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

The Gospels in the Second Century by William Sanday

Part 3 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.

| { | Luke 6.36; | but prob. diff-
| { | Matt. 5.45; 6. | erent document;
| { | 25-27; Luke 12.| rather marked
| { | 22-24; Matt. 6.| identity in
| { | 32, 33; 6.21. | phrase.
|A.1.15, Matt. 6.1. | |
A.1.15, Matt. 9. | | | do the last
13(?). | | | words belong
| | | to the
| |C | quotation?
| |o { A.1.15, Luke|
| |n { 6.32; Matt.|
| |t { 5.46. |
| |i { A.1.15, (D. |repeated in part
| |n { 128), Luke | similarly, in
| |u { 6.27, 28; | part diversely;
| |o { Matt. 5.44. | confusion in
| |u | MSS.
| |s |
| |s |
Continuous. { |A.1.16, Luke 6.29 | |
{ | (Matt. 5.39, 40.) | |
{ | |A.1.16, Matt. 5. |
{ | | 22 (v.l.) |
{ | |A.1.16, Matt. 5 |[Greek:
{ | | 41. | angaeusei.]
{ |A.1.16, Matt. 5.16. | |
| |D.93, A,1.16, |
| | Matt. 22.40,37,|
| | 38. |
| |A.1.16, D.101, |repeated
| | Matt. 19.16, | diversely.
| | 17 (v.l.); Luke|
| | 18.18,19 (v.l.)|
|A.1.16, Matt. 5. | |
| 34,37. | |
{A.1.16, Matt. | | |
{ 7.21. | | |
C { |A.1.16 (A.1.62), | |repeated in part
o { | Luke 10.16 (v.l.) | | similarly, in
n { | | | part diversely.
t { | |+A.1.16 (D.76), |
i { | | Matt. 7.22, 23 |
n { | | (v.l.); Luke |
u { | | 13.26,27 (v.l.)|
o { |A.1.16, Matt. 13. | |addition.
u { | 42, 43 (v.l.) | |
s { | |A.1.16 (D.35), |
{ | | Matt. 7.15. |
{ |A.1.16, Matt. 7. | |
{ | 16, 19. | |
D.76, Matt. 8.11.| | |
12+. | | |
| |D.35, [Greek: |
| | esontai schi- |
| | smata kai hai- |
| | reseis.] |
|D.76, Matt. 25.41 | |
| (v.l.) | |
|D.35, Matt. 7.15. | |repeated with
| | | nearer
| | | approach to
| | | Matthew, perh.
| | | v.l.
| |D.35, 82, Matt. |repeated with
| |24.24 (Mark 13. | similarity and
| | 22). | divergence.
| |D.82, Matt. 10. |freely.
| | 22, par. |
A.1.19, Luke 18. | | |
27+. | | |
| |A.1.19, Luke 12. |compounded.
| | 4, 5; Matt. |
| | 10.28. |
| |A.1.17, Luke 12. |
| | 48 (v.l.) |
|D.76, Luke 10.19+ | |ins. [Greek:
| | | skolopendron.]
D.105, Matt. 5. | | |
20. | | |
| |D.125, Matt. 13. |condensed narra-
| | 3 sqq. | tive.
| |+D.17, Luke 11. |
| | 52. |
|D.17, Matt. 23.23; | |compounded.
| Luke 11.42. | |
|D.17, 112, Matt. | |repeated simi-
| 23.27; 23.24. | | larly.
| |D.47, [Greek: en |
| | ois an humas |
| | katalabo en |
| | toutois kai |
| | krino.] |
|D.81, Luke 20. | |marked resem-
| 35, 36. | | blance with
| | | difference.
D.107, Matt.16.4.| | |
|D. 122, Matt. 23. | |
| 15. | |
|+D.17, Matt. 21. | |
| 13, 12. | |
| |+A.1.17, Luke 20.|narrative portion
| | 22-25 (v.l.) | free.
|D.100, A.1.63, | |repeated not
| Matt. 11.27 (v.l.)| | identically.
|D.76, 100, Luke | |repeated diverse-
| 9.22. | | diversely;
| | | free (Credner).
A.1.36, Matt. 21.| |D.53, Matt. 21.5.|(Zech. 9.9).
5 (addition). | | |
| |A.1.66, Luke 22. |
| | 19, 20. |
|D.99, Matt. 26. | |
| 39 (v.l.) | |
| |D.103, Luke 22. |
| | 42-44. |
| |D.101, Matt. 27. |
| | 43. |
| |A.1.38, [Greek: |
| | ho nekrous |
| | anegeiras rhu- |
| | sastho eauton.]|
D.99, Matt. 27. | | |compounded.
46; Mark 15.34.| | |
D.105, Luke 23. | | |

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

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

There is, it is true, something to be said on the other side.
Justin quotes the Old Testament rather as Scripture, the New
Testament rather as history. I think it will be felt that he has
permitted his own style a freer play in regard to the latter than
the former. The New Testament record had not yet acquired the same
degree of fixity as the Old. The 'many' compositions of which
St. Luke speaks in his preface were still in circulation, and were
only gradually dying out. One important step had been taken in the
regular reading of the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' at the Christian
assemblies. We have not indeed proof that these were confined to
the Canonical Gospels. Probably as yet they were not. But it
should be remembered that Irenaeus was now a boy, and that by the
time he had reached manhood the Canon of the Gospels had received
its definite form.

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

The proof that Justin made use of each of our three Synoptics
individually is perhaps more striking from the point of view of
substance than of form, because his direct quotations are mostly
taken from the discourses rather than from the narrative, and
these discourses are usually found in more than a single Gospel,
while in proportion as they bear the stamp of originality and
authenticity it is difficult to assign them to any particular
reporter. There is however some strong and remarkable evidence of
this kind.

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

_Justin, Dial._ c.49.

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

_Matt._ xvii. 11-13.

[Greek: Aelias men erchetai apokatastaesei panta, lego de humin
hoti Aelias aedae aelthen kai ouk epegnosan auton, alla epoiaesan
auto hosa aethelaesan, [outos kai ho uios tou anthropou mellei
paschein hup' auton.] Tote sunaekan oi mathaetai hoti peri Ioannou
tou Baptistou eipen autois.] The clause in brackets is placed at
the end of ver. 13 by D. and the Old Latin.

_Mark._ ix. 12, 13.

[Greek: Ho de ephae autois, Aelias [men] elthon proton
apokathistanei panta, kai pos gegraptai epi ton uion tou
anthropou, hina polla pathae kai exoudenaethae. Alla lego humin
hoti kai Aelias elaeluthen kai epoiaesan auto hosa aethelon,
kathos gegraptai ep' auton.]

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

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

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

If this passage had stood alone, taken in connection with the
coincidence of matter between Justin and the first Gospel, great
weight must have attached to it. But it does not by any means stand
alone. There is an exact verbal agreement in the verses Matt. v. 20
('Except your righteousness' &c.) and Matt. vii. 21 ('Not every one
that saith unto me,' &c.) which are peculiar to the first Gospel.
There is a close agreement, if not always with the best, yet with some
very old, text of St. Matthew in v. 22 (note especially the striking
phrase and construction [Greek: enochos eis]), v. 28 (note [Greek:
blep. pros to epithum].), v. 41 (note the remarkable word [Greek:
angareusei]), xxv. 41, and not too great a divergence in v. 16, vi. 1
([Greek: pros to theathaenai, ei de mae ge misthon ouk echete]), and
xix. 12, all of which passages are without parallel in any extant
Gospel. There are also marked resemblances to the Matthaean text in
synoptic passages such as Matt. iii. 11, 12 ([Greek: eis metanoian, ta
hupodaemata bastasai]), Matt. vi. 19, 20 ([Greek: hopou saes kai
brosis aphanizei], where Luke has simply [Greek: saes diaphtheirei],
and [Greek: diorussousi] where Luke has [Greek: engizei]), Matt. vii.
22, 23 ([Greek: ekeinae tae haemera Kurie, Kurie, k.t.l.]), Matt. xvi.
26 ([Greek: dosei] Matt. only, [Greek: antallagma] Matt., Mark), Matt.
xvi. 1, 4 (the last verse exactly). As these passages are all from the
discourses I do not wish to say that they may not be taken from other
Gospels than the canonical, but we have absolutely no evidence that
they were so taken, and every additional instance increases the
probability that they were taken directly from St. Matthew, which by
this time, I think, has reached a very high degree of presumption.

