Part 7 out of 7
sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonable
warning in Reuss (_Gesch. h. S. N. T._ p. 254) that the
Tuebingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate the
polemical aspect of the writing.
[162:2] It should be noticed that Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, though
assigning the second place to the Homilies, both take the
_terminus ad quem_ for this work no later than 180 A.D. It
seems that a Syriac version, partly of the Homilies, partly of the
Recognitions, exists in a MS. which itself was written in the year
411, and bears at that date marks of transcription from a still
earlier copy (cf. Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 341, n. 1).
[163:1] This table is made, as in the case of Justin, with the
help of the collection of passages in the works of Credner and
[167:1] Or rather perhaps 'morning baptism.' (Cf. Lightfoot,
_Colossians,_ p. 162 sqq., where the meaning of the name and
the character and relations of the sect are fully discussed).
[168:1] _Hom._ i. 6; ii. 19, 23; iii. 73; iv. 1; xiii. 7;
[170:1] So Tregelles expressly (_Introduction_, p. 240), after Wiseman;
Scrivener (_Introd._, p. 308) adds (?); M'Clellan classes with
'Italic Family' (p. lxxiii). [On returning to this passage I incline
rather more definitely to regard the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], from
the group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption.
Still the Clementine writer may have had it before him.]
[170:2] ii. p. 10 sqq.
[172:1] ii. p. 21.
[172:2] Preface to the fourth edition of _Canon_, p. xxxii.
[174:1] _Evangelien_, p. 31.
[174:2] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 282.
[175:1] _Synopt. Ev._ p. 193.
[176:1] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 295.
[178:1] A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes and
Parsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. vi. 4.
For [Greek: sou] there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp.
104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718; Chrys. i. 482 et saepe, al.' For
_tuus_, 'Iren. (int.), Tert., Cypr., Ambr., Anonym. ap. Aug.,
Gaud., Brix., Alii Latini.' No authorities for [Greek: humon]. Was
the change first introduced into the text of the New Testament?
[178:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 25.
[179:1] _Beitraege_, i. p. 326.
[179:2] _On the Canon_, p. 261, n. 2.
[188:1] _Hom._ 1. _in Lucam_.
[189:1] _H.E._ iv. 7.
[189:2] _Strom._ iv. 12.
[189:3] _S.R._ ii. p. 42.
[189:4] _Ibid._ n. 2; cp. p. 47.
[190:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii, 27.
[190:2] ii. p. 45.
[191:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii. 20.
[192:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 49.
[197:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Pref. 2.
[198:1] ii. p. 59.
[199:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq.
[200:1] _Strom._ ii. 20; see Westcott, _Canon_, p. 269;
Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 152.
[203:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 7, 9.
[203:2] _Ibid._ iii. 12. 12.
[204:1] The corresponding chapter to this in 'Supernatural Religion'
has been considerably altered, and indeed in part rewritten, in the
sixth edition. The author very kindly sent me a copy of this after
the appearance of my article in the _Fortnightly Review_, and I at
once made use of it for the part of the work on which I was engaged;
but I regret that my attention was not directed, as it should have
been, to the changes in this chapter until it was too late to take
quite sufficient account of them. The argument, however, I think I
may say, is not materially affected. Several criticisms which I had
been led to make in the _Fortnightly_ I now find had been anticipated,
and these have been cancelled or a note added in the present work;
I have also appended to the volume a supplemental note of greater
length on the reconstruction of Marcion's text, the only point on
which I believe there is really very much room for doubt.
[205:1] See above, p. 89.
[205:2] _Apol._ i. 26.
[205:3] _Ibid._ i. 58.
[205:4] ii. p. 80.
[205:5] _Der Ursprung_, p. 89.
[205:6] Cf. Tertullian, _De Praescript. Haeret._ c. 38.
[206:1] _Adv. Haer._ iv. 27. 2; 12. 12.
[209:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, pp. 28-54. [Volkmar's view is
stated less inadequately in the sixth edition of _S. R._, but
still not quite adequately. Perhaps it could hardly be otherwise
where arguments that were originally adduced in favour of one
conclusion are employed to support its opposite.]
[210:1] [Greek: oida] for [Greek: oidas] in Luke xiv. 20. Cf.
Volkmar, p. 46.
[211:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, p. 45.
[211:2] _Ibid._ pp. 46-48.
[211:3] 'We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy or
trustworthiness of any of their statements' (_S.R._ ii. p.
100). We have just the remarkable coincidence spoken of above. It
does not prove that Tertullian did not faithfully reproduce the
text of Marcion to show, which is the real drift of the argument
on the preceding page (_S.R._ ii. p. 99), that he had not the
canonical Gospel before him; rather it removes the suspicion that
he might have confused the text of Marcion's Gospel with the
[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette,
_Einleitung_, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmar
[213:1]: _S.R._ ii. p. 110, n. 3. The statement is mistaken
in regard to Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. Both these writers would make
Marcion retain this passage. It happens rather oddly that this is
one of the sections on which the philological evidence for St.
Luke's authorship is least abundant (see below).
[215:1] There is direct evidence for the presence in Marcion's
Gospel of the passages relating to the personages here named,
except Martha and Mary; see _Tert. Adv. Marc._ iv. 19, 37, 43.
[217:1] _S. R._ ii. 142 sq.
[217:2] This admission does not damage the credit of Tertullian
and Epiphanius as witnesses; because what we want from them is a
statement of the facts; the construction which they put upon the
facts is a matter of no importance.
[217:3] The omission in 2 Cor. iv. 13 must be due to Marcion
(_Epiph._ 321 c.); so probably an insertion in 1 Cor. ix. 8.
[218:1] Tert. _Adv. Marc._ v. 16: 'Haec si Marcion de
industria erasit,' &c. V. 14: 'Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum
intercisae scripturae.' V. 3: 'Ostenditur quid supra haeretica
industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,' &c. Cf. Bleek,
_Einleitung_, p. 136; Hilgenfeld, _Evv. Justin's_, &c., p. 473.
[219:1] 'Anno xv. Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatus
est' (Tert. _Adv. Marc._ i. 19).
[220:1] I give mainly the explanations of Volkmar, who, it should
be remembered, is the very reverse of an apologist, indicating the
points where they seem least satisfactory.
[220:2] It is highly probable that many of the points mentioned by
Tertullian and Epiphanius as 'adulterations' were simply various
readings in Marcion's Codex; such would be v. 14, x. 25, xvii. 2,
and xxiii. 2, which are directly supported by other authority: xi.
2 and xii. 28 would probably belong to this class. So perhaps the
insertion of iv. 27 in the history of the Samaritan leper. The
phenomenon of a transposition of verses from one part of a Gospel
to another is not an infrequent one in early MSS.
[223:1] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, 1863, pp. 302 sqq.
[224:1] Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it is
confirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion.
