CHAPTER XIV.

CONCLUSION.

And now that we have come to the end of the purely critical

portion of this enquiry, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few

words on its general tendency and bearing. As critics we have only

the critical question to deal with. Certain evidence is presented

to us which it is our duty to weigh and test by reference to

logical and critical laws. It must stand or fall on its own

merits, and any considerations brought in from without will be

irrelevant to the question at issue. But after this is done we may

fairly look round and consider how our conclusion affects other

conclusions and in what direction it is leading us. If we look at

'Supernatural Religion' in this way we shall see that its tendency

is distinctly marked. Its attack will fall chiefly upon the middle

party in opinion. And it will play into the hands of the two

extreme parties on either side. There can be little doubt that

indirectly it will help the movement that is carrying so many into

Ultramontanism, and directly it is of course intended to win

converts to what may perhaps be called comprehensively Secularism.

Now it is certainly true that the argument from consequences is

one that ought to be applied with great caution. Yet I am not at

all sure that it has not a real basis in philosophy as well as in

nature. The very existence of these two great parties, the

Ultramontane and the Secularist, over against each other, seems to

be it kind of standing protest against either of them. If

Ultramontanism is true, how is it that so many wise and good men

openly avow Secularism? If 'Secularism is true, how is it that so

many of the finest and highest minds take refuge from it--a

treacherous refuge, I allow--in Ultramontanism? There is

something in this more than a mere defective syllogism--more than

an insufficient presentation of the evidence. Truth, in the widest

sense, is that which is in accordance with the laws and conditions

of human nature. But where beliefs are so directly antithetical as

they are here, the repugnance and resistance which each is found

to cause in so large a number of minds is in itself a proof that

those laws and conditions are insufficiently complied with. To the

spectator, standing outside of both, this will seem to be easily

explained: the one sacrifices reason to faith; the other

sacrifices faith to reason. But there is abundant evidence to show

that both faith (meaning thereby the religious emotions) and

reason are ineradicable elements in the human mind. That which

seriously and permanently offends against either cannot be true.

For creatures differently constituted from man--either all reason

or all pure disembodied emotion--it might be otherwise; but, for

man, as he is, the epithet 'true' seems to be excluded from any

set of propositions that has such results.

Even in the more limited sense, and confining the term to

propositions purely intellectual, there is, I think we must say, a

presumption against the truth of that which involves so deep and

wide a chasm in human nature. Without importing teleology, we

should naturally expect that the intellect and the emotions should

be capable of working harmoniously together. They do so in most

things: why should they not in the highest matters of all? If the

one set of opinions is anti-rational and the other anti-emotional,

as we see practically that they are, is not this in itself an

antecedent presumption against either of them? It may not be

enough to prove at once that the syllogism is defective: still

less is it a sufficient warrant for establishing an opposite

syllogism. But it does seem to be enough to give the scientific

reasoner pause, and to make him go over the line of his argument

again and again and yet again, with the suspicion that there is

(as how well there may be!) a flaw somewhere.

It would not, I think, be difficult to point out such flaws

[Endnote 352:1]--some of them, as it appears, of considerable

magnitude. But the subject is one that would take us far away out

of our present course, and for its proper development would

require a technical knowledge of the processes of physical science

which I do not possess. Leaving this on one side, and regarding

them only in the abstract, the considerations stated above seem to

point to the necessity of something of the nature of a compromise.

And yet there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as compromise

in opinions. Compromise belongs to the world of practice; it is

only admitted by an illicit process into the world of thought. The

author of 'Supernatural Religion' is doubtless right in

deprecating that 'illogical zeal which flings to the pursuing

wolves of doubt and unbelief, scrap by scrap,' all the distinctive

doctrines of Christianity. Belief, it is true, must be ultimately

logical to stand. It must have an inner cohesion and inter-

dependence. It must start from a fixed principle. This has been,

and still is, the besetting weakness of the theology of mediation.

