forms which differed more or less from that of the
extant MSS. It would be rash therefore to conclude at once,
because we find a quotation differing from the present text of the
LXX, that it differed from that which was used by the writer
making the quotation. In some cases this can be proved from the
same writer making the same quotation more than once and
differently each time, or from another writer making it in
agreement with our present text. But in other cases it seems
probable that the writer had really a different text before him,
because he quotes it more than once, or another writer quotes it,
with the same variation. This however is again an uncertain
criterion; for the second writer may be copying the first, or he
may be influenced by an unconscious reminiscence of what the first
had written. The early Christian writers copied each other to an
extent that we should hardly be prepared for. Thus, for instance,
there is a string of quotations in the first Epistle of Clement of
Rome (cc. xiv, xv)--Ps. xxxvii. 36-38; Is. xxix. 13; Ps. lxii. 4,
lxxviii. 36, 37, xxxi, 19, xii. 3-6; and these very quotations in
the same order reappear in the Alexandrine Clement (Strom. iv. 6).
Clement of Alexandria is indeed fond of copying his Roman
namesake, and does so without acknowledgment. Tertullian and
Epiphanius in like manner drew largely from the works of Irenaeus.
But this confuses evidence that would otherwise be clear. For
instance, in Eph. iv. 8 St. Paul quotes Ps. lxviii. 19, but with a
marked variation from all the extant texts of the LXX. Thus:--

_Ps._ lxviii. 18 (19).

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

[Greek: Aechmaloteusen ... en anthropon] [Hebrew: alef], perhaps
from assimilation to N.T.

_Eph._ iv. 8.

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

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

Now we should naturally think that this was a very free
quotation--so free that it substitutes 'giving' for 'receiving.'
A free quotation perhaps it may be, but at any rate the very same
variation is found in Justin (Dial. 39). And, strange to say, in
five other passages which are quoted variantly by St. Paul, Justin
also agrees with him, [Endnote 18:1] though cases on the other
hand occur where Justin differs from St. Paul or holds a position
midway between him and the LXX (e.g. 1 Cor. i. 19 compared with
Just. Dial. cc. 123, 32, 78, where will be found some curious
variations, agreement with LXX, partial agreement with LXX,
partial agreement with St. Paul). Now what are we to say to these
phenomena? Have St. Paul and Justin both a variant text of the
LXX, or is Justin quoting mediately through St. Paul? Probability
indeed seems to be on the side of the latter of these two
alternatives, because in one place (Dial. cc. 95, 96) Justin
quotes the two passages Deut. xxvii. 26 and Deut. xxi. 23
consecutively, and applies them just as they are applied in Gal.
iii. 10, 13 [Endnote 18:2]. On the other hand, it is somewhat
strange that Justin nowhere refers to the Epistles of St. Paul by
name, and that the allusions to them in the genuine writings,
except for these marked resemblances in the Old Testament
quotations, are few and uncertain. The same relation is observed
between the Pauline Epistles and that of Clement of Rome. In two
places at least Clement agrees, or nearly agrees, with St. Paul,
where both differ from the LXX; in c. xiii ([Greek: ho kanchomenos
en Kurio kanchastho]; compare 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x, 16), and in
c. xxxiv ([Greek: ophthalmhos ouk eiden k.t.l.]; compare 1 Cor. ii.
9). Again, in c. xxxvi Clement has the [Greek: puros phloga] of
Heb. i. 7 for [Greek: pur phlegon] of the LXX. The rest of the
parallelisms in Clement's Epistle are for the most part with
Clement of Alexandria, who had evidently made a careful study of
his predecessor. In one place, c. liii, there is a remarkable
coincidence with Barnabas ([Greek: Mousae Mousae katabaethi to
tachos k.t.l.]; compare Barn. cc. iv and xiv). In the Epistle of
Barnabas itself there is a combined quotation from Gen. xv. 6,
xvii. 5, which has evidently and certainly been affected by Rom.
iv. 11. On the whole we may lean somewhat decidedly to the
hypothesis of a mutual study of each other by the Christian
writers, though the other hypothesis of the existence of different
versions (whether oral and traditional or in any shape written)
cannot be excluded. Probably both will have to be taken into
account to explain all the facts.

Another disturbing influence, which will affect especially the
quotations in the Gospels, is the possibility, perhaps even
probability, that many of these are made, not directly from either
Hebrew or LXX, but from or through Targums. This would seem to be
the case especially with the remarkable applications of prophecy
in St. Matthew. It must be admitted as possible that the
Evangelist has followed some Jewish interpretation that seemed to
bear a Christian construction. The quotation in Matt. ii. 6, with
its curious insertion of the negative ([Greek: oudamos elachistae]
for [Greek: oligostos]), reappears identically in Justin (Dial. c.
78). We shall probably have to touch upon this quotation when we
come to consider Justin's relations to the canonical Gospels. It
certainly seems upon the face of it the more probable supposition
that he has here been influenced by the form of the text in St.
Matthew, but he may be quoting from a Targum or from a peculiar

Any induction, then, in regard to the quotations from the LXX
version will have to be used with caution and reserve. And yet I
think it will be well to make such an induction roughly,
especially in regard to the Apostolic Fathers whose writings we
are to examine.

* * * * *

The quotations from the Old Testament in the New have, as it is
well known, been made the subject of a volume by Mr. McCalman
Turpie [Endnote 20:1], which, though perhaps not quite reaching a
high level of scholarship, has yet evidently been put together
with much care and pains, and will be sufficient for our purpose.
The summary result of Mr. Turpie's investigation is this. Out of
two hundred and seventy-five in all which may be considered to be
quotations from the Old Testament, fifty-three agree literally
both with the LXX and the Hebrew, ten with the Hebrew and not with
the LXX, and thirty-seven with the LXX and not with the Hebrew,
making in all just a hundred that are in literal (or nearly
literal, for slight variations of order are not taken into
account) agreement with some still extant authority. On the other
hand, seventy-six passages differ both from the Hebrew and LXX
where the two are together, ninety-nine differ from them where
they diverge, and besides these, three, though introduced with
marks of quotation, have no assignable original in the Old
Testament at all. Leaving them for the present out of the
question, we have a hundred instances of agreement against a
hundred and seventy-five of difference; or, in other words, the
proportion of difference to agreement is as seven to four.