I have reserved for a separate discussion a single instance which
I shall venture to add to those already quoted, although I am
aware that it is alleged on the opposite side. Justin has the
saying 'Let your yea be yea and your nay nay, for whatsoever is
more than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: Mae omosaete
holos. Esto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou; to de perisson
touton ek tou ponaerou]), which is set against the first
Evangelist's 'Let your conversation be Yea yea, Nay nay, for
whatsoever is more than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: ego
de lego humin mae omosai holos... Esto de ho logos humon nai nai,
ou ou; to de perisson, k.t.l.]). Now it is perfectly true that as
early as the Canonical Epistle of James (v. 12) we find the
reading [Greek: aeto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou], and that
in the Clementine Homilies twice over we read [Greek: esto humon
to nai nai, (kai) to ou ou], [Greek: kai] being inserted in one
instance and not in the other. Justin's reading is found also
exactly in Clement of Alexandria, and a similar reading (though
with the [Greek: aeto] of James) in Epiphanius. These last two
examples show that the misquotation was an easy one to fall into,
because there can be little doubt that Clement and Epiphanius
supposed themselves to be quoting the canonical text. There
remains however the fact that the Justinian form is supported by
the pseudo-Clementines; and at the first blush it might seem that
'Let your yea be yea' (stand to your word) made better, at least a
complete and more obvious, sense than 'Let your conversation be'
(let it not go beyond) 'Yea yea' &c [Endnote 122:1]. There is,
however, what seems to be a decisive proof that the original form
both of Justin's and the Clementine quotation is that which is
given in the first Gospel. Both Justin and the writer who passes
under the name of Clement add the clause 'Whatsoever is more than
these cometh of evil' (or 'of the Evil One'). But this, while it
tallies perfectly with the canonical reading, evidently excludes
any other. It is consequent and good sense to say, 'Do not go
beyond a plain yes or no, because whatever is in excess of this
must have an evil motive,' but the connection is entirely lost
when we substitute 'Keep your word, for whatever is more than this
has an evil motive'--more than what?

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

The coincidences with Luke are striking but complicated. In his
earlier work, the 'Beitraege' [Endnote 123:1], Credner regarded as
a decided reference to the Prologue of this Gospel the statement
of Justin that his Memoirs were composed [Greek: hupo ton
apostolon autou kai ton ekeinois parakolouthaesanton]: but, in the
posthumous History of the Canon [Endnote 123:2], he retracts this
view, having come to recognise a greater frequency in the use of
the word [Greek: parakolouthein] in this sense. It will also of
course be noticed that Justin has [Greek: par. tois ap.] and not
[Greek: par. tois pragmasin], as Luke. It is doubtless true that
the use of the word can be paralleled to such an extent as to make
it not a matter of certainty that the Gospel is being quoted:
still I think there will be a certain probability that it has been
suggested by a reminiscence of this passage, and, strangely
enough, there is a parallel for the substitution of the historians
for the subject-matter of their history in Epiphanius, who reads
[Greek: par. tois autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou] [Endnote
124:1], where he is explicitly and unquestionably quoting St.

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Justin, Dial._ 76

[Greek: Didomi humin exousian katapatein epano opheon, kai
skorpion, kai skolopendron, kai epano parsaes dunameos tou

_Luke_ x. 19.

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

The insertion of [Greek: skolopendron] here is curious. It may be
perhaps to some extent paralleled by the insertion of [Greek: kai
eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9: we have also seen a strange addition
in the quotation of Ps. li. 19 in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. ii).
Otherwise the resemblance of Justin to the Gospel is striking. The
second saying, 'To whom God has given more, of him shall more be
required' (Apol. i. 17), if quoted from the Gospel at all, is only
a paraphrase of Luke xii. 48.

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

_Luke_ xviii. 27.

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

_Mark_ x. 27.

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

_Matt_. xix. 26.

[Greek: Para anthropois touto adunaton estin, para de Theo dunata

Here it will be observed that Matthew and Mark (as frequently
happens) are nearer to each other than either of them is to Luke.
This would lead us to infer that, as they are two to one, they
more nearly represent the common original, which has been somewhat
modified in the hands of St. Luke. But now Justin has the words
precisely as they stand in St. Luke, with the omission of [Greek:
estin], the order of which varies in the MSS. of the Gospel. This
must be taken as a strong proof that Justin has used the peculiar
text of the third Gospel. Again, it is to be noticed that in
another section of the triple synopsis (Mark xii. 20=Matt. xxii.
30=Luke xx. 35, 36) he has, in common with Luke and diverging from
the other Gospels which are in near agreement, the remarkable
compound [Greek: isangeloi] and the equally remarkable phrase
[Greek: huioi taes anastaseos] ([Greek: tekna tou Theou taes
anastaseos] Justin). This also I must regard as supplying a strong
argument for the direct use of the Gospel. Many similar instances
may be adduced; [Greek: erchetai] ([Greek: aexei] Justin) [Greek:
ho ischuroteros] (Luke iii. 16), [Greek: ho nomos kai hoi
prophaetai heos] ([Greek: mechri] Justin) [Greek: Ioannon] (Luke
xvi. 16), [Greek: panti to aitounti] (Luke vi. 30), [Greek: to
tuptonti se epi] ([Greek: sou] Justin) [Greek: taen siagona
pareche kai taen allaen k.t.l.] (Luke vi. 29; compare Matt. v. 39,
40), [Greek: ti me legeis agathon] and [Greek: oudeis agathos ei
mae] (Luke xviii. 19; compare Matt. xix. 17), [Greek: meta tauta
mae echonton] ([Greek: dunamenous] Justin) [Greek: perissoteron]
(om. Justin) [Greek: ti poiaesae k.t.l.] (Luke xii. 4, 5; compare
Matt. X. 28), [Greek: paeganon] and [Greek: agapaen tou Theou]
(Luke xi. 42). In the parallel passage to Luke ix. 22 (=Matt xvi.
21= Mark viii. 31) Justin has the striking word [Greek:
apodokimasthaenai], with Mark and Luke against Matthew, and
[Greek: hupo] with Mark against the [Greek: apo] of the two other
Synoptics. This last coincidence can perhaps hardly be pressed, as
[Greek: hupo] would be the more natural word to use.

In the cases where we have only the double synopsis to compare
with Justin, we have no certain test to distinguish between the
primary and secondary features in the text of the Gospels. We
cannot say with confidence what belonged to the original document
and what to the later editor who reduced it to its present form.
In these cases therefore it is possible that when Justin has a
detail that is found in St. Matthew and wanting in St. Luke, or
found in St. Luke and wanting in St. Matthew, he is still not
quoting directly from either of those Gospels, but from the common
document on which they are based. The triple synopsis however
furnishes such a criterion. It enables us to see what was the
original text and how any single Evangelist has diverged from it.
Thus in the two instances quoted at the beginning of the last
paragraph it is evident that the Lucan text represents a deviation
from the original, and _that deviation Justin has reproduced_. The
word [Greek: isangeloi] may be taken as a crucial case. Both the
other Synoptics have simply [Greek hos angeloi], and this may be
set down as undoubtedly the reading of the original; the form
[Greek: isangeloi], which occurs nowhere else in the New
Testament, and I believe, so far as we know, nowhere else in Greek
before this passage [Endnote 128:1], has clearly been coined by
the third Evangelist and has been adopted from him by Justin. So
that in a quotation which otherwise presents considerable
variation we have what I think must be called the strongest
evidence that Justin really had St. Luke's narrative, either in
itself or in some secondary shape, before him.

We are thus brought once more to the old result. If Justin did not
use our Gospels in their present shape as they have come down to
us, he used them in a later shape, not in an earlier. His
resemblances to them cannot be accounted for by the supposition
that he had access to the materials out of which they were
composed, because he reproduces features which by the nature of
the case cannot have been present in those originals, but of which
we are still able to trace the authorship and the exact point of
their insertion. Our Gospels form a secondary stage in the history
of the text, Justin's quotations a tertiary. In order to reach the
state in which it is found in Justin, the road lies _through_ our
Gospels, and not outside them.