It is apt to form itself merely by stripping off what seem to be

excrescences from the outside, and not by radically reconstructing

itself, on a firmly established basis, from within. The difficulty

in such a process is to draw the line. There is a delusive

appearance of roundness and completeness in the creeds of those

who either accept everything or deny everything: though, even

here, there is, I think we may say, always, some little loophole

left of belief or of denial, which will inevitably expand until it

splits and destroys the whole structure. But the moment we begin

to meet both parties half way, there comes in that crucial

question: Why do you accept just so much and no more? Why do you

deny just so much and no more? [Endnote 354:1]

It must, in candour, be confessed that the synthetic formula for the

middle party in opinion has not yet been found. Other parties have

their formulae, but none that will really bear examination. _Quod

semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_, would do excellently if there

was any belief that had been held 'always, everywhere, and by all,' if

no discoveries had been made as to the facts, and if there had been no

advance in the methods of knowledge. The ultimate universality and the

absolute uniformity of physical antecedents has a plausible appearance

until it is seen that logically carried out it reduces men to machines,

annihilates responsibility, and involves conclusions on the assumption

of the truth of which society could not hold together for a single day.

If we abandon these Macedonian methods for unloosing the Gordian knot

of things and keep to the slow and laborious way of gradual induction,

then I think it will be clear that all opinions must be held on the

most provisional tenure. A vast number of problems will need to be

worked out before any can be said to be established with a pretence to

finality. And the course which the inductive process is taking supplies

one of the chief 'grounds of hope' to those who wish to hold that

middle position of which I have been speaking. The extreme theories

which from time to time have been advanced have not been able to hold

their ground. No doubt they may have done the good that extreme

theories usually do, in bringing out either positively or negatively

one side or another of the truth; but in themselves they have been

rejected as at once inadequate and unreal solutions of the facts. First

we had the Rationalism (properly so called) of Paulus, then the

Mythical hypothesis of Strauss, and after that the 'Tendenz-kritik' of

Baur. But what candid person does not feel that each and all of these

contained exaggerations more incredible than the difficulties which

they sought to remove? There has been on each of the points raised a

more or less definite ebb in the tide. The moderate conclusion is seen

to be also the reasonable conclusion. And not least is this the case

with the enquiry on which we have been just engaged. The author of

'Supernatural Religion' has overshot the mark very much indeed. There

is, as we have seen, a certain truth in some things that he has said,

but the whole sum of truth is very far from bearing out his conclusions.

When we look up from these detailed enquiries and lift up our eyes

to a wider horizon we shall be able to relegate them to their true

place. The really imposing witness to the truth of Christianity is

that which is supplied by history on the one hand, and its own

internal attractiveness and conformity to human nature on the

other. Strictly speaking, perhaps, these are but two sides of the

same thing. It is in history that the laws of human nature assume

a concrete shape and expression. The fact that Christianity has

held its ground in the face of such long-continued and hostile

criticism is a proof that it must have some deeply-seated fitness

and appropriateness for man. And this goes a long way towards

saying that it is true. It is a theory of things that is being

constantly tested by experience. But the results of experience are

often expressed unconsciously. They include many a subtle

indication that the mind has followed but cannot reproduce to

itself in set terms. All the reasons that go to form a judge's

decision do not appear in his charge. Yet there we have a select

and highly-trained mind working upon matter that presents no very

great degree of complexity. When we come to a question so wide, so

subtle and complex as Christianity, the individual mind ceases to

be competent to sit in judgment upon it. It becomes necessary to

appeal to a much more extended tribunal, and the verdict of that

tribunal will be given rather by acts than in words. Thus there

seems to have always been a sort of half-conscious feeling in

men's minds that there was more in Christianity than the arguments

for it were able to bring out. In looking back over the course

that apologetics have taken, we cannot help being struck by a

disproportion between the controversial aspect and the practical.

It will probably on the whole be admitted that the balance of

argument has in the past been usually somewhat on the side of the

apologists; but the argumentative victory has seldom if ever been

so decisive as quite to account for the comparatively undisturbed

continuity of the religious life. It was in the height of the

Deist controversy that Wesley and Whitfield began to preach, and

they made more converts by appealing to the emotions than probably

Butler did by appealing to the reason.