This however must be taken with the caution given above; that is
to say, it must not at once be inferred that because the quotation
differs from extant authority therefore it necessarily differs
from all non-extant authority as well. It should be added that the
standard of agreement adopted by Mr. Turpie is somewhat higher
than would be naturally held to be sufficient to refer a passage
to a given source. His lists must therefore be used with these

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

[Greek: Alpha symbol] _Paraphrase_. Many of the quotations from the
Old Testament in the New are highly paraphrastic. We may take the
following as somewhat marked examples: Matt. ii. 6, xii. 18-21,
xiii. 35, xxvii. 9, 10; John viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 18;
1 Cor. xiv. 21; 2 Cor. ix. 7. Matt. xxvii. 9, 10 would perhaps
mark an extreme point in freedom of quotation [Endnote 21:1], as
will be seen when it is compared with the original:--

_Matt_. xxvii. 9. 10.

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

_Zech_. xi. 13.

[Greek: Kathes autous eis to choneutaerion, kai schepsomai ei
dokimon estin, de tropon edokiamistheaen huper aotuon. Kai elabon
tous triakonta argurous kai enebalon autous eis oikon Kuriou eis
to choneutaerion.]

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

[Greek: Beta symbol] _Quotations from Memory_. Among the numerous
paraphrastic quotations, there are some that have specially the
appearance of having been made from memory, such as Acts vii. 37;
Rom. ix. 9, 17, 25, 33, x. 6-8, xi. 3, xii. 19, xiv. 11;
1 Cor. i. 19, ii. 9; Rev. ii. 27. Of course it must always
be a matter of guess-work what is quoted from memory and what is
not, but in these quotations (and in others which are ranged under
different heads) there is just that general identity of sense along
with variety of expression which usually characterises such
quotations. A simple instance would be--

_Rom_. ix. 25.

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

_Hosea_ ii. 23.

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

[Greek: Gamma symbol] _Paraphrase with Compression._ There are many marked
examples of this; such as Matt. xxii. 24 (par.); Mark iv. 12; John
xii. 14, 15; Rom. iii. 15-17, x. 15; Heb. xii. 20. Take the

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

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

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

[Greek: Delta symbol] _Paraphrase with Combination of Passages._
This again is common; e.g. Luke iv. 19; John xv. 25, xix. 36;
Acts xiii. 22; Rom. iii. 11-18, ix. 33, xi. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24. The passage
Rom. iii. 11-18 is highly composite, and reminds us of long strings of
quotations that are found in some of the Fathers; it is made up of
Ps. xiv. 1, 2, v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7, Is. lix. 7, 8, Ps. xxxvi. 1. A
shorter example is--

_Rom._ ix. 33. [Greek: [Kathos gegraptai] Idou tithaemi en
Sion lithon proskommatos kai petran skandalou, kai o pisteuon ep
auto ou kataischunthaesetai.]

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

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

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

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

[Greek: Zeta symbol] _Change of Sense and Context._ But little
regard--or what according to our modern habits would be considered
little regard--is paid to the sense and original context of the passage
quoted; e.g. in Matt. viii. 17 the idea of healing disease is substituted
for that of vicarious suffering, in Matt. xi. 10 the persons are
altered ([Greek: sou] for [Greek: mou]), in Acts vii. 43 we find
[Greek: Babylonos] for [Greek: Damaskos], in 2 Cor. vi. 17 'I will
receive you' is put for 'I will go before you,' in Heb. i. 7 'He
maketh His angels spirits' for 'He maketh the winds His
messengers.' This constant neglect of the context is a point that
should be borne in mind.

[Greek: Eta symbol] _Inversion._ Sometimes the sense of the original is so
far departed from that a seemingly opposite sense is substituted
for it. Thus in Matt. ii. 6 [Greek: oudamos elachistae =
oligostos] of Mic. v. 2, in Rom. xi. 26 [Greek: ek Sion = heneken
Sion] LXX= '_to_ Sion' Heb. of Is. lix. 20, in Eph. iv. 8
[Greek: hedoken domata = helabes domata] of Ps. lxvii. 19.

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

[Greek: Iota symbol] _Mistaken Ascriptions or Nomenclature._ The
following passages are wrongly assigned:--Mal. iii. 1 to Isaiah
according to the correct reading of Mark i. 2, and Zech. xi. 13
to Jeremiah in Matt. xxvii. 9, 10; Abiathar is apparently put for
Abimelech in Mark ii. 26; in Acts vii. 16 there seems to be a
confusion between the purchase of Machpelah near Hebron by Abraham
and Jacob's purchase of land from Hamor the father of Shechem.
These are obviously lapses of memory.

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

It will be seen that, in spite of the reservations that we felt
compelled to make at the outset, the greater number of the
deviations noticed above can only be explained on a theory of free
quotation, and remembering the extent to which the Jews relied
upon memory and the mechanical difficulties of exact reference and
verification, this is just what before the fact we should have

* * * * *

The Old Testament quotations in the canonical books afford us a
certain parallel to the object of our enquiry, but one still
nearer will of course be presented by the Old Testament quotations
in those books the New Testament quotations in which we are to
investigate. I have thought it best to draw up tables of these in
order to give an idea of the extent and character of the
variation. In so tentative an enquiry as this, the standard
throughout will hardly be so fixed and accurate as might be
desirable; the tabular statement therefore must be taken to be
approximate, but still I think it will be found sufficient for our
purpose; certain points come out with considerable clearness, and
there is always an advantage in drawing data from a wide enough
area. The quotations are ranged under heads according to the
degree of approximation to the text of the LXX. In cases where the
classification has seemed doubtful an indicatory mark (+) has been
used, showing by the side of the column on which it occurs to
which of the other two classes the instance leans. All cases in
which this sign is used to the left of the middle column may be
considered as for practical purposes literal quotations. It may be
assumed, where the contrary is not stated, that the quotations are
direct and not of the nature of allusions; the marks of quotation
are generally quite unmistakeable ([Greek: gegraptai, legei,
eipen], &c). Brief notes are added in the margin to call attention
to the more remarkable points, especially to the repetition of the
same quotation in different writers and to the apparent bearing of
the passage upon the general habit of quotation.