[229:1] An analysis of the words which are only found in St. Luke,
or very rarely found elsewhere, gives the following results.--The
number of words found only in the portion of the Gospel retained
by Marcion and in the Acts is 231; that of words found in these
retained portions and not besides in the Gospels or the two other
Synoptics is 58; and both these classes together for the portions
omitted in Marcion's Gospel reach a total of 62, which is
decidedly under the proportion that might have been expected. The
list is diminished by a number of words which are found only in
the omitted and retained portions, furnishing evidence, as above,
that both proceed from the same hand.
[231:1] This list has been made from the valuable work of Roensch,
_Das Neue Testament Tertullian's_, 1871, and the critical
editions, compared with the text of Marcion's Gospel as given by
Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.
[231:2] It might be thought that Tertullian was giving his own
text and not that of Marcion's Gospel, but this supposition is
excluded both by the confirmation which he receives from
Epiphanius, and also by the fact, which is generally admitted (see
_S.R._ ii. p. 100), that he had not the canonical Luke, but
only Marcion's Gospel before him.
[233:1] See Crowfoot, _Observations on the Collation in Greek of
Cureton's Syriac Fragments of the Gospels_, 1872, p. 5; Scrivener,
_Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, 2nd edition,
1874, p. 452.
[233:2] See Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 307 sq.; and Dr. Westcott's
article on the 'Vulgate' in Smith's Dictionary. It should be noticed
that Dr. Westcott's literation differs from that of Dr. Scrivener
and Tregelles, which has been adopted here.
[235:1] Cf. Friedlaender, _Sittengeschichte Roms_, iii. p. 315.
[238:1] See p. 89, above.
[238:2] _Strom._ iii. 12; compare _S.R._ ii. p. 151.
[239:1] [Greek: Ho mentoi ge proteros auton archaegos ho Tatianos
sunapheian tina kai sunagogaen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion
suntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasin, ho kai para tisin
eiseti nun pheretai.] _H. E._ iv. 29.
[239:2] _Beitraege_, i. p. 441.
[240:1] _Haer._ 391 D (xlvi. 1).
[240:2] [Greek: Outos kai to dia tessaron kaloumenon suntetheiken
euangelion, tas te genealogias perikopsas, kai ta alla, hosa ek
spermatos Dabid kata sorka genennaemenon ton Kurion deiknusin.
Echraesanto de touto ou monon oi taes ekeinou summorias, alla kai
oi tous apostolikois epomenoi dogmasi, taen taes sunthaekaes
kakourgian ouk egnokotes, all' aplousteron hos suntomo to biblio
chraesamenoi. Euron de kago pleious ae diakosias biblous toiautas
en tais par' haemin ekklaesiois tetimaemenas, kai pasas sunagagan
apethemaen, kai ta ton tettaron euangeliston anteisaegagon
euangelia] (_Haeret. Fab._ i. 20, quoted by Credner, _Beitraege_,
i. p. 442).
[240:3] See _S.R._ ii. p. 15.
[241:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 162; compare Credner, _Beitraege_,
i. p. 446 sqq.
[241:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8.
[241:3] _Beit_. i. p. 443.
[241:4] May not Tatian have given his name to a collection of
materials begun, used, and left in a more or less advanced stage
of compilation, by Justin? However, we can really do little more
than note the resemblance: any theory we may form must be purely
[242:1] [Greek: Epistolas gar adelphon axiosanton me grapsai
egarapsa. Kai tautas oi tou diabolon apostoloi zizanion gegemikan,
ha men exairountes, ha de prostithentes. Ois to ouai keitai. Ou
thaumaston ara, ei kai ton kuriakon rhadiourgaesai tines
epibeblaentai graphon, hopote tais ou toiautais epibebouleukasi.]
_H.E._ iv. 23 (Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 181).
[243:1] [Greek: Allae d' epistolae tis autou pros Nikomaedeas
pheretai en hae taen Markionos airesin polemon to taes alaetheias
paristatai kanoni]. _H.E._ iv. 23_.
[244:1] [Greek: Akribos mathon ta taes palaias diathaekaes Biblia,
hipotaxas epempsa soi.] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 (Routh, _Rel.
Sac._ i. p. 119).
[245:1] Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 201.
[245:2] ii. p. 177.
[245:3] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 1 (cf. Roensch, _Das neue Testament
Tertullian's_, p. 48), 'duo deos dividens, proinde diversos,
alterum alterius instrumenti--vel, _quod magis usui est dicere,
[246:1] [Greek: Eisi toinun hoi di' hagnoian philoneikousi peri
touton, sungnoston pragma peponthotes agnoia gar ou kataegorian
anadechetai, alla didachaes prosdeitai. Kai legousin hoti tae id'
to probaton meta ton mathaeton ephagen ho Kurios tae de mealier
haemera ton azumon autos epathen; kai diaegountai Matthaion outo
legein hos nenoaekasin; hothen asumphonos te nomo hae noaesis
auton, kai stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia.] _Chron.
Pasch._ in Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 160.
[247:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 188 sqq. The reference to Routh is
given on p. 188, n. 1; that to Lardner in the same note should, I
believe, be ii. p. 316, not p. 296.
[247:2] _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 167.
[249:1] The quotations from Athenagoras are transcribed from
'Supernatural Religion' and Lardner (_Credibility &c._, ii.
p. 195 sq.). I have not access to the original work.
[251:1] _Credibility &c._, ii. p. 161.
[252:1] _Ep. Vien. et Lugd._ Sec. 3 (in Routh, _Rel. Sac._
i. p. 297).
[252:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 203; _Evv. Justin's u.s.w._ p.
[254:1] _Wann wurden u.s.w._ p. 48 sq.
[254:2] _Ursprung_, p. 130; _S.R._ ii. p. 222.
[255:1] Cf. Credner, _Beitraege_, ii. p. 254.
[256:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Praef. 2.
[257:1] _Strom._ iv. 9.
[257:2] [Greek: Ton Oualentinou legomenon einai gnorimon
Haerakleouna] ... Origen, _Comm. in Joh._ ii. p. 60 (quoted
by Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 127).
[259:1] 'In affirming that [these quotations] are taken from the
Gospel according to St. Matthew apologists exhibit their usual
arbitrary haste,' &c. _S.R._ ii. p. 224.
[260:1] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, Zurich, 1873. For what
follows, see especially p. 261 sqq.
[263:1] Keim, _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 262.
[263:2] _Ibid_. p. 228 sq.; Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 80.
[263:3] The text of this document is printed in full by Routh,
_Rel. Sac_. i. pp. 394-396; Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 487 sqq.;
Hilgenfeld, _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N.T._ ad p. 40, n.;
Credner, _Geschichte des Noutestamentlichen Kanon_, ed. Volkmar,
p. 153 sqq., &c.
[264:1] See however Dr. Lightfoot in _Cont. Rev_., Oct. 1875, p. 837.
[265:1] _Ursprung_, p. 28.
[265:2] ii. p. 245.
[266:1] Cf. Credner, _Gesch. des Kanon_, p. 167.
[266:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 241.
[267:1] Quoted in _S.R._ ii. p. 247.
[269:1] _Adv. Haer_. ii, 22. 5, iii. 3.4.