A true philosophy must take account of these phenomena. Beliefs

which issue in that peculiarly fine and chastened and tender

spirit which is the proper note of Christianity, cannot, under any

circumstances, be dismissed as 'delusion.' Surely if any product

of humanity is true and genuine, it is to be found here. There are

indeed truths which find a response in our hearts without

apparently going through any logical process, not because they are

illogical, but because the scales of logic are not delicate and

sensitive enough to weigh them.

'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall

not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' 'I will arise and go to my

father, and will say unto him: Father, I have sinned against

heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy

son.' 'Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I

will give you rest.' The plummet of science--physical or

metaphysical, moral or critical--has never sounded so deep as

sayings such as these. We may pass them over unnoticed in our

Bibles, or let them slip glibly and thoughtlessly from the tongue;

but when they once really come home, there is nothing to do but to

bow the head and cover the face and exclaim with the Apostle,

'Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.'

And yet there is that other side of the question which is represented

in 'Supernatural Religion,' and this too must have justice done to it.

There is an intellectual, as well as a moral and spiritual, synthesis

of things. Only it should be remembered that this synthesis has to

cover an immense number of facts of the most varied and intricate kind,

and that at present the nature of the facts themselves is in many cases

very far from being accurately ascertained. We are constantly reminded

in reading 'Supernatural Religion,' able and vigorous as it is, how

much of its force depends rather upon our ignorance than our knowledge.

It supplies us with many opportunities of seeing how easily the whole

course and tenour of an argument may be changed by the introduction of

a new element. For instance, I imagine that if the author had given a

little deeper study to the seemingly minute and secondary subject of

text-criticism, it would have aroused in him very considerable

misgivings as to the results at which he seemed to have arrived. There

is a solidarity in all the different departments of human knowledge and

research, especially among those that are allied in subject. These are

continually sending out offshoots and projections into the neighbouring

regions, and the conclusions of one science very often have to depend

upon those of another. The course of enquiry that has been taken in

'Supernatural Religion' is peculiarly unfortunate. It starts from the

wrong end. It begins with propositions into which _a priori_

considerations largely enter, and, from the standpoint given by these,

it proceeds to dictate terms in a field that can only be trodden by

patient and unprejudiced study. A far more hopeful and scientific

process would have been to begin upon ground where dogmatic questions

do not enter, or enter only in a remote degree, and where there is a

sufficient number of solid ascertainable facts to go upon, and then to

work the way steadily and cautiously upwards to higher generalisations.

It will have been seen in the course of the present enquiry how

many side questions need to be determined. It would be well if

monographs were written upon all the quotations from the Old

Testament in the Christian literature of the first two centuries,

modelled upon Credner's investigations into the quotations in

Justin. Before this is done there should be a new and revised

edition of Holmes' and Parsons' Septuagint [Endnote 359:1].

Everything short of this would be inadequate, because we need to

know not only the best text, but every text that has definite

historical attestation. In this way it would be possible to arrive

at a tolerably exact, instead of a merely approximate, deduction

as to the habit of quotation generally, which would supply a

firmer basis for inference in regard to the New Testament than

that which has been assumed here. At the same time monographs

should be written in English, besides those already existing in

German, upon the date or position of the writers whose works come

under review. Without any attempt to prove a particular thesis,

the reader should be allowed to see precisely what the evidence is

and how far it goes. Then if he could not arrive at a positive

conclusion, he could at least attain to the most probable. And,

lastly, it is highly important that the whole question of the

composition and structure of the Synoptic Gospels should be

investigated to the very bottom. Much valuable labour has already

been expended upon this subject, but the result, though progress

has been made, is rather to show its extreme complexity and

difficulty than to produce any final settlement. Yet, as the

author of 'Supernatural Religion' has rather dimly and inadequately

seen, we are constantly thrown back upon assumptions borrowed from

this quarter.