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

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

_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| Variant._ | |
| |3 Deut. 32.14,15. |also in Justin,
| | Is. 3.5. al. | differently.
| | Is. 59. 14, al. |
3. Wisd. 2.24. | | |
|+4. Gen. 4.3-8. | |Acts 7.27,
| Ex. 2.14+ | | more exactly.
6. Gen. 2.23. | |8. Ezek. 33.11 |}
| | Ezek. 18.30 |}from Apocryphal
| | Ps. 103.10,11. |} or interpolated
| | Jer. 3.19,22. |} Ezekiel?
| | Is. 1.18. |}
|+8. Is. 1.16-20. | |
|10. Gen. 12.1-3. | |
| +Gen. 13.14-16. | |
| Gen. 15.5,6. | |
| |12. Josh. 2.3-19. |compression and
| | | paraphrase.
| | |
| |13. 1 Sam. 2,10. |}similarly
| | Jer. 9.23,24. |} St. Paul, 1 Cor.
| | | 1.31, 2 Cor.
|13. Is. 46.2. | | 10.17.
| |14. Prov. 2.21, |from memory?
| | 22. v.l. (Ps. 37.|
| | 39.) |
|14. Ps. 37.35-38.| |Matt. 15.8, Mark
| |15. Is. 29.13.* | 7.6, with par-
15.{Ps. 78.36,37.*|15. Ps. 62.4.* | | tial similarity,
{Ps. 31.19.* | | | Clem. Alex.,
{Ps. 12.3-6.* | | | following Clem.
| | | Rom.
|+16. Is. 53.1-12.| |quoted in full by
16. Ps. 22.6-8. | | | Justin, also by
17. Gen. 18.27. | | | other writers
| | | with text
| | | slightly
| | | different from
| | | Clement.
| |17. Job 1.1, v.l. |
| | Job 14.4,5, v.l.|Clem. Alex.
| | | similarly.
|17. Num. 12.7. | |
| Ex. 3.11; 4-10.| |
| |[Greek: ego de |_Assumptio Mosis_,
| | eimi atmis apo | Hilg., _Eldad
| | kuthras.] | and Modad_, Lft.
| | |
| |18. Ps. 89.21,v.l.|}Clem. Alex. as
| | 1 Sam. 13.14. |} LXX.
18. Ps. 51.1-17. | | |
| |20. Job 38.11. |
| |21. Prov. 15.27. |Clem. Alex.
| | | similarly; from
| | | memory? [Greek:
22. Ps. 34.11-17. | | | legei gar pou.]
| |23. [Greek: |from an Apo-
| | palaiporoi eisin | cryphal book,
| | oi dipsuchoi | _Ass. Mos._ or
| | k.t.l.] | _Eld. and Mod._
| | |
| |23. Is. 13.22. |}composition and
| | Mal. 3.1. |} compression.
| | |
| |26. Ps. 28.7. |}composition
| | Ps. 3-5. |} from memory?
| | | [Greek: legei
| | | gar pou.]
| |27. Wisd. 12.12. |}from memory?
| | Wisd. 11.22. |} cp. Eph. 1.19.
P27. Ps. 19.1-3. | | |
| |28. Ps. 139.7-10. |from memory?
| | |[Greek: legei
| | | gar pou.]
29. Deut. 32.8,9. | | |
| |29. Deut. 4.34. |}from memory?
| | Deut. 14.2. |} or from an
| | Num. 18.27. |} Apocryphal
| | 2 Chron. 31. |} Book?
| | 14. |}
| | Ezek. 48.12. |}
|30. Prov. 3.34. | |
30. Job. 11.2,3. | | |LXX, not Heb.
| |32. Gen. 15.5 |
| | (Gen. 22.17. |
| | Gen. 26.4.) |
|33. Gen. 1.26-28.|(omissions.) |
| |34. Is. 40.10. |}composition
| | Is. 62.11. |} from memory?
| | Prov. 24.12. |} Clem. Alex.
| | | after Clem.
| | | Rom.
|34. Dan. 7.10. |} |curiously
| Is. 6.3+. |} | repeated
| | | transposition;
| | | see Lightfoot,
| | | _ad. loc._
| |24. Is. 64.4. |so in 1 Cor. 2.9.
|35. Ps. 50.16-23.| |
|36. Ps.104.4,v.l.| |Heb. 1.7.
36. Ps. 2.7,8. | | |Heb. 1.5. Acts
Ps. 110.1 | | | 13.33.
|39. Job 4.16-5.5 | |
| (Job 15.15) | |
| |42. Is. 60.17. |from memory?
| | | [Greek: legei
| | | gar pou.]
| |46. [Greek: |from Apocryphal
| | Kollasthe tois | book, or Ecclus.
| | agiois hoti oi | vi. 34? Clem.
| | kollomenoi | Alex.
| | autois |
| | hagiasthaesontai]|
46. Ps. 18.26,27. | | |context ignored.
48. Ps. 118,19,20.| | |Clem. Alex.
| | | loosely.
| |50. Is. 26.20. |}
| | Ezek. 37.12. |}from memory?
50. Ps. 32. 1,2. | | |
| |52. Ps. 69.31,32. |
52. Ps. 50.14,15.+|} | |
Ps. 51.17. |} | |
|53. Deut.9.12-14.|} |Barnabas
| Ex. 32.7,8. |} | similarly.
| 11,31,32. |} | Compression.
54. Ps. 241. | | |
56. Ps. 118.18. | | |
Prov. 3.12. | | |
Ps. 141.5. | | |
|+56. Job 5.17-26,| |
| v.l. | |
|+57. Prov. 1.23- | |
| 31. | |

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

It will be observed that the longest passages are among those
that are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e.g. Gen. xiii. 14-16;
Job v. 17-26; Ps. xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17;
Prov. i. 23-31; Is. i. 16-20, liii. 1-12). Others, such as Gen.
xii. 1-3, Deut. ix. 12-14, Job iv. 16-v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 35-38, l.
16-23, have only slight variations. There are only two passages of
more than three consecutive verses in length that present wide
divergences. These are, Ps. cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by a
vague reference [Greek: legei gar pou] and is evidently quoted
from memory, and the historical narration Josh. ii. 3-19. This is
perhaps what we should expect: in longer quotations it would be
better worth the writer's while to refer to his cumbrous
manuscript. These purely mechanical conditions are too much lost
sight of. We must remember that the ancient writer had not a small
compact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verify
a reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case,
and then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like our
modern books but would have only the columns, and those perhaps
not numbered, to guide him. We must remember too that the memory
was much more practised and relied upon in ancient times,
especially among the Jews.