[270:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. pp. 141-143.
[273:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_. i. pp. 143, 144.
[273:2] _On the Canon_, p. 182 sqq.
[275:1] [Greek: Ouch haedomai trophae phthoras, oude haedonais tou
biou toutou. Arton Theou thelo, arton ouranion, arton zoaes, hos
estin sarx Iaesou Christou tou Huiou tou Theou tou genomenou en
hustero ek spermatos Dabid kai Abraam; kai poma Theou thelo to
haima aoutou, ho estin agapae aphthartos kai aennaos zoae.] _Ep.
ad Rom_. c. vii.
[275:2] [Greek: Alla to Pneuma ou planatai, apo Theou on; oiden
gar pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei, kai ta drupta elenche].
_Ep. ad Philad_. c. vii.
[276:1] Cf. Lipsius in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_, i. p. 98.
[277:1] The second and third Epistles stand upon a somewhat
[277:2] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 269.
[278:1] _S.R._ ii p. 323.
[278:2] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. p. 138 sq.
[280:1] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 302.
[280:2] So _Dial. c. Tryph_. 69; in _Apol._ i. 22 the
MSS. of Justin read [Greek: ponaerous], which might stand, though
some editors substitute or prefer [Greek: paerous]. In both
quotations [Greek: ek genetaes] is added. The nearest parallel in
the Synoptics is Mark ix. 21, [Greek: ek paidiothen] (of the
[280:3] _Wann wurden u. s. w_. p. 34.
[283:1] ii. p. 308. [Has the author perhaps misunderstood Credner
(_Beit_. i. p. 253), whose argument on this head is not indeed
[283:2] _The New Testament &c_., i. p. 709.
[284:1] See _Apol_. i. 23, 32, 63; ii. 10.
[284:2] [Greek: Hae de protae dunamis meta ton patera panton kai
despotaen Theon kai uios ho logos estin.] This is not quite
rightly translated by Tischendorf and in 'Supernatural Religion:'
[Greek: uios], like [Greek: dunamis], is a predicate; 'the next
Power who also stands in the relation of Son.'
[285:1] Prov. viii. 22-24, 27, 30.
[285:2] Wisd. vii. 25, 26; viii. 1, 4.
[286:1] Ecclus. xxiv. 9.
[286:2] Wisd. ix. 1, 2; xvi. 12; xviii. 15.
[287:1] Cf. Lipsius in _S. B. L._ i. p. 95 sqq.
[288:1] _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T_. (Halle, 1863),
p. 29; _Einleitung_, P. 43, n.
[288:2] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 63.
[288:3] ii. p. 346.
[290:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 340.
[293:1] The force of the article ([Greek: tou paerou]) should be
noticed, as showing that the incident (and therefore the Gospel)
is assumed to be well known.
[293:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 341.
[295:1] Tischendorf, _Wann wurden_, p. 40; Westcott, _Canon_, p. 80.
[296:1] ii. p. 357 sqq.
[297:1] _Adv. Haer._ V. 36. 1, 2.
[297:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 329.
[298:1] Advanced by Routh (or rather Feuardentius in his notes on
Irenaeus; cf. _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 31), and adopted by Tischendorf
and Dr. Westcott. [The identification has since been ably and
elaborately maintained by Dr. Lightfoot; see _Cont. Rev_. Oct. 1875,
p. 841 sqq.]
[298:2] It is not necessary here to determine the sense in which
these words are to be taken. I had elsewhere given my reasons for
taking [Greek: erchomenon] with [Greek: anthropon], as A. V.
(_Fourth Gospel_, p. 6, n.). Mr. M'Clellan is now to be added
to the number of those who prefer to take it with [Greek: phos],
and argues ably in favour of his opinion.
[299:1] The translation of this difficult passage has been left
on purpose somewhat baldly literal. The idea seems to be that
Basilides refused to accept projection or emanation as a
hypothesis to account for the existence of created things. Compare
Mansel, _Gnost. Her._ p. 148.
[301:1] _Adv. Haer._. iii. 11. 7.
[302:1] _Haer_. 216-222.
[302:2] It should however be noticed that these words are given
only in the old Latin translation of Irenaeus and are wanting in
the Greek as preserved by Epiphanius. Whether the words were
accidentally omitted, or whether they were inserted inferentially,
for greater clearness, by the translator, it is hard to say. In
any case the bearing of the quotations must be very much the same.
If not made by Ptolemaeus himself, they were made by a contemporary
of Ptolemaeus, i.e. at least by a writer anterior to Irenaeus.
[302:3] _Adv. Haer_. ii. 4. 1; cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq.
[302:4] The somewhat copious fragments of Heracleon's Commentary
are given in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus, p. 938 sqq. Origen
says that Heracleon read 'Bethany' in John i. 28 (M'Clellan,
i. p. 708).
[305:1] ii. p. 378.
[306:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 379.
[307:1] There is also perhaps a probable reference to St. John in
Section 6, [Greek: taes aionioi paegaes tou hudatos taes zoaes tou
exiontos ek taes naeduos tou Christou.]
[307:2] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 229.
[308:1] [Greek: ho taen hagian pleuran ekkentaetheis, ho ekcheas
ek taes pleuras autou ta duo palin katharsia, hudor kai aima,
logon kai pneuma]. See Routh, _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 161.
[308:2] Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. p. 196.
[315:1] Tregelles in Horne's _Introduction_, p. 334.
[315:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8.
[316:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1. 1.
[317:1] See Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. pp. 223, 224,
and Eus. _H.E._ ii. 15 (14 Lardner).
[317:2] Compare _H.E._ ii. 15 and vi. 14.
[317:3] _H.E._ vi. 14.
[317:4] _Strom._ iii. 13.
[318:1] For the meaning of this word ('schriftliche
Beweisurkunde') see Roensch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 48.
[318:2] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 2.
[318:2] _Ibid_. iv. 5.
[318:4] _Ibid_. v. 9.
[318:5] _Ibid_. iv. 2-5; compare v. 9, and Roensch, pp. 53, 54.
[319:1] Eus. _H.E._ vi. 25.
[319:2] See M'Clellan on Luke i. 1-4. On the general position of
Origen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld, _Kanon_, p. 49.
[320:1] So Westcott in _S.D._ iii. 1692, n. Tregelles, in
Horne's _Introduction_, p. 333, speaks of this translation as
'coeval, apparently, with Irenaeus himself.' We must not, however,
omit to notice that Roensch (p. 43, n.) is more reserved in his
verdict on the ground that the translation of Irenaeus 'in its
peculiarities and in its relation to Tertullian has not yet
received a thorough investigation;' compare Hilgenfeld,
_Einleitung_, p. 797.
[320:2] Roensch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 43.
[321:1] Roensch, _Itala und Vulgata_, pp. 2, 3.
[321:2] Horne's _Introduction_, p. 233.
[321:3] _Introduction_ (2nd ed.), pp. 300, 302, 450, 452.
[321:4] iii. p. 1690 b.