Pending such more mature and thorough enquiries, I quite feel that

my own present contribution belongs to a transition stage, and

cannot profess to be more than provisional. But it will have

served its purpose sufficiently if it has helped to mark out more

distinctly certain lines of the enquiry and to carry the

investigation along these a little way; suggesting at the same

time--what the facts themselves really suggest--counsels of

sobriety and moderation.

What the end will be, it would be presumptuous to attempt to

foretell. It will probably be a long time before even these minor

questions--much more the major questions into which they run up--

will be solved. Whether they will ever be solved--all of them at

least--in such a way as to compel entire assent is very doubtful.

Error and imperfection seem to be permanently, if we may hope

diminishingly, a condition of human thought and action. It does

not appear to be the will of God that Truth should ever be so

presented as to crush out all variety of opinion. The conflict of

opinions is like that of Hercules with the Hydra. As fast as one

is cut down another arises in its place; and there is no searing-

iron to scorch and cicatrize the wound. However much we may

labour, we can only arrive at an inner conviction, not at

objective certainty. All the glosses and asseverations in the

world cannot carry us an inch beyond the due weight of the

evidence vouchsafed to us. An honest and brave mind will accept

manfully this condition of things, and not seek for infallibility

where it can find none. It will adopt as its motto that noble

saying of Bishop Butler--noble, because so unflinchingly true,

though opposed to a sentimental optimism--'Probability is the very

guide of life.'

With probabilities we have to deal, in the intellectual sphere.

But, when once this is thoroughly and honestly recognised, even a

comparatively small balance of probability comes to have as much

moral weight as the most loudly vaunted certainty. And meantime,

apart from and beneath the strife of tongues, there is the still

small voice which whispers to a man and bids him, in no

superstitious sense but with the gravity and humility which befits

a Christian, to 'work out his own salvation with fear and

trembling.'

[ENDNOTES]

[2:1] With regard to the references in vol. i. p. 259, n. 1, I

had already observed, before the appearance of the preface to the

sixth edition, that they were really intended to apply to the

first part of the sentence annotated rather than the second.

Still, as there is only one reference out of nine that really

supports the proposition in immediate connection with which the

references are made, the reader would be very apt to carry away a

mistaken impression. The same must be said of the set of

references defended on p. xl. sqq. of the new preface. The

expressions used do not accurately represent the state of the

facts. It is not careful writing, and I am afraid it must be said

that the prejudice of the author has determined the side which the

expression leans. But how difficult is it to make words express

all the due shades and qualifications of meaning--how difficult

especially for a mind that seems to be naturally distinguished by

force rather than by exactness and delicacy of observation! We

have all 'les défauts de nos qualités.'

[10:1] Much harm has been done by rashly pressing human metaphors and

analogies; such as, that Revelation is a _message_ from God and

therefore must be infallible, &c. This is just the sort of argument

that the Deists used in the last century, insisting that a revelation,

properly so called, _must_ be presented with conclusive proofs, _must_

be universal, _must_ be complete, and drawing the conclusion that

Christianity is not such a revelation. This kind of reasoning has

received its sentence once for all from Bishop Butler. We have nothing

to do with what _must_ be (of which we are, by the nature of the case,

incompetent judges), but simply with what _is_.

[18:1] Cf. Westcott, _Canon_, p. 152, n. 2 (3rd ed. 1870).

[18:2] See Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 60; also Credner,

_Beiträge_, ii. 66 ('certainly' from St. Paul).

[20:1] _The Old Testament in the New_ (London and Edinburgh,

1868).

[21:1] Mr. M'Clellan (_The New Testament_, &c., vol. i. p.

606, n. c) makes the suggestion, which from his point of view is

necessary, that 'S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by

Jeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Testament, and of which

the passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduction.' Cf.

Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. 152.

[25:1] We do not stay to discuss the real origin of these

quotations: the last is probably not from the Old Testament at

all.

[27:1] The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also

found in Clement of Alexandria.

[34:1] It should be noticed, however, that the same reading is

found in Justin and other writers.

[38:1] _Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti_

(Gottingae, 1853).

[39:1] _Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften_

(Halle, 1832).