The composition of two or more passages is frequent, and the
fusion remarkably complete. Of all the cases in which two passages
are compounded, always from different chapters and most commonly
from different books, there is not, I believe, one in which there
is any mark of division or an indication of any kind that a
different source is being quoted from. The same would hold good
(with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer strings
of quotations in cc. viii, xxix, and (from [Greek: aegapaesan] to
[Greek: en auto]) in c. xv. But here the question is complicated by
the possibility, and in the first place at least perhaps
probability, that the writer is quoting from some apocryphal work
no longer extant. It may be interesting to give one or two short
examples of the completeness with which the process of welding has
been carried out. Thus in c. xvii, the following reply is put into
the mouth of Moses when he receives his commission at the burning
bush, [Greek: tis eimi ego hoti me pempeis; ego de eimi
ischnophonos kai braduglossos.] The text of Exod. iii. 11 is
[Greek: tis eimi ego, oti poreusomai;] the rest of the quotation
is taken from Exod. iv. 10. In c. xxxiv Clement introduces 'the
Scripture' as saying, [Greek: Muriai muriades pareistaekeisan auto
kai chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai ekekragon agios,
agios, agios, Kurios Sabaoth, plaeraes pasa hae ktisis taes doxaes
autou.] The first part of this quotation comes from Dan. vii. 10;
the second, from [Greek: kai ekekragon], which is part of the
quotation, from Is. vi. 3. These examples have been taken almost
at random; the others are blended quite as thoroughly.

Some of the cases of combination and some of the divergences of
text may be accounted for by the assumption of lost apocryphal
books or texts; but it would be wholly impossible, and in fact no
one would think of so attempting to account for all. There can be
little doubt that Clement quotes from memory, and none that he
quotes at times very freely.

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


_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| Variant._ | |
|+2. Is. 1.11-14. | |note for exactness.
| |2. Jer. 7.22,23. |} combination
| | Zec. 8.17. |} from memory?
| | Ps. 51.19. |strange addition.
|3. Is. 58.4, 5. | |
| Is. 58.6-10. | |
| |4. Dan. 7.24 |}very
| | Dan. 7.7, 8. |} divergent.
| | Ex. 34.28. |}combination
| | Ex. 31.18. |} from memory?
|4. Deut. 9.12. | |see below.
| (Ex. 32.7). | |
| +Is. 5.21. | |
|+5. Is. 54.5,7. | |text of Cod. A.
| (omissions.)| |
5. Prov. 1.17. | | |
Gen. 1.26+. | | |
| |5. Zech. 13.7. |text of A. (Hilg.)
| | | Matt. 26.3.
| | Ps. 22.21. |from memory?
|5. Ps. 119.120. | |paraphrastic
| | Ps. 22.17. | combination
| | | from memory?
| Is. 50. 6,7. | |
| (omissions.) | |ditto.
| |6. Is. 50.8,9. |ditto.
|6. Is. 28.16. | |first clause
| | | exact, second
| | | variant; in N.T.
| | | quotations,
| | | first variant,
| | | second exact.
| Is. 50.7. | |note repetition,
| | | nearer to LXX.
6. Ps. 118.22. | | |so Matt. 21.42;
| | | 1 Pet. 11.7.
| | |
6. Ps. 22.17+ | |6. Ps. 118.24. |from memory?
(order). | | |note repetition,
| | | nearer to LXX.
Ps. 118.12. | | |
Ps. 22.19. | | |
Is. 3.9, 10. | | |
| | Ex. 33.1. |from memory?
| Gen. 1.26+. | |note repetition,
Gen. 1.28. | | | further from LXX.
| | Ezek. 11.19; |paraphrastic.
| | 36.26. |
| | Ps. 41.3. |
| | Ps. 22.23. |different version?
| | Gen. 1.26, 28. |paraphrastic
| | | fusion.
| |7. Lev. 23.29. |paraphrastic.
| | Lev. 16.7, sqq.|with apocryphal
| | Lev. 16.7. sqq.| addition; cp.
| | | Just. and Tert.
|9. Ps. 18.44. | |
9. Is. 33.13+. | | |
| |9. Jer. 4.4. |
| | Jer. 7.2. |
| | Ps. 34.13. |
Is. 1.2. | | |but with additions.
| Is. 1.10+. | |from memory?
| | |[Greek: archontes
| | | toutou] for [Gr.
| | | a. Zodomon.]
| | Is. 40.3. |addition.
| | Jer. 4.3 ,4. |}repetition,
| | Jer. 7.26. |} nearer to LXX.
| | Jer. 9.26. |
| | Gen. 17.26, 27;|inferred sense
| | cf. 14.14. | merely, but
| | | with marks of
| | | quotation.
| |10. Lev. 11, |selected examples,
| | Deut. 14. | but with
| | | examples of
| | | quotation.
| | Deut. 4.1. |
10. Ps. 1.1. | | |
| | Lev. 11.3. |
| |11. Jer. 2.12, 13.|
| | +Is. 16.1, 2. |[Greek: Zina] for
| | | [Greek: Zion].
|11. Is. 45. 2, 3.| |[Greek: gnosae] A.
| | | ([Greek: gnosin]
| | | Barn., but in
| | | other points more
| | | divergent.
|+Is. 33.16-18. | |omissions.
11. Ps. 1.3-6. | | |note for exactness.
| |11. Zeph. 3.19. |markedly diverse.
| | Ezek. 47.12. |ditto.
|12. Is. 65.2. | |
| |12. Num. 21.9, |apparently a
| | sqq. | quotation.
| | Deut. 27.15. |from memory?
| | Ex. 17.14. |
12. Ps. 110.1. | | |
|12. Is. 45.1. | |[Greek: kurio] for
| | | [Greek: kuro].
|13. Gen.25.21,23.| |
| |13. Gen. 48.11-19.|very paraphrastic.
| | Gen. 15.6; |combination; cf.
| | 17.5. | Rom. 4.11.
| |14. Ex. 24.18. |note addition of
| | |[Greek: naesteuon.]
| | Ex. 31.18. |note also for
| | | additions.
|14. Deut. 9.12- | |repetition with
| 17+. | | similar variation.
| (Ex. 32.7.) | |note reading of A.
14. Is. 42.6,7. | | |[Greek:
| | |pepedaemenous] for
| | |[Greek: dedemenous
| | |(kai] om. A.).
| Is. 49.6,7. | |
Is. 61. 1,2. | | |Luke. 4.18,19
| | | diverges.
| |15. Ex. 20.8; |paraphrastic,
| | Deut. 5.12. | with addition.
| | Jer. 17.24,25.|very paraphrastic.
| | Gen. 2.2. |
| | Ps. 90.4. |[Greek: saemeron]
| | | for [Greek:
| | | exthes].
15. Is. 1.13. | | |
|16. Is. 40.12. | |omissions.
| Is. 66.1. | |
| |16. Is. 49.17. |completely
| | | paraphrastic.
| | Dan. 9.24. |ditto.
| | 25, 27. |