This however does not exclude the possibility that Justin may at
times quote from uncanonical Gospels as well. We have already seen
reason to think that he did so from the substance of the
Evangelical narrative, as it appears in his works, and this
conclusion too is not otherwise than confirmed by its form. The
degree and extent of the variations incline us to introduce such
an additional factor to account for them. Either Justin has used a
lost Gospel or Gospels, besides those that are still extant, or
else he has used a recension of these Gospels with some slight
changes of language and with some apocryphal additions. We have
seen that he has two short sayings and several minute details that
are not found in our present Gospels. A remarkable coincidence is
noticed in 'Supernatural Religion' with the Protevangelium of
James [Endnote 129:1]. As in that work so also in Justin, the
explanation of the name Jesus occurs in the address of the angel
to Mary, not to Joseph, 'Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy
Ghost and bear a Son and He shall be called the Son of the
Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His
people from their sins.' Again the Protevangelium has the phrase
'Thou shalt conceive of His Word,' which, though not directly
quoted, appears to receive countenance from Justin. The author
adds that 'Justin's divergences from the Protevangelium prevent
our supposing that in its present form it could have been the
actual source of his quotations,' though he thinks that he had
before him a still earlier work to which both the Protevangelium
and the third Gospel were indebted. So far as the Protevangelium
is concerned this may very probably have been the case; but what
reason there is for assuming that the same document was also
anterior to the third Gospel I am not aware. On the contrary, this
very passage seems to suggest an opposite conclusion. The
quotation in Justin and the address in the Protevangelium both
present a combination of narratives that are kept separate in the
first and third Gospels. But this very fact supplies a strong
presumption that the version of those Gospels is the earliest. It
is unlikely that the first Evangelist, if he had found his text
already existing as part of the speech of the angel to Mary, would
have transferred it to an address to Joseph; and it is little less
unlikely that the third Evangelist, finding the fuller version of
Justin and the Protevangelium, should have omitted from it one of
its most important features. If a further link is necessary to
connect Justin with the Protevangelium, that link comes into the
chain after our Gospels and not before. Dr. Hilgenfeld has also
noticed the phrase [Greek: charan de labousa Mariam] as common to
Justin and the Protevangelium [Endnote 130:1]. This, too, may
belong to the older original of the latter work. The other verbal
coincidences with the Gospel according to the Hebrews in the
account of the Baptism, and with that of Thomas in the 'ploughs
and yokes,' have been already mentioned, and are, I believe, along
with those just discussed, all that can be directly referred to an
apocryphal source.

Besides these there are some coincidences in form between quotations
as they appear in Justin and in other writers, such as especially the
Clementine Homilies. These are thought to point to the existence of a
common Gospel (now lost) from which they may have been extracted. It
is unnecessary to repeat what has been said about one of these
passages ('Let your yea be yea,' &c.). Another corresponds roughly to
the verse Matt. xxv. 41, where both Justin and the Clementine Homilies
read [Greek: hupagete eis to skotos to exoteron o haetoimasen ho
pataer to satana (to diabolo] Clem. Hom.) [Greek: kai tois angelois
autou] for the canonical [Greek: poreuesthe ap' emou eis to pur to
aionion to haetoimasmenon k.t.l.] It is true that there is a
considerable approximation to the reading of Justin and the
Clementines, found especially in MSS. and authorities of a Western
character (D. Latt. Iren. Cypr. Hil.), but there still remains the
coincidence in regard to [Greek: exoteron](?) for [Greek: aionion] and
[Greek: skotos] for [Greek: pyr], which seems to be due to something
more than merely a variant text of the Gospel. A third meeting-point
between Justin and the Clementines is afforded by a text which we
shall have to touch upon when we come to speak of the fourth Gospel.
Of the other quotations common to the Clementines and Justin there is
a partial but not complete coincidence in regard to Matt. vii. 15, xi.
27, xix. 16, and Luke vi. 36. In Matt. vii. 15 the Clementines have
[Greek: polloi eleusontai] where Justin has once [Greek: polloi
eleusontai], once [Greek: polloi aexousin], and once the Matthaean
version [Greek: prosechete apo ton pseudoprophaeton oitines erchontai
k.t.l.] There is however a difference in regard to the reading [Greek:
en endumasi], where the Clementines have [Greek: en endumatie], and
Justin twice over [Greek: endedumenoi]. In Matt. xi. 27, Justin and
the Clementines agree as to the order of the clauses, and twice in the
use of the aorist [Greek: egno] (Justin has once [Greek: ginosko]),
but in the concluding clause ([Greek: ho [ois] Clem.] [Greek: ean
boulaetai ho nios apokalupsai]) Justin has uniformly in the three
places where the verse is quoted [Greek: ois an ho uhios apokalupsae].
In Matt. xix. 16, 17 (Luke xviii. 18, 19) the Clementines and Justin
alternately adhere to the Canonical text while differing from each
other, but in the concluding phrase Justin has on one occasion the
Clementine reading, [Greek: ho pataer mou ho en tois ouranois]. In
Luke vi. 36 the Clementines have [Greek: ginesthe agathoi kai
ioktirmones], where Justin has [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai
oiktirmones] against the Canonical [Greek: ginesthe oiktirmones]. On
the other hand, it should be said that the remaining quotations common
to the Clementines and Justin have to all appearance no relation to
each other. This applies to Matt. iv. 10, v. 39, 40, vi. 8, viii. 11,
x. 28; Luke xi. 52. Speaking generally we seem to observe in comparing
Justin and the Clementines phenomena not dissimilar to those which
appear on a comparison with the Canonical Gospels. There is perhaps
about the same degree at once of resemblance and divergence.

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

On reviewing these results we find them present a chequered
appearance. There are no traces of coincidence so definite and
consistent as to justify us in laying the finger upon any
particular extra-canonical Gospel as that used by Justin. But upon
the whole it seems best to assume that some such Gospel was used,
certainly not to the exclusion of the Canonical Gospels, but
probably in addition to them.

A confusing element in the whole question is that to which we have
just alluded in regard to the Gospel of the Marcosians. It is
often difficult to decide whether a writer has really before him
an unknown document or merely a variant text of one with which we
are familiar. In the case of Justin it is to be noticed that there
is often a very considerable approximation to his readings, not in
the best text, but in some very early attested text, of the
Canonical Gospels. It will be well to collect some of the most
prominent instances of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt. v. 22. [Greek: hostis an orgisthae] Syr. Crt. (Crowfoot); so
Justin ([Greek: hos]).

Matt. v. 16. Clement of Alexandria (with Tertullian and several
Latin Fathers) has [Greek: lampsato ta erga] and [Greek: ta agatha
erga], where Justin has [Greek: lampsato ta kala erga], for
[Greek: lampsato to phos]. Both readings would seem to be a gloss
on the original.

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

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

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

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

Matt. xiii. 43. [Greek: lampsosin] for [Greek: eklampsosin] with
Justin, D, and Origen (twice).

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

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

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

Though it will be seen that Justin has thus much in common with D
and the Old Latin version, it should be noticed that he has the
verse, Luke xxii. 19, and especially the clause [Greek: touto
poieite eis taen emaen anamnaesin] which is wanting in these
authorities. On the other hand, he appears to have with them and
other authorities, including Syr. Crt., the Agony in the Garden as
given in Luke xxii, 43,44, which verses are omitted in MSS. of the
best Alexandrine type. Luke xxiii. 34, Justin also has, with the
divided support of the majority of Greek MSS. Vulgate, c, e, f, ff
of the Old Latin, Syr. Crt. and Pst. &c. against B, D (prima
manu), a, b, Memph. (MSS.) Theb.

These readings represent in the main a text which was undoubtedly
current and widely diffused in the second century. 'Though no
surviving manuscript of the Old Latin version dates before the
fourth century and most of them belong to a still later age, yet
the general correspondence of their text with that of the first
Latin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its high antiquity. The
connexion subsisting between this Latin, version, the Curetonian
Syriac and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these documents is
considerably older than the vellum on which they are written.'
Such is Dr. Scrivener's verdict upon the class of authorities with
which Justin shows the strongest affinity, and he goes on to add;
'Now it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural
records affords a text less probable in itself, less sustained by
any rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod. D,
of the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of
Cureton's Syriac. Interpolations as insipid in themselves as
unsupported by other evidence abound in them all.... It is no less
true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions
to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated
within a hundred years after it was composed' [Endnote 135:1].
This is a point on which text critics of all schools are
substantially agreed. However much they may differ in other
respects, no one of them has ever thought of taking the text of
the Old Syriac and Old Latin translations as the basis of an
edition. There can be no question that this text belongs to an
advanced, though early, stage of corruption.

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

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



Dr. Lightfoot has rendered a great service to criticism by his
masterly exposure of the fallacies in the argument which has been
drawn from the silence of Eusebius in respect to the use of the
Canonical Gospels by the early writers [Endnote 138:1]. The author
of 'Supernatural Religion' is not to be blamed for using this
argument. In doing so he has only followed in the wake of the
Germans who have handed it on from one to the other without
putting it to a test so thorough and conclusive as that which has
now been applied [Endnote 138:2]. For the future, I imagine, the
question has been set at rest and will not need to be reopened
[Endnote 138:3].