[40:1] _The Epistles of S. Clement of Rome_ (London and

Cambridge, 1869).

[49:1] The Latin translation is not in most cases a sufficient

guarantee for the original text. The Greek has been preserved in

the shape of long extracts by Epiphanius and others. The edition

used is that of Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853.

[49:2] Horne's _Introduction_ (ed. 1856), p. 333.

[52:1] Ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1859. [The index given in vol. iii.

p. 893 sqq. contains many inaccuracies, and is, indeed, of little

use for identifying the passages of Scripture.]

[56:1] _Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of

Alexandria,_ p. 407 sqq.

[56:2] In the new Preface to his work on the Canon (4th edition,

1875), p. xxxii.

[58:1] _S.R._ i. p. 221, and note.

[59:1] _S.R._ i. p. 222, n. 3.

[59:2] _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ p. 74 (p. 82 _S.R._?).

[59:3] _Das nachapost. Zeitalter_, p. 126 sq.

[60:1] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 64; compare

Fritzche, art. 'Judith' in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_.

[61:1] Vol. i. p. 221, n. I feel it due to the author to say that

I have found his long lists of references, though not seldom

faulty, very useful. I willingly acknowledge the justice of his

claim to have 'fully laid before readers the actual means of

judging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made'

(Preface to sixth edition, p. lxxx).

[65:1] i. p. 226.

[66:1] i. p. 228.

[69:1] _Der Ursprung_, p. 138.

[71:1] _The Apostolical Fathers_ (London, 1874), p. 273.

[71:2] The original Greek of this work is lost, but in the text as

reconstructed by Hilgenfeld from five still extant versions

(Latin, Syriac, Aethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the verse runs thus,

[Greek: polloi men ektisthaesan, oligoi de sothaesontai]

(_Messias Judaeorum_, p. 69).

[73:1] A curious instance of disregard of context is to be seen in

Tertullian's reading of John i. 13, which he referred to

_Christ_, accusing the Valentinians of falsification because

they had the ordinary reading (cf. Rönsch, _Das Neue Testament

Tertullian's_, pp. 252, 654). Compare also p. 24 above.

[73:2] _Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum_, Fasc. ii.

p. 69.

[74:1] c. v.

[74:2] _S. R._ i. p. 250 sqq.

[76:1] Lardner, _Credibility, &c_., ii. p .23; Westcott,

_On the Canon_, p. 50, n. 5.

[77:1] Since this was written the author of 'Supernatural

Religion' has replied in the preface to his sixth edition. He has

stated his case in the ablest possible manner: still I do not

think that there is anything to retract in what has been written

above. There _would_ have been something to retract if Dr.

Lightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the Vossian

Epistles. As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to stand

thus. On the one side are certain improbabilities--I admit,

improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind--which are met

about half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand,

there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted

in its turn by Irenaeus. Now I cannot think that there is any

improbability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to be

outweighed by this external evidence.

[81:1] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec._, Fasc. iv.

p. 15.

[81:2] Cf. _ibid._, pp. 56, 62, also p. 29.

[82:1] But see _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 838, from

which it appears that M. Waddington has recently proved the date

to be rather 155 or 156. Compare Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p.

72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius, _Der

Märtyrertod Polycarp's_ in _Z. f. w. T._ 1874, ii. p. 180

f.

[82:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 3, 4.

[83:1] _Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_, p. 586;

Hefele, _Patrum Apostolicorum Opera_, p. lxxx.

[84:1] Cf. _S. R._ i. p. 278.

[84:2] _Ent. d. a. K._ pp. 593, 599.

[84:3] _Apostolical Fathers_, p. 227 sq.

[84:4] _Ursprung_, pp. 43, 131.

[85:1] [Greek: mnaemoneuontes de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon; mae

krinete hina mae krithaete; aphiete kai aphethaesetai hymin; eleeite

hina eleaethaete; en ho metro metreite, antimetraethaesetai hymin; kai

hoti makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi heneken dikaiosynaes, hoti

auton estin hae basileia tou Theou.]