[322:1] Hilgenfeld, in his recent _Einleitung_, says expressly
(p. 797) that 'the New Testament had already in the second
century been translated into Latin.' This admission is not
affected by the argument which follows, which goes to prove that
the version used by Tertullian was not the 'Itala' properly so
[322:2] See Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1630 b.
[322:3] _Introduction_, p. 274.
[322:4] See Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. pp. 124 and 152.
[323:1] See Scrivener, _loc. cit_.
[323:2] See _New Testament_, &c., i. p. 635.
[323:3] _S.D._ iii. p. 1634 b.
[324:1] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 724.
[324:2] _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments_,
[324:3] _Einleitung_, p. 804.
[324:4] See Tregelles, _loc. cit_.
[324:5] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 805. It hardly seems
clear that Origen had _no_ MS. authority for his reading.
[324:6] _Introduction_, p. 530. But [Greek: oupo] is admitted
into the text by Westcott and Hort.
[324:7] 'The text of the Curetonian Gospels is in itself a
sufficient proof of the extreme antiquity of the Syriac Version.
This, as has been already remarked, offers a striking resemblance
to that of the Old Latin, and cannot be later than the middle or
close of the second century. It would be difficult to point out a
more interesting subject for criticism than the respective
relations of the Old Latin and Syriac Versions to the Latin and
Syriac Vulgates. But at present it is almost untouched.' Westcott,
_On the Canon_ (3rd ed.), p. 218, n. 3.
[325:1] See Scrivener's _Introduction_, p. 324.
[325:2] Cf. Bleek, _Einleitung_, p. 735; Reuss, _Gesch.
N.T._ p. 447.
[326:1] This is the date commonly accepted since Massuet, _Diss.
in Irenaeum_, ii. 1. 2. Grabe had previously placed the date in
A.D. 108, Dodwell as early as A.D. 97 (of. Stieren, _Irenaeus_,
ii. pp. 32, 34, 182).
[326:2] Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 306.
[327:1] Eus. _H.E._ v. 11, vi. 6. Eusebius, in his,
'Chronicle,' speaks of Clement as eminent for his writings ([Greek
suntatton dielampen]) in A.D. 194.
[327:2] The books called 'Stromateis' or 'Miscellanies' date from
this reign. _H.E._ vi. 6.
[327:3] _Stromateis_, i. 1.
[327:4] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 5.
[327:5] _De Praescript. Haeret_. c. 36; see Scrivener,
_Introduction_, p. 446.
[328:1] pp. 450, 451.
[328:2] p. 452. These facts may be held to show that the books
were not regarded with the same veneration as now.
[329:1] v. 30. 1.
[330:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8.
[330:2] _Ib_. iii. 14. 2.
[331:1] Cf. _Adv. Haer._ iv. 13. 1.
[332:1] The varieties of reading in this verse are exhibited in
full by Dr. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 120, notes 4 and 5.
[336:1] Matt. v. 28 is omitted as too ambiguous and confusing,
though it is especially important for the point in question as
showing that Tertullian himself had a variety of MSS. before him.
[336:2] St. Matthew's Gospel is wanting in this MS. to xxv. 6; two
leaves are also lost, from John vi. 50 to viii. 52.
[346:1] _Strom_. ii. 20.
[347:1] In a volume entitled _The Authorship and Historical
Character of the Fourth Gospel_, Macmillan, 1872. I may say
with reference to this book--a 'firstling' of theological study--
that I am inclined now to think that I exaggerated somewhat the
importance of minute details as an evidence of the work of an
eye-witness. The whole of the arguments, however, summarised on
pp. 287-293 seem to me to be still perfectly valid and sound, and the
greater part of them--notably that which relates to the Messianic
expectations--is quite untouched by 'Supernatural Religion.'
[348:1] It is instructive to compare the canons elaborately drawn
up by Mr. M'Clellan (_N.T._ i. 375-389) with those tacitly
assumed in 'Supernatural Religion.' The inference in the one case
seems to be 'possible, therefore true,' in the other, 'not
probable, or not confirmed, therefore false.' Surely neither of
these tallies with experience.
[352:1] This, perhaps, is one that is apt to be overlooked. In
order to be quite sure that the process of analysis is complete it
must be supplemented and verified by the reversed process of
synthesis. If a compound has been resolved into its elements, we
cannot be sure that it has been resolved into _all_ its
elements until the original compound has been produced by their
recombination. Where this second reverse process fails, the
inference is that some unknown element which was originally
present has escaped in the analysis. The analysis may be true as
far as it goes, but it is incomplete. The causes are 'verae
causae,' but they are not all the causes in operation. So it seems
to be with the analysis of the vital organism. We may be said to
know entirely what air and water are because the chemist can
produce them, but we only know very imperfectly the nature of life
and will and conscience, because when the physiological analysis
has been carried as far as it will go there still remains a large
unknown element. Within this element may very well reside those
distinctive properties which make man (as the moralist is
_obliged_ to assume that he is) a responsible and religious
being. The hypotheses which lie at the root of morals and religion
are derived from another source than physiology, but physiology
does not exclude them, and will not do so until it gives a far
more verifiably complete account of human nature than it does at
[354:1] Mr. Browning has expressed this with his usual
incisiveness and penetration:--
'I hear you recommend, I might at least
Eliminate, decrassify my faith ...
Still, when you bid me purify the same,
To such a process I discern no end,
Clearing off one excrescence to see two;
There's ever a next in size, now grown as big,
That meets the knife: I cut and cut again!
First cut the liquefaction, what comes last
But Fichte's clever cut at God himself?'
But also, on the other hand:--
The gain? how can we guard our unbelief?
Just when we are safest, there's a sunset-touch,
A fancy from a flower-bell, some one's death,
A chorus ending from Euripides,--
And that's enough for fifty hopes and fears,
As old and new at once as Nature's self,
To rap and knock and enter in our soul ...
All we have gained then by our unbelief
Is a life of doubt diversified by faith,
For one of faith diversified by doubt:
We called the chess-board white,--we call it black.'
_Bishop Blongram's Apology_.
[359:1] As to the defects of the present edition, see Tischendorf,
Prolegomena to _Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes_,
p. liii: 'Eae vero (collationes) quemadmodum in editis habentur
non modo universae graviter differunt inter se fide atque accuratione,
sed ad ipsos principales testes tam negligenter tamque male factae
sunt ut etiam atque etiam dolendum sit tantos numos rara liberalitate
per Angliam suppeditatos criticae sacrae parum profuisse.' Similarly
Credner, in regard to the use of the Codex Alexandrinus, _Beitraege_,
ii. 16: 'Wahrhaft unbegreiflich und unverzeihlich ist es, dass die
Herausgeber der kostbaren Kritischen Ausgabe der LXX, welcher zu Oxford
vor wenigen Jahren vollendet und von Holmes und Parsons besorgt worden
ist, statt cine sorgfaeltige Vergleichung des in London aufbewahrten
Cod. Alex. zu veranstalten, sich lediglich auf die Ausgabe von Grabe
beschraenkt haben, dessen Kritik vielfach nicht einmal verstanden worden
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL.