Dr. Lightfoot has shown, with admirable fulness and precision,
that the object of Eusebius was only to note quotations in the
case of books the admission of which into the Canon had been or
was disputed. In the case of works, such as the four Gospels, that
were universally acknowledged, he only records what seem to him
interesting anecdotes or traditions respecting their authors or
the circumstances under which they were composed. This distinction
Dr. Lightfoot has established, not only by a careful examination
of the language of Eusebius, but also by comparing his statements
with the actual facts in regard to writings that are still extant,
and where we are able to verify his procedure. After thus testing
the references in Eusebius to Clement of Rome, the Ignatian
Epistles, Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus,
Dr. Lightfoot arrives, by a strict and ample induction, at the
conclusion that the silence of Eusebius in respect to quotations
from any canonical book is so far an argument _in its favour_
that it shows the book in question to have been generally
acknowledged by the early Church. Instead of being a proof that
the writer did not know the work in reference to which Eusebius is
silent, the presumption is rather that he did, like the rest of
the Church, receive it. Eusebius only records what seems to him
specially memorable, except where the place of the work in or out
of the Canon has itself to be vindicated.

But if this holds good, then most of what is said against the use
of the Gospels by Hegesippus falls to the ground. Eusebius
expressly says [Endnote 140:1] that Hegesippus made occasional use
of the Gospel according to the Hebrews ([Greek: ek te tou kath'
Hebraious euangeliou ... tina tithaesin]). But apart from the
conclusion referred to above, the very language of Eusebius
([Greek: tithaesin tina ek]) is enough to suggest that the use of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews was subordinate and
subsidiary. Eusebius can hardly have spoken in this way of
'_the_ Gospel of which Hegesippus made use' in all the five
books of his 'Memoirs.' The expression tallies exactly with what
we should expect of a work used _in addition to_ but not
_to the exclusion_ of our Gospels. The fact that Eusebius
says nothing about these shows that his readers would take it for
granted that Hegesippus, as an orthodox Christian, received them.

With this conclusion the fragments of the work of Hegesippus that
have come down to us agree. The quotations made in them are
explained most simply and naturally, on the assumption that our
Gospels have been used. The first to which we come is merely an
allusion to the narrative of Matt. ii; 'For Domitian feared the
coming of the Christ as much as Herod.' Those therefore who take
the statement of Eusebius to mean that Hegesippus used only the
Gospel according to the Hebrews are compelled to seek for the
account of the Massacre of the Innocents in that Gospel. It
appears however from Epiphanius that precisely this very portion
of the first Gospel was wanting in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews as used both by the Ebionites and by the Nazarenes. 'But
if it be doubtful whether some forms of that Gospel contained the
two opening chapters of Matthew, it is certain that Jerome found
them in the version which he translated' [Endnote 141:1]. I am
afraid that here, as in so many other cases, the words 'doubtful'
and 'certain' are used with very little regard to their meanings.
In support of the inference from Jerome, the author refers to De
Wette, Schwegler, and an article in a periodical publication by
Ewald. De Wette expressly says that the inference does _not_
follow ('Aus Comm. ad Matt. ii. 6 ... laesst sich _nicht_
schliessen dass er hierbei das Evang. der Hebr. verglichen
habe.... Nicht viel besser beweisen die St. ad Jes. xi. 1; ad
Abac. iii. 3') [Endnote 141:2]. He thinks that the presence of
these chapters in Jerome's copy cannot be satisfactorily proved,
but is probable just from this allusion in Hegesippus--in regard
to which De Wette simply follows the traditional, but, as we have
seen, erroneous assumption that Hegesippus used only the Gospel
according to the Hebrews. Schwegler [Endnote 141:3] gives no
reasons, but refers to the passages quoted from Jerome in Credner.
Credner, after examining these passages, comes to the conclusion
that 'the Gospel of the Nazarenes did _not_ contain the
chapters' [Endnote 141:4]. Ewald's periodical I cannot refer to,
but Hilgenfeld, after an elaborate review of the question, decides
that the chapters were omitted [Endnote 141:5]. This is the only
authority I can find for the 'certainty that Jerome found them' in
his version.

On the whole, then, it seems decidedly more probable (certainties
we cannot deal in) that the incident referred to by Hegesippus was
missing from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That Gospel
therefore was not quoted by him, but, on the contrary, there is a
presumption that he is quoting from the Canonical Gospel. The
narrative of the parallel Gospel of St. Luke seems, if not to
exclude the Massacre of the Innocents, yet to imply an ignorance
of it.

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

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

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

The remaining passage occurs in a fragment preserved from
Stephanus Gobarus, a writer of the sixth century, by Photius,
writing in the ninth. Referring to the saying 'Eye hath not seen,'
&c., Gobarus says 'that Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolical
man, asserts--he knows not why--that these words are vainly
spoken, and that those who use them give the lie to the sacred
writings and to our Lord Himself who said, "Blessed are your eyes
that see and your ears that hear,"' &c. 'Those who use these
words' are, we can hardly doubt, as Dr. Lightfoot after Routh has
shown [Endnote 144:1], the Gnostics, though Hegesippus would seem
to have forgotten I Cor. ii. 9. The anti-Pauline position assigned
to Hegesippus on the strength of this is, we must say, untenable.
But for the present we are concerned rather with the second
quotation, which agrees closely with Matt. xiii. 26 ([Greek: humon
de makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoti blepousin, kai ta ota humon hoti
akouousin]). The form of the quotation has a slightly nearer
resemblance to Luke x. 23 ([Greek: makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoi
blepontes ha blepete k.t.l.]), but the marked difference in the
remainder of the Lucan passage increases the presumption that
Hegesippus is quoting from the first Gospel [Endnote 144:2].

The use of the phrase [Greek: ton theion graphon] is important and
remarkable. There is not, so far as I am aware, any instance of so
definite an expression being applied to an apocryphal Gospel. It
would tend to prepare us for the strong assertion of the Canon of
the Gospels in Irenaeus; it would in fact mark the gradually
culminating process which went on in the interval which separated
Irenaeus from Justin. To this interval the evidence of Hegesippus
must be taken to apply, because though writing like Irenaeus under
Eleutherus (from 177 A.D.) he was his elder contemporary, and had
been received with high respect in Rome as early as the episcopate
of Anicetus (157-168 A.D.).

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

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


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

Like Hegesippus, Papias may be described as 'an ancient and
apostolic man,' and appears to have better deserved the title. He
is said to have suffered martyrdom under M. Aurelius about the
same time as Polycarp, 165-167 A.D. [Endnote 145:1] He wrote a
commentary on the Discourses or more properly Oracles of the Lord,
from which Eusebius extracted what seemed to him 'memorable'
statements respecting the origin of the first and second Gospels.
'Matthew,' Papias said [Endnote 146:1], 'wrote the oracles
([Greek: ta logia]) in the Hebrew tongue, and every one
interpreted them as he was able.' 'Mark, as the interpreter of
Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that he
remembered that was said or done by Christ. For he neither heard
the Lord nor attended upon Him, but later, as I said, upon Peter,
who taught according to the occasion and not as composing a
connected narrative of the Lord's discourses; so that Mark made no
mistake in writing down some things as he remembered them. For he
took care of one thing, not to omit any of the particulars that he
heard or to falsify any part of them.'

* * * * *

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

Does this agree with the facts of the Gospel as it appears to us
now? There is a certain ambiguity as to the phrase 'in order.' We
cannot be quite sure what Papias meant by it, but the most natural
conclusion seems to be that it meant chronological order. If so,
the statement of Papias seems to be so far borne out that none of
the Synoptic Gospels is really in exact chronological order; but,
strange to say, if there is any in which an approach to such an
order is made, it is precisely this of St. Mark. This appears from
a comparison of the three Synoptics. From the point at which the
second Gospel begins, or, in other words, from the Baptism to the
Crucifixion, it seems to give the outline that the other two
Gospels follow [Endnote 147:1]. If either of them diverges from it
for a time it is only to return. The early part of St. Matthew is
broken up by the intrusion of the so-called Sermon on the Mount,
but all this time St. Mark is in approximate agreement with St.
Luke. For a short space the three Gospels go together. Then comes
a second break, where Luke introduces his version of the Sermon on
the Mount. Then the three rejoin and proceed together, Matthew
being thrown out by the way in which he has collected the parables
into a single chapter, and Luke later by the place which he has
assigned to the incident at Nazareth. After this Matthew and Mark
proceed side by side, Luke dropping out of the ranks. At the
confession of Peter he takes his place again, and there is a close
agreement in the order of the three narratives. The incident of
the miracle-worker is omitted by Matthew, and then comes the
insertion of a mass of extraneous matter by Luke. When he resumes
the thread of the common narrative again all three are together.
The insertion of a single parable on the part of Matthew, and
omissions on the part of Luke, are the only interruptions. There
is an approximate agreement of all three, we may say, for the rest
of the narrative. We observe throughout that, in by far the
preponderating number of instances, where Matthew differs from the
order of Mark, Luke and Mark agree, and where Luke differs from
the order of Mark, Matthew and Mark agree. Thus, for instance, in
the account of the healings in Peter's house and of the paralytic,
in the relation of the parables of Mark iv. 1-34 to the storm at
sea which follows, of the healing of Jairus' daughter to that of
the Gadarene demoniac and to the mission of the Twelve in the
place of Herod's reflections (Mark vi. 14-16), in the warning
against the Scribes and the widow's mite (Mark xii. 38-44), the
second and third Synoptics are allied against the first. On the
other hand, in the call of the four chief Apostles, the death of
the Baptist, the walking on the sea, the miracles in the land of
Gennesareth, the washing of hands, the Canaanitish woman, the
feeding of the four thousand and the discourses which follow, the
ambition of the sons of Zebedee, the anointing at Bethany, and
several insertions of the third Evangelist in regard to the last
events, the first two are allied against him. While Mark thus
receives such alternating support from one or other of his fellow
Evangelists, I am not aware of any clear case in which, as to the
order of the narratives, they are, united and he is alone, unless
we are to reckon as such his insertion of the incident of the
fugitive between Matt. xxvi. 56, 57, Luke xxii. 53, 54.

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

But again there seems to be evidence that the Gospel, in the form
in which it has come down to us, is not original but based upon
another document previously existing. When we come to examine
closely its verbal relations to the other two Synoptics, its
normal character is in the main borne out, but still not quite
completely. The number of particulars in which Matthew and Mark
agree together against Luke, or Mark and Luke agree together
against Matthew, is far in excess of that in which Matthew and
Luke are agreed against Mark. Mark is in most cases the middle
term which unites the other two. But still there remains a not
inconsiderable residuum of cases in which Matthew and Luke are in
combination and Mark at variance. The figures obtained by a not
quite exact and yet somewhat elaborate computation [Endnote 149:1]
are these; Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke in 1684
particulars, Luke and Mark against Matthew in 944, but Matthew and
Luke against Mark in only 334. These 334 instances are distributed
pretty evenly over the whole of the narrative. Thus (to take a
case at random) in the parallel narratives Matt. xii. 1-8, Mark
ii. 23-28, Luke vi. 1-5 (the plucking of the ears on the Sabbath
day), there are fifty-one points (words or parts of words) common
to all three Evangelists, twenty-three are common only to Mark and
Luke, ten to Mark and Matthew, and eight to Matthew and Luke. In
the next section, the healing of the withered hand, twenty points
are found alike in all three Gospels, twenty-seven in Mark and
Luke, twenty-one in Mark and Matthew, and five in Matthew and
Luke. Many of these coincidences between the first and third
Synoptics are insignificant in the extreme. Thus, in the last
section referred to (Mark iii. 1-6=Matt. xii. 9-14=Luke vi. 6-11),
one is the insertion of the article [Greek: taen] ([Greek:
sunagogaen]), one the insertion of [Greek: sou] ([Greek: taen
cheira sou]), two the use of [Greek: de] for [Greek: kai], and one
that of [Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. In the paragraph
before, the eight points of coincidence between Matthew and Luke
are made up thus, two [Greek: kai aesthion] (=[Greek kai
esthiein]), [Greek: eipon] (=[Greek: eipan]), [Greek: poiein,
eipen, met' autou] (=[Greek: sun auto]), [Greek: monous] (=[Greek:
monois]). But though such points as these, if they had been few in
number, might have been passed without notice, still, on the
whole, they reach a considerable aggregate and all are not equally
unimportant. Thus, in the account of the healing of the paralytic,
such phrases is [Greek epi klinaes, apaelthen eis ton oikon
autou], can hardly have come into the first and third Gospels and
be absent from the second by accident; so again the clause [Greek:
alla ballousin (blaeteon) oinon neon eis askous kainous]. In the
account of the healing of the bloody flux the important word
[Greek: tou kraspedou] is inserted in Matthew and Luke but not in
Mark; in that of the mission of the twelve Apostles, the two
Evangelists have, and the single one has not, the phrase [Greek:
kai therapeuein noson (nosous]), and the still more important
clause [Greek: lego humin anektoteron estai (gae) Sodomon ... en
haemera ... ae tae polei ekeinae]: in Luke ix. 7 (= Matt. xiv. 1)
Herod's title is [Greek: tetrarchaes], in Mark vi. 14 [Greek:
basileus]; in the succeeding paragraph [Greek: hoi ochloi
aekolouthaesan] and the important [Greek: to perisseuon (-san)]
are wanting in the intermediate Gospel; in the first prophecy of
the Passion it has [Greek: apo] where the other two have [Greek:
hupo], and [Greek: meta treis haemeras] where they have [Greek:
tae tritae haemera]: in the healing of the lunatic boy it omits
the noticeable [Greek: kai diestrammenae]: in the second prophecy
of the Passion it omits [Greek: mellei], in the paragraph about
offences, [Greek: elthein ta skandala ...ouai...di hou erchetai].
These points might be easily multiplied as we go on; suffice it to
say that in the aggregate they seem to prove that the second
Gospel, in spite of its superior originality and adhesion to the
normal type, still does not entirely adhere to it or maintain its
primary character throughout. The theory that we have in the
second Gospel one of the primitive Synoptic documents is not

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

For our present purpose however it is not necessary that the
question should be solved. We have already obtained an answer on
the two points raised by Papias. The second Gospel _is_
written in order; it is _not_ an original document. These two
characteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape
the document to which Papias alludes.

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

This is but a tithe of the arguments which show that the first
Gospel is a secondary composition. An original composition would
be homogeneous; it is markedly heterogeneous. The first two
chapters clearly belong to a different stock of materials from the
rest of the Gospel. A broad division is seen in regard to the Old
Testament quotations. Those which are common to the other two
Synoptists are almost if not quite uniformly taken from the
Septuagint; those, on the other hand, which seem to belong to the
reflection of the Evangelist betray more or less distinctly the
influence of the Hebrew [Endnote 153:1]. Our Gospel is thus seen
to be a recension of another original document or documents and
not an original document itself.

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

Again, the character of the narrative is such as to be inconsistent
with the view that it proceeds from an eye-witness of the events.
Those graphic touches, which are so conspicuous in the fourth Gospel,
and come out from time to time in the second, are entirely wanting
in the first. If parallel narratives, such as the healing of the
paralytic, the cleansing of the Temple, or the feeding of the five
thousand, are compared, this will be very clearly seen. More; there
are features in the first Gospel that are to all appearance unhistorical
and due to the peculiar method of the writer. He has a way of
reduplicating, so to speak, the personages of one narrative in
order to make up for the omission of another [Endnote 154:1]. For
instance, he is silent as to the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum,
but, instead of this, he gives us two Gadarene demoniacs, at the same
time modifying the language in which he describes this latter incident
after the pattern of the former; in like manner he speaks of the
healing of two blind men at Jericho, but only because he had passed
over the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Of a somewhat similar
nature is the adding of the ass's colt to the ass in the account
of the Triumphal Entry. There are also fragmentary sayings
repeated in the Gospel in a way that would be natural in a later
editor piecing together different documents and finding the same
saying in each, but unnatural in an eye- and ear-witness drawing
upon his own recollections. Some clear cases of this kind would be
Matt. v. 29, 30 (= Matt. xviii. 8, 9) the offending member, Matt.
v. 32 (= Matt. xix. 9) divorce, Matt. x. 38, 39 (= Matt. xvi. 24,
25) bearing the cross, loss and gain; and there are various others.

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

* * * * *

But now a further enquiry opens out upon us. The language of
Papias does not apply to our present Gospels; will it apply to
some earlier and more primary state of those Gospels, to documents
_incorporated in_ the works that have come down to us but not
co-extensive with them? German critics, it is well known,
distinguish between 'Matthaeus'--the present Gospel that bears the
name of St. Matthew--and 'Ur-Matthaeus,' or the original work of
that Apostle, 'Marcus'--our present St. Mark--and 'Ur-Marcus,' an
older and more original document, the real production of the
companion of St. Peter. Is it to these that Papias alludes?

Here we have a much more tenable and probable hypothesis. Papias
says that Matthew composed 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia]) in
the Hebrew tongue. The meaning of the word [Greek: logia] has been
much debated. Perhaps the strictest translation of it is that
which has been given, 'oracles'--short but weighty and solemn or
sacred sayings. I should be sorry to say that the word would not
bear the sense assigned to it by Dr. Westcott, who paraphrases it
felicitously (from his point of view) by our word 'Gospel'
[Endnote 155:1]. It is, however, difficult to help feeling that
the _natural_ sense of the word has to be somewhat strained
in order to make it cover the whole of our present Gospel, and to
bring under it the record of facts to as great an extent as
discourse. It seems at least the simplest and most obvious
interpretation to confine the word strictly or mainly to
discourse. 'Matthew composed the discourses (those brief yet
authoritative discourses) in Hebrew.'

At this point we are met by a further coincidence. The common
matter in the first three Gospels is divided into a triple
synopsis and a double synopsis--the first of course running
through all three Gospels, the second found only in St. Matthew
and St. Luke. But this double synopsis is nearly, though not
quite, confined to discourse; where it contains narration proper,
as in the account of John the Baptist and the Centurion of
Capernaum, discourse is largely mingled with it. But, if the
matter common to Matthew and Luke consists of discourse, may it
not be these very [Greek: logia] that Papias speaks of? Is it not
possible that the two Evangelists had access to the original work
of St. Matthew and incorporated its material into their own
Gospels in different ways? It would thus be easy to understand how
the name that belonged to a special and important part of the
first Gospel gradually came to be extended over the whole. Bulk
would not unnaturally be a great consideration with the early
Christians. The larger work would quickly displace the smaller; it
would contain all that the smaller contained with additions no
less valuable, and would therefore be eagerly sought by the
converts, whose object would be rather fulness of information than
the best historical attestation. The original work would be simply
lost, absorbed, in the larger works that grew out of it.

This is the kind of presumption that we have for identifying the
Logia of Papias with the second ground document of the first
Gospel--the document, that is, which forms the basis of the double
synopsis between the first Gospel and the third. As a hypothesis
the identification of these two documents seems to clear up
several points. It gives a 'local habitation and a name' to a
document, the separate and independent existence of which there is
strong reason to suspect, and it explains how the name of St.
Matthew came to be placed at the head of the Gospel without
involving too great a breach in the continuity of the tradition.
It should be remembered that Papias is not giving his own
statement but that of the Presbyter John, which dates back to a
time contemporary with the composition of the Gospel. On the other
hand, by the time of Irenaeus, whose early life ran parallel with
the closing years of Papias, the title was undoubtedly given to
the Gospel in its present form. It is therefore as difficult to
think that the Gospel had no connection with the Apostle whose
name it bears, as it is impossible to regard it as entirely his
work. The Logia hypothesis seems to suggest precisely such an
intermediate relation as will satisfy both sides of the problem.

There are, however, still difficulties in the way. When we attempt
to reconstruct the 'collection of discourses' the task is very far
from being an easy one. We do indeed find certain groups of
discourse in the first Gospel--such as the Sermon on the Mount ch.
v-vii, the commission of the Apostles ch. x, a series of parables
ch. xiii, of instructions in ch. xviii, invectives against the
Pharisees in ch. xxvi, and long eschatological discourses in ch.
xxiv and xxv, which seem at once to give a handle to the theory
that the Evangelist has incorporated a work consisting specially
of discourses into the main body of the Synoptic narrative. But
the appearance of roundness and completeness which these
discourses present is deceptive. If we are to suppose that the
form in which the discourses appear in St. Matthew at all nearly
represents their original structure, then how is it that the same
discourses are found in the third Gospel in such a state of
dispersion? How is it, for instance, that the parallel passages to
the Sermon on the Mount are found in St. Luke scattered over
chapters vi, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, with almost every possible
inversion and variety of order? Again, if the Matthaean sections
represent a substantive work, how are we to account for the
strange intrusion of the triple synopsis into the double? What are
we to say to the elaborately broken structure of ch. x? On the
other hand, if we are to take the Lucan form as nearer to the
original, that original must have been a singular agglomeration of
fragments which it is difficult to piece together. It is easy to
state a theory that shall look plausible so long as it is confined
to general terms, but when it comes to be worked out in detail it
will seem to be more and more difficult and involved at every
step. The Logia hypothesis in fact carries us at once into the
very nodus of Synoptic criticism, and, in the present state of the
question, must be regarded as still some way from being

The problem in regard to St. Mark and the triple synopsis is
considerably simpler. Here the difficulty arises from the
necessity of assuming a distinction between our present second
Gospel and the original document on which that Gospel is based. I
have already touched upon this point. The synoptical analysis
seems to conduct us to a ground document greatly resembling our
present St. Mark, which cannot however be quite identical with it,
as the Canonical Gospel is found to contain secondary features.
But apart from the fact that these secondary features are so
comparatively few that it is difficult to realise the existence of
a work in which they, and they only, should be absent, there is
this further obstacle to the identification even of the ground
document with the Mark of Papias, that even in that original shape
the Gospel still presented the normal type of the Synoptic order,
though 'order' is precisely the characteristic that Papias says
was, in this Gospel, wanting.

Everywhere we meet with difficulties and complexities. The
testimony of Papias remains an enigma that can only be solved--if
ever it is solved--by close and detailed investigations. I am
bound in candour to say that, so far as I can see myself at
present, I am inclined to agree with the author of 'Supernatural
Religion' against his critics [Endnote 159:1], that the works to
which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their
present form.

What amount of significance this may have for the enquiry before
us is a further question. Papias is repeating what he had heard
from the Presbyter John, which would seem to take us up to the
very fountainhead of evangelical composition. But such a statement
does not preclude the possibility of subsequent changes in the
documents to which it refers. The difficulties and restrictions of
local communication must have made it hard for an individual to
trace all the phases of literary activity in a society so widely
spread as the Christian, even if it had come within the purpose of
the writer or his informant to state the whole, and not merely the
essential part, of what he knew.



It is unfortunate that there are not sufficient materials for
determining the date of the Clementine Homilies. Once given the
date and a conclusion of considerable certainty could be drawn
from them; but the date is uncertain, and with it the extent to
which they can be used as evidence either on one side or on the

Some time in the second century there sprang up a crop of
heretical writings in the Ebionite sect which were falsely
attributed to Clement of Rome. The two principal forms in which
these have come down to us are the so-called Homilies and
Recognitions. The Recognitions however are only extant in a Latin
translation by Rufinus, in which the quotations from the Gospels
have evidently been assimilated to the Canonical text which
Rufinus himself used. They are not, therefore, in any case
available for our purpose. Whether the Recognitions or the
Homilies came first in order of time is a question much debated
among critics, and the even way in which the best opinions seem to
be divided is a proof of the uncertainty of the data. On the one
side are ranged Credner, Ewald, Reuss, Schwegler, Schliemann,
Uhlhorn, Dorner, and Luecke, who assign the priority to the
Homilies: on the other, Hilgenfeld, Koestlin, Ritschl (doubtfully),
and Volkmar, who give the first place to the Recognitions [Endnote
162:1]. On the ground of authority perhaps the preference should
be given to the first of these, as representing more varied
parties and as carrying with them the greater weight of sound
judgment, but it is impossible to say that the evidence on either
side is decisive.

The majority of critics assign the Clementines, in one form or the
other, to the middle of the second century. Credner, Schliemann,
Scholten, and Renan give this date to the Homilies; Volkmar and
Hilgenfeld to the Recognitions; Ritschl to both recensions alike
[Endnote 162:2]. We shall assume hypothetically that the Homilies
are rightly thus dated. I incline myself to think that this is
more probable, but, speaking objectively, the probability could
not have a higher value put upon it than, say, two in three.

One reason for assigning the Homilies to the middle of the second
century is presented by the phenomena of the quotations from the
Gospels which correspond generally to those that are found in
writings of this date, and especially, as has been frequently
noticed, to those which we meet with in Justin. I proceed to give
a tabulated list of the quotations. In order to bring out a point
of importance I have indicated by a letter in the left margin the
presence in the Clementine quotations of some of the _peculiarities_
of our present Gospels. When this letter is unbracketed, it denotes
that the passage is _only_ found in the Gospel so indicated; when
the letter is enclosed in brackets, it is implied that the passage
is synoptical, but that the Clementines reproduce expressions peculiar
to that particular Gospel. The direct quotations are marked by the
letter Q. Many of the references are merely allusive, and in more
it is sufficiently evident that the writer has allowed himself
considerable freedom [Endnote 163:1].

_Exact._ |_Slightly variant._ | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| | |
(M.) | |8.21, Luke 4.6-8 |narrative.
| | (=Matt. 4.8-10), |
| | Q. |
| |3.55, [Greek: ho |
| | ponaeros estin |
| | ho peirazon.], |
| | Q. |
| |15.10, Matt. 5.3; |
| | Luke 6.20. |
M. |17.7, Matt. 5.8. | |
(M.) |3.51 } Matt. 5. | |repeated
|Ep. Pet. 2} 17,18. | | identically.
| |11.32, Matt. 5. |highly condensed
| | 21-48. | paraphrase,
| | | [Greek: oi
| | | en planae.]
| { Matt.5.44,| |allusive merely.
|12.32 { 45(=Luke | |
|3.19 {6.27, 28, | |
| {35). | |
M. |3.56, Matt. 5.34, | |
| 35, Q. | |
M. |3.55} Matt. 5.37. | |repeated identi-
|19.2} Q. | | cally; so
| | | Justin.
(M.) | |3.57. Matt. 5.45. |
| | Q. |
| | {|oblique and allu-
| |12.26 {| sive, repeated
| |18.2. {| in part simi-
| |11.12 {| larly; [Greek:
| | {| pherei ton
| | {| hueton].
M. |3.55, Matt. 6,6, Q. | |
19.2, Matt.6.13 | | |
Q. | | |
(M.) |3.55, Matt. 6.32; | |combination.
| 6.8 (=Luke 12.30.)| |
| |18.16, Matt. 7.2 |oblique and allu-
| | (12). | sive.
|3.52, Matt. 7.7 | |[Greek: euris-
| (=Luke 11.9). | | kete] for
| | | [euraeskete]
| | | in both.
(L.M.) |3.56, Matt. 7.9-11 | |striking divi-
| (=Luke 11.11-13) | | sion of pecu-
| | | liarities of
| | | both Gospels.
| |12.32} Matt. 7.12 |repeated di-
| |7.4 } (=Luke | versely,
| |11.4 } 6.31. | allusive.
(M.) |18.17, Matt. 7. |(omissions), Q. |
| 13,14. | |
| |7.7. Matt. 7.13, |allusive para-
| | 14. | phrase.
(L.) |8.7, Luke 6.46. | |
|11.35, Matt. 7.15. | |Justin, in part
| | | similarly, in
| | | part diversely.
(M.) |8.4, Matt. 8.11, |(addition), Q. |Justin diversely.
| 12 (Luke 13.29). | |
|9.21, Matt. 8.9 | |allusive merely.
| (Luke 7.8). | |
(M.) |3.56, Matt. 9.13 |(addition), Q. |from LXX.
| (12.7). | |
(L.M.) | | {Matt. 10. |{
| | { 13, 15= |{
| | { Luke 10. |{
| |13.30, { 5,6,10- |{mixed pecu-
| | 31. { 12 (9.5) |{ liarities,
| | { =Mark |{ oblique and
| | { 6.11. |{ allusive.
(L.M.) |17.5, Matt. 10.28 | |mixed peculia-
| (=Luke 12,4, 5), Q.| | rities; Justin
| | | diversely.
| |12.31, Matt. 10. |allusive merely.
| | 29, 30 (=Luke |
| | 12.6, 7). |
|3.17 {Matt. 11.11. | |allusive.
| {Luke 7.28. | |
|8.6, Matt. 11.25 |(addition)+. |perhaps from
| (=Luke x.21). | | Matt. 21.16.
(M.) | |17.4 } |{
| |18.4 }Matt. 11.27 |{repeated simi-
| |18.7 } (=Luke |{ larly; cp.
| |18.13} 10.22), Q.|{ Justin, &c.
| |18.20} |
M. 3.52, Matt. | | |
(M.) |+19.2. Matt. 12. | |[Greek: allae
| 26, Q. | | pou.]
(M.L.) |+19.7, Matt. 12. | |
| 34 (=Luke 6. | |
| 45), Q. | |
M.11.33, Matt. |(addition), Q. | |
12.42. | | |
|11.33, Matt. 12. | |
| 41 (=Luke 11. | |
| 32), Q. | |
(M.L.) |M.53, Matt. 13. | |
| 16 (=Luke 10. | |
| 24), +Q. | |
M.18.15, Matt. | | |
13.35+. | | |
Mk. |19.20, Mark 4.34. | |
M. |19.2, Matt. 13. | |
|39, Q. | |
M.3.52, Matt. 15.| | |
15 (om. [Greek:| | |
mou]), Q. | | |
| | {Matt. 15. |narrative.
| |11.19 {21-28 |
| | {(=Mark |[Greek: Iousta
| | {7.24-30). | Surophoini-
| | | kissa.]
(M.) |17.18, Matt. 16. | |
| 16 (par.) | |
M. | |Ep. Clem. 2, |allusive merely.
| | Matt. 16.19. |
M. |Ep. Clem. 6, Matt. | |ditto.
| 16.19. | |
(M.) |3.53, Matt. 17.5 | |
| (par.), Q. | |
M. | |12.29, Matt. 18. |addition [Greek:
| | 7, Q. | ta agatha
| | | elthein.]
M. |17.7, Matt. 18.10 | |
| (v.l.) | |
(L.) 3.71, Luke | | |
10.7. (order) | | |
(=Matt.10.10). | | |
L. |+19.2, Luke 10.18. | |
L. | |9.22, Luke 10.20. |allusive merely.
L. | |17.5, Luke 18.6- |
| | 8, Q. (?) |
| |19.2, [Greek: mae |Cp. Eph. 4.27.
| | dote prophasin |
| | to ponaero], Q. |
| |3.53, Prophet like|Cp. Acts 3.22.
| | Moses, Q. |
(M.) |3.54, Matt. 19.8, | |sense more diver-
| 4 (=Mark 10.5, | | gent than
| 6), Q. | | words.
| | {Matt. 19. |}
| |17.4 { 16,17. |}
| |18.1 {Mark 10. |}repeated simi-
| |18.3 { 17,18. |} larly; cp.
| |18.17 {Luke 18. |} Justin.
| | 3.57 { 18,19. |}
L. | |3.63, Luke 19. |not quotation.
| | 5.9. |
M.8.4, Matt. 22. | | |
14, Q. | | |
(M.) | |8.22, Matt. 22.9. |allusive merely.
| | 11. |
| | 3.50 {Matt. 22. |}
| | 2.51 {29 (=Mark |}repeated simi-
| |18.20 {12.24), Q. |} larly.
| | 3.50, [Greek: |
| | dia ti ou |
| | eulogon ton |
| | graphon;] |
(Mk.) 3.55, Mark | | |
12.27 (par.), | | |
Mk. 3.57, Mark | | |
12.29 [Greek: | | |
haemon], Q. | | |
| |17.7, Mark 12.30 |allusive.
| | (=Matt. 22.37). |
{|3.18, Matt. 23.2, | |
M. {| 3, Q. | |
{| |3.18, Matt. 23.13 |repeated simi-
{| | (=Luke 11.52). | larly.
| |18.15. |
(M.) |11.29, Matt. 23. | |
| 25, 26, Q. | |
(Mk.) {|3.15, Mark 13.2 | |
{|(par.), Q. | |
{| |3.15, Matt. 24.3 |
{| | (par.), Q. |
L. {| |Luke 19.43, Q. |
| |16.21, [Greek: |
| | esontai pseud- |
| | apostoloi]. |
(M.) |3.60 (3.64), Matt. | |part repeated
| 24.45-51 (= | | larly.
| Luke 12.42-46). | |
(M.) 3.65, Matt. | | |
25.21 (= Luke | | |
19.17). | | |
(M. L.) | |3.61, Matt. 25.26,|? mixed peculi-
| | 26,27 (=Luke 19.| arities.
| | 22,23). |
| | 2.51}[Greek: |
| | 3.50} ginesthe |
| |18.20} trapezitai |
| | } dokimoi.] |
M. | |19.2. Matt. 25. |[Greek: allae
| | 41, Q. | pou.] Justin
| | |
L. |11.20, Luke 23.34 | |
| (v.l.), Q. | |
| |17.7, Matt. 28.19.|allusive.

By far the greater part of the quotations in the Clementine
Homilies are taken from the discourses, but some few have
reference to the narrative. There can hardly be said to be any
material difference from our Gospels, though several apocryphal
sayings and some apocryphal details are added. Thus the Clementine
writer calls John a 'Hemerobaptist,' i.e. member of a sect which
practised daily baptism [Endnote 167:1]. He talks about a rumour
which became current in the reign of Tiberius about the 'vernal
equinox,' that at the same season a king should arise in Judaea
who should work miracles, making the blind to see, the lame to
walk, healing every disease, including leprosy, and raising the
dead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, with Mark, he
calls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, 'Justa,' and that of her
daughter 'Bernice;' he also limits the ministry of our Lord to one
year [Endnote 168:1]. Otherwise, with the exception of the sayings
marked as without parallel, all of the Clementine quotations have
a more or less close resemblance to our Gospels.