[89:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, 1. p. 138, n. 2.

[89:2] _Einleilung in das N. T._ p. 66, where Lipsius' view

is also quoted.

[89:3] Cf. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 88, n. 4.

[89:4] As appears to be suggested in _S. R._ i. p. 292. The

reference in the note to Bleek, _Einl._ p. 637 (and Ewald?),

does not seem to be exactly to the point.

[89:5] _Apol._ i. 67.

[90:1] _Dial. c. Tryph._ 103.

[90:2] _Apol._ i. 66; cf. _S.R._ i. p. 294.

[91:1] The evangelical references and allusions in Justin have

been carefully collected by Credner and Hilgenfeld, and are here

thrown together in a sort of running narrative.

[101:1] This was written before the appearance of Mr. M'Clellan's

important work on the Four Gospels (_The New Testament_, vol. i,

London, 1875), to which I have not yet had time to give the

study that it deserves.

[103:1] Unless indeed it was found in one of the many forms of the

Gospel (cf. _S.R._ i. P. 436, and p. 141 below). The section

appears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Hilgenfeld (_N.T.

extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv).

[107:1] In like manner Tertullian refers his readers to the

'autograph copies' of St. Paul's Epistles, and the very 'chairs of

the Apostles,' preserved at Corinth and elsewhere. (_De

Praescript. Haeret._ c. 36). Tertullian also refers to the

census of Augustus, 'quem testem fidelissimum dominicae

nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt' (_Adv. Marc._ iv. 7).

[110:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 261 sqq.

[110:2] _Evangelien Justin's u.s.w._, p. 270 sqq.

[110:3] The chief authority is Eus. _H. E._ vi. 12.

[110:4] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157.

[116:1] A somewhat similar classification has been made by De

Wette, _Einleitung in das N. T._, pp. 104-110, in which

however the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which I

have assumed; several instances of variation which I had classed

as decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I may

consider this a proof that the classification above given has not

been influenced by bias.

[119:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 237.

[119:2] _S.R._ i. p. 396 sqq.

[120:1] _Die drei ersten Evangelien_, Göttingen, 1850. [A

second, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared.]

[120:2] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88.

[120:3] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, Berlin, 1872, p. 299.

[120:4] _Beiträge_, i. p. 219.

[120:5] Dr. Westcott well calls this 'the _prophetic_ sense

of the present' (_On the Canon_, p. 128).

[122:1] 'This is meaningless,' writes Mr. Baring-Gould of the

canonical text, rather hastily, and forgetting, as it would

appear, the concluding cause (_Lost and Hostile Gospels_, p.

166); cp. _S.R._ i. p. 354, ii. p. 28.

[123:1] i. pp. 196, 227, 258.

[123:2] _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon_ (ed.

Volkmar, Berlin, 1860), p. 16.

[124:1] _Adv. Haer._ 428 D.

[124:2] I am not quite clear that more is meant (as Meyer,

Ellicott _Huls. Lect._ p. 339, n. 2, and others maintain) in

the evangelical language than that the drops of sweat 'resembled

blood;' [Greek: hosei] seems to qualify [Greek: haimatos] as much

as [Greek: thromboi]. Compare especially the interesting parallels

from medical writers quoted by McClellan _ad loc._

[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by

Mr. McClellan to Philo i.164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase is

however [Greek: isos angeloi (gegonos)].

[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 304 sqq.

[130:1] _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157.

[135:1] Scrivener, _Introduction to the Criticism of the N.

T_. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874).

[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more than

I did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony. The phenomena

of variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributed

to allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from different

Gospels. But the data will need a closer weighing before this can

be determined.

[138:1] _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 169 sqq.

[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argument

which follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot's, and is, I

believe, in the main sound (_Wann wurden unsere Evangelien

verfasst?_ p. 113 sqq., 4th edition, 1866).

[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition of _S. R._ that the

argument from silence is practically waived. If the silence of

Eusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he

is silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular

Gospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving

that the Gospels in question _were_ acknowledged. The matter

may well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence of

Eusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of

Corinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them. I

agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that the point is

not one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of

by other writers, e.g. Strauss and Renan. [The author has missed

Dr. Lightfoot's point on p. xxiii. What Eusebius bears testimony

to is, _not_ his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth

Gospel, but its _undisputed_ canonicity, i.e. a historical

fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If I

say that _Hamlet_ is an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, I

mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but that

all the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed it

to be his.]

[140:1] _H. E._ iv. 22.

[141:1] _S. R._ i. p. 436.

[141:2] _Einleitung_, p. 103.

[141:3] _Das Nachapost. Zeit._ i. p. 238.

[141:4] _Beiträge_, i. p. 401.

[141:5] _Nov. Test. extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv. pp. 19, 20.

[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat

parallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of

Clement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek: aphiete, hina aphethae humin

(kai aphethaesetai humin)].

[144:1] _Contemporary Review_, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf. Routh,

_Reliquiae Sacrae_, i. p. 281 _ad fin._

[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the 'Ancient Syriac Versions' in

Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that 'these words might

be a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand' in the

Curetonian text.

[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above.

[146:1] _H.E._ iii. 39.

[147:1] In Mr. M'Clellan's recent _Harmony_ I notice only two deviations

from the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller's

_Harmony_ (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which

there are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20,

xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson's English _Harmony_ three, ii. 15-22,

vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these passages

vi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place

of which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in

_Cont. Rev._, Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf

in proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot

be maintained. But Tischendorf's Harmony is based on the assumption

that St. Luke's use of [Greek: kathexaes] pledges him to a chronological

order, and Anger adopts Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark is a compilation

from Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious

harmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.]

[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining

the points of resemblance between the Gospels in different

coloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each

section.

[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Credner

by Bleek and De Wette. The results will be found in Holtzmann,

_Synopt. Ev._ p. 259 sqq.

[154:1] Cf. Holtzmann, _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, p. 255

sq.; Ebrard, _The Gospel History_ (Engl. trans.), p. 247;

Bleek, _Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien_, i.

p. 367. The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has much

plausibility.

[155:1] _On the Canon_, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word will

bear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot's

recent investigations, in view of which the two sentences that

follow should perhaps be cancelled; see _Cont. Rev._, Aug.

1875, p. 399 sqq.]

[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touch

those of Dr. Lightfoot in the _Contemporary Review_ for

August and October: neither do Dr. Lightfoot's arguments seem very

much to affect them. The method of the one is chiefly external,

that of the other almost entirely internal. I can only for the

present leave what I had written; but I do not for a moment

suppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particular

standpoint that I have taken.]

[162:1] The lists given in _Supernatural Religion_ (ii. p. 2)

seem to be correct so far as I am able to check them. In the

second edition of his work on the Origin of the Old Catholic

Church, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admit

that the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side,

sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonable

warning in Reuss (_Gesch. h. S. N. T._ p. 254) that the

Tübingen 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

Hilgenfeld.

[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;

xvii. 19.

[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] _Beiträge_, 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

canonical.

[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette,

_Einleitung_, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmar

and Hilgenfeld.

[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 Rönsch,

_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. Friedländer, _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] _Beiträge_, 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, _Beiträge_,

i. p. 442).

[240:3] See _S.R._ ii. p. 15.

[241:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 162; compare Credner, _Beiträge_,

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

conjectural.

[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. Rönsch, _Das neue Testament

Tertullian's_, p. 48), 'duo deos dividens, proinde diversos,

alterum alterius instrumenti--vel, _quod magis usui est dicere,

testamenti_.'

[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._ § 3 (in Routh, _Rel. Sac._

i. p. 297).

[252:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 203; _Evv. Justin's u.s.w._ p.

155.

[254:1] _Wann wurden u.s.w._ p. 48 sq.

[254:2] _Ursprung_, p. 130; _S.R._ ii. p. 222.

[255:1] Cf. Credner, _Beiträge_, 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

different footing.

[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

paralytic boy).

[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

quite clear?]

[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 Rönsch, _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 Rönsch, 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 Rönsch (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] Rönsch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 43.

[321:1] Rönsch, _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

called.

[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_,

p. 302.

[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

present.

[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:--

'Where's

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, _Beiträge_,

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 sorgfältige Vergleichung des in London aufbewahrten

Cod. Alex. zu veranstalten, sich lediglich auf die Ausgabe von Grabe

beschränkt haben, dessen Kritik vielfach nicht einmal verstanden worden

ist.'

APPENDIX.

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL.

If the reader should happen to possess the work of Rönsch, 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

or not.

Failing this, it may be well to give a brief example of the kind

of data available, going back straight to the original authorities

themselves.

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:[1] Factum est autem cum turbae irruereut in eum et

ipse stabat secus stagnum Gennesareth:[2] et vidit duas

naves....[3] Ascendens in unam navem quae erat Simonis...[4] dixit

ad Simonem, Duc in altum, et laxate retia vestra in capturam.

[6]Et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinem

copiosam.... [7]Et impleverunt ambas naviculas ita ut mergerentur.

[8]Quod cum videret Simon Petrus, procidit ad genua Jesu....

[9]Stupor enim circumdederat eum ... [10]similiter autem Jacobum

et Johannem filios Zebedaei.... Et ait ad Simonem Jesus, Noli

timere, ex hoc jam homines eris capiens. [11]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

vivificans.

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

testimonium_.

Luke v. 12-14: [12] Ecce vir plenus lepra: et videns Jesum ...

rogavit eum dicens, Domine, si vis, potes me mundare. [13] Et

extendens manum tetigit illum dicens, Volo, mundare. Et confestim

lepra discessit ab illo. [14] 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 Rönsch, 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

Marcion spoke.

_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

hominem nominaret?

Luke v. 17-26: [17] Et factum est in una dierum et ipse sedebat

docens.... [18] Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem, qui erat

paralyticus, et quaerebant eum inferre... [19] et non invenientes

qua parte illum inferrent prae turba,... per tegulas...

summiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Jesum. [20] Quorum

fidem ut vidit, dixit, Homo, remittuntur tibi peccata tua. [21] Et

coeperunt cogitare Scribae et Pharisaei, dicentes, Quis est hic

qui loquitur blasphemias? quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus

deus? [22] Ut cognovit autem Jesus cogitationes eorum, respondens

dixit ad illos. ... [23] Quid est facilius dicere, Dimittuntur

tibi peccata, an dicere, Surge et ambula? [24] 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. [25] 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: [27] Et post hoc exiit et vidit publicanum ... et

ait illi, Sequere me.... [30] Et murmurabant Pharisaei et Scribae

eorum... [31] 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: [33] At illi dixerunt ad eum, Quare discipuli

Johannis jejunant frequenter et obsecrationes faciunt, ... tui

autem edunt et bibunt? [34] Quibus ipse ait, Numquid potestis

filios sponsi dum cum illis est sponsus facere jejunare? [35]

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

vetus vestimentum.

Luke v. 36-38: [36] Dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos quia

nemo commissuram a vestimento novo inmittit in vestimentum

vetus.... [37] Et nemo mittit vinum novum in utres veteres....

[38] 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

alien creation.

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.

INDEX I.

References to the Four Gospels.

The asterisk indicates that the passage in question is discussed

in some detail.

_St. Matthew._

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.

_St. Mark._

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

XI. 20-26

XII. 17 20 24 27* 29* 30 38-44

XIII. 2* 22

XIV. 12,13 12-14 40 51,52

XV. 14 34

XVI. 14-16

_St. Luke._

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

52 66

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

42,43 42-44

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

XIV. 27

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

_St. John._

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

IV. 6

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

IX. 1-3*

X. 8 9* 23,24 27* 30

XI. 54

XII. 14,15 22 27 30 40 41

XIII. 18

XIV. 2 6 10

XV. 25

XVI. 2* 3

XVII. 3 11,12 14*

XVIII. 36

XIX. 36 37*

INDEX II.

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.