If the reader should happen to possess the work of Roensch, Das
Neue Testament Tertullian's, to which allusion has frequently been
made above, and will simply glance over the pages, noting the
references, from Luke iv. 16 to the end of the Gospel, I do not
think he will need any other proof of the sufficiency of the
grounds for the reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, so as at least
to admit of a decision as to whether it was our present St. Luke
Failing this, it may be well to give a brief example of the kind
of data available, going back straight to the original authorities
For this purpose we will take the first chapter that Marcion
preserved entire, Luke v, and set forth in full such fragments of
it as have come down to us.
We take up the argument of Tertullian at the point where he begins
to treat of this chapter.
In the fourth book of the treatise against Marcion Tertullian
begins by dealing with the Antitheses (a sort of criticism by
Marcion on what he regarded as the Judaising portions of the
Canonical Gospel), and then, in general terms, with the actual
Gospel which Marcion used. From the general he descends to the
particular, and in c.6 Tertullian pledges himself to show in
detail, that even in those parts of the Gospel which Marcion
retained there was enough to refute his own system.
Marcion's Gospel began with the descent of Jesus upon Capernaum in
the fifteenth year of Tiberias. Tertullian makes points out of
this, also from the account of His preaching in the synagogue and
of the expulsion of the devil. After this incident Marcion's
Gospel represented our Lord as retiring into solitude. It did this
as it would appear in words very similar to those of the Canonical
Gospel. I place side by side the language of Tertullian with that
of the Vulgate (Codex Fuldensis, as given by Tregelles). I have
also compared the translation in the two codd., Vercellensis and
Veronensis, of the Old Latin in Bianchini's edition. It will be
remembered however that Tertullian is admitted to have Marcion's
(and _not_ the Canonical) Gospel before him, and he probably
translates directly from that.
In solitudinem procedit.... Detentus a turbis: _Oportet me,_
inquit, _el aliis civitatibus_ _annuntiare regnum dei._
Luke v. 42, 43: Ibat in desertum sertum locum ... et detinebant
illum ne discederet ab eis. Quibus ille ait quia, Et aliis
civitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum dei.
His discussion of the fifth chapter Tertullian begins by asking why,
out of all possible occupations, Christ should have fixed upon that
of fishing, to take from thence His apostles, Simon and the sons of
Zebedee. There was a meaning in the act which appears in the reply
to Peter, 'Thou shalt catch men,' where there is a reference to a
prophecy of Jeremiah (ch. xvi. 16). By this allusion Jesus sanctioned
those very prophecies which Marcion rejected. In the end the fishermen
left their boats and followed Him.
De tot generibus operum quid utique ad piscaturam respexit ut, ab illa
in apostolos sumeret _Simonem et filios Zebedaei ... _dicens Petro
_trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium: ne time abhinc enum homines
eris capiens...._ Denique _relictis naviculis secuti sunt ipsum..._
Luke v. 1-11: Factum est autem cum turbae irruereut in eum et
ipse stabat secus stagnum Gennesareth: et vidit duas
naves.... Ascendens in unam navem quae erat Simonis... dixit
ad Simonem, Duc in altum, et laxate retia vestra in capturam.
Et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinem
copiosam.... Et impleverunt ambas naviculas ita ut mergerentur.
Quod cum videret Simon Petrus, procidit ad genua Jesu....
Stupor enim circumdederat eum ... similiter autem Jacobum
et Johannem filios Zebedaei.... Et ait ad Simonem Jesus, Noli
timere, ex hoc jam homines eris capiens. Et subductis ad
terram navibus relictis omnibus secuti sunt illum.
For Noli timere &c., cod. a has, Noli timere, jam amodo eris
vivificans homines; cod. b, Nol. tim., ex hoc jam eris homines
In passing to the incident of the leper, Tertullian argues that
the prohibition of contact with a leper was figurative, applying
really to the contact with sin. But the Godhead is incapable of
pollution, and therefore Jesus touched the leper. It would be in
vain for Marcion to suggest that this was done in contempt of the
law. For, upon his own (Docetic) theory, the body of Jesus was
phantasmal, and therefore could not receive pollution: so that
there would be no real contact or contempt of the law. Neither, as
Marcion maintained, did a comparison with the miracle of Elisha
tend to the disparagement of that prophet. True, Christ healed
with a word. So also with a word had the Creator made the world.
And, after all, the word of Christ produced no greater result than
a river which came from the Creator's hands. Further, the command
of Jesus to the leper when healed, showed His desire that the law
should be fulfilled. Nay, He added an explanation which conveyed
that He was not come to destroy the law, but Himself to fulfil it.
This He did deliberately, and not from mere indulgence to the man,
who, He knew, would wish to do as the law required.
Argumentatur ... _in leprosi purgationem ... Tetigit leprosum_ ...
Et hoc opponit Marcion ... Christum ... verbo solo, et hoc semel functo,
curationem statim repraesentasse. Quantam ad gloriae humanae aversionem
pertinebat, _vetuit eum divulgare_. Quantum autem ad tutelam legis
jussit ordinem impleri. _Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus
quod praecepit Moyses_.... Itaque adjecit: _ut sit vobis in
Luke v. 12-14:  Ecce vir plenus lepra: et videns Jesum ...
rogavit eum dicens, Domine, si vis, potes me mundare.  Et
extendens manum tetigit illum dicens, Volo, mundare. Et confestim
lepra discessit ab illo.  Et ipse praecepit illi ut nemini
diceret, sed Vade ostende te sacerdoti, et offer pro emundatione
tua sicut praecepit Moses, in testimonium illis.
For emundatione in ver. 14, a has purgatione; b as Vulg. Both a
and b have the form offers (see Roensch, It. u. Vulg. p. 294), b
the plural sacerdotibus. Both codd. have a variation similar to
that of Marcion, ut sit etc.; a inserts hoc.
Next follows the healing of the paralytic, which was done in
fulfilment of Is. xxxv. 2. The miracle also itself in its details
was a special and exact fulfilment of the prophecy contained in
the next verse, Is. xxxv. 3. That the Messiah should forgive sins
had been repeatedly prophesied, e.g. in Is. liii. 12, i. 18, Micah
vii. 18. Not only were these prophecies thus actually sanctioned
by Christ, but, in forgiving the sins of the paralytic, He was
only doing what the Creator or Demiurge had done before Him. In
proof of this Tertullian appeals to the examples of the Ninevites,
of David and Nathan, of Ahab, of Jonathan the son of Saul, and of
the chosen people themselves. Thus Marcion was doubly refuted,
because the prerogative of forgiveness was asserted of the Messiah
in the prophecies which he rejected and attributed to the Creator
whom he denied. In like manner, when Jesus called Himself the 'Son
of Man,' He did so in a real sense, signifying that He was really
born of a virgin. This appellation too had been applied to Him by
the prophet Daniel. (Dan. vii. 13, iii. 25). But if Jesus claimed
to be the Son of Man, if, standing before the Jews as a man, He
claimed as man the power of forgiving sins, He thereby showed that
He possessed a real human body and not the mere phantasm of which
_Curatur_ et _paralyticus_, et quidem in coetu, spectante populo...