The same remarks that were made upon Clement will hold also for
Barnabas, except that he permits himself still greater licence. The
marginal notes will have called attention to his eccentricities. He is
carried away by slight resemblances of sound; e.g. he puts [Greek:
himatia] for [Greek: iamata] [Endnote 34:1], [Greek: Zina] for [Greek:
Zion], [Greek: Kurio] for [Greek: Kuro]. He not only omits clauses, but
also adds to the text freely; e.g. in Ps. li. 19 he makes the strange
insertion which is given in brackets, [Greek: Thusia to Theo kardia
suntetrimmenae, [osmae euodias to kurio kardia doxasousa ton peplakota
autaen]]. He has also added words and clauses in several other places.
There can be no question that he quotes largely from memory; several of
his quotations are repeated more than once (Deu. ix. 12; Is. l. 7; Ps.
xxii. 17; Gen. i. 28; Jer. iv. 4); and of these only one, Deut. ix. 12,
reappears in the same form. Often he gives only the sense of a passage;
sometimes he interprets, as in Is. i. 10, where he paraphrases [Greek:
archontes Sodomon] by the simpler [Greek: archontes tou laou toutou]. He
has curiously combined the sense of Gen. xvii. 26, 27 with Gen. xiv.
l4--in the pursuit of the four kings, it is said that Abraham armed his
servants three hundred and eighteen men; Barnabas says that he
circumcised his household, in all three hundred and eighteen men. In
several cases a resemblance may be noticed between Barnabas and the text
of Cod. A, but this does not appear consistently throughout.

It may be well to give a few examples of the extent to which Barnabas
can carry his freedom of quotation. Instances from the Book of Daniel
should perhaps not be given, as the text of that book is known to have
been in a peculiarly corrupt and unsettled state; so much so that, when
translation of Theodotion was made towards the end of the second
century, it was adopted as the standard text. Barnabas also combines
passages, though not quite to such an extent or so elaborately as
Clement, and he too inserts no mark of division. We will give an example
of this, and at the same time of his paraphrastic method of quotation:--

_Barnabas_ c. ix.

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

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

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

A similar case of paraphrase and combination, with nothing to
mark the transition from one passage to the other, would be in c.
xi, Jer. ii. 12, 13 and Is. xvi. 1, 2. For paraphrase we may take
this, from the same chapter:--

_Barnabas_ c. xi.

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

_Zeph_. iii. 19.

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

_Barnabas_ c. xv.

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

_Ps_. xc. 4

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

A very curious instance of freedom is the long narrative of Jacob
blessing the two sons of Joseph in c. xiii (compare Gen. xlviii.
11-19). We note here (and elsewhere) a kind of dramatic tendency, a
fondness for throwing statements into the form of dialogue rather
than narrative. As a narrative this passage may be compared with
the history of Rahab and the spies in Clement.

And yet, in spite of all this licence in quotation, there are some
rather marked instances of exactness; e.g. Is. i. 11-14 in c. ii,
the combined passages from Ps. xxii. 17, cxvii. 12, xxii. 19 in c.
vi, and Ps. i. 3-6 in c. xi. It should also be remembered that in
one case, Deut. ix. 12 in cc. iv and xiv, the same variation is
repeated and is also found in Justin.

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

_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| variant._ | |
| | |
_Ad Eph._ |5. Prov. 3.34 | |James. 4.6, 1 Pet. 5.5,
| | | as Ignatius.
| | |
_Ad Magn._ |12. Prov. 18.17. | |
| | |
_Ad Trall._ | |8. Is. 52.5. |

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

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

_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| variant._ | |
| | |
Polycarp, | 2. Ps. 2.11. | |
_Ad. Phil._ | | |
| | |
10. Tob. 4.11. | | |}
12. Ps. 4.4; | | |}in Latin
but through | | |} version only.
Eph. 4.26. | | |}
| | |
_Mart. S. Ign._ | | |
| |2. Lev. 26.12. |
6. Prov. 10.24. | | |