We are struck at once by the small amount of exact coincidence,
which is considerably less than that which is found in the
quotations from the Old Testament. The proportion seems lower than
it is, because many of the passages that have been entered in the
above list do not profess to be quotations. Another phenomenon
equally remarkable is the extent to which the writer of the
Homilies has reproduced the peculiarities of particular extant
Gospels. So far front being it a colourless text, as it is in some
few places which present a parallel to our Synoptic Gospels, the
Clementine version both frequently includes passages that are
found only in some one of the canonical Gospels, and also, we may
say usually, repeats the characteristic phrases by which one
Gospel is distinguished from another. Thus we find that as many as
eighteen passages reappear in the Homilies that are found only in
St. Matthew; one of the extremely few that are found only in St.
Mark; and six of those that are peculiar to St. Luke. Taking the
first Gospel, we find that the Clementine Homilies contain (in an
allusive form) the promises to the pure in heart; as a quotation,
with close resemblance, the peculiar precepts in regard to oaths;
the special admonition to moderation of language which, as we have
seen, seems proved to be Matthaean by the clause [Greek: to gar
perisson touton k.t.l.]; with close resemblance, again, the
directions for secret prayer; identically, the somewhat remarkable
phrase, [Greek: deute pros me pantes hoi kopiontes]; all but
identically another phrase, also noteworthy, [Greek: pasa phuteia
haen ouk ephuteusen ho pataer [mou] ho ouranios ekrizothaesetai];
with a resemblance that is closer in the text of B ([Greek: en to
ourano] for [Greek: en ouranois]), the saying respecting the
angels who behold the face of the Father; identically again, the
text [Greek: polloi klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi]: in the shape of
an allusion only, the wedding garment; with near agreement, 'the
Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.' All these are passages
found only in the first Gospel, and in regard to which there is
just so much presumption that they had no large circulation among
non-extant Gospels, as they did not find their way into the two
other Gospels that have come down to us.

There is, however, a passage that I have not mentioned here which
contains (if the canonical reading is correct) a strong indication
of the use of our actual St. Matthew. The whole history of this
passage is highly curious. In the chapter which contains so many
parables the Evangelist adds, by way of comment, that this form of
address was adopted in order 'that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I
will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation
of the world.' This is according to the received text, which
attributes the quotation to 'the prophet' ([Greek: dia tou
prophaetou]). It is really taken from Ps. lxxvii. 2, which is
ascribed in the heading to Asaph, who, according to the usage of
writers at this date, might be called a prophet, as he is in the
Septuagint version of 2 Chron. xxix. 30. The phrase [Greek: ho
prophaetaes legei] in quotations from the Psalms is not uncommon.
The received reading is that of by far the majority of the MSS.
and versions: the first hand of the Sinaitic, however, and the
valuable cursives 1 and 33 with the Aethiopic (a version on which
not much reliance can be placed) and m. of the Old Latin (Mai's
'Speculum,' presenting a mixed African text) [Endnote 170:1],
insert [Greek: Haesaiou] before [Greek: tou prophaetou]. It also
appears that Porphyry alleged this as an instance of false
ascription. Eusebius admits that it was found in some, though not
in the most accurate MSS., and Jerome says that in his day it was
still the reading of 'many.'

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

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

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

_Clem. Hom._ xviii. 15.

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

_Matt._ xiii. 35.

[Greek: Hopos plaerothe to rhaethen dia [Haesaiou?] tou prophaetou
legontos; Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, ereuxomai kekrummena
apo katabolaes kosmou] [om. [Greek: kosmou] a few of the best

LXX. _Ps._ lxxvii. 2.

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

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' contends for the reading
[Greek: Haesaiou], and yet does not see in the Clementine passage
a quotation from St. Matthew. He argues, with a strange domination
by modern ideas, that the quotation cannot be from St. Matthew
because of the difference of context, and declares it to be 'very
probable that the passage with its erroneous reference was derived
by both from another and common source.' Surely it is not
necessary to go back to the second century to find parallels for
the use of 'proof texts' without reference to the context; but, as
we have seen, context counts for little or nothing in these early
quotations,--verbal resemblance is much more important. The
supposition of a common earlier source for both the Canonical and
the Clementine text seems to me quite out of the question. There
can be little doubt that the reference to the Psalm is due to the
first Evangelist himself. Precisely up to this point he goes hand
in hand with St. Mark, and the quotation is introduced in his own
peculiar style and with his own peculiar formula, [Greek: hopos
plaerothae to rhaethen].

I must, however, again repeat that the surest criterion of the use
of a Gospel is to be sought in the presence of phrases or turns of
expression which are shown to be characteristic and distinctive of
that Gospel by a comparison with the synopsis of the other
Gospels. This criterion can be abundantly applied in the case of
the Clementine Homilies and St. Matthew. I will notice a little
more at length some of the instances that have been marked in the
above table. Let us first take the passage which has a parallel in
Matt. v. 18 and in Luke xvi. 17. The three versions will stand

_Matt._ v. 18.

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

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

[Greek: Ho ouranos kai hae gae pareleusontai, iota en ae mia keraia
ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou] [Ep. Pet. adds [Greek: touto de
eiraeken, hina ta panta genaetai]].

_Luke_ xvi. 17.

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

It will be seen that in the Clementines the passage is quoted
twice over, and each time with the variation [Greek pareleusontai]
for [Greek: heos an parelthae]. The author of 'Supernatural
Religion' argues from this that he is quoting from another Gospel
[Endnote 172:1]. No doubt the fact does tell, so far as it goes,
in that direction, but it is easy to attach too much weight to it.
The phenomenon of repeated variation may be even said to be a
common one in some writers. Dr. Westcott [Endnote 172:2] has
adduced examples from Chrysostom, and they would be as easy to
find in Epiphanius or Clement of Alexandria, where we can have no
doubt that the canonical Gospels are being quoted. A slight and
natural turn of expression such as this easily fixes itself in the
memory. The author also insists that the passage in the Gospel
quoted in the Clementines ended with the word [Green: nomou]; but
I think it may be left to any impartial person to say whether the
addition in the Epistle of Peter does not naturally point to a
termination such as is found in the first canonical Gospel. Our
critic seems unable to free himself from the standpoint (which he
represents ably enough) of the modern Englishman, or else is
little familiar with the fantastic trains and connections of
reasoning which are characteristic of the Clementines.

Turning from these objections and comparing the Clementine
quotation first with the text of St. Matthew and then with that of
St. Luke, we cannot but be struck with its very close resemblance
to the former and with the wide divergence of the latter. The
passage is one where almost every word and syllable might easily
and naturally be altered--as the third Gospel shows that they have
been altered--and yet in the Clementines almost every peculiarity
of the Matthaean version has been retained.

Another quotation which shows the delicacy of these verbal
relations is that which corresponds to Matt. vi. 32 (= Luke xii.

_Matt._ vi. 32.

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

_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55.

[Greek: [ephae] Oiden gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios hoti
chraezete touton hapanton, prin auton axiosaete] (cp. Matt. vi.

_Luke_ xii. 30.

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

The natural inference from the exactness of this coincidence with
the language of Matthew as compared with Luke, is not neutralised
by the paraphrastic addition from Matt. vi. 8, because such
additions and combinations, as will have been seen from our table
of quotations from the Old Testament, are of frequent occurrence.

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

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

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

_Matt._ xvi. 16.

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

_Mark_ viii. 29.

[Greek: Su ei ho Christos.]

_Luke_ ix. 20.

[Greek: ton Christon tou Theou.]

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

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

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

_Matt._ xxiii. 25, 26.

[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti
katharizete to exothen tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, esothen
de gemousin ex harpagaes kai adikias. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison
proton to entos tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, hina genaetai
kai to ektos auton katharon.]

_Clem. Hom._ xi. 29.

[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti
katharizete tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to exothen, esothen
de gemei rhupous. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison proton tou
potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to esothen, hina genaetai kai ta exo
auton kathara.]

_Luke_ xi. 39.

[Greek: Nun humeis hoi Pharisaioi to exothen tou potaerion kai tou
pinakos katharizete, to de esothen humon gemei harpagaes kai

Book of the day:
Facebook Google Reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Pinterest