Cum redintegratione membrorum virium quoque repraesentationem
pollicebatur: _Exsurge et tolle grabatum tuum;_--simul et animi
vigorem ad non timendos qui dicturi erant: _Qui dimittet peccata
nisi solus deus?_... Cum Judaei merito retractarent non posse hominem
_delicta dimittere_ sed _deum solum_, cur... _respondit, habere eum
potestatem dimittendi delicta_, quando et _filium hominis_ nominans
Luke v. 17-26:  Et factum est in una dierum et ipse sedebat
docens....  Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem, qui erat
paralyticus, et quaerebant eum inferre...  et non invenientes
qua parte illum inferrent prae turba,... per tegulas...
summiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Jesum.  Quorum
fidem ut vidit, dixit, Homo, remittuntur tibi peccata tua.  Et
coeperunt cogitare Scribae et Pharisaei, dicentes, Quis est hic
qui loquitur blasphemias? quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus
deus?  Ut cognovit autem Jesus cogitationes eorum, respondens
dixit ad illos. ...  Quid est facilius dicere, Dimittuntur
tibi peccata, an dicere, Surge et ambula?  Ut autem sciatis
quia filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittere peccata,
ait paralytico, Tibi dico, surge, tolle lectum tuum et vade in
domum tuam.  Et confestim surgens ... abiit in domum suam.
Grabatum is the reading of a in ver. 25.
Marcion drew an argument from the calling of the publican (Levi)--
one under ban of the law--as if it were done in disparagement of
the law. Tertullian reminds him in reply of the calling and
confession of Peter, who was a representative of the law. Further,
when he said that 'the whole need not a physician' Jesus declared
that the Jews were whole, the publicans sick.
_Publicanum_ adlectum a domino ... dicendo, _medicum sanis
non esse necessarium sed male habentibus_...
Luke v. 27-32:  Et post hoc exiit et vidit publicanum ... et
ait illi, Sequere me....  Et murmurabant Pharisaei et Scribae
eorum...  et respondens Jesus dixit ad illos, Non egent qui
sani sunt medico sed qui male habent.
The question respecting the disciples of John is turned against
Marcion, as a recognition of the Baptist's mission. If John had
not prepared the way for Christ, if he had not actually baptized
Him, if, in fact, there was that diversity between the two which
Marcion assumed, no one would ever have thought of instituting a
comparison between them or the conduct of their disciples. In His
reply, 'that the children of the bridegroom could not fast,' Jesus
virtually allowed the practice of the disciples of John, and
excused, as only for a time, that of His own disciples. The very
name, 'bridegroom,' was taken from the Old Testament (Ps. xix. 6
sq., Is. lxi. 10, xlix. 18, Cant. iv. 8); and its assumption by
Christ was a sanction of marriage, and showed that Marcion did
wrong to condemn the married state.
Unde autem et Joannes venit in medium?... Si nihil omnino
administrasset Joannes ... nemo _discipulos Christi manducantes et
bibentes_ ad formam _discipulorum Joannis assidue jejunantium et
orantium_ provocasset.... Nunc humiliter reddens rationem, quod _non
possent jejunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea
vero jejunaturos_ promittens, _cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset_.
Luke v. 33-35:  At illi dixerunt ad eum, Quare discipuli
Johannis jejunant frequenter et obsecrationes faciunt, ... tui
autem edunt et bibunt?  Quibus ipse ait, Numquid potestis
filios sponsi dum cum illis est sponsus facere jejunare? 
Venient autem dies cum ablatus fuerit ab illis sponsus, tune
jejunabunt in illis diebus.
In ver. 33, for obsecrationes a has orationes, and for edunt
manducant: a and b also have quamdiu (Vulg. cum) in ver. 35.
Equally erroneous was Marcion's interpretation of the concluding
verses of the chapter which dealt with the distinction between old
and new. He indeed was intoxicated with 'new wine'--though the
real 'new wine' had been prophesied as far back as Jer. iv. 4 and
Is. xliii. 19--but He to whom belonged the new wine and the new
bottles also belonged the old. The difference between the old and
new dispensations was of developement and progression, not of
diversity or contrariety. Both had one and the same Author.
Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et
vetera discernere. Inflatus es _utribus veteribus_ et excerebratus es
_novo vino_: atque ita _veteri_, i.e. priori evangelio _pannum_
haereticae _novitatis adsuisli ... Venum novum_ is _non committit in
veteres utres_ qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et _novum
additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento_ nisi cui non defuerit
Luke v. 36-38:  Dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos quia
nemo commissuram a vestimento novo inmittit in vestimentum
vetus....  Et nemo mittit vinum novum in utres veteres....
 Sed vinum novum in utres novos mittendum est.
Of the phrases peculiar to Tertullian's version of Marcion's text,
a has pannum (-no) and adsuisti (-it).
It is observed that Tertullian does not quote verse 39, which is
omitted by D, a, b, c, c, ff, l, and perhaps, also by Eusebius.
Two of the Scholia of Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 322 D sqq.), nos. 1
and 2, have reference to this chapter.
[Greek: Echul. a. Apelthon deixon seauton to hierei kai
prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxe Mousaes,
hina ae marturion touto humin.]
Luke v. 14. [Greek: Apeltheon deixon seauton to hierei, kai
prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxen Mousaes,
eis marturion autois.]
v.l. [Greek: hina eis marturion] (D'1, [Greek: ae] D'2) [Greek:
humin touto] D, (a, b), c, ff, l.
The comment of Epiphanius on this is similar to that of
Tertullian. To bid the leper 'do as Moses commanded,' was
practically to sanction the law of Moses. Epiphanius expressly
accuses Marcion of falsifying the phrase 'for a testimony unto
them.' He says that he changed 'them' to 'you,' without however,
even in this perverted form, preventing the text from recoiling
upon his own head [Greek: diestrepsas de to rhaeton, o Markion,
anti tou eipein 'eis marturion autois' marturion legon 'humin.'
kai touto saphos epseuso kata taes sautou kephalaes].
[Greek: Echol. B'. Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios
tou anthropou aphienai hamartias epi taes gaes.]
Luke v. 24. [Greek: Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios
tou anthropou epi taes gaes aphienai hamartias.]
In this order, [Hebrew aleph], A, C, D, rel., a, c, e, Syrr. Pst.
and Hcl., (Memph.), Goth., Arm., Aeth.; [Greek: ex. ech.] after
[Greek: ho, hu. t. a.], B, L, [Greek: Xi symbol], K, Vulg., b, f,
g'1, ff, l.