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

The quotations from the Clementine Homilies may be thus

_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| | |
Hom. 3. | |18. Deut. 32.7. |
|39. +Gen. 18.21. | |
| Gen. 3.22. | |
39. Gen 6.6. | | |
| Gen. 8.21. | |omission.
| Gen. 22.1. | |
| |42. Gen. 3.3. |
43. Gen. 6.6. | | |
|43. Gen. 22.1. | |not quite as above.
| +Gen. 18.21. | |as above.
Gen. 15.13-16. | | |v.l. comp. text
| | | of A; note for
| | | exactness.
44. Gen. 18.21. | | |as LXX.
| |45. Num. 11.34 |[Greek: bounoun
| | (al.) | epithumion] for
| | | [Greek: mnaemata
| | | taes epithumas].
|47. Deut. 34.4,5.| |
|49. Gen. 49.10. | |cf. Credner,
| | | _Beit._ 2.53.
Hom. 11. | | |
22. Gen. 1.1. | | |
Hom. 16. | | |
6. Gen. 3.22. | | |twice with slightly
| | | different order.
Gen. 3.5. | | |
|6. Ex. 22.28. | |
| |6. Deut. 4.34. |?mem. [Greek:
| | | allothi tou
| | | gegraptai].
Jer. 10.11. | | |
| | Deut. 13.6. |?mem. [Greek:
| | | allae pou].
| | Josh. 23.7. |
| Deut. 10.17. | |
Ps. 35.10. | | |
Ps. 50.1. | | |
Ps. 82.1. | | |
| Deut. 10.14. | |
| Deut. 4.39. | |
| Deut. 10.17. | |repeated as above.
| | Deut. 10.17. |very paraphrastic.
| | |
Hom. 16. | |6. Deut. 4.39. |
7. Deut. 6.13. | | |
Deut. 6.4. | | |
| |8. Josh. 23.7. |as above.
8. Exod. 22.18 + | | |
Jer. 10.11. | | |
Gen. 1.1. | | |
Ps. 19.2. | | |
|8. Ps. 102.26. | |
Gen. 1.26. | | |
| |13. Deut. 13.1-3, |very free.
| | 9, 5, 3. |
Hom. 17. | |18. Num. 12.6. |}paraphrastic
| | Ex. 33.11. |} combination.
Hom. 18. | |17. Is. 40.26,27. |free quotation.
| | Deut. 30.13. |ditto.
18. Is. 1.3. | | |
Is. 1.4. | | |

The example of the Clementine Homilies shows conspicuously the
extremely deceptive character of the argument from silence. All
the quotations from the Old Testament found in them are taken from
five Homilies (iii, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii) out of nineteen, although
the Homilies are lengthy compositions, filling, with the translation
and various readings, four hundred and fourteen large octavo pages
of Dressel's edition [Endnote 38:1]. Of the whole number of quotations
all but seven are taken from two Homilies, iii and xvi. If Hom. xvi
and Hom. xviii had been lost, there would have been no evidence that
the author was acquainted with any book of the Old Testament besides
the Pentateuch; and, if the five Homilies had been lost, there would
have been nothing to show that he was acquainted with the Old Testament
at all. Yet the loss of the two Homilies would have left a volume
of three hundred and seventy-seven pages, and that of the five a
volume of three hundred and fifteen pages. In other words, it is
possible to read three hundred and fifteen pages of the Homilies
with five breaks and come to no quotation from the Old Testament
at all, or three hundred and fifteen pages with only two breaks
and come to none outside the Pentateuch. But the reduced volume
that we have supposed, containing the fourteen Homilies, would
probably exceed in bulk the whole of the extant Christian literature
of the second century up to the time of Irenaeus, with the single
exception of the works of Justin; it will therefore be seen how
precarious must needs be any inference from the silence, not of
all these writings, but merely of a portion of them.

For the rest, the quotations in the Homilies may be said to
observe a fair standard of exactness, one apparently higher than
that in the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; at the
same time it should be remembered that the quotations in the
Homilies are much shorter, only two reaching a length of three
verses, while the longest quotations in the Epistle are precisely
those that are most exact. The most striking instance of accuracy
of quotation is perhaps Gen. xv. 13-16 in Hom. iii. 43. On the
other hand, there is marked freedom in the quotations from Deut.
iv. 34, x. 17, xiii. 1-3, xiii. 6. xxx. 15, Is. xl. 26, 27, and
the combined passage, Num. xii. 6 and Ex. xxiii. 11. There are
several repetitions, but these occur too near to each other to
permit of any inference.

Our examination of the Old Testament quotations in Justin is
greatly facilitated by the collection and discussion of them in
Credner's Beitraege [Endnote 39:1], a noble example of that true
patient work which is indeed the reverse of showy, but forms the
solid and well-laid foundation on which alone genuine knowledge
can be built. Credner has collected and compared in the most
elaborate manner the whole of Justin's quotations with the various
readings in the MSS. of the LXX; so that we may state our results
with a much greater confidence than in any other case (except
perhaps Clement of Rome, where we have the equally accurate and
scholarly guidance of Dr. Lightfoot [Endnote 40:1]) that we are
not led astray by imperfect materials. I have availed myself
freely of Credner's collection of variants, indicating the cases
where the existence of documentary (or, in some places,
inferential) evidence for Justin's readings has led to the
quotation being placed in a different class from that to which it
would at first sight seem to belong. I have also, as hitherto, not
assumed an absolutely strict standard for admission to the first
class of 'exact' quotations. Many of Justin's quotations are very
long, and it seemed only right that in these the standard should
be somewhat, though very slightly, relaxed. The chief point that
we have to determine is the extent to which the writers of the
first century were in the habit of freely paraphrasing or quoting
from memory, and it may as a rule be assumed that all the
instances in the first class and most (not quite all) of those in
the second do not admit of such an explanation. I have been glad
in every case where a truly scientific and most impartial writer
like Credner gives his opinion, to make use of it instead of my
own. I have the satisfaction to think that whatever may be the
value of the other sections of this enquiry, this at least is
thoroughly sound, and based upon a really exhaustive sifting of
the data.

