ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS.
The subject then proposed for our investigation is the extent to
which the canonical Gospels are attested by the early Christian
writers, or, in other words, the history of the process by which
they became canonical. This will involve an enquiry into two
things; first, the proof of the existence of the Gospels, and,
secondly, the degree of authority attributed to them. Practically
this second enquiry must be very subordinate to the first, because
the data are much fewer; but it too shall be dealt with,
cursorily, as the occasion arises, and we shall be in a position
to speak upon it definitely before we conclude.
It will be convenient to follow the example that is set us in
'Supernatural Religion,' and to take the first three, or Synoptic,
Gospels separately from the fourth.
* * * * *
At the outset the question will occur to us, On what principle is
the enquiry to be conducted? What sort of rule or standard are we
to assume? In order to prove either the existence or the authority
of the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine the
quotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations from
them, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriously
lax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, what
degree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what does
not, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source.
The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' indeed, has not felt the
necessity for this preliminary step. He has taken up, as it were,
at haphazard, the first standard that came to his hand; and, not
unnaturally, this is found to be very much the standard of the
present literary age, when both the mechanical and psychological
conditions are quite different from those that prevailed at the
beginning of the Christian era. He has thus been led to make a
number of assertions which will require a great deal of
qualification. The only sound and scientific method is to make an
induction (if only a rough one) respecting the habit of early
quotation generally, and then to apply it to the particular cases.
Here there will be three classes of quotation more or less
directly in point: (1) the quotations from the Old Testament in
the New; (2) the quotations from the Old Testament in the same
early writers whose quotations from the New Testament are the
point in question; (3) quotations from the New Testament, and more
particularly from the Gospels, in the writers subsequent to these,
at a time when the Canon of the Gospels was fixed and we can be
quite sure that our present Gospels are being quoted.
This method of procedure however is not by any means so plain and
straightforward as it might seem. The whole subject of Old
Testament quotations is highly perplexing. Most of the quotations
that we meet with are taken from the LXX version; and the text of
that version was at this particular time especially uncertain and
fluctuating. There is evidence to show that it must have existed
in several forms which differed more or less from that of the
extant MSS. It would be rash therefore to conclude at once,
because we find a quotation differing from the present text of the
LXX, that it differed from that which was used by the writer
making the quotation. In some cases this can be proved from the
same writer making the same quotation more than once and
differently each time, or from another writer making it in
agreement with our present text. But in other cases it seems
probable that the writer had really a different text before him,
because he quotes it more than once, or another writer quotes it,
with the same variation. This however is again an uncertain
criterion; for the second writer may be copying the first, or he
may be influenced by an unconscious reminiscence of what the first
had written. The early Christian writers copied each other to an
extent that we should hardly be prepared for. Thus, for instance,
there is a string of quotations in the first Epistle of Clement of
Rome (cc. xiv, xv)--Ps. xxxvii. 36-38; Is. xxix. 13; Ps. lxii. 4,
lxxviii. 36, 37, xxxi, 19, xii. 3-6; and these very quotations in
the same order reappear in the Alexandrine Clement (Strom. iv. 6).
Clement of Alexandria is indeed fond of copying his Roman
namesake, and does so without acknowledgment. Tertullian and
Epiphanius in like manner drew largely from the works of Irenaeus.
But this confuses evidence that would otherwise be clear. For
instance, in Eph. iv. 8 St. Paul quotes Ps. lxviii. 19, but with a
marked variation from all the extant texts of the LXX. Thus:--
_Ps._ lxviii. 18 (19).
[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaloteusas aichmalosian, elabes
domata en anthropon.]
[Greek: Aechmaloteusen ... en anthropon] [Hebrew: alef], perhaps
from assimilation to N.T.
_Eph._ iv. 8.
[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaltoteusen aichmalosian, kai edoke
domata tois anthropois.]
[Greek: kai] om. [Hebrew: alef]'1, A C'2 D'1, &c. It. Vulg. Memph.
&c.; ins. B C'3 D'3 [Hebrew: alef]'4, &c.
Now we should naturally think that this was a very free
quotation--so free that it substitutes 'giving' for 'receiving.'
A free quotation perhaps it may be, but at any rate the very same
variation is found in Justin (Dial. 39). And, strange to say, in
five other passages which are quoted variantly by St. Paul, Justin
also agrees with him, [Endnote 18:1] though cases on the other
hand occur where Justin differs from St. Paul or holds a position
midway between him and the LXX (e.g. 1 Cor. i. 19 compared with
Just. Dial. cc. 123, 32, 78, where will be found some curious
variations, agreement with LXX, partial agreement with LXX,
partial agreement with St. Paul). Now what are we to say to these
phenomena? Have St. Paul and Justin both a variant text of the
LXX, or is Justin quoting mediately through St. Paul? Probability
indeed seems to be on the side of the latter of these two
alternatives, because in one place (Dial. cc. 95, 96) Justin
quotes the two passages Deut. xxvii. 26 and Deut. xxi. 23
consecutively, and applies them just as they are applied in Gal.
iii. 10, 13 [Endnote 18:2]. On the other hand, it is somewhat
strange that Justin nowhere refers to the Epistles of St. Paul by
name, and that the allusions to them in the genuine writings,
except for these marked resemblances in the Old Testament
quotations, are few and uncertain. The same relation is observed
between the Pauline Epistles and that of Clement of Rome. In two
places at least Clement agrees, or nearly agrees, with St. Paul,
where both differ from the LXX; in c. xiii ([Greek: ho kanchomenos
en Kurio kanchastho]; compare 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x, 16), and in
c. xxxiv ([Greek: ophthalmhos ouk eiden k.t.l.]; compare 1 Cor. ii.
9). Again, in c. xxxvi Clement has the [Greek: puros phloga] of
Heb. i. 7 for [Greek: pur phlegon] of the LXX. The rest of the
parallelisms in Clement's Epistle are for the most part with
Clement of Alexandria, who had evidently made a careful study of
his predecessor. In one place, c. liii, there is a remarkable
coincidence with Barnabas ([Greek: Mousae Mousae katabaethi to
tachos k.t.l.]; compare Barn. cc. iv and xiv). In the Epistle of
Barnabas itself there is a combined quotation from Gen. xv. 6,
xvii. 5, which has evidently and certainly been affected by Rom.
iv. 11. On the whole we may lean somewhat decidedly to the
hypothesis of a mutual study of each other by the Christian
writers, though the other hypothesis of the existence of different
versions (whether oral and traditional or in any shape written)
cannot be excluded. Probably both will have to be taken into
account to explain all the facts.
Another disturbing influence, which will affect especially the
quotations in the Gospels, is the possibility, perhaps even
probability, that many of these are made, not directly from either
Hebrew or LXX, but from or through Targums. This would seem to be
the case especially with the remarkable applications of prophecy
in St. Matthew. It must be admitted as possible that the
Evangelist has followed some Jewish interpretation that seemed to
bear a Christian construction. The quotation in Matt. ii. 6, with
its curious insertion of the negative ([Greek: oudamos elachistae]
for [Greek: oligostos]), reappears identically in Justin (Dial. c.
78). We shall probably have to touch upon this quotation when we
come to consider Justin's relations to the canonical Gospels. It
certainly seems upon the face of it the more probable supposition
that he has here been influenced by the form of the text in St.
Matthew, but he may be quoting from a Targum or from a peculiar
text.
Any induction, then, in regard to the quotations from the LXX
version will have to be used with caution and reserve. And yet I
think it will be well to make such an induction roughly,
especially in regard to the Apostolic Fathers whose writings we
are to examine.
* * * * *
The quotations from the Old Testament in the New have, as it is
well known, been made the subject of a volume by Mr. McCalman
Turpie [Endnote 20:1], which, though perhaps not quite reaching a
high level of scholarship, has yet evidently been put together
with much care and pains, and will be sufficient for our purpose.
The summary result of Mr. Turpie's investigation is this. Out of
two hundred and seventy-five in all which may be considered to be
quotations from the Old Testament, fifty-three agree literally
both with the LXX and the Hebrew, ten with the Hebrew and not with
the LXX, and thirty-seven with the LXX and not with the Hebrew,
making in all just a hundred that are in literal (or nearly
literal, for slight variations of order are not taken into
account) agreement with some still extant authority. On the other
hand, seventy-six passages differ both from the Hebrew and LXX
where the two are together, ninety-nine differ from them where
they diverge, and besides these, three, though introduced with
marks of quotation, have no assignable original in the Old
Testament at all. Leaving them for the present out of the
question, we have a hundred instances of agreement against a
hundred and seventy-five of difference; or, in other words, the
proportion of difference to agreement is as seven to four.
This however must be taken with the caution given above; that is
to say, it must not at once be inferred that because the quotation
differs from extant authority therefore it necessarily differs
from all non-extant authority as well. It should be added that the
standard of agreement adopted by Mr. Turpie is somewhat higher
than would be naturally held to be sufficient to refer a passage
to a given source. His lists must therefore be used with these
limitations.
Turning to them, we find that most of the possible forms of
variation are exemplified within the bounds of the Canon itself. I
proceed to give a few classified instances of these.
[Greek: Alpha symbol] _Paraphrase_. Many of the quotations from the
Old Testament in the New are highly paraphrastic. We may take the
following as somewhat marked examples: Matt. ii. 6, xii. 18-21,
xiii. 35, xxvii. 9, 10; John viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 18;
1 Cor. xiv. 21; 2 Cor. ix. 7. Matt. xxvii. 9, 10 would perhaps
mark an extreme point in freedom of quotation [Endnote 21:1], as
will be seen when it is compared with the original:--
_Matt_. xxvii. 9. 10.
[Greek: [tote eplaerothae to phaethen dia tou prophaetou Hieremiou
legontos] Kai elabon ta triakonta arguria, taen timaen tou
tetimaemenou on etimaesanto apo nion Israael, kai edokan auta eis
ton argon tou kerameos, katha sunetaxen moi Kurios.]
_Zech_. xi. 13.
[Greek: Kathes autous eis to choneutaerion, kai schepsomai ei
dokimon estin, de tropon edokiamistheaen huper aotuon. Kai elabon
tous triakonta argurous kai enebalon autous eis oikon Kuriou eis
to choneutaerion.]
It can hardly be possible that the Evangelist has here been
influenced by any Targum or version. The form of his text has
apparently been determined by the historical event to which the
prophecy is applied. The sense of the original has been entirely
altered. There the prophet obeys the command to put the thirty
pieces of silver, which he had received as his shepherd's hire,
into the treasury [Greek: choneutaerion]. Here the hierarchical
party refuse to put them into the treasury. The word 'potter'
seems to be introduced from the Hebrew.
[Greek: Beta symbol] _Quotations from Memory_. Among the numerous
paraphrastic quotations, there are some that have specially the
appearance of having been made from memory, such as Acts vii. 37;
Rom. ix. 9, 17, 25, 33, x. 6-8, xi. 3, xii. 19, xiv. 11;
1 Cor. i. 19, ii. 9; Rev. ii. 27. Of course it must always
be a matter of guess-work what is quoted from memory and what is
not, but in these quotations (and in others which are ranged under
different heads) there is just that general identity of sense along
with variety of expression which usually characterises such
quotations. A simple instance would be--
_Rom_. ix. 25.
[Greek: [hos kai en to Osaee legei] Kaleso ton out laon mou laon
mou kai taen ouk aegapaemenaen haegapaemenaen.]
_Hosea_ ii. 23.
[Greek: Kai agapaeso taen ouk aegapaemenaen, kai ero to ou lao mou
Daos mou ei se.]
[Greek: Gamma symbol] _Paraphrase with Compression._ There are many marked
examples of this; such as Matt. xxii. 24 (par.); Mark iv. 12; John
xii. 14, 15; Rom. iii. 15-17, x. 15; Heb. xii. 20. Take the
first:--
_Matt._ xxii. 24. [Greek: [Mousaes eipen] Ean tis apothanae
mae echon tekna, epigambreusei o adelphos autou taen gunaika autou
kai anastaesei sperma to adelpho autou.]
_Deut._ xxv. 5. [Greek: Ean de katoikosin adelphoi epi to
auto, kai apothanae eis ex auton, sperma de mae ae auto, ouk estai
ae gunae tou tethnaekotos exo andri mae engizonti o adelphos tou
andros autaes eiseleusetai pros autaen kai laepsetai autaen eauto
gunaika kai sunoikaesei autae.]
It is highly probable that all the examples given under this head
are really quotations from memory.
[Greek: Delta symbol] _Paraphrase with Combination of Passages._
This again is common; e.g. Luke iv. 19; John xv. 25, xix. 36;
Acts xiii. 22; Rom. iii. 11-18, ix. 33, xi. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24. The passage
Rom. iii. 11-18 is highly composite, and reminds us of long strings of
quotations that are found in some of the Fathers; it is made up of
Ps. xiv. 1, 2, v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7, Is. lix. 7, 8, Ps. xxxvi. 1. A
shorter example is--
_Rom._ ix. 33. [Greek: [Kathos gegraptai] Idou tithaemi en
Sion lithon proskommatos kai petran skandalou, kai o pisteuon ep
auto ou kataischunthaesetai.]
_Is._ viii. 14. [Greek: kai ouch hos lithou proskammati
sunantaesesthe, oude os petras ptomati.]
_Is._ xxviii. 16. [Greek: Idou ego emballo eis ta themelia
Sion lithon..., kai o pisteuon ou mae kataischunthae.]
This fusion of passages is generally an act of 'unconscious
celebration.' If we were to apply the standard assumed in
'Supernatural Religion,' it would be pronounced impossible that
this and most of the passages above could have the originals to
which they are certainly to be referred.
[Greek: Epsilon symbol] _Addition._ A few cases of addition may
be quoted, e.g. [Greek: mae aposteraesaes] inserted in Mark x. 19,
[Greek: kai eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9.
[Greek: Zeta symbol] _Change of Sense and Context._ But little
regard--or what according to our modern habits would be considered
little regard--is paid to the sense and original context of the passage
quoted; e.g. in Matt. viii. 17 the idea of healing disease is substituted
for that of vicarious suffering, in Matt. xi. 10 the persons are
altered ([Greek: sou] for [Greek: mou]), in Acts vii. 43 we find
[Greek: Babylonos] for [Greek: Damaskos], in 2 Cor. vi. 17 'I will
receive you' is put for 'I will go before you,' in Heb. i. 7 'He
maketh His angels spirits' for 'He maketh the winds His
messengers.' This constant neglect of the context is a point that
should be borne in mind.
[Greek: Eta symbol] _Inversion._ Sometimes the sense of the original is so
far departed from that a seemingly opposite sense is substituted
for it. Thus in Matt. ii. 6 [Greek: oudamos elachistae =
oligostos] of Mic. v. 2, in Rom. xi. 26 [Greek: ek Sion = heneken
Sion] LXX= '_to_ Sion' Heb. of Is. lix. 20, in Eph. iv. 8
[Greek: hedoken domata = helabes domata] of Ps. lxvii. 19.
[Greek: Theta symbol] _Different Form of Sentence._ The grammatical
form of the sentence is altered in Matt. xxvi. 31 (from aorist to future),
in Luke viii. 10 (from oratio recta to oratio obliqua), and in 1 Pet.
iii. 10-12 (from the second person to the third). This is a kind
of variation that we should naturally look for.
[Greek: Iota symbol] _Mistaken Ascriptions or Nomenclature._ The
following passages are wrongly assigned:--Mal. iii. 1 to Isaiah
according to the correct reading of Mark i. 2, and Zech. xi. 13
to Jeremiah in Matt. xxvii. 9, 10; Abiathar is apparently put for
Abimelech in Mark ii. 26; in Acts vii. 16 there seems to be a
confusion between the purchase of Machpelah near Hebron by Abraham
and Jacob's purchase of land from Hamor the father of Shechem.
These are obviously lapses of memory.
[Greek: Kappa symbol] _Quotations of Doubtful Origin_. There are a
certain number of quotations, introduced as such, which can be assigned
directly to no Old Testament original; Matt. ii. 23 ([Greek: Nazoraios
klaethaesetai]), 1 Tim. v. 18 ('the labourer is worthy of his hire'),
John vii. 38 ('out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water'),
42 (Christ should be born of Bethlehem where David was), Eph. v. 14
('Awake thou that sleepest'). [Endnote 25:1]
It will be seen that, in spite of the reservations that we felt
compelled to make at the outset, the greater number of the
deviations noticed above can only be explained on a theory of free
quotation, and remembering the extent to which the Jews relied
upon memory and the mechanical difficulties of exact reference and
verification, this is just what before the fact we should have
expected.
* * * * *
The Old Testament quotations in the canonical books afford us a
certain parallel to the object of our enquiry, but one still
nearer will of course be presented by the Old Testament quotations
in those books the New Testament quotations in which we are to
investigate. I have thought it best to draw up tables of these in
order to give an idea of the extent and character of the
variation. In so tentative an enquiry as this, the standard
throughout will hardly be so fixed and accurate as might be
desirable; the tabular statement therefore must be taken to be
approximate, but still I think it will be found sufficient for our
purpose; certain points come out with considerable clearness, and
there is always an advantage in drawing data from a wide enough
area. The quotations are ranged under heads according to the
degree of approximation to the text of the LXX. In cases where the
classification has seemed doubtful an indicatory mark (+) has been
used, showing by the side of the column on which it occurs to
which of the other two classes the instance leans. All cases in
which this sign is used to the left of the middle column may be
considered as for practical purposes literal quotations. It may be
assumed, where the contrary is not stated, that the quotations are
direct and not of the nature of allusions; the marks of quotation
are generally quite unmistakeable ([Greek: gegraptai, legei,
eipen], &c). Brief notes are added in the margin to call attention
to the more remarkable points, especially to the repetition of the
same quotation in different writers and to the apparent bearing of
the passage upon the general habit of quotation.
Taking the Apostolic Fathers in order, we come first to--
_Clement of Rome (1 Ep. ad Cor._)
_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| Variant._ | |
| |3 Deut. 32.14,15. |also in Justin,
| | Is. 3.5. al. | differently.
| | Is. 59. 14, al. |
3. Wisd. 2.24. | | |
|+4. Gen. 4.3-8. | |Acts 7.27,
| Ex. 2.14+ | | more exactly.
6. Gen. 2.23. | |8. Ezek. 33.11 |}
| | Ezek. 18.30 |}from Apocryphal
| | Ps. 103.10,11. |} or interpolated
| | Jer. 3.19,22. |} Ezekiel?
| | Is. 1.18. |}
|+8. Is. 1.16-20. | |
|10. Gen. 12.1-3. | |
| +Gen. 13.14-16. | |
| Gen. 15.5,6. | |
| |12. Josh. 2.3-19. |compression and
| | | paraphrase.
| | |
| |13. 1 Sam. 2,10. |}similarly
| | Jer. 9.23,24. |} St. Paul, 1 Cor.
| | | 1.31, 2 Cor.
|13. Is. 46.2. | | 10.17.
| |14. Prov. 2.21, |from memory?
| | 22. v.l. (Ps. 37.|
| | 39.) |
|14. Ps. 37.35-38.| |Matt. 15.8, Mark
| |15. Is. 29.13.* | 7.6, with par-
15.{Ps. 78.36,37.*|15. Ps. 62.4.* | | tial similarity,
{Ps. 31.19.* | | | Clem. Alex.,
{Ps. 12.3-6.* | | | following Clem.
| | | Rom.
|+16. Is. 53.1-12.| |quoted in full by
16. Ps. 22.6-8. | | | Justin, also by
17. Gen. 18.27. | | | other writers
| | | with text
| | | slightly
| | | different from
| | | Clement.
| |17. Job 1.1, v.l. |
| | Job 14.4,5, v.l.|Clem. Alex.
| | | similarly.
|17. Num. 12.7. | |
| Ex. 3.11; 4-10.| |
| |[Greek: ego de |_Assumptio Mosis_,
| | eimi atmis apo | Hilg., _Eldad
| | kuthras.] | and Modad_, Lft.
| | |
| |18. Ps. 89.21,v.l.|}Clem. Alex. as
| | 1 Sam. 13.14. |} LXX.
18. Ps. 51.1-17. | | |
| |20. Job 38.11. |
| |21. Prov. 15.27. |Clem. Alex.
| | | similarly; from
| | | memory? [Greek:
22. Ps. 34.11-17. | | | legei gar pou.]
| |23. [Greek: |from an Apo-
| | palaiporoi eisin | cryphal book,
| | oi dipsuchoi | _Ass. Mos._ or
| | k.t.l.] | _Eld. and Mod._
| | |
| |23. Is. 13.22. |}composition and
| | Mal. 3.1. |} compression.
| | |
| |26. Ps. 28.7. |}composition
| | Ps. 3-5. |} from memory?
| | | [Greek: legei
| | | gar pou.]
| |27. Wisd. 12.12. |}from memory?
| | Wisd. 11.22. |} cp. Eph. 1.19.
P27. Ps. 19.1-3. | | |
| |28. Ps. 139.7-10. |from memory?
| | |[Greek: legei
| | | gar pou.]
29. Deut. 32.8,9. | | |
| |29. Deut. 4.34. |}from memory?
| | Deut. 14.2. |} or from an
| | Num. 18.27. |} Apocryphal
| | 2 Chron. 31. |} Book?
| | 14. |}
| | Ezek. 48.12. |}
|30. Prov. 3.34. | |
30. Job. 11.2,3. | | |LXX, not Heb.
| |32. Gen. 15.5 |
| | (Gen. 22.17. |
| | Gen. 26.4.) |
|33. Gen. 1.26-28.|(omissions.) |
| |34. Is. 40.10. |}composition
| | Is. 62.11. |} from memory?
| | Prov. 24.12. |} Clem. Alex.
| | | after Clem.
| | | Rom.
|34. Dan. 7.10. |} |curiously
| Is. 6.3+. |} | repeated
| | | transposition;
| | | see Lightfoot,
| | | _ad. loc._
| |24. Is. 64.4. |so in 1 Cor. 2.9.
|35. Ps. 50.16-23.| |
|36. Ps.104.4,v.l.| |Heb. 1.7.
36. Ps. 2.7,8. | | |Heb. 1.5. Acts
Ps. 110.1 | | | 13.33.
|39. Job 4.16-5.5 | |
| (Job 15.15) | |
| |42. Is. 60.17. |from memory?
| | | [Greek: legei
| | | gar pou.]
| |46. [Greek: |from Apocryphal
| | Kollasthe tois | book, or Ecclus.
| | agiois hoti oi | vi. 34? Clem.
| | kollomenoi | Alex.
| | autois |
| | hagiasthaesontai]|
46. Ps. 18.26,27. | | |context ignored.
48. Ps. 118,19,20.| | |Clem. Alex.
| | | loosely.
| |50. Is. 26.20. |}
| | Ezek. 37.12. |}from memory?
50. Ps. 32. 1,2. | | |
| |52. Ps. 69.31,32. |
52. Ps. 50.14,15.+|} | |
Ps. 51.17. |} | |
|53. Deut.9.12-14.|} |Barnabas
| Ex. 32.7,8. |} | similarly.
| 11,31,32. |} | Compression.
54. Ps. 241. | | |
56. Ps. 118.18. | | |
Prov. 3.12. | | |
Ps. 141.5. | | |
|+56. Job 5.17-26,| |
| v.l. | |
|+57. Prov. 1.23- | |
| 31. | |
[*Footnote: The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are
also found in Clement of Alexandria.]
It will be observed that the longest passages are among those
that are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e.g. Gen. xiii. 14-16;
Job v. 17-26; Ps. xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17;
Prov. i. 23-31; Is. i. 16-20, liii. 1-12). Others, such as Gen.
xii. 1-3, Deut. ix. 12-14, Job iv. 16-v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 35-38, l.
16-23, have only slight variations. There are only two passages of
more than three consecutive verses in length that present wide
divergences. These are, Ps. cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by a
vague reference [Greek: legei gar pou] and is evidently quoted
from memory, and the historical narration Josh. ii. 3-19. This is
perhaps what we should expect: in longer quotations it would be
better worth the writer's while to refer to his cumbrous
manuscript. These purely mechanical conditions are too much lost
sight of. We must remember that the ancient writer had not a small
compact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verify
a reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case,
and then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like our
modern books but would have only the columns, and those perhaps
not numbered, to guide him. We must remember too that the memory
was much more practised and relied upon in ancient times,
especially among the Jews.
The composition of two or more passages is frequent, and the
fusion remarkably complete. Of all the cases in which two passages
are compounded, always from different chapters and most commonly
from different books, there is not, I believe, one in which there
is any mark of division or an indication of any kind that a
different source is being quoted from. The same would hold good
(with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer strings
of quotations in cc. viii, xxix, and (from [Greek: aegapaesan] to
[Greek: en auto]) in c. xv. But here the question is complicated by
the possibility, and in the first place at least perhaps
probability, that the writer is quoting from some apocryphal work
no longer extant. It may be interesting to give one or two short
examples of the completeness with which the process of welding has
been carried out. Thus in c. xvii, the following reply is put into
the mouth of Moses when he receives his commission at the burning
bush, [Greek: tis eimi ego hoti me pempeis; ego de eimi
ischnophonos kai braduglossos.] The text of Exod. iii. 11 is
[Greek: tis eimi ego, oti poreusomai;] the rest of the quotation
is taken from Exod. iv. 10. In c. xxxiv Clement introduces 'the
Scripture' as saying, [Greek: Muriai muriades pareistaekeisan auto
kai chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai ekekragon agios,
agios, agios, Kurios Sabaoth, plaeraes pasa hae ktisis taes doxaes
autou.] The first part of this quotation comes from Dan. vii. 10;
the second, from [Greek: kai ekekragon], which is part of the
quotation, from Is. vi. 3. These examples have been taken almost
at random; the others are blended quite as thoroughly.
Some of the cases of combination and some of the divergences of
text may be accounted for by the assumption of lost apocryphal
books or texts; but it would be wholly impossible, and in fact no
one would think of so attempting to account for all. There can be
little doubt that Clement quotes from memory, and none that he
quotes at times very freely.
We come next to the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the quotations
in which I proceed to tabulate in the same way:--
_Barnabas._
_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| Variant._ | |
|+2. Is. 1.11-14. | |note for exactness.
| |2. Jer. 7.22,23. |} combination
| | Zec. 8.17. |} from memory?
| | Ps. 51.19. |strange addition.
|3. Is. 58.4, 5. | |
| Is. 58.6-10. | |
| |4. Dan. 7.24 |}very
| | Dan. 7.7, 8. |} divergent.
| | Ex. 34.28. |}combination
| | Ex. 31.18. |} from memory?
|4. Deut. 9.12. | |see below.
| (Ex. 32.7). | |
| +Is. 5.21. | |
|+5. Is. 54.5,7. | |text of Cod. A.
| (omissions.)| |
5. Prov. 1.17. | | |
Gen. 1.26+. | | |
| |5. Zech. 13.7. |text of A. (Hilg.)
| | | Matt. 26.3.
| | Ps. 22.21. |from memory?
|5. Ps. 119.120. | |paraphrastic
| | Ps. 22.17. | combination
| | | from memory?
| Is. 50. 6,7. | |
| (omissions.) | |ditto.
| |6. Is. 50.8,9. |ditto.
|6. Is. 28.16. | |first clause
| | | exact, second
| | | variant; in N.T.
| | | quotations,
| | | first variant,
| | | second exact.
| Is. 50.7. | |note repetition,
| | | nearer to LXX.
6. Ps. 118.22. | | |so Matt. 21.42;
| | | 1 Pet. 11.7.
| | |
6. Ps. 22.17+ | |6. Ps. 118.24. |from memory?
(order). | | |note repetition,
| | | nearer to LXX.
Ps. 118.12. | | |
Ps. 22.19. | | |
Is. 3.9, 10. | | |
| | Ex. 33.1. |from memory?
| Gen. 1.26+. | |note repetition,
Gen. 1.28. | | | further from LXX.
| | Ezek. 11.19; |paraphrastic.
| | 36.26. |
| | Ps. 41.3. |
| | Ps. 22.23. |different version?
| | Gen. 1.26, 28. |paraphrastic
| | | fusion.
| |7. Lev. 23.29. |paraphrastic.
| | Lev. 16.7, sqq.|with apocryphal
| | Lev. 16.7. sqq.| addition; cp.
| | | Just. and Tert.
|9. Ps. 18.44. | |
9. Is. 33.13+. | | |
| |9. Jer. 4.4. |
| | Jer. 7.2. |
| | Ps. 34.13. |
Is. 1.2. | | |but with additions.
| Is. 1.10+. | |from memory?
| | |[Greek: archontes
| | | toutou] for [Gr.
| | | a. Zodomon.]
| | Is. 40.3. |addition.
| | Jer. 4.3 ,4. |}repetition,
| | Jer. 7.26. |} nearer to LXX.
| | Jer. 9.26. |
| | Gen. 17.26, 27;|inferred sense
| | cf. 14.14. | merely, but
| | | with marks of
| | | quotation.
| |10. Lev. 11, |selected examples,
| | Deut. 14. | but with
| | | examples of
| | | quotation.
| | Deut. 4.1. |
10. Ps. 1.1. | | |
| | Lev. 11.3. |
| |11. Jer. 2.12, 13.|
| | +Is. 16.1, 2. |[Greek: Zina] for
| | | [Greek: Zion].
|11. Is. 45. 2, 3.| |[Greek: gnosae] A.
| | | ([Greek: gnosin]
| | | Barn., but in
| | | other points more
| | | divergent.
|+Is. 33.16-18. | |omissions.
11. Ps. 1.3-6. | | |note for exactness.
| |11. Zeph. 3.19. |markedly diverse.
| | Ezek. 47.12. |ditto.
|12. Is. 65.2. | |
| |12. Num. 21.9, |apparently a
| | sqq. | quotation.
| | Deut. 27.15. |from memory?
| | Ex. 17.14. |
12. Ps. 110.1. | | |
|12. Is. 45.1. | |[Greek: kurio] for
| | | [Greek: kuro].
|13. Gen.25.21,23.| |
| |13. Gen. 48.11-19.|very paraphrastic.
| | Gen. 15.6; |combination; cf.
| | 17.5. | Rom. 4.11.
| |14. Ex. 24.18. |note addition of
| | |[Greek: naesteuon.]
| | Ex. 31.18. |note also for
| | | additions.
|14. Deut. 9.12- | |repetition with
| 17+. | | similar variation.
| (Ex. 32.7.) | |note reading of A.
14. Is. 42.6,7. | | |[Greek:
| | |pepedaemenous] for
| | |[Greek: dedemenous
| | |(kai] om. A.).
| Is. 49.6,7. | |
Is. 61. 1,2. | | |Luke. 4.18,19
| | | diverges.
| |15. Ex. 20.8; |paraphrastic,
| | Deut. 5.12. | with addition.
| | Jer. 17.24,25.|very paraphrastic.
| | Gen. 2.2. |
| | Ps. 90.4. |[Greek: saemeron]
| | | for [Greek:
| | | exthes].
15. Is. 1.13. | | |
|16. Is. 40.12. | |omissions.
| Is. 66.1. | |
| |16. Is. 49.17. |completely
| | | paraphrastic.
| | Dan. 9.24. |ditto.
| | 25, 27. |
The same remarks that were made upon Clement will hold also for
Barnabas, except that he permits himself still greater licence. The
marginal notes will have called attention to his eccentricities. He is
carried away by slight resemblances of sound; e.g. he puts [Greek:
himatia] for [Greek: iamata] [Endnote 34:1], [Greek: Zina] for [Greek:
Zion], [Greek: Kurio] for [Greek: Kuro]. He not only omits clauses, but
also adds to the text freely; e.g. in Ps. li. 19 he makes the strange
insertion which is given in brackets, [Greek: Thusia to Theo kardia
suntetrimmenae, [osmae euodias to kurio kardia doxasousa ton peplakota
autaen]]. He has also added words and clauses in several other places.
There can be no question that he quotes largely from memory; several of
his quotations are repeated more than once (Deu. ix. 12; Is. l. 7; Ps.
xxii. 17; Gen. i. 28; Jer. iv. 4); and of these only one, Deut. ix. 12,
reappears in the same form. Often he gives only the sense of a passage;
sometimes he interprets, as in Is. i. 10, where he paraphrases [Greek:
archontes Sodomon] by the simpler [Greek: archontes tou laou toutou]. He
has curiously combined the sense of Gen. xvii. 26, 27 with Gen. xiv.
l4--in the pursuit of the four kings, it is said that Abraham armed his
servants three hundred and eighteen men; Barnabas says that he
circumcised his household, in all three hundred and eighteen men. In
several cases a resemblance may be noticed between Barnabas and the text
of Cod. A, but this does not appear consistently throughout.
It may be well to give a few examples of the extent to which Barnabas
can carry his freedom of quotation. Instances from the Book of Daniel
should perhaps not be given, as the text of that book is known to have
been in a peculiarly corrupt and unsettled state; so much so that, when
translation of Theodotion was made towards the end of the second
century, it was adopted as the standard text. Barnabas also combines
passages, though not quite to such an extent or so elaborately as
Clement, and he too inserts no mark of division. We will give an example
of this, and at the same time of his paraphrastic method of quotation:--
_Barnabas_ c. ix.
[Greek: [kai ti legei;] Peritmaethaete to sklaeron taes kardias
humon, kai ton trachaelon humon ou mae sklaerunaete.]
_Jer._ iv. 3, 4 _and_ vii. 26.
[Greek: Peritmaethaete to theo humon, kai peritemesthe taen
sklaerokardian humon ... kai esklaerunan ton trachaelon auton...]
A similar case of paraphrase and combination, with nothing to
mark the transition from one passage to the other, would be in c.
xi, Jer. ii. 12, 13 and Is. xvi. 1, 2. For paraphrase we may take
this, from the same chapter:--
_Barnabas_ c. xi.
[Greek: [kai palin heteros prophaetaes legei] Kai aen hae gae
Iakob epainoumenae para pasan taen gaen.]
_Zeph_. iii. 19.
[Greek: kai thaesomai autous eis kauchaema kai onomastous en pasae
tae gae.]
_Barnabas_ c. xv.
[Greek: [autous de moi marturei legon] Idou saemeron haemera estai
hos chilia etae.]
_Ps_. xc. 4
[Greek: hoti chilia etae en ophthalmois sou hos hae haemera hae
echthes haetis diaelthe.]
A very curious instance of freedom is the long narrative of Jacob
blessing the two sons of Joseph in c. xiii (compare Gen. xlviii.
11-19). We note here (and elsewhere) a kind of dramatic tendency, a
fondness for throwing statements into the form of dialogue rather
than narrative. As a narrative this passage may be compared with
the history of Rahab and the spies in Clement.
And yet, in spite of all this licence in quotation, there are some
rather marked instances of exactness; e.g. Is. i. 11-14 in c. ii,
the combined passages from Ps. xxii. 17, cxvii. 12, xxii. 19 in c.
vi, and Ps. i. 3-6 in c. xi. It should also be remembered that in
one case, Deut. ix. 12 in cc. iv and xiv, the same variation is
repeated and is also found in Justin.
It tallies with what we should expect, supposing the writings
attributed to Ignatius (the seven Epistles) to be genuine, that
the quotations from the Old as well as from the New Testament in
them are few and brief. A prisoner, travelling in custody to the
place of execution, would naturally not fill his letters with long
and elaborate references. The quotations from the Old Testament
are as follows:--
_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| variant._ | |
| | |
_Ad Eph._ |5. Prov. 3.34 | |James. 4.6, 1 Pet. 5.5,
| | | as Ignatius.
| | |
_Ad Magn._ |12. Prov. 18.17. | |
| | |
_Ad Trall._ | |8. Is. 52.5. |
The Epistle to the Ephesians is found also in the Syriac version.
The last quotation from Isaiah, which is however not introduced
with any express marks of reference, is very freely given. The
original is, [Greek: tade legei kurios, di' humas dia pantos to
onoma mou blasphaemeitai en tois ethnesi], for which Ignatius has,
[Greek: ouai gar di' ou epi mataiotaeti to onoma mou epi tinon
blasphaemeitai].
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the Martyrium S.
Ignatii contain the following quotations:--
_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| variant._ | |
| | |
Polycarp, | 2. Ps. 2.11. | |
_Ad. Phil._ | | |
| | |
10. Tob. 4.11. | | |}
12. Ps. 4.4; | | |}in Latin
but through | | |} version only.
Eph. 4.26. | | |}
| | |
_Mart. S. Ign._ | | |
| |2. Lev. 26.12. |
6. Prov. 10.24. | | |
The quotation from Leviticus differs widely from the original,
[Greek: Kai emperipataeso en humin kai esomai humon theos kai
humeis esesthe moi laos], for which we read, [Greek: [gegraptai
gar] Enoikaeso en autois kai emperipataeso].
The quotations from the Clementine Homilies may be thus
presented:--
_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| | |
Hom. 3. | |18. Deut. 32.7. |
|39. +Gen. 18.21. | |
| Gen. 3.22. | |
39. Gen 6.6. | | |
| Gen. 8.21. | |omission.
| Gen. 22.1. | |
| |42. Gen. 3.3. |
43. Gen. 6.6. | | |
|43. Gen. 22.1. | |not quite as above.
| +Gen. 18.21. | |as above.
Gen. 15.13-16. | | |v.l. comp. text
| | | of A; note for
| | | exactness.
44. Gen. 18.21. | | |as LXX.
| |45. Num. 11.34 |[Greek: bounoun
| | (al.) | epithumion] for
| | | [Greek: mnaemata
| | | taes epithumas].
|47. Deut. 34.4,5.| |
|49. Gen. 49.10. | |cf. Credner,
| | | _Beit._ 2.53.
Hom. 11. | | |
22. Gen. 1.1. | | |
Hom. 16. | | |
6. Gen. 3.22. | | |twice with slightly
| | | different order.
Gen. 3.5. | | |
|6. Ex. 22.28. | |
| |6. Deut. 4.34. |?mem. [Greek:
| | | allothi tou
| | | gegraptai].
Jer. 10.11. | | |
| | Deut. 13.6. |?mem. [Greek:
| | | allae pou].
| | Josh. 23.7. |
| Deut. 10.17. | |
Ps. 35.10. | | |
Ps. 50.1. | | |
Ps. 82.1. | | |
| Deut. 10.14. | |
| Deut. 4.39. | |
| Deut. 10.17. | |repeated as above.
| | Deut. 10.17. |very paraphrastic.
| | |
Hom. 16. | |6. Deut. 4.39. |
7. Deut. 6.13. | | |
Deut. 6.4. | | |
| |8. Josh. 23.7. |as above.
8. Exod. 22.18 + | | |
Jer. 10.11. | | |
Gen. 1.1. | | |
Ps. 19.2. | | |
|8. Ps. 102.26. | |
Gen. 1.26. | | |
| |13. Deut. 13.1-3, |very free.
| | 9, 5, 3. |
Hom. 17. | |18. Num. 12.6. |}paraphrastic
| | Ex. 33.11. |} combination.
Hom. 18. | |17. Is. 40.26,27. |free quotation.
| | Deut. 30.13. |ditto.
18. Is. 1.3. | | |
Is. 1.4. | | |
The example of the Clementine Homilies shows conspicuously the
extremely deceptive character of the argument from silence. All
the quotations from the Old Testament found in them are taken from
five Homilies (iii, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii) out of nineteen, although
the Homilies are lengthy compositions, filling, with the translation
and various readings, four hundred and fourteen large octavo pages
of Dressel's edition [Endnote 38:1]. Of the whole number of quotations
all but seven are taken from two Homilies, iii and xvi. If Hom. xvi
and Hom. xviii had been lost, there would have been no evidence that
the author was acquainted with any book of the Old Testament besides
the Pentateuch; and, if the five Homilies had been lost, there would
have been nothing to show that he was acquainted with the Old Testament
at all. Yet the loss of the two Homilies would have left a volume
of three hundred and seventy-seven pages, and that of the five a
volume of three hundred and fifteen pages. In other words, it is
possible to read three hundred and fifteen pages of the Homilies
with five breaks and come to no quotation from the Old Testament
at all, or three hundred and fifteen pages with only two breaks
and come to none outside the Pentateuch. But the reduced volume
that we have supposed, containing the fourteen Homilies, would
probably exceed in bulk the whole of the extant Christian literature
of the second century up to the time of Irenaeus, with the single
exception of the works of Justin; it will therefore be seen how
precarious must needs be any inference from the silence, not of
all these writings, but merely of a portion of them.
For the rest, the quotations in the Homilies may be said to
observe a fair standard of exactness, one apparently higher than
that in the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; at the
same time it should be remembered that the quotations in the
Homilies are much shorter, only two reaching a length of three
verses, while the longest quotations in the Epistle are precisely
those that are most exact. The most striking instance of accuracy
of quotation is perhaps Gen. xv. 13-16 in Hom. iii. 43. On the
other hand, there is marked freedom in the quotations from Deut.
iv. 34, x. 17, xiii. 1-3, xiii. 6. xxx. 15, Is. xl. 26, 27, and
the combined passage, Num. xii. 6 and Ex. xxiii. 11. There are
several repetitions, but these occur too near to each other to
permit of any inference.
Our examination of the Old Testament quotations in Justin is
greatly facilitated by the collection and discussion of them in
Credner's Beiträge [Endnote 39:1], a noble example of that true
patient work which is indeed the reverse of showy, but forms the
solid and well-laid foundation on which alone genuine knowledge
can be built. Credner has collected and compared in the most
elaborate manner the whole of Justin's quotations with the various
readings in the MSS. of the LXX; so that we may state our results
with a much greater confidence than in any other case (except
perhaps Clement of Rome, where we have the equally accurate and
scholarly guidance of Dr. Lightfoot [Endnote 40:1]) that we are
not led astray by imperfect materials. I have availed myself
freely of Credner's collection of variants, indicating the cases
where the existence of documentary (or, in some places,
inferential) evidence for Justin's readings has led to the
quotation being placed in a different class from that to which it
would at first sight seem to belong. I have also, as hitherto, not
assumed an absolutely strict standard for admission to the first
class of 'exact' quotations. Many of Justin's quotations are very
long, and it seemed only right that in these the standard should
be somewhat, though very slightly, relaxed. The chief point that
we have to determine is the extent to which the writers of the
first century were in the habit of freely paraphrasing or quoting
from memory, and it may as a rule be assumed that all the
instances in the first class and most (not quite all) of those in
the second do not admit of such an explanation. I have been glad
in every case where a truly scientific and most impartial writer
like Credner gives his opinion, to make use of it instead of my
own. I have the satisfaction to think that whatever may be the
value of the other sections of this enquiry, this at least is
thoroughly sound, and based upon a really exhaustive sifting of
the data.
The quotations given below are from the undoubted works of Justin,
the Dialogue against Tryphon and the First Apology; the Second
Apology does not appear to contain any quotations either from the
Old or New Testament.
_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| variant._ | |
| | |
|Apol. 1.59, Gen. | |
| 1.1-3. | |
Dial. 62, Gen. 1. | | |
26-28. | | |
|Dial. 102, Gen. | |free quotation
| 3.15. | | (Credner).
D.62, Gen. 3.22. | | |
|D.127, Gen. | |
| 7.16. | |
|D.139, Gen. 9. | |
| 24-27. | |
|D.127, Gen. 11.5. | |free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
D.102, Gen. 11.6. | | |
|D.92, Gen. 15.6. | |free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
| |Dial.10, +Gen. |
| | 17.14. |
D.127, Gen. 17.22.| | |
|D.56, +Gen. 18. | |ver. 2 repeated
| 1, 2. | | similarly.
| +Gen. 18. 13, 14. | |repeated,
| | | slightly more
| +Gen. 18. 16-23, | | divergent.
| 33. | |
| +Gen. 19. 1, 10, | |
| 16-28 (om. 26). | |marked exactness
| | | in the whole
| | | passage.
D.56, Gen. 21. | | |
9-12. | | |
D.120, Gen. 26.4. | | |
D.58, Gen. 28. | | |
10-12. | | |
|D.58, +(v.l.) Gen. | |
| 28. 13-19. | |
| +(v.l.) Gen. 31. | |
| 10-13. | |
| |D.59, Gen. 35.1. |free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
D.58, Gen. 35. | | |
6-10 (v.l.) | | |
D. 52, Gen. 49. | | |repeated
8-12. | | | similarly.
D. 59, Ex. 2. 23. | | |
D. 60, Ex. 3.2-4+.| |A.1. 62, Ex. 3. 5. |from memory
| | | (Cr.)
|D. 59, Ex. 3. 16. | |
| |A. 1.63, Ex. 3.16 |ver.16 freely
| | (ter), 17. | quoted (Cr.)
| | | [Greek: eirae-
| | | tai pou.]
|D. 126, Ex.6.2-4. | |
| |D. 49, Ex. 17.16. |free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
| |D. 94, Ex. 20.4. |ditto (Cr.)
|D. 75, Ex. 23.20, | |from Lectionary
| 21. | | (Cr.)
D.16, Lev. 26.40, | |D. 20, Ex. 32. 6. |free (Cr.)
41 (v.l.) | | |
|D. 126, Num. 11. | |
| 23. | |
| |A.1.60 (or. obl.), |free (Cr.)
| | D. 94, Num. 21. |
| | 8,9. |
|D. 106, Num. 24. | |through Targum
| 17. | | (Cr.)
| |D. 16, Deut. 10. |from memory
| | 16, 17. | (Cr.)
| |D.96, Deut. 21.23. |both precisely
| | Deut. 27.26. | as St. Paul in
| | | Galatians, and
| | | quoted thence
| | | (Cr.)
D. 126, Deut. 31. | | |
2, 3 (v.l.) | | |
D. 74, Deut. 31. | | |
16-18 (v.l.) | | |
D. 131, Deut. 32. | | |
7-9 (tr.) | | |
|D.20, Deut. 32.15. | |
D. 119, Deut. 32. | | |Targum (Cr.)
16-23. | | |
D. 130, Deut. 32. | | |
43 (v.l.) | | |
|D. 91, +Deut. 33. | |
| 13-17. | |
A.1. 40, Ps. 1 and| | |parts repeated.
2 entire. | | |
|D.97, Ps. 3. 5, 6. | |repeated, more
| | | freely.
D.114, Ps. 8.4. | | |
D.27, Ps. 14.3. | | |
D.28, Ps.18.44,45.| | |
D. 64, Ps.19.6 | | |perhaps from
(A.1.40, vv.1-5). | | | different
| | | MSS., see
| | | Credner.
D.97 ff., Ps. 22. | | |quoted as
1-23. | | | _whole_ Psalm
| | | (bis).
D.133 ff., Ps. 24 | | |
entire. | | |
|D.141, Ps. 32. 2. | |
D.38, Ps. 45.1-17.| | |parts repeated.
D.37, Ps. 47.6-9. | | |
D.22, Ps. 49 | | |
entire. | | |
| |D.34} |{from Eph. 4.8,
| |D.37} Ps. 68.8. |{ Targum.
D.34, Ps. 72 | | |
entire. | | |
D. 124, Ps. 82 | | |
entire. | | |
D.73, Ps. 96 | | |note Christian
entire. | | | interpolation
| | | in ver. 10.
D.37, Ps. 99 | | |
entire. | |D. 83, Ps. 110. |from memory
D.32, Ps. 110 | | 1-4. | (Cr.)
entire. | | |
| |D.110, Ps. 128.3. |from memory
D.85, Ps. 148. | | | (Cr.)
1, 2. | | |
A.1. 37, Is. 1. | | |
3, 4. | | |
| |A.1. 47, Is. 1.7 |sense only
| | (Jer. 2.15). | (Cr.)
| |D.140 (A.1. 53), |
| | Is. 1.9. |
| |A.1. 37, Is. 1. |from memory
| | 11-14. | (Cr.)
|A.1. 44 (61), Is. | |omissions.
| 1.16-30. | |
| |D.82, Is. 1. 23. |from memory
A.1. 39, Is. 2. | | | (Cr.)
3,4. | | |
|D.135, Is. 2. 5,6. | |Targum (Cr.)
D. 133, Is. 3. | | |
9-15 (v.l.) | | |
| |D.27, Is. 3.16. |free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
|D.133, Is. 5. 18- | |repeated.
| 25 (v.l.) | |
|D.43 (66), Is. 7. | |repeated, with
| 10-17 (v.l.) | | slight
| | | variation.
| | A.1.35, Is. 9.6. |free (Cr.)
D.87, Is. 11.1-3. | |[A.1.32, Is. 11.1; |free combination
| | Num. 24.17. | (Cr.)]
|D.123, Is. 14.1. | |
D.123, Is. 19.24, | | |
25+. | | |
|D.78, Is. 29.13,14.| |repeated (v.l),
| | | partly from
| | | memory.
D.79, Is. 30.1-5. | | |
|D.70, Is.33.13-19. | |
|D.69, Is. 35.1-7. |A.1.48, Is. 35.5,6.|free; cf. Matt.
| | | 11.5 (var.)
D.50, Is. 39. 8, | | |
40.1-17. | | |
| |D.125} Is.42.1-4. |{cf. Matt. 12.
| |D.135} |{ 17-21,
| | | Targum (Cr.)
D.65, Is. 42.6-13 | | |
(v.l.) | | |
| |D.122, Is. 42.16. |free (Cr.)
|D.123, Is. 42.19, | |
| 20. | |
D.122, Is. 43.10. | | |
| |A.1.52, Is. 45. |cf. Rom. 14.11.
| | 24 (v.l.) |
D.121, Is. 49.6 | | |
(v.l.) | | |
D.122, Is. 49.8 | | |
(v.l.) | | |
|D.102, Is. 50.4. | |
A.1.38, Is. 50. | | |Barn., Tert.,
6-8. | | | Cypr.
D.11, Is. 51.4, 5.| | |
D.17, Is. 52.5 | | |
(v.l.) | | |
D.12, Is. 5 2, | | |
10-15, 53.1-12, | | |
54.1-6. | | |
|A.1. 50, Is. 52. | |
| 13-53.12. | |
| |D.138, Is. 54.9. |very free.
D.14, Is. 55.3-13.| |[D.12, Is. 55. 3-5.|from memory
| | | (Cr.)]
D.16, Is.57.1-4. | | |repeated.
D.15, Is.58.1-11 | | |[Greek:
(v.l.) | | | himatia] for
| | |[Greek: iamata];
| | |so Barn., Tert,
| | |Cyp., Amb., Aug.
D.27, Is. 58. | | |
13, 14. | | |
|D.26, +Is. 62.10- | |[Greek:
| 10-63.6. | | susseismon] for
| | |[Greek:
| | | sussaemon].
D.25, Is. 63.15- | | |
19, 64.1-12. | | |
D.24, Is. 65. 1-3.| |[A.1.49, Is. 65. |from memory
| | 1-3. | (Cr.)]
D.136, Is. 65.8. | | |
D.135, Is. 65.9-12| | |
D.81, Is. 65.17-25| | |
| |D.22, Is. 66.1. |from memory
| | | (Cr.)
D.85, Is. 66.5-11.| | |
| |D.44, Is. 66. 24 |from memory
| | (ter). | (Cr.)
| |D.114, Jer. 2.13; |as from
| | Is. 16.1; | Jeremiah,
| | Jer. 3.8. | traditional
| | | combination;
| | | cf. Barn. 2.
|D.28, Jer. 4.3, 4 | |
| (v.l.) | |
| |D.23, Jer. 7.21,22.|free quotation
| | | (Cr.)
|D. 28, Jer. 9.25,26|[A.1.53, Jer. 9.26.|quoted freely
| | | as from
| | | Isaiah.]
|D.72, Jer. 11.19. | |omissions.
| |D. 78, Jer. 31.15 |so Matt. 2.18
| | (38.15, LXX). | through
| | | Targum (Cr.)
| |D.123, Jer. 31.27 |free quotation
| | (38. 27). | (Cr.)
|D.11, Jer. 31.31, | |
|32 (38.31, 32). | |
| |D.72. |a passage quoted
| | | as from
| | | Jeremiah,
| | | which is not
| | | recognisable
| | | in our present
| | | texts.
| |D. 82, Ezek. 3. |free quotation
| | 17-19. | (Cr.)
| |D.45} Ezek. 14. |} repeated
| | 44} 20; cf. 14, |} similarly and
| | 140} 16, 18. |} equally
| | |} divergent from
| | |} LXX.
D.77, Ezek. 16. 3.| | |
D.21, Ezek. 20. | | |
19-26. | | |
D.123, Ezek. 36. | | |
12. | | |
| |A.1.52, Ezek. |very free (Cr.)
| | 37. 7. |
[Footnote: Justin has in Dial. 31 (also in Apol. 1. 51, ver. 13, from
memory) a long quotation from Daniel, Dan. 7. 9-28; his text can only
be compared with a single MS. of the LXX, Codex Chisianus; from this
it differs considerably, but many of the differences reappear in the
version of Theodotion; 7. 10, 13 are also similarly quoted in Rev.,
Mark, Clem. Rom.]
_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| variant._ | |
| |D.19, Hos. 1.9. |
| |D.102, Hos.10.6. |referred to
| | | trial before
| | | Herod (Cr.)
| |D.87, Joel 2.28. |from memory
| | | (Cr.)
|D. 22, +Amos | |
|5.18-6. 7 (v.l.) | |
|D. 107, Jonah 4. | |
| 10-11 (v.l. Heb.)| |
|D. 109, Micah 4. | |divergent from
| 1-7 (Heb.?) | | LXX.
| |A.1.34} Micah 5.2. |{precisely as
| |D.78 } |{ Matt. 2.6.
| | |
| |A.1.52, Zech. 2.6. |{free quotations
| |D. 137, Zech. 2. 8.|{ (Cr.)
|D. 115, Zach. 2. |[D. 79, Zech. 3. |freely (Cr.)]
| 10-3. 2 (Heb.?) | 1, 2. |
D.106, Zach. 6.12.| | |
| |A.1.52, Zech. 12. |repeated di-
| | 11,12,10. | versely [note
| | | reading of
| | | Christian ori-
| | | gin (Cr.) in
| | | ver. 10:
| | | so John 19.37;
| | | cp. Rev. 1.7].
| |D.43, Zech. 13. 7. |diversely in
| | | Matt. 26.31,
| | | proof that
| | | Justin is
| | | not dependent
| | | on Matthew
| | | (Cr.)
|D.28, 41, Mal. 1. |D. 117, Mal. 1. |
| 10-12 (v.l.) | 10-12. |
|D.62, +Joshua 5. | |omissions.
| 13-15; 6.1, 2 | |
| (v.l.) | |
| |D.118, 2 Sam. 7. |from memory
| | 14-16. | (Cr.)
| |D.39, 1 Kings 19. |freely (Cr.);
| | 14, 15, 18. | cf. Rom. 11.3.
A.1.55, Lam. 4. | | |
20 (v.l.) | | |
| |D.79, Job 1.6. |sense only
| | | (Cr.)
|D.61, +Prov. 8. | |coincidence
| 21-36. | | with Ire-
| | | naeus.
[Footnote: D. 72 a passage ostensibly from Ezra, but probably an
apocryphal addition, perhaps from Preaching of Peter; same quotation
in Lactantius.]
It is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter that
Justin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted nine
Psalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated)
that it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty-
three verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given with
extraordinary fulness. These longer passages are generally quoted
accurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of the
LXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority for
his reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out these
varieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to the
relations and comparative value of the different MSS., form
perhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more marked
divergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (1) quotation
from memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in the
shorter passages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialogue
with Tryphon; (2) in Messianic passages the use of a Targum, not
immediately by Justin himself but in some previous document from
which he quotes, in order to introduce a more distinctly Christian
interpretation; the coincidences between Justin and other
Christian writers show that the text of the LXX had been thus
modified in a Christian sense, generally through a closer
comparison with and nearer return to the Hebrew, before his time.
The instances of free quotation are not perhaps quite fully given
in the above list, but it will be seen that though they form a
marked phenomenon, still more marked is the amount of exactness.
Any long, not Messianic, passage, it appears to be the rule with
Justin to quote exactly. Among the passages quoted freely there
seem to be none of greater length than four verses.
The exactness is especially remarkable in the plain historical
narratives of the Pentateuch and the Psalms, though it is also
evident that Justin had the MS. before him, and referred to it
frequently throughout the quotations from the latter part of
Isaiah. Through following the arrangement of Credner we have
failed to notice the cases of combination; these however are
collected by Dr. Westcott (On the Canon, p. 156). The most
remarkable instance is in Apol. i. 52, where six different
passages from three separate writers are interwoven together and
assigned bodily to Zechariah. There are several more examples of
mistaken ascription.
* * * * *
The great advantage of collecting the quotations from the Old
Testament is that we are enabled to do so in regard to the very
same writers among whom our enquiry is to lie. We can thus form a
general idea of their idiosyncracies, and we know what to expect
when we come to examine a different class of quotations. There is,
however, the element of uncertainty of which I have spoken above.
We cannot be quite clear what text the writer had before him. This
difficulty also exists, though to a less degree, when we come to
consider quotations from the New Testament in writers of an early
date whom we know to have used our present Gospels as canonical.
The text of these Gospels is so comparatively fixed, and we have
such abundant materials for its reconstruction, that we can
generally say at once whether the writer is quoting from it freely
or not. We have thus a certain gain, though at the cost of the
drawback that we can no longer draw an inference as to the
practice of individuals, but merely attain to a general conclusion
as to the habits of mind current in the age. This too will be
subject to a deduction for the individual bent and peculiarities
of the writer. We must therefore, on the whole, attach less
importance to the examples under this section than under that
preceding.
I chose two writers to be the subject of this examination almost,
I may say, at random, and chiefly because I had more convenient
access to their works at the time. The first of these is Irenaeus,
that is to say the portions still extant in the Greek of his
Treatise against Heresies, [Endnote 49:1] and the second
Epiphanius.
Irenaeus is described by Dr. Tregelles 'as a close and careful
quoter in general from the New Testament' [Endnote 49:2]. He may
therefore be taken to represent a comparatively high standard of
accuracy. In the following table the quotations which are merely
allusive are included in brackets:--
_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| variant._ | |
I. Praef. Matt. 10.26.| | |
I.3.2,Matt. 5.18. | | |quoted from
| | | Gnostics
I.3, 3, Mark 5.31. | | |Gnostics.
| |I.3.5, Luke 14.27. |Valentinians.
|I.3.5, Mark 10. | |the same.
I.3.5, Matt. 10.34. | 21 (v.l.) | |the same.
I.3.5, Luke 3.17. | | |the same.
I.4.3, Matt. 10.8. | | |
[I.6.1, Matt. 5. | | |
13, 14, al.] | |I.7.4, Matt. 8.9.} |}the same.
| | Luke 7.8. } |}
| |I.8.2, Matt. 27.46.|Valentinians.
I.8.2. Matt. 26.38. | | |the same.
|I.8.2, Matt. | |the same.
| 26.39. | |
| |I.8.2, John 12.27. |the same.
| |I.8.3, Luke |the same.
| | 9.57,58. |
| |I.8.3, Luke |the same.
| | 9.61,62. |
|I.8.3, Luke | |the same.
| 9.60. | |
|I.8.3, Luke 19.5.| |the same.
| |I.8.4, Luke 15,4. |the same.
|[I.8.4, Luke | |the same.
| 15.8, al.]| |
|I.8.4, Luke 2.28.| |the same.
[I.8.4., Luke | | |the same.
6.36, al.] | | |
I.8.4, Luke 7.35 | | |the same.
(v.l.) | | |
I.8.5, John 1.1,2. | | |the same.
I.8.5, John 1.3 | | |the same.
(v.l.) | | |
I.8.5, John 1.4. | | |the same.
(v.l.) | | |
| |I.8.5, John 1.5. |the same.
I.8.5, John 1.14. | |I.8.5, John 1.14. |[the same
| | | verse rep-
| | | eated dif-
| | | ferently.]
| |[I.14.1. Matt. |Marcus.
| | 18.10,al.] |
|[I.16.1, Luke | |Marcosians.
| 15.8,al.]| |
| |[I.16.3, Matt. |the same.
| | 12,43,al.] |
|I.20.2, Luke | |the same.
| 2.49. | |
| |I.20.2, Mark 10.18.|['memoriter'-
| | | Stieren; but
| | | comp. Clem.
| | | Hom. and
| | | and Justin.]
|I.20.2, Matt. | |Marcosians.
| 21.23.| |
| |I.20.2, Luke 19.42.|the same.
I.20.2, Matt. | | |the same.
11.28 (? om.).| | |
| |I.20.3, Luke 10.21.|the same;
| | (Matt. 11.25 | [v.l., comp.
| | 25.) | Marcion,
| | | Clem. Hom.,
| | | Justin, &c.]
| |I.21.2, Luke 12.50.|Marcosians.
|I.21.2, Mark | |Marcosians.
| 10.36. | |
III.11.8, John | | |
1.1-3 (?). | | |
III.11.8, Matt. | | |
1.1,18 (v.l.)| | |
|III.11.8, Mark | |omissions.
| 1.1,2. | |
III.22.2, John 4.6. | | |
III.22.2, Matt. 26.38.| | |
|IV.26.1, } Matt. | |
|IV.40.3, } 13.38.| |
|IV.40.3, Matt. | |
| 13.25. | |
V.17.4, Matt. 3.10. | | |
| |V.36.2, John 14.2 |
| | (or obl.) |
| |Fragm. 14, Matt. |
| | 15.17. |
On the whole these quotations of Irenaeus seem fairly to deserve
the praise given to them by Dr. Tregelles. Most of the free
quotations, it will be seen, belong not so much to Irenaeus
himself, as to the writers he is criticising. In some places (e.g.
iv. 6. 1, which is found in the Latin only) he expressly notes a
difference of text. In this very place, however, he shows that he
is quoting from memory, as he speaks of a parallel passage in St.
Mark which does not exist. Elsewhere there can be little doubt
that either he or the writer before him quoted loosely from
memory. Thus Luke xii. 50 is given as [Greek: allo baptisma echo
baptisthaenai kai panu epeigomai eis auto] for [Greek: baptisma de
echo baptisthaenai kai pos sunechomai heos hotou telesthae]. The
quotation from Matt. viii. 9 is represented as [Greek: kai gar ego
hupo taen emautou exousian echo stratiotas kai doulous kai ho ean
prostaxo poiousi], which is evidently free; those from Matt.
xviii. 10, xxvii. 46, Luke ix. 57, 58, 61, 62, xiv. 27, xix. 42,
John i. 5, 14 (where however there appears to be some confusion in
the text of Irenaeus), xiv. 2, also seem to be best explained as
made from memory.
The list given below, of quotations from the Gospels in the
Panarium or 'Treatise against Heresies' of Epiphanius [Endnote
52:1], is not intended to be exhaustive. It has been made from the
shorter index of Petavius, and being confined to the 'praecipui
loci' consists chiefly of passages of substantial length and
entirely (I believe) of express quotations. It has been again
necessary to distinguish between the quotations made directly by
Epiphanius himself and those made by the heretical writers whose
works he is reviewing.
_Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._
| Variant._ | |
426A, Matt. 1.1; | | |
Matt. 1.18, | | |
(v.l.) | | |
|426BC, Matt. | |abridged, diver-
| 1.18-25+.| | gent in middle.
| |430B, Matt. 2.13. |Porphyry & Celsus.
| |44C, Matt. 5.34,37|
|59C, Matt. | |
| 5.17,18.| |
180B, Matt. 5.18+.| | |Valentinians.
| |226A, Matt. 5.45. |
|72A, Matt. 7.6. | |Basilidians.
404C, Matt. 7.15. | | |
| |67C. Matt. 8.11. |
| |650B. Matt. |
| | 8.28-34 (par.)|
|303A, Matt. | |Marcion.
| 9.17,16.| |
|71B, Matt. 10.33.| |Basilidians.
|274B, Matt. | |
| 10.16.| |
88A, Matt. 11.7. |143B, Matt. | |Gnostics.
| 11.18.| |
|254B, Matt. | |Marcosians.
| 11.28.| |
| |139AB, Matt. |Ebionites.
| | 12.48 sqq. (v.l.)|
174C, Matt. 10.26.| | |
| |464B, Matt. |Theodotus.
| | 12.31,32.|
|33A, Matt. 23.5. | |
| |218D, Matt. 15.4-6|Ptolemaeus.
| | (or. obl.)|
| |490C, Matt. 15.20.|
| | Mark 7.21,22.|
| |490A, Matt. 18.8. |}compression
| | Mark 9.43. |}
| |679BC, Matt. |Manes.
| | 13.24-30,37-39.|
| |152B, Matt. 5.27. |
|59CD, Matt. | |
| 19.10-12.| |
|59D, Matt. 19.6. | |
| |81A, Matt. 19.12. |
| |97D, Matt. 22.30. |
| |36BC, Matt. 23. |remarkable compo-
| | 23,25; 23.18-20.| sition, probably
| | | from memory.
| | (5.35); Mark |
| | 7.11-13; Matt. |
| | 23.15. |
| |226A, Matt. 23.29;|composition.
| | Luke 11.47.|
| |281A, Matt. 23.35.|
| |508C, Matt. 25.34.|
| |146AB, Matt. 26. |narrative.
| | 17,18; Mark 14. |
| | 12-14; Luke 22. |
| | 9-11. |
| |279D, Matt. 26.24.|
| |390B, Matt. 21.33,|
| | par. |
|50A, Matt. 28.19.| |
|427B, Mark 1.1,2.| |
| (v.1.)| |
|428C, Mark 1.4. | |
| |457D, Mark 3.29; |singular
| | Matt. 12.31; |composition.
| | Luke 12.10. |
|400D, Matt. 19.6;| |
| Mark 10.9. | |
| |650C, Matt. 8. |narrative.
| | 28-34; Mark 5. |
| | 1-20; Luke 8. |
| | 26-39. |
[These last five quotations have already been given under Irenaeus, whom
Epiphanius is transcribing.]
|464D, Luke 12.9; | |composition.
| Matt. 10.33.| |
|181B, Luke 14.27.| |Valentians.
|401A, Luke 21.34.| |
|143C, Luke 24.42.| |
| (v. 1.)| |
|349C, Luke 24. | |Marcion.
| 38,39| |
384B, John 1.1-3. | | |
148A, John 1.23. | | |
|148B, John | |
| 2.16,17.| |
|89C, John 3.12. | |Gnostics.
|274A, John 3.14 | |
59C, John 5.46. | | |
| |162B, John 5.8. |
66C, John 5.17. | | |
|919A, John 5.18. | |
| |117D, John 6.15. |
|89D, John 6.53. | |the same.
|279D, John 6.70. | |
| |279B, John 8.44. |
|463D, John 8.40. | |Theodotus.
| |148B, John 12.41. |
| |153A, John 12.22. |
|75C, John 14.6. | |
919C, John 14.10. | | |
921D, John 17.3. | | |
| |279D, John |
| | 17.11,12.|
|119D, John 18.36.| |
It is impossible here not to notice the very large amount of
freedom in the quotations. The exact quotations number only
fifteen, the slightly variant thirty-seven, and the markedly
variant forty. By far the larger portion of this last class and
several instances in the second it seems most reasonable to refer
to the habit of quoting from memory. This is strikingly
illustrated by the passage 117 D, Where the retreat of Jesus and
His disciples to Ephraim is treated as a consequence of the
attempt 'to make Him king' (John vi. 15), though in reality it did
not take place till after the raising of Lazarus and just before
the Last Passover (see John xi. 54). A very remarkable case of
combination is found in 36 BC, where a single quotation is made up
of a cento of no less than six separate passages taken from all
three Synoptic Gospels and in the most broken order. Fusions so
complete as this are usually the result of unconscious acts of the
mind, i.e. of memory. A curious instance of the way in which the
Synoptic parallels are blended together in a compound which
differs from each and all of them is presented in 437 D ([Greek:
to blasphaemounti eis to pneuma to hagion ouk aphethaesetai auto
oute en to nun aioni oute en to mellonti]). Another example of
Epiphanius' manner in skipping backwards and forwards from one
Synoptic to another may be seen in 218 D, which is made up of
Matt. xv. 4-9 and Mark vii. 6-13. A strange mistake is made in 428
D, where [Greek: paraekolouthaekoti] is taken with [Greek: tois
autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou]. Many kinds of variation find
examples in these quotations of Epiphanius, to some of which we
may have occasion to allude more particularly later on.
It should be remembered that these are not by any means selected
examples. Neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius are notorious for free
quotation--Irenaeus indeed is rather the reverse. Probably a much
more plentiful harvest of variations would have been obtained e.g.
from Clement of Alexandria, from whose writings numerous instances
of quotation following the sense only, of false ascription, of the
blending of passages, of quotations from memory, are given in the
treatise of Bp. Kaye [Endnote 56:1]. Dr. Westcott has recently
collected [Endnote 56:2] the quotations from Chrysostom _On the
Priesthood,_ with the result that about one half present
variations from the Apostolic texts, and some of these variations,
which he gives at length, are certainly very much to the point.
I fear we shall have seemed to delay too long upon this first
preliminary stage of the enquiry, but it is highly desirable that
we should start with a good broad inductive basis to go upon. We
have now an instrument in our hands by which to test the alleged
quotations in the early writers; and, rough and approximate as
that instrument must still be admitted to be, it is at least much
better than none at all.