By calling Himself 'Son of Man,' Epiphanius says, our Lord
asserts His proper manhood and repels Docetism, and, by claiming
'power upon earth,' He declares that earth not to belong to an
Reverting to Tertullian, we observe, (1) that the narrative of the
draught of fishes, with the fear of Peter, and the promise _in
this form_, 'Thou shalt catch men,' ([Greek: Mae phobou apo tou
nun anthropous esae zogron]; the other Synoptists have, [Greek:
Deute opiso mou, kai poiaeso humas halieis anthropon]), are found
only in St. Luke; (2) that the second section of the chapter, the
healing of the leper, is placed by the other Synoptists in a
different order, by Mark immediately after our Lord's retirement
into solitude (= Luke iv. 42-44), and by Matthew after the Sermon
on the Mount; the phrase [Greek: eis marturion autois] is common
to all three Gospels, but in the text of St. Luke alone is there
the variant Ut sit vobis &c.; (3) that, while the remaining
sections follow in the same order in all the Synoptics, still
there is much to identify the text from which Tertullian is
quoting with that of Luke. Thus, in the account of the case of
Levi, the third Evangelist alone has the word [Greek: telonaen]
(=publicanum) and [Greek: hugiainontes] (=sani; the other Gospels
[Greek: ischontes] =valentes); in the question as to the practice
of the disciples of John, he alone has the allusion to prayers
([Greek: deaeseis poiountai]) and the combination 'eat and drink'
(the other Gospels, [Greek: ou naesteyousin]): he too has the
simple [Greek: epiblaema], for [Greek: epiblaema rhakous
agnaphou]. It seems quite incredible that these accumulated
coincidences should be merely the result of accident.
But this is only the beginning. The same kind of coincidences run
uniformly all through the Gospel. From the next chapter, Luke vi,
Marcion had, in due order, the plucking of the ears of corn on the
sabbath day ('rubbing them with their hands,' Luke and Marcion
alone), the precedent of David and his companions and the
shewbread, the watching _of the Pharisees_ (so Luke only) to
see if He would heal on the sabbath day, the healing of the
withered hand--with an exact resemblance to the text of Luke and
divergence from the other Gospels (licetne animam liberare an
perdere? [Greek: psuchaen apolesai] Luke, [Greek: apokteinai]
Mark), in the order and words of Luke alone, the retreat into the
mountain for prayer, the selection of the twelve Apostles, and
then, in a strictly Lucan form and introduced precisely at the
same point, the Sermon on the Mount, the blessing on 'the poor'
(not the 'poor in spirit'), on those 'who hunger' (not on those
'who hunger and thirst after righteousness'), on those 'who weep,
for they shall laugh' (not on those 'who mourn, for they shall be
comforted'), with an exact translation of St. Luke and difference
from St. Matthew, the clause relating to those who are persecuted
and reviled: then follow the 'woes;' to the rich, 'for ye have
received your consolation;' to 'those who are full, for they shall
hunger;' to 'those who laugh now, for they shall mourn:' and so on
almost verse by verse.
It is surely needless to go further. There are indeed very rarely
what seem to be reminiscences of the other Gospels (e.g.
'esurierunt discipuli' in the parallel to Luke vi. 1), but the
total amount of resemblance to St. Luke and divergence from St.
Matthew and St. Mark is overwhelming. Of course the remainder of
the evidence can easily be produced if necessary, but I do not
think it will long remain in doubt that our present St. Luke was
really the foundation of the Gospel that Marcion used.
References to the Four Gospels.
The asterisk indicates that the passage in question is discussed
in some detail.
I. 1 2-6 18* 18 ff 18-25 21 23
II. 1 1-7 1-23 2 5,6 6 11 12 13 13-15 16 17,18 18 22.
III. 2 4 8 10 11,12 15* 16 18
IV. 1 8-10 9 10 11 17 18 23
V. 1-48 3 4,5* 7* 8 10* 11 13,14 14 16* 17 17,18 18* 20 21-48
22 28 29 29,30 29,32 32 34* 37* 38,39 39,40 41 42 44,45
45* 46* 48
VI. 1 1-34 6 8 10 13 14 19 19,20 20 21 25-27 25-37 32* 32,33
VII. 1-29 2 6 7 9-11* 12 13,14* 15* 16 19 21* 22 22,23 28,29
VIII. 9 11 11,12 17 26 28-34
IX. 1-8 13* 16 17 22 29-31 33
X. 1 8 10 11* 13 15 16* 22 26 28* 29,30 33 38,39 40
XI. 5 7 10 11 12-15 18 26 25-27 27* 28
XII. 1-8* 7 9-14* 17-21 18-21 24 25* 26 31,32 34 41 42 43 48
XIII. 1-58 3 3ff 5 11 15 16 24-30 25 26* 34 35 37-39 38 39 42,43
XIV. 1 3 3-12 6
XV. 4-6 4-8* 4-9 8* 13 15 17 20 21-28 26 36
XVI. 1 1-4 4 15-18 16* 19 21 24 24,25 26
XVII. 3 5 11 11-13* 12,13 13
XVIII. 1-35 3* 6 7 8 8,9 10 19
XIX. 4 6* 8* 9 10-12 11,12* 12* 13 16,17* 17 19 22 26*
XX. 8 16 19 20-28
XXI. 1 5 12,13 16 20-22 23 33 42
XXII. 9 11 14* 21 24 29 30 32 37 38 39 40 44*
XXIII. 2 2,3 5 10 13 15 18 20 23 24 25 25,26* 27 29 35
XXIV. 1-51 3 14 45-51*
XXV. 1-46 14-30 21 26,27 34 41*
XXVI. 1-75 17,18 24* 30 31* 36,37 38 39 41 43 56 56,57 57 64*
XXVII. 9 9,10* 11f. 14 35 39ff 42 43 46 57-60
XXVIII. 1 12-15 19.
I. 1 2 4 17 22 24 26
II. 23-28* 28
III. 1-6* 17 23 25 29
IV. 1-34 11 12 33,34 34*
V. 1-20 31
VI. 3 11 14 17-29
VII. 6* 6-13 7 10,11 11-13 13 21,22 24-30
VIII. 29 31 34
IX. 7 21 43 47
X. 5 5,6 6 8 9 17 18 19 21 22 27* 37-45
XII. 17 20 24 27* 29* 30 38-44
XIII. 2* 22
XIV. 12,13 12-14 40 51,52
XV. 14 34
I. 1-4 1-80 3 6 7 7-10 8 9 12 13 15 17 18,19 19 20 20-22 21 23 24
26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 34,35 35* 36 39 41 48 55 56 57 61 62
64 67 69 73 74 76 77 78 80
II. 1,2 1-52 4 6 7 8 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 21,22 22 24 25 26
27 28 29 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 48,49 49 50 51
III. 1 1-38 3 12-14 13 15 16 16,17 17 19 20 21 21,22 22 23 31-34
IV. 1 1-13 4 6 6-8 7 8 10 13 14 16 17 17-20 18,19 19 20 24 25 32
V. 1 1-11 1-39 12-14 14 17-26 24 27-32 32 33-35 36-38 39
VI. 1 1-5* 1-49 6-11* 13 14* 20* 27,28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 36,37
36-38* 37,38 45 46*
VII. 2* 8 11-18 12* 24-28 26 27 28 29-35 30 35 36-38
VIII. 1-3 5 10 19 23 26-39 41
IX. 5 7 17,18 20 22 55 57,58 60 61 61,62 62
X. 3 5,6 7* 10-12 16 18 19* 20 21 21,22 22 23 24 25 37
XI. 2 9 11-13* 14 17 22 29-32 32 39 42 47 49-51 52
XII. 4,5* 6,7 9 10 14 22-24 30 38 42-46* 48 50
XIII. 1 sqq. 1-9 6 7 7-8 24* 26,27 27 28 28,29 29 29-35 31-35 33 34
XV. 4 8 11-32 13 14 17 18 20 22 24 25 26 29
XVI. 12 16 17*
XVII. 1,2* 2 5-10 9 9,10
XVIII. 6-8 18,18 19 27* 31 31-34 34 35-43
XIX. 5 9 17 22,23 29 29-48 33-39 35 37 37-48 38 41 42 43 46 47
XX. 9 9-l8 14 17 19 21 22 22-25 24 25 35,36 35 37,38 38
XXI. 1-4 4 18 21 21,22 22 27 28 34
XXII. 9-11 16-18 17 18 18-36 19 19,20 28-30 30 35-38 37 38 42-44
43,44* 53,54 66
XXIII. 1 ff. 2 5 7 34 35 46
XXIV. 1 ff. 21 26 32 38,39 39* 40 42 46 47-53 49 50 5l 52 53
I. 1,2 1-3 3* 4 5* 9 13 14 18 19 19,20* 23* 28
II. 4 16,17
III. 3-5* 5* 6 8 12 14 16 36
V. 2 3,4 4 8 17 18 43 46
VI. 15 39 51 53 54* 55* 70
VII. 8 38 42
VIII. 17 40 44
X. 8 9* 23,24 27* 30
XII. 14,15 22 27 30 40 41
XIV. 2 6 10
XVI. 2* 3
XVII. 3 11,12 14*
XIX. 36 37*
Chronological and Analytical.
_Writer_. | _Works Extant_. | _Date_ | _Evangelical Documents
| | A.D. | used_.
| | |
Clement of |One genuine Epistle | c.95- |Traces, perhaps
Rome. | addressed to the | 100. | probable of the three
| Philippians. | | Synoptics.
| | |
Barnabas. |Pseud-egraphical | c.100- |Probably St. Matthew,
| Epistle | 125. | perhaps St. Luke,
| | | possibly the fourth Gospel.
| | |
Ignatius. |Three short Epistles,| 107 or |Probably St. Matthew,
| probably genuine. | 115. | and perhaps St. John.
| [Spurious, S.R.] | |
| | |
|Seven short Epistles,| |Probably St. Matthew,
| perhaps genuine. | | perhaps also St. John.
| [Spurious, S.R.] | |
| | |
Hermas. |Allegorical work, | c.135- |No distinct traces of
| entitled the | 140. | any writing of Old or
| 'Shepherd.' | | New Testament.
| | |
Polycarp. |Short Epistle to | c.140- |Doubtful traces of
| Philippians, | 155. | St. Matthew, probable
| probably genuine. | | of 1 John.
| [Spurious, S.R.] | |
| | |
Presbyters. |Quoted by Irenaeus. | c.140? |Probably St. John.
| | |
Papias. |Short fragments in | +155. |Some account of
| Eusebius. |[see pp.| works written by
| |145, 82;| St. Matthew and
| |164-167,| St. Mark, but
| |S.R.] | probably not our
| | | present Gospels in
| | | their present form.
| | |
Basilides. }|Allusions, not | c.125. |Certain use of
}| certain, in | | St. Luke and St. John,
}| Hippolytus, Clem. | | perhaps probably by
Basilidians.}| Alex., Epiphanius, | | Basilides himself.
| | |
Marcion. |Copious references | c.140. |Certainly the third
| in Tertullian and | | Gospel, with text
| Epiphanius. | | already corrupt.
| | |
Justin |Two Apologies and | +148. |Three Synoptic
Martyr. | Dialogue against | [166- | Gospels either
| Tryphon. | 167, | separately or in
| | S.R.] | Harmony, probably the
| | | fourth Gospel, and also
| | | an Apocryphal Gospel or
| | | Gospels; text showing
| | | marks of corruption.
| | |
|Old Latin translation| c.150. |Four Canonical
| of N.T. | | Gospels, with
| | | corrupt text.
| | |
Valentinus. }|Allusions, not | c.140. |References to all four
}| certain in | | Gospels, but not clear
Valentinians}| Hippolytus, &c. | before | by whom made.
| | 178. |
| | |
Clement. |Nineteen pseudo- | c.160? |Four Canonical Gospels
| epigraphical | | (possibly in a
| | | Harmony), with other
| | | Apocryphal sources
| | | to some extent.
| | |
Hegesippus. |Few fragments |fl.157- |Apparent traces of
| chiefly preserved | 180. | St. Matthew and
| by Eusebius. | | St. Luke.
| | |
Tatian. |Few allusions, |fl.150- |Diatessaron,
|'Address to Greeks.' | 170. | probably consisting
| | | of our four Gospels,
| | | quotations from
| | | St. John in Orat.
| | | ad Graec.
| | |
|Old Syriac | c.160? |Four Canonical Gospels,
| Translation of N.T. | | with corrupt text.
| | |
|Muratorian Fragment | c.170. |Four Gospels as
| | | Canonical.
| | |
Ptolomaeus. |Allusions in | before |Clear references
| Irenaeus, &c., | 178. | to St. Matthew and
| fragments in | | St. John.
| Epiphanius. | |
| | |
Heracleon. |Allusions in | before |Third and fourth
| Irenaeus, &c., | 178. | gospels.
| fragments in Origen.| |
| | |
Melito. |Few slight fragments.| c.176. |Doubtful indirect
| | | allusions to Canon
| | | of N.T.
| | |
Apollinaris. |Two slight fragments.| 176- |Allusion to
| | 180. | discrepancy
| | | between Gospels,
| | | fourth Gospel.
| | |
Athenagoras. |An Apology and tract | c.177. |One fairly clear
| on the Resurrection.| | quotation from
| | | St. Matthew,
| | | perhaps from
| | | St. Mark and
| | | St. John.
| | |
Churches of |An Epistle. | 177. |Clear allusions to
Vienne and | | | St. Luke and St. John,
Lyons. | | | perhaps also to
| | | St. Matthew.
| | |
Celsus. |Fragments in Origen. | c.178. |Somewhat vague traces
| | | of all four Gospels.
| | |
Irenaeus. |Treatise 'Against | c.140- |Four Gospels as
| Heresies.' | 202. | Canonical, with
| | | corrupt text.
| | |
Clement of |Several considerable |fl.185- |Four Gospels as
Alexandria | works. | 211. | Canonical, with
| | | corrupt text.
| | |
Tertullian. |Voluminous works. |fl.198- |Four Gospels as
| | 210. | Canonical, with
| | | corrupt text.