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

_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| variant._ | |
| | |
|Apol. 1.59, Gen. | |
| 1.1-3. | |
Dial. 62, Gen. 1. | | |
26-28. | | |
|Dial. 102, Gen. | |free quotation
| 3.15. | | (Credner).
D.62, Gen. 3.22. | | |
|D.127, Gen. | |
| 7.16. | |
|D.139, Gen. 9. | |
| 24-27. | |
|D.127, Gen. 11.5. | |free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
D.102, Gen. 11.6. | | |
|D.92, Gen. 15.6. | |free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
| |Dial.10, +Gen. |
| | 17.14. |
D.127, Gen. 17.22.| | |
|D.56, +Gen. 18. | |ver. 2 repeated
| 1, 2. | | similarly.
| +Gen. 18. 13, 14. | |repeated,
| | | slightly more
| +Gen. 18. 16-23, | | divergent.
| 33. | |
| +Gen. 19. 1, 10, | |
| 16-28 (om. 26). | |marked exactness
| | | in the whole
| | | passage.
D.56, Gen. 21. | | |
9-12. | | |
D.120, Gen. 26.4. | | |
D.58, Gen. 28. | | |
10-12. | | |
|D.58, +(v.l.) Gen. | |
| 28. 13-19. | |
| +(v.l.) Gen. 31. | |
| 10-13. | |
| |D.59, Gen. 35.1. |free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
D.58, Gen. 35. | | |
6-10 (v.l.) | | |
D. 52, Gen. 49. | | |repeated
8-12. | | | similarly.
D. 59, Ex. 2. 23. | | |
D. 60, Ex. 3.2-4+.| |A.1. 62, Ex. 3. 5. |from memory
| | | (Cr.)
|D. 59, Ex. 3. 16. | |
| |A. 1.63, Ex. 3.16 |ver.16 freely
| | (ter), 17. | quoted (Cr.)
| | | [Greek: eirae-
| | | tai pou.]
|D. 126, Ex.6.2-4. | |
| |D. 49, Ex. 17.16. |free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
| |D. 94, Ex. 20.4. |ditto (Cr.)
|D. 75, Ex. 23.20, | |from Lectionary
| 21. | | (Cr.)
D.16, Lev. 26.40, | |D. 20, Ex. 32. 6. |free (Cr.)
41 (v.l.) | | |
|D. 126, Num. 11. | |
| 23. | |
| |A.1.60 (or. obl.), |free (Cr.)
| | D. 94, Num. 21. |
| | 8,9. |
|D. 106, Num. 24. | |through Targum
| 17. | | (Cr.)
| |D. 16, Deut. 10. |from memory
| | 16, 17. | (Cr.)
| |D.96, Deut. 21.23. |both precisely
| | Deut. 27.26. | as St. Paul in
| | | Galatians, and
| | | quoted thence
| | | (Cr.)
D. 126, Deut. 31. | | |
2, 3 (v.l.) | | |
D. 74, Deut. 31. | | |
16-18 (v.l.) | | |
D. 131, Deut. 32. | | |
7-9 (tr.) | | |
|D.20, Deut. 32.15. | |
D. 119, Deut. 32. | | |Targum (Cr.)
16-23. | | |
D. 130, Deut. 32. | | |
43 (v.l.) | | |
|D. 91, +Deut. 33. | |
| 13-17. | |
A.1. 40, Ps. 1 and| | |parts repeated.
2 entire. | | |
|D.97, Ps. 3. 5, 6. | |repeated, more
| | | freely.
D.114, Ps. 8.4. | | |
D.27, Ps. 14.3. | | |
D.28, Ps.18.44,45.| | |
D. 64, Ps.19.6 | | |perhaps from
(A.1.40, vv.1-5). | | | different
| | | MSS., see
| | | Credner.
D.97 ff., Ps. 22. | | |quoted as
1-23. | | | _whole_ Psalm
| | | (bis).
D.133 ff., Ps. 24 | | |
entire. | | |
|D.141, Ps. 32. 2. | |
D.38, Ps. 45.1-17.| | |parts repeated.
D.37, Ps. 47.6-9. | | |
D.22, Ps. 49 | | |
entire. | | |
| |D.34} |{from Eph. 4.8,
| |D.37} Ps. 68.8. |{ Targum.
D.34, Ps. 72 | | |
entire. | | |
D. 124, Ps. 82 | | |
entire. | | |
D.73, Ps. 96 | | |note Christian
entire. | | | interpolation
| | | in ver. 10.
D.37, Ps. 99 | | |
entire. | |D. 83, Ps. 110. |from memory
D.32, Ps. 110 | | 1-4. | (Cr.)
entire. | | |
| |D.110, Ps. 128.3. |from memory
D.85, Ps. 148. | | | (Cr.)
1, 2. | | |
A.1. 37, Is. 1. | | |
3, 4. | | |
| |A.1. 47, Is. 1.7 |sense only
| | (Jer. 2.15). | (Cr.)
| |D.140 (A.1. 53), |
| | Is. 1.9. |
| |A.1. 37, Is. 1. |from memory
| | 11-14. | (Cr.)
|A.1. 44 (61), Is. | |omissions.
| 1.16-30. | |
| |D.82, Is. 1. 23. |from memory
A.1. 39, Is. 2. | | | (Cr.)
3,4. | | |
|D.135, Is. 2. 5,6. | |Targum (Cr.)
D. 133, Is. 3. | | |
9-15 (v.l.) | | |
| |D.27, Is. 3.16. |free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
|D.133, Is. 5. 18- | |repeated.
| 25 (v.l.) | |
|D.43 (66), Is. 7. | |repeated, with
| 10-17 (v.l.) | | slight
| | | variation.
| | A.1.35, Is. 9.6. |free (Cr.)
D.87, Is. 11.1-3. | |[A.1.32, Is. 11.1; |free combination
| | Num. 24.17. | (Cr.)]
|D.123, Is. 14.1. | |
D.123, Is. 19.24, | | |
25+. | | |
|D.78, Is. 29.13,14.| |repeated (v.l),
| | | partly from
| | | memory.
D.79, Is. 30.1-5. | | |
|D.70, Is.33.13-19. | |
|D.69, Is. 35.1-7. |A.1.48, Is. 35.5,6.|free; cf. Matt.
| | | 11.5 (var.)
D.50, Is. 39. 8, | | |
40.1-17. | | |
| |D.125} Is.42.1-4. |{cf. Matt. 12.
| |D.135} |{ 17-21,
| | | Targum (Cr.)
D.65, Is. 42.6-13 | | |
(v.l.) | | |
| |D.122, Is. 42.16. |free (Cr.)
|D.123, Is. 42.19, | |
| 20. | |
D.122, Is. 43.10. | | |
| |A.1.52, Is. 45. |cf. Rom. 14.11.
| | 24 (v.l.) |
D.121, Is. 49.6 | | |
(v.l.) | | |
D.122, Is. 49.8 | | |
(v.l.) | | |
|D.102, Is. 50.4. | |
A.1.38, Is. 50. | | |Barn., Tert.,
6-8. | | | Cypr.
D.11, Is. 51.4, 5.| | |
D.17, Is. 52.5 | | |
(v.l.) | | |
D.12, Is. 5 2, | | |
10-15, 53.1-12, | | |
54.1-6. | | |
|A.1. 50, Is. 52. | |
| 13-53.12. | |
| |D.138, Is. 54.9. |very free.
D.14, Is. 55.3-13.| |[D.12, Is. 55. 3-5.|from memory
| | | (Cr.)]
D.16, Is.57.1-4. | | |repeated.
D.15, Is.58.1-11 | | |[Greek:
(v.l.) | | | himatia] for
| | |[Greek: iamata];
| | |so Barn., Tert,
| | |Cyp., Amb., Aug.
D.27, Is. 58. | | |
13, 14. | | |
|D.26, +Is. 62.10- | |[Greek:
| 10-63.6. | | susseismon] for
| | |[Greek:
| | | sussaemon].
D.25, Is. 63.15- | | |
19, 64.1-12. | | |
D.24, Is. 65. 1-3.| |[A.1.49, Is. 65. |from memory
| | 1-3. | (Cr.)]
D.136, Is. 65.8. | | |
D.135, Is. 65.9-12| | |
D.81, Is. 65.17-25| | |
| |D.22, Is. 66.1. |from memory
| | | (Cr.)
D.85, Is. 66.5-11.| | |
| |D.44, Is. 66. 24 |from memory
| | (ter). | (Cr.)
| |D.114, Jer. 2.13; |as from
| | Is. 16.1; | Jeremiah,
| | Jer. 3.8. | traditional
| | | combination;
| | | cf. Barn. 2.
|D.28, Jer. 4.3, 4 | |
| (v.l.) | |
| |D.23, Jer. 7.21,22.|free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
|D. 28, Jer. 9.25,26|[A.1.53, Jer. 9.26.|quoted freely
| | | as from
| | | Isaiah.]
|D.72, Jer. 11.19. | |omissions.
| |D. 78, Jer. 31.15 |so Matt. 2.18
| | (38.15, LXX). | through
| | | Targum (Cr.)
| |D.123, Jer. 31.27 |free quotation
| | (38. 27). | (Cr.)
|D.11, Jer. 31.31, | |
|32 (38.31, 32). | |
| |D.72. |a passage quoted
| | | as from
| | | Jeremiah,
| | | which is not
| | | recognisable
| | | in our present
| | | texts.
| |D. 82, Ezek. 3. |free quotation
| | 17-19. | (Cr.)
| |D.45} Ezek. 14. |} repeated
| | 44} 20; cf. 14, |} similarly and
| | 140} 16, 18. |} equally
| | |} divergent from
| | |} LXX.
D.77, Ezek. 16. 3.| | |
D.21, Ezek. 20. | | |
19-26. | | |
D.123, Ezek. 36. | | |
12. | | |
| |A.1.52, Ezek. |very free (Cr.)
| | 37. 7. |

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

_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| variant._ | |
| |D.19, Hos. 1.9. |
| |D.102, Hos.10.6. |referred to
| | | trial before
| | | Herod (Cr.)
| |D.87, Joel 2.28. |from memory
| | | (Cr.)
|D. 22, +Amos | |
|5.18-6. 7 (v.l.) | |
|D. 107, Jonah 4. | |
| 10-11 (v.l. Heb.)| |
|D. 109, Micah 4. | |divergent from
| 1-7 (Heb.?) | | LXX.
| |A.1.34} Micah 5.2. |{precisely as
| |D.78 } |{ Matt. 2.6.
| | |
| |A.1.52, Zech. 2.6. |{free quotations
| |D. 137, Zech. 2. 8.|{ (Cr.)
|D. 115, Zach. 2. |[D. 79, Zech. 3. |freely (Cr.)]
| 10-3. 2 (Heb.?) | 1, 2. |
D.106, Zach. 6.12.| | |
| |A.1.52, Zech. 12. |repeated di-
| | 11,12,10. | versely [note
| | | reading of
| | | Christian ori-
| | | gin (Cr.) in
| | | ver. 10:
| | | so John 19.37;
| | | cp. Rev. 1.7].
| |D.43, Zech. 13. 7. |diversely in
| | | Matt. 26.31,
| | | proof that
| | | Justin is
| | | not dependent
| | | on Matthew
| | | (Cr.)
|D.28, 41, Mal. 1. |D. 117, Mal. 1. |
| 10-12 (v.l.) | 10-12. |
|D.62, +Joshua 5. | |omissions.
| 13-15; 6.1, 2 | |
| (v.l.) | |
| |D.118, 2 Sam. 7. |from memory
| | 14-16. | (Cr.)
| |D.39, 1 Kings 19. |freely (Cr.);
| | 14, 15, 18. | cf. Rom. 11.3.
A.1.55, Lam. 4. | | |
20 (v.l.) | | |
| |D.79, Job 1.6. |sense only
| | | (Cr.)
|D.61, +Prov. 8. | |coincidence
| 21-36. | | with Ire-
| | | naeus.

[Footnote: D. 72 a passage ostensibly from Ezra, but probably an
apocryphal addition, perhaps from Preaching of Peter; same quotation
in Lactantius.]

It is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter that
Justin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted nine
Psalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated)
that it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty-
three verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given with
extraordinary fulness. These longer passages are generally quoted
accurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of the
LXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority for
his reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out these
varieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to the
relations and comparative value of the different MSS., form
perhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more marked
divergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (1) quotation
from memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in the
shorter passages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialogue
with Tryphon; (2) in Messianic passages the use of a Targum, not
immediately by Justin himself but in some previous document from

Book of the day: