See other formats

Full text of "A historical introduction to the study of the books of the New Testament : being an expansion of lectures delivered in the Divinity school of the University of Dublin"

T / xy 

* 



A HISTOKICAL INTEODUCTION 



TO THE STUDY OF THE 



BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: 



BEING 



AN EXPANSION OF LECTUEES 



DELIVERED IN THE 



DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN 



BY GEOKGKE SALMON, D.D., F.E.S., 

PROVOST OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN ; 
SOMETIME REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN. 



FOURTH EDITION, 



LONDON: 

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
1889. 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH: 

$ mtrse of Lectures 

DELIVERED IN THE 

DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN. 
8vo. Price 12a. 



Printed at THK UMVKRSITY PRESS, Dublin. 



PREFACE 

TO THE FIRST EDITION 



THE Lectures out of which the present volume has 
taken its origin were written some years ago, 
and did not aim at giving a complete or systematic 
account of the subjects with which they dealt. When 
I decided last year on sending them to the Press, I 
contemplated making no other change than that of 
altering the division into Lectures the original 
division, of necessity, having mainly had regard to 
the length which it was convenient to deliver at one 
time. Accordingly, the first three Lectures of this 
volume contain, with but slight alterations, what 
was originally the introductory Lecture of my course. 
But as the printing went on I found additions ne 
cessary, partly in order to take notice of things that 
had been published since the delivery of the Lectures, 
and partly in order to include details which want of 
time had obliged me to omit, but which I was un 
willing to pass unnoticed in my book. In this way 
I have been led on to re-write, and make additions 
(but without making any change in the style or in 
the arrangement), until I am now somewhat dis 
mayed to find that the Lectures have swelled to two 
or three times their original bulk. 



iv PREFACE. 

The additions thus made have so far completed the 
discussion, that I have ventured to give this volume 
the title of an Introduction ; but it will be seen that it 
does not embrace all the topics frequently included 
under that title. I do not enter on the criticism of the 
text, nor do I make any analysis of the contents of the 
books. My main purpose has been to discuss their 
date and authorship on purely historical grounds ; 
and to examine with sufficient completeness for a 
practical decision the various theories on the subject 
advanced by modern schools of criticism. It is in 
this latter respect that this Introduction will chiefly 
be found to differ from some valuable works on the 
same subject which are in the hands of students. 
Most of the original evidence requisite for the dis 
cussion has already been brought within easy reach 
in Canon Westcott s History of the New Testament 
Canon/ Dr. Charteris, also, in his Canonicity/ has 
rendered accessible to the English reader the collec 
tion of ancient testimonies made by Kirchhofer in his 
Quellensammlung. According to the arrangement 
of Canon Westcott s book, each of the ancient wit 
nesses is treated separately, and under each name are 
placed the books of the New Testament to which the 
witness bears testimony. According to the arrange 
ment of Kirchhofer and Charteris, each book of the 
New Testament is examined in succession, and the 
ancient writers are cited who bear testimony to it. The 
latter is the arrangement I have followed. I do not 
always give as full a report of the evidence as the 
authors just mentioned have done, contenting myself 
with citing as many witnesses as I judge to be suf- 



PREFACE. V 

ficient to prove my case. But on the other hand, as I 
have said, I aim at giving a somewhat fuller discussion 
than they have done of the theories of authorship which 
modern sceptical writers have proposed to substitute 
for the traditional belief of the Christian Church. 
The time has passed when it could be objected that a 
student s time was ill-spent in becoming acquainted 
with such theories, on the ground that he probably 
would never have heard of them if he had not been 
asked to study the refutation. Literature in which 
the theories in question are treated as established 
facts has now obtained such extensive circulation, 
that a clergyman must be pronounced ill-trained for 
his work if he has to make his first acquaintance with 
these speculations when he finds them accepted among 
his people as the latest results of scientific inquiry. 

Although my work may be described as apologetic 
in the sense that its results agree in the main with 
the traditional belief of the Church, I can honestly 
say that I have not worked in the spirit of an advo 
cate anxious to defend a foregone conclusion. I have 
aimed at making my investigations historical, and at 
asserting nothing but what the evidence, candidly 
weighed, seemed to warrant. It would be idle in 
anyone to pretend that he can wholly divest himself 
of bias ; but I must remark that the temptation to 
hold obstinately to traditional opinions is one to 
which those who are called apologists are not ex 
clusively liable. The theories which in these Lectures 
I have found myself obliged to reject are now some 
fifty years old. They are maintained by a generation 
of scholars who have accepted them on the authority 



VI PREFACE. 

of guides to whom, in their youthful days, they looked 
up with reverence, and whose dicta they regard it 
as presumptuous to dispute, receiving their doctrines 
with something like the blind submission which the 
teachers of the scholastic philosophy gave to the 
decisions of the Fathers. The temptation to apply 
unfairly the methods of historical criticism besets as 
strongly the opponents as the assertors of the super 
natural. The former have found great difficulties in 
maintaining their position by a priori proof of the 
impossibility of miracle ; for what they seek to estab 
lish really amounts to this : that, even if God exists, 
it is beyond the power of His Omnipotence to give 
His creatures convincing proof of His existence. 
Failing to gain many converts to this doctrine, they 
have tried another method of attaining their object : 
namely, by a criticism directed to show that the docu 
ments tendered for the establishment of miracles are 
so late as to be undeserving of attention. But the 
attempt to show this has, in my opinion, broken 
down, as I have endeavoured to prove in the fol 
lowing pages. If this result has been established, it 
must follow that the opponents of the supernatural 
will be forced to fall back on their older methods. 

I have thankfully to acknowledge kind help given 
me in reading the proofs by my friends Professor 
MAHAFFY, Dr. QUARRY, and Dr. WAGE, to each of 
whom I owe some useful suggestions. But my chief 
acknowledgments are due to my colleague in our 
Divinity School, Dr. GWYNN, who has taken, on my 
behalf, an amount of trouble which, if I were not 
somewhat ashamed of having imposed so much 



PREFACE. Vll 

labour on him, would make me congratulate myself 
that the publication of my Lectures was delayed 
until I could have the benefit of his assistance. In 
addition to most careful reading of all the proofs, 
he has been ever ready to consult authorities, and 
verify references for me, a service which was parti 
cularly useful to me during three months that I was 
at a distance from books ; and he has, besides, made 
some special investigations on my account, such as 
those which I have particularly acknowledged, pp. 
349, 549, 557, 595- 



Readers who may compare the present with former 
editions of this work will perhaps find it convenient if 
I specify a few places where changes or additions are 
now made. I have added (p. 44) a note on Zahn s 
speculation concerning the date of the Latin Version 
of the New Testament : some slight addition is made 
(p. 86) to what had been said about Tatian s Diates- 
saron : Dr. Gwynn s discovery of fragments of Caius 
has made some change necessary in what had been 
said (p. 227) about Caius s reception of the Apocalypse, 
and about the Alogi : in a note (p. 255) I have dis 
cussed Vischer s assault on the unity of the Apoca 
lypse : something has been added (p. 389) with regard 
to the date of the formation of a collection of Pauline 
letters, and a fuller discussion than before of the 
second group of Pauline Epistles has been given 
(p. 403). On the other hand, I have judged it suf 
ficient to present, in an abridged form (p. 545), my 



Vlll PREFACE. 

examination of Dr. Abbott s censures of the style of 
2 Peter, which in the first and subsequent editions 
was given with more detail than now appears to be 
requisite. The change of form of the book, and the 
consequent alteration in the paging, has rendered 
necessary the preparation of a new Index ; and 
though I have taken a good deal of pains, I fear it 
is too much to expect that I shall have altogether 
escaped misprints and false references both in the 
Index and elsewhere. 

TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, 
October, 1889. 



ERRATA. 

Page 209, line i8,for i John v. 24, read i John v. 20. 
326, line 5 from foot, for v. 30, read v. 39. 
>> 397) note line 2, for 2 Cor. i. 17, read 2 Cor. ii. 17. 
487, note line 4, for Rom. iv. 7, read Rom. vi. 7. 
494> l me 1 5> f or James iii., read James ii. 
,, 495, line 3 from foot, for Genesis xvii., read Genesis xviii. 



CO NTENTS. 

LECTURE I. 

INTRODUCTORY. PART I. 

Page 

PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION i 

Subject of Lectures defined, pp. I, 2. Question of Inspiration 
irrelevant here, p. 3 ; amount of external evidence of authen 
ticity commonly required in similar cases, pp. 4 5 ; authenticity 
of N. T. books not to be denied because of the miraculous 
nature of their contents, pp. 6 8. Criticism based on the 
rejection of the supernatural; Strauss, Renan, author of Super 
natural Religion, ^.<), 10. Naturalistic explanation of Gospel 
Miracles: Paulus, p. II ; Strauss s Theory, p. 12. 



LECTURE II. 

INTRODUCTORY. PART II. 

BAUR S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY . 

The Tubingen (or Tendency ) School, p. 13 ; its basis in the 
Clementine writings, pp. 14 16 ; St. Paul assailed in them 
under name of Simon Magus, p. 16. Marcion, ib. The 
Paul-Simon theory, pp. 17 19. Two kinds of Ebionites, pp. 
18, 19. Wholesale rejection of N.T. books necessary to Baur s 
theory, p. 20; the search for anti-Paulinism in the Gospels, 
p. 2i ; unsuccessful, pp. 22, 23 ; Baur admits but five N. T. 
books as genuine, p. 23 ; internecine character of strife in early 
Church as alleged by him, p. 24 ; its speedy and complete 
reconciliation, p. 25. 



X CONTENTS. 

LECTURE III. 

INTRODUCTORY. PART III. 

Page 

THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE . . 25 

Alleged anti-Paulinism of the Epistles to the Seven Churches, 
pp. 26, 27; improbability of this view, pp. 28,29. The call 
ing of the Gentiles recognized in the Apocalypse, p. 29 ; its 
alleged anti-Pauline language paralleled in Paul s own writings, 
pp. 30, 31. Rapidity of supposed counter-revolution in favour 
of Paulinism, p. 32. 



LECTURE IV. 

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY 
CHURCH. PART I. 

THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY ; IREN^EUS, 

CLEMENT, AND TERTULLIAN . . . -33 

Paul s teaching, as collected from his unquestioned Epistles, 
and from the Acts, p. 33 ; assumes the fact of the Resurrection, 
p. 34 ; includes miracle, p. 35. Facts admitted by Strauss as 
to reception of Gospels, ib. IREN^US, pp. 35 40; links 
connecting him with Apostolic age, p. 36 ; estimate of the 
Four Gospels in the Church of his age, pp. 36 38 ; his testi 
mony retrospective, pp. 3840. CLEMENT of Alexandria, 
pp. 41, 42 ; various texts of the Gospels, p. 41 ; inference from 
this fact, p. 42; TERTULLIAN, pp. 42 44. Early Latin version 
of Scriptures, p. 42 ; rendering of title Logos, p. 45. Discus 
sion of Zahn s theory that the Latin translation is later than 
Tertullian, pp. 44 47. 



LECTURE V. 

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY 
CHURCH. PART II. 

THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT ; CAIUS AND HIPPO- 

LYTUS 47 

THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT, pp. 48 54; described, pp. 
48, 49 ; its date, how determined, Hernias, ib. ; conjectures 
as to its author, pp. 51 53 ; its contents, pp. 53, 54; whether 



CONTENTS. XI 

Page 

St. Jerome was acquainted with it, p. 54. CAIUS and HIP- 
POLYTUS, pp. 55 62. Caius, p. 55 ; his estimate of the 
Gospels, pp. 56, 57. Hippolytus, p. 57 ; his Refutation of 
Heresies, pp. 57, 58 ; his extracts from heretical writers, p. 58; 
use made by these of N. T. books, p. 59 ; especially of Fourth 
Gospel, ib. ; by Valentinus, pp. 59 61 ; by Basilides, pp. 
6r, 62. First mention of St. John as author of this Gospel, 
p. 62 ; it tacitly claims him as such, ib. ; but does not men 
tion his name, ib. 



LECTURE VI. 

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY 
CHURCH. PART III. 

THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY; JUSTIN 

MARTYR, TATIAN 63 

JUSTIN MARTYR, pp. 6382 ; his date, p. 64 ; mentions and 
cites Memoirs of our Lord, pp. 65, 66; his citations vary 
verbally from the existing Gospels, pp. 66 67 ; his substantial 
agreement with the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 67 70 ; his inac 
curacy in quoting the Old Testament, p. 69 ; improbability that 
he used a Gospel now lost, p. 70 ; whether he used apocryphal 
Gospels, p. 71 ; proofs that he knew the Fourth Gospel, pp. 
71 80; Thoma s theory, Dr. Ezra Abbot, p. 72 ; Justin derives 
from Fourth Gospel his Logos doctrine, pp. 72, 73; not 
from Philo, p. 74 ; hence also his baptismal language, pp. 
74 76; Fourth Gospel used in the Clementines, p. 76; Strauss s 
failure to shake these conclusions, pp. 7577 ; Dr. Edwin 
Abbott s views untenable, pp. 78, 79 ; Renan s inconsistency 
on this subject, pp. 7880. TATIAN, pp. 81 86; his date 
and heresy, p. 81 ; his knowledge of Fourth Gospel, ib. ; 
his Diatessaron, pp. 82 86 ; recent recovery of Commen 
tary on it by Ephraem Syrus, pp. 84, 85 ; its ample attesta 
tion of the Fourth Gospel equally with the others, p. 86. 
Other helps towards restoring the Diatessaron, ib. 



Xll CONTENTS. 



LECTURE VII. 

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY 
CHURCH. PART IV. 

Page 
THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND CENTURY; PAPIAS, 

APOSTOLIC FATHERS 87 

PAPIAS, pp. 87 105 ; his remains scanty and fragmentary, 
p. 87 ; unfair inferences from the silence of Eusebius, pp. 88, 
89 ; Papias s Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, p. 90 ; his 
sources of information, pp. 90, 91 ; his witness to the Gospels of 
Matthew and Mark, p. 92 ; recent doubts of the identity of 
these with our first and second Gospels, pp. 93 95. Argu 
ment from the silence of Eusebius, p. 95. Schleiermacher s 
theory of the original Matthew and Mark, ib.\ Renan s 
theory of their formation, pp. 96, 97. Meaning of the word 
Logia in Papias s account of Matthew, pp. 98, 99 ; explana 
tion of his apology for Mark s method, pp. 99, IOO ; probability 
that Papias knew Luke s Gospel, pp. 101 103 ; true explana 
tion of plan of Papias s work, pp. 103 105 ; whether he pre 
ferred his traditions to the written Gospels, p. 104 ; probability 
that he knew John s Gospel, p. 105. THE APOSTOLIC 
FATHERS, pp. 106108. Clement of Rome, p. 106. The 
early Fathers do not cite the Gospels by name, nor verbally, 
ib. Barnabas, pp. 107, 108. 



LECTURE VIII. 

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. PART I. 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THEIR ANTIQUITY . .109 

Inferences from the titles of the Gospels, pp. 109 1 1 1 ; use of the 
word in the singular and in the plural number, p. no ; written 
Gospels necessary from the first, pp. in, 112. Our Lord s 
discourses as reported by the Synoptists, p. 113 ; presumption 
that these would be written down at an early date, pp. 114, 115 ; 
this presumption extends to the narrative of his actions, p. 115. 
These three narratives not independent, pp. 116 118; the 
sceptical criticism is tending to revert to the early date claimed 
for them, p. 118 ; no earlier Gospel extant, p. 119; the four 



CONTENTS. Xlll 

Page 

took their place without authoritative decision of Church, p. 
120; Luke s account explains the oral common basis of the 
Synoptics, ib. ; he mentions written narrations prior to his 
own, p. 121 ; no authentic tradition as to their publication, 
p. 122. Early necessity for authoritative records, pp. 123 125. 
Gospels once published and accepted not easily changed, 
pp. 125127. 



LECTURE IX. 

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. PART II. 
THEORIES AS TO THEIR ORIGIN , . . .127 

Inquiry not precluded by belief in Inspiration, pp. 127, 128; 
though difficult not hopeless, p. 128. Three chief hypotheses to 
account for the common matter of the Synoptists, p. 129; 
various combinations of these, ib. ; each hypothesis to be 
examined irrespectively of theories of Inspiration, pp. 130 132. 
Alford s objection to First and Second Hypotheses, p. 132 ; 
verbal variations from documents in secular authors, p. 133; 
variations in narratives of St. Paul s conversion, ib. The 
Third hypothesis will account for agreements in narrating of 
incidents, p. 135 ; but the First or Second is needed to account 
for agreement in order of narration, pp. 136, 137 ; absence 
of agreement in order of discourses, p. 138. Gospels of 
Matthew and Luke independent of one another, p. 139. 
Various forms of Second hypothesis, p. 140; inadmissible 
modifications of it, p. 141. Modifications of Third hypo 
thesis, ib. Hypothesis of Hebrew common document, pp. 
141, 142 ; will account for verbal variations, pp. 142, 143. 
Hypothesis of common Greek original required by verbal 
coincidences, p. 144 ; and by common citations of O. T., 
p. 145. Further elaboration of hypothesis of Greek original, 
p. 146. Rushbrooke s Synopticon, p. 147. Dr. Edwin 
Abbott and the Triple Tradition, pp. 147 150 ; his theory 
of the common documents rests on an inadmissible assump 
tion, p. 149. The Synoptists narratives of the Passion, 
p. 150. The Triple Tradition rests on a single attestation, 
p. 152 ; which probably is that of Peter, pp. 153, 154; traces 
of his testimony in Mark, pp. 154, 155. Mark represents the 
original source most closely, p. 155 ; but is possibly latest in 
publication, p. 156; Matthew and Luke did not copy Mark r 
ib. ; Mark s last twelve verses, pp. 156 164. 



XIV CONTENTS. 

Page 

NOTE ON THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF ST. MARK S 

GOSPEL 158 

Early testimony to their authenticity, pp. 158, 159. The tes 
timony of the two great uncials, pp. 159 161. Improbability 
involved in the rejection of the verses, pp. 163, 164. Some 
questions of textual criticism cannot now be decided with 
certainty, p. 164. 

LECTURE X. 

THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. 
THE HEBREW GOSPEL .165 

Existence of an early Hebrew Gospel probable, pp. 165, 166. 
Early Patristic evidence that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, p. 167. 
"Witness of Papias, Irenseus, and Eusebius, ib. ; of Jerome 
and Epiphanius, p. 168. Internal counter-evidence, pp. 169, 
170. No Greek text other than ours known to the Fathers, 
pp. 170, 171. Hypothesis of a two-fold original, p. 171. The 
4 Hebrew Gospel, p. 172; not identical with the Ebionite 
Gospel, pp. 172 176; not the source of the Clementine quo 
tations, pp. 176, 177. Jerome s Nazarene Gospel not the 
original of Matthew, pp. 177 186. Origen s evidence con 
cerning the Hebrew Gospel, pp. 179 i8r; Jerome s incon 
sistency, pp. 182 184; estimate of the value and age of this 
Gospel, pp. 184 186 ; first trace of it found in Ignatius, p. 186 ; 
it was used by Hegesippus, ib. Palestine was bilingual, pp. 
187 189. Greek original of St. Matthew on the whole more 
probable, pp. 189, 190. 



LECTURE XL 

APOCRYPHAL AND HERETICAL GOSPELS . . .191 

Hone s collection of N. T. Apocrypha, pp. 191 193 ; Hilgen- 
feld s, pp. 192, 193. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS, pp. 193 201. 
The Protevangelium, pp. 193 196 ; its antiquity, p. 195. The 
pseudo- Matthew, p. 197. The Gospel of 2"homas, pp. 197 
199; its legends of our Lord s childhood, pp. 198, 199; its date, 
p. 199. The Gospel of Nicodemus and Acts of Pilate, pp. 200, 
201. Evangelic fragments, p. 201. HERETICAL GOSPELS, pp. 
202 208 ; were chiefly Gnostic and Encratite, p. 203. Gospel 
of the Egyptians, ib. Gospel of Marcion, pp. 204 208 ; 
Tertullian s examination of it, p. 205 ; reconstruction of it, 
pp. 205, 206 ; attempt to make it out prior to Luke s, p. 206; 
also to John s, pp. 207, 208. 



CONTENTS. XV 



LECTURE XII. 

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART I. 

Page 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL . .... 209 

Common authorship of this Gospel and First Epistle, p. 209 ; 
motive for questioning this fact, pp. 210, 211. Early ex 
ternal testimony to the Epistle, pp. 211, 212. Baur assigns 
a late date to the Gospel, p. 212 ; his followers tend to place it 
earlier, ib. ; Renan takes an exceptional line, pp. 212 214. 
Motives for denying its Apostolic authorship, p. 215; its 
witness to our Lord s Divinity, ib. ; to His self-assertion, p. 
216. His self-assertion attested by the Synoptics likewise, 
pp. 217, 218. Apocalypse admitted to be John s, p. 218. 
Christology of the Apocalypse, pp. 219, 220. Christology 
of St. Paul s Epistles, p. 221. St. John s doctrine compared 
with St. Paul s, p. 222. Dr. Pfleiderer on the Christology of 
Apocalypse, p. 223. 



LECTURE XIII. 

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART II. 

THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE APOCALYPSE . .224. 

Diversity of style between these two books, p. 224. Early ex 
ternal attestation of Apocalypse, pp. 224, 225 ; Millennarian 
use of it, p. 226 ; tended to discredit the book, ib. ; ascrip 
tion of it to Cerinthus, p. 227 ; whether Caius was responsible 
for this ascription, ib. Recovery of new fragments of Caius, 
p. 228. The Alogi, p. 229. Did they ascribe the Gospel to 
Cerinthus, p. 230. Dionysius of Alexandria, pp. 230, 231. 
His arguments against the Johannine authorship of Apocalypse, 
pp. 232, 233; examination of them, r pp. 234 242. Its coinci 
dences of diction with the Gospel, pp. 235, 236 ; its points of 
difference, pp. 237, 238. Solecisms of the Apocalypse, pp. 
238241. The Greek of the Gospel, p. 241 ; its superiority 
over that of the Apocalypse accounted for, pp. 241, 242. 



XVI CONTENTS. 



LECTURE XIV. 

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART III. 

Page 
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE .... 243 

Earlier date assigned by the sceptical school, p. 243. Theory 
of Renan and his followers, pp. 243 246. Nero the Beast, 
p. 245 ; its Number, p. 246. This theory imputes failure to the 
predictions of the book, p. 247 ; is incredible, pp. 247, 248 ; 
attempts to deny that failure is imputed, pp. 249, 250. Ancient 
conception of Prophecy, p. 250. Modern solutions of the 
riddles of the book are but partial, pp. 251, 252 ; multiplicity 
of solutions, p. 253. Other objections to the Neronian solu 
tion, p. 254. Neronian date not improbable, p. 255. Vischer s 
theory that the book is composite, pp. 255 262. Sabatier s 
modification of Vischer s theory, p. 259. The chapters said to 
be purely Jewish bear marks of Christian authorship, p. 260. 
The date assigned by Vischer and Sabatier to the publication 
of the book cannot be reconciled with their interpretation of it, 
p. 262. 



LECTURE XV. 

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART IV. 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE QUARTODECIMANS . 262 

TheQuartodecimans alleged as witnesses against Fourth Gospel, 
p. 262. Real difficulty in its account of Last Supper, pp. 263 
265 ; solutions offered, p. 264 ; a forger would have avoided 
raising this difficulty, p. 265. Controversy concerning Easter, 
p. 266 ; Baur s assumption as to the Eastern commemoration, 
p. 267. First recorded instance of Paschal disputes, Polycarp 
and Anicetus, p. 268. Probable usage of the Apostles, p. 269. 
Second recorded Paschal dispute, Melito s book, p. 2 7 r . Third 
recorded Paschal dispute, Victor and Polycrates, p. 272. Quarto- 
deciman testimony to Fourth Gospel, ib. The authority of the 
Fourth Gospel not affected by controversies as to the day of the 
Passion, 273. 

NOTES ON THE ASTRONOMICAL ASPECT OF THE QUES 
TION . . .... . , . 273 

Jewish New Moon, p. 273. Table of New Moons, p. 274. 
Point of difference between Wieseler and Caspari, ib. 



CONTENTS. XV11 

LECTURE XVI. 

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART V. 

Page 

THE GOSPEL AND THE MINOR EPISTLES . . : .275 

The fourth Evangelist was (i) a Jew, pp. 275 277 ; was (ii) a 
Jew of Palestine, pp. 278 280; was (iii) of the first century, 
pp. 280 283 ; was (iv) an eye-witness of the events he relates, 
pp. 284 286 ; and a disciple of the Baptist, p. 285 ; was John 
the Apostle, p. 287. Theory of another John, the Elder, 
pp. 287 289 ; this theory fails to solve the questions of author 
ship of the Johannine Books, p. 289 ; the Minor Epistles, 
p. 290 295 ; their authenticity questioned, p. 290; established 
conclusively by internal evidence, pp. 291 ; they confirm the 
Johannine authorship of the Gospel, p. 292. The Third 
Epistle, St. John and Episcopacy, pp. 293. The Elect 
Lady of the Second Epistle, p. 294. Attempts to allegorize 
away parts of the Fourth Gospel, p. 295. Importance of the 
facts implied in the Third Epistle, ib. 

LECTURE XVII. 

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART VI. 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS s . . 296 

Omissions of the Fourth Gospel, p. 296 ; instance as regards our 
Lord s birthplace, p. 297 ; absurdity of Renan s view of this 
case, pp. 298, 299 ; St. John s manner is to assume previous 
knowledge in his readers, p. 300; his Irony, pp. 301 303 ; 
his knowledge of previous Gospels, pp. 304, 305 ; his last 
chapter, p. 304 ; he wrote after Peter s death, p. 305 ; supple 
mental character of his Gospel, p. 306 ; his silence as to the 
Eucharist, ib. ; the institution of the Eucharist by our Lord 
involves a claim of Divinity on His part, p. 307 ; Synoptic 
account of institution confirmed by St. Paul, p. 308 ; early 
Christian belief concerning it, ib. ; the Eucharist implied in 
fourth Gospel, p. 309; as also baptism, p. 310; and the As 
cension, p. 311. The Fourth Gospel written with a purpose, 
ib. ; its coincidences with the Synoptics, p. 312 ; it contains 
facts omitted by them, p. 314; a priori probability of our 
Lord s earlier visits to Jerusalem recorded in it, ib. ; traces in 
the Synoptics of the Juclsean ministry, 316. 
b 



XV111 CONTENTS. 



LECTURE XVIII. 

Page 

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ,. . . . 317 

Date of this book a vital matter, p. 317. External attestation 
of it, pp. 317 319. Internal evidence, p. 320. Modern theories 
of its compilation, p. 321. The we sections, pp. 321 327; 
the author of these, p. 322. Tradition of Luke s authorship of 
Third Gospel and Acts, p. 323. Imagined marks of spurious- 
ness, p. 324. Unity of authorship of Acts inferred from its 
structure and contents, p. 325 ; and from its diction, p. 326. 
Literary skill of the author, p. 327. Motives for denying its 
unity, pp. 328 335. Its supernatural element, p. 329. Its 
representation of Paul s relations with the Twelve, pp. 330 
335. The Tubingen version of Paul s History, p. 331 ; its in 
credibility as compared with the account in Acts, p. 332. 
Absence of Pauline topics from speeches ascribed to him in 
this book, p. 334. Supposed artificial parallelism between its 
narratives of Peter and of Paul, p. 335. Frequent occurrence of 
parallel events in history ; the supposed parallel wants its 
climax, p. 336. Abrupt close of the Acts, p. 337. The 
author s principle of selection of topics, p. 338 ; his opportu 
nities of gaining information, p. 339, 340 ; his account of Philip 
the Deacon, ib. ; he possibly used as materials a diary of his 
own, p. 341. His reports of Paul s speeches, pp. 342 347. 
His slight use of Paul s Epistles, p. 344 ; for example, that 
to Philippians, p. 345 ; Galatians, 345 ; i and 2 Corinthians, 
p. 346. Reports of Peter s speeches in Acts compared with 
his First Epistle, p. 347. External confirmations of the 
author s accuracy, pp. 347 349. Holtzmann s theory that 
the author followed Josephus, p. 350. Discrepancies between 
the Acts and Josephus, p. 351. 



LECTURE XIX. 

APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES . . .352 

No other Acts but Luke s admitted into the Canon, p. 353. 
Apocryphal Acts mostly of heretical origin, pp. 353, 354 ; after 
wards expurgated for orthodox use, p. 354. (i) The Abgar 
Legend, pp. 354 357 ; extant form of it, p. 356. (ii) The Acts 
of Paul and Thecla, pp. 357362 ; Tertullian s account of its 
origin, p. 357 ; tinged with Encratism, p. 358 ; its story, pp. 
358 360; still extant, 361 ; time and place of composition, pp. 
361, 362. Excesses in the direction of Encratism easily con- 



CONTENTS. Xix 

Page 

doned by the orthodox, 362. (iii) The Acts of St. Thomas, pp. 
363 372 ; Leucian Acts, p. 363 ; light thrown by the Acts of 
Thomas on Gnostic ideas, p. 364 ; narrative of this book, pp. 
365 370 ; Ritual described in it, pp. 367 369 ; its doctrine, 
p. 371 ; date and place of composition, pp. 371 372. (iv) The 
Acts of St. Peter, the Clementines, pp. 372-374 ; the Circuits 
of Peter, and Preaching of Peter, p. 373; the Simon-Paul 
theory, pp. 373, 374; Acts of Peter and Paul, p. 375 ; Feast 
of 29th June, pp. 376, 377 ; rival traditions concerning Peter, 

P- 37 8 - ( v ) Tne 4 cts f S f - J onn -> PP- 37 8 3 8 4 5 heretical 
character of the Leucian Acts, pp. 379, 380 ; second-century 
traditions concerning John, pp. 381 383; later legends, p. 
383 ; Assumption of the B. V. M., pp. 384 386. 



LECTURE XX. 
THE PAULINE EPISTLES 387 

The Sceptical school not agreed which of these to reject, pp. 
387, 388. Four groups of them, p. 389. A collection of 
Pauline Letters early made, p. 390 ; this probably set the 
example of making other collections of letters, p. 391. Pro 
bable time and place of collection of Pauline Letters, p. 392. 
St. Paul used by Justin Martyr, ib. Methodius and Justin, p. 
393. FIRST GROUP, pp. 395 403 ; i Thgssalonians, pp. 395 
398. 2 Thessalonians, pp. 398 402 ; its prophecy of the Man 
of Sin, pp. 399 401 ; external attestation of both Epistles, p. 
401 ; precaution against forgery, ib. ; lost Epistles, p. 402. 
SECOND GROUP, pp. 403 415 ; note of early date stamped on 
these Epistles by the character of their contents, p. 403 ; short 
duration of the struggle to impose circumcision on Gentile con 
verts, ib. ; necessarily early date of Letters written while this 
struggle was going on, p. 404. Similar inference from the fact 
that at the time they were written Paul s Apostolic authority 
was disputed, ib. The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 405 ; abstract 
of its argument, p. 406. Comparison with Romans, pp. 407, 
408 ; point of difference between the two Epistles, p. 409. The 
Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 409, 410. Ambiguity of name 
Galatian, pp. 410 413. No need to suppose that the ficklenessof 
the Galatians must be accounted for by their Celtic origin, p. 413 ; 
concluding chapter of Romans, pp. 413, 414. THIRD GROUP, 
pp. 415 428; Philippians,^. 415, 416; Philemon, p. 416 ; 
Colossians, pp. 416 423 ; external attestation, p. 416 ; internal 
evidence, pp. 417, 418 ; objections grounded on its diction, pp. 
418, 419 ; on its Christology, p. 420 ; on its reference to Gnostic 
teaching, pp. 420 423 ; Ephesians, pp. 423 433 ; external 



XX CONTENTS. 

Page 

evidence, pp. 423, 424; its affinities with I Peter, p. 424; its 
close likeness to Colossians, p. 425 ; Paley s account of this 
fact, ib. ; rejected by sceptical critics, ib. ; question of priority 
between the two, p. 426; Holtzmann s theory, p. 427; this 
Epistle contradicts modern theories of early Church history, p. 
428 ; the Epistle was written when the admission of Gentiles 
was recent, p. 430 ; ruling topics of these two Epistles distinct, 
p. 431 ; literary excellence and influence of Ephesians, p. 432. 
FOURTH GROUP, pp. 433452 ; Pastoral Epistles rejected, yet 
used by Renan, p. 433 ; external attestation, pp. 433 435 ; 
rejection by early heretics, p. 435 ; objections founded on (i) 
their diction, p. 436 ; on (2) the controversies they deal with, pp. 
436, 437 ; on (3) the difficulty of harmonizing them with the 
Acts, pp. 437, 438 ; their diction probably marks them as St. 
Paul s latest work, pp. 438, 439 ; their historical contents sug 
gest like conclusion, p. 440 ; they imply Paul s release from 
the imprisonment recorded in Acts, pp. 440 444 ; independent 
evidence of this release, pp. 442, 443 ; objections to late date, 
pp. 444, 445 ; internal evidence for 2 Timothy, pp. 446 452 ; 
its Pauline character, pp. 446 448 ; its details, pp. 448, 449 ; 
its genuineness carries with it that of I Timothy and Titus, pp. 
451, 452 ; Kenan s estimate of all three, p. 452. 



LECTURE XXI. 

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS . . . -453 

Question of authorship, not of authenticity of Hebrews, p. 453. 
Use of it by Clement of Rome, pp. 453, 454. Accepted by 
whole Eastern Church as St. Paul s, pp. 454, 455. Testi 
mony of Clement of Alexandria, pp. 454, 455. View of Origen, 
pp. 455, 456. Western opinion adverse, pp. 456, 457. Ter- 
tullian ascribed it to Barnabas, pp. 457, 458. Reaction under 
Jerome and Augustine, p. 458. Evidence of MSS. and Ver 
sions, p. 459. Its canonicity well established, ib. Its anony- 
mousness, p. 460. Internal evidence for and against Pauline 
authorship, pp. 460 465 ; individual passages, pp. 460 462 ; 
its doctrine Pauline, p. 462 ; it uses Pauline language and 
mannerisms, pp. 462, 463 ; its O. T. citations, p. 463 ; its 
Alexandrian colouring, p. 464 ; its general style un-Pauline, 
pp. 464, 465. Conjectures as to authorship, pp. 465, 466 ; con 
siderations in favour of ascription to Barnabas, pp. 466 468. 
Probably addressed to Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, pp. 
468 471. "Written from Italy, p. 471. Lower limit of date, 
p. 472 ; upper limit doubtful, pp. 472, 473. Note on the Codex 
Claromontanus, p. 473. 



CONTENTS. XXI 



LECTURE XXII. 

Page 
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER . . . .475 

Eusebius s classification of N. T. Books, pp. 475, 476. Ex 
ternal attestations of / Peter, pp. 477, 478 ; it is included in all 
Canons except the Muratorian, p. 478. Internal difficulties 
alleged against it, pp. 479, 480. "Written while Christians 
were liable to be punished as such, p. 480. It contradicts Baur s 
views of early Church history, pp. 480, 481. Its Paulinism of 
doctrine, p. 481. Place of composition, Babylon, pp. 481 
484. Roman martyrdom of Peter, p. 484. Addressed to Chris 
tians dispersed in Pontus, &c., p. 485. Its coincidences with 
Romans, pp. 485, 486 ; with Ephesians, pp. 486 489. Seufert s 
theory, p. 488. Its coincidences with Epistle of James, p. 489. 
Its originality and individuality, pp. 490, 491. 



LECTURE XXIII. 
THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES 492 

This Epistle classed by Eusebius among Antilegomena, p. 
492. The Seven Catholic Epistles, ib. ; evidence of Origen 
concerning it, p. 493 ; of Clement of Alexandria, pp. 493, 494 ; 
of Hermas, pp. 494, 495 ; probably of Clement of Rome, p. 
495 ; of Irenseus, p. 496 ; other authorities, ib. Internal evi 
dence, pp. 497 501. James, The Lord s Brother, first 
Bishop of Jerusalem, p. 497 ; probability of the usual ascrip 
tion of the Epistle to him, pp. 497, 498. Written for Christian 
Jews, p. 498 ; probably residents in Syria, p. 499. The author 
a personal follower of our Lord, pp. 500, 501 ; wrote before fall 
of Jerusalem, pp. 501, 502 ; his picture of the Jews confirmed 
by Josephus, p. 502. Other internal evidences of early date, 
pp. 503, 504 ; its doctrine not anti-Pauline, pp. 505 506 ; its 
silence as to disputes of Paul s time, p. 506 ; late date assigned 
to it by sceptical school, p. 507. Purity of its Greek, 508; its 
verbal coincidences with Romans, pp. 509, 510. Its substan 
tial agreement with Paul s doctrine, ib. ; its teaching closely 
akin to O. T. Prophets, p. 510 ; but not merely Judaic, pp. 
511, 512. Character of the author as shown in it, p. 513; 
its moral precepts, ib. ; moral effects of Christian teaching, 
PP- 5 Hi 5 r 5- This Epistle why placed first of the Catholic 
Epistles, p. 515. 



XX11 CONTENTS. 



LECTURE XXIV. 

Page 

THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE ... . .516 

Historical attestation of the books of N. T. unequal, p. 516; 
a few of them were doubted by critics in fourth century, p. 518. 
Cause of the, scantiness of attestation of Epistles of James and 
Jude, pp. 518, 519; of the two, Jude s has better external 
attestation, p. 519 ; especially in the West, p. 520. Jude, one 
of the Lord s brethren, p. 521; tradition concerning his 
grandsons preserved by Hegesippus, ib. doubt whether he 
was of the Twelve, p. 522 ; what we are to understand by 
Brethren of our Lord, pp. 522, 523. Date of the Epistle, p. 
523 ; against whom were its censures directed ? pp. 524, 525. 
Its use of Jewish Apocrypha, pp. 525 528; the Assumption 
of Moses, pp. 525, 526; the Book of Enoch, pp. 527, 528. 
The Syriac translation of the Catholic Epistles, p. 528. 



LECTURE XXV. 

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER . . .529 

Doubts in the Church of the authority of this Epistle, pp. 529, 
530. Early opinion unfavourable to it and other of the Catho 
lic Epistles, pp. 530, 531. General acceptance attained by 
them all, p. 531. Question reopened at the Reformation, ib. 
Opinion of Epiphanius favourable, p. 532 ; inconsistency of 
Jerome, ib. ; and of Didymus, ib. Evidence of MSS. and 
Canons, p. 533. Opinion of Origen, ib. ; of Firmilian, p. 534. 
Old Latin Version, ib. Doubtful use of this Epistle by Clement 
of Alexandria, ib. ; by Irenseus, pp. 535, 536 ; its use by 
pseudo-Clement, 536; by Theophilus of Antioch, p. 537. Pre 
diction in this Epistle of the destruction of the world by fire, 
PP- 537> 538- This destruction^early became a point of Chris 
tian belief, p. 537. Use of 2 Peter in so-called Second Epistle 
of Clement, p. 538. Doubtful use of 2 Peter by Hernias and 
Clement of Rome, ib.. Its acceptance far short of that of 
/ Peter, ib. Grotius s theory, 539. The author claims to be 
Peter, ib. ; if not Peter, is a forger, p. 540 ; this alternative 
must be faced, 541. Relation between 2 Peter and Jude, pp. 
542, 543. Difference of style between / and 2 Peter, pp. 543, 
544; points of resemblance between them, pp. 544, 545. 
Coincidences of 2 Peter with Petrine speeches in Acts, p. 545. 



CONTENTS. XX111 

Page 

Dr. Edwin Abbott s attack on 2 Peter, pp. 545558. Its un- 
worthiness of style, pp. 545 547- Baboo Greek, p. 545. 
Defects in its Greek are natural, if it was written by a Palesti 
nian Jew, p. 546 ; but cannot affect the question of its genuine 
ness, pp. 546, 547. Its faults of style not discovered by the 
Greek Fathers, 546. Its alleged borrowings from Josephus, 
pp m 547 558. Difficulties in accepting the Petrine authorship, 
p. 547. Archdeacon Farrar s opinion, pp. 548, 549. Alleged 
coincidences with Josephus merely verbal, p. 549. Not 
within brief compass, p. 550 ; nor in same sequence, ib. ; nor 
do they occur in the case of unusual words, p. 551. No N. T. 
writer keeps within the limits of Biblical language, ib. The 
Greek of Philo, pp. 552 555. Discussion of the words and 
combinations relied on by Dr. Abbott, pp. 554, 555. Coinci 
dences with Philo s writings found in / Peter, p. 557; also 
elsewhere in N. T., ib. Result of examination of Dr. Abbott s 
criticism, p. 558. Newly-discovered Stichometry, p. 559. 



LECTURE XXVI. 
NON-CANONICAL BOOKS 560 

The Apocalypse of Peter, pp. 560 564. Recognized 1 in the 
Muratorian Fragment, p. 560 ; quotations from it by Clement 
of Alexandria, ib. ; and by Macarius, p. 561. Its use not quite 
extinct in the fifth century, p. 562. Whether included in the 
Sinaitic MS., p. 563 ; the Psalms of Solomon, ib. Conjectural 
ascription of passages to this Apocalypse, p. 564 ; other 
Apocalypses, ib. The Epistle of Barnabas, pp. 565 572. 
External attestation, pp. 565, 566. Impossibility of accepting 
some of the contents as inspired, pp. 566, 567. Whether it 
would be possible to acknowledge its Apostolic origin and 
deny its inspiration, p. 568 ; attitude of the writer towards 
Judaism, p. 569; date of the Epistle, 570; to what Church 
addressed, p. 571. The Epistle to Clement, pp. 572 579. 
Written in the name of the Church of Rome, p. 572. Import 
ance of the Bishop of Rome merged in the importance of his 
Church, ib. Proofs of the early use of the Epistle, p. 573 ; date 
of the letter, p. 574 ; varying accounts of the order of the first 
Roman bishops, p. 575. No good reason for doubting that 
Clement was really at the head of the Roman Church, ib. 
Whether the Church of Corinth was in his time governed by a 
single person, p. 576; extreme amount of disorder in Corinth, 
ib. The prayer of Manasses, ib. Bearing of Clement s letter on 



XXIV CONTENTS. 

the question of Roman supremacy, p. 577 ; Clement a Jew, 
ib. ; authorities for the text of Clement, p. 578. The Second 
Epistle of Clement, ib. The Shepherd of Hermas, pp. 579 593- 
External testimony, pp. 579, 580. Disuse of non-Canonical 
writings after rise of Montanism, p. 579. Tertullian and the 
Shepherd, p. 580. Contents of the Shepherd, p. 581. The date 
of Hermas, p. 582. The book written in good faith, pp. 583, 
584 ; and accepted as a record of real revelations, p. 586 ; 
written in the Episcopate of Clement, p. 587. Rejection of 
Muratoriaii account, p. 589. Lightfoot s hypothesis that the 
original of this fragment was in verse, p. 590. Church organi 
zation in the time of Hermas, p. 591. Prophets in the early 
Church, p. 592. Hermas belonged to this order, ib. ; whether 
he was a Jew, p. 594. Hermas and Theodotion, pp. 594 
608. The Thegri of Hermas explained by Mr. Rendel Harris 
from Dan. vi. 22, p. 594. Dr. Hort s further inference, ib. 
Preliminary consideration unfavourable to his inference, p. 595. 
Greek translations of the Old Testament, pp. 595 599. Theo- 
dotion s version of Daniel used in the Christian Church, pp. 
596, 597- Epiphanius s account of Greek translations not 
trustworthy, p. 598. Theodotion s version in use before the 
time of Irenseus, p. 599. The version used by Hippolytus, 
Clement, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, respectively, p. 600. A 
silent rejection of the Septuagint not probable, p. 602. Reasons 
for believing that there had been a previous version, p. 603. 
Characteristics of the Chisian Daniel, ib. ; its affinities with the 
Apocryphal Esdras, ib. Did the New Testament writers make 
use of the Chisian version ? p. 604. Neither Clement of Rome 
nor Baruch recognize it, p. 607. The Teaching of the Twelve 
Apostles, pp. 609625. External testimony, p. 609. The 
Church Ordinances, p. 610. Barnabas and the Two Ways, p. 
6 1 1 . The Western form of the Two Ways, ib. Krawutzcky s 
theory, p. 612. Bryennius s Teaching of the Apostles, ib. ; 
its account of Church organization, p. 613. Whether the 
author was an Ebionite, p. 615. Relations of the Didache to 
Barnabas and Hermas, p. 616. Dr. Taylor on the Didache, 
ib. Hypothesis that the Didache is founded on a pre- 
Christian manual for the instruction of proselytes, p. 617. Re 
lations of the Didache to Barnabas, p. 618 ; and to Hermas, 
p. 619 ; Western form of the book, ib. Whether the 
Didache in its present form had early circulation in the East, 
p. 621 ; how much of it may be referred to a pre-Christian 
model, p. 622 ; its instructions about baptism, ib. ; on prayer, 
p. 623 ; on the Eucharist, ib. ; the last chapter, p. 624; whether 
known to Origen, ib. 



INTRODUCTORY. 



PART I . 

PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 

THE subject appointed for our Lectures this Term is The 
Bible ; but that opens up a field so wide, that to treat 
adequately of all that it is desirable should be known about 
it would give us employment, not for one Term, but for 
several years. Last year you attended Lectures on Natural 
Religion and on Christian Evidences. I assume that you then 
went through the proofs that there is a God ; that there is 
no impossibility in His revealing His will to His creatures, 
using miracle or prophecy as credentials to authenticate His 
message ; and that you went through the proofs of our Lord s 
divine mission, establishing the conclusion that He was the 
bearer to the world of a revelation from God. Then, in 
logical order, follows the question, How is that revelation to 
be known to us ? what are the books that record it ? in other 
words : What is the Canon of Scripture ? 

In this investigation the determination of the New Testa 
ment Canon comes before that of the Old. We must first 
determine what the books are which contain authentic records 
of the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles ; because we 
can then use their testimony to the older books, which they 
reverenced as divinely inspired. Next after the question of 
the Canon comes that of Biblical Criticism. Supposing it to 
be established that certain books were written, containing an 
authoritative record of Divine revelations, we have still to 

B 



2 INTRODUCTORY. [l. 

inquire whether those books have come down safely to us 
how we are to remove all the errors which may have accumu 
lated during the process of transcription in many centuries, 
and so restore the texts to their original purity. Perhaps 
here might follow questions concerning the Translation of 
these texts, for without translation books written in Hebrew 
and Greek cannot be made available for the instruction of 
our people. At any rate, we have to consider questions con 
cerning the Interpretation of these books. May we follow 
the same rules as we do in interpreting any ordinary book, 
and be satisfied in each case with that plain meaning which 
it seems the writer intended ; or does the fact that the books 
are divine that the real author is ngLman, but God ; that 
there may, therefore, often be a meaning unknown even to 
the human agent who was commissioned to write the words 
oblige us to employ special methods of interpretation in 
order to discover the deeper spiritual meaning ? And, lastly, 
we must inquire what is involved in the Divine Inspiration we 
ascribe to these books. Does it exclude the supposition of the 
smallest inaccuracy being found in them in science, history, 
moral or religious teaching ? If we admit the possibility of 
any such inaccuracy, can we put any limits to our concession ? 

The subjects I have named the Canon, the Criticism, 
the Interpretation of our books, and the question of their 
Inspiration are by no means all that might be discussed in 
treating of the Bible ; yet these alone form a programme to 
which it is impossible to do justice in the time at my 
disposal, and in practice I have found that, with whatever 
subject I begin, I am obliged, if I wish to treat it at all 
adequately, to crowd out nearly all the rest. At present I am 
about to take up the subject which seems in logical order the 
first the question what books contain the authentic record 
of the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles in other 
words, the question of the New Testament Canon. 

I wish to keep the question I have named quite clear of 
any discussion as to the Inspiration of the sacred books, such 
discussion plainly belonging to a later stage of the investi 
gation. I wish to examine into the evidence for the genuine 
ness and authenticity of the books of the Bible in the same 



I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 3 

way as in the case of any ordinary books. It is clearly one 
question : At what date and by what authors were certain 
books written ? And quite another question : Is there reason 
to believe that the authors of these books were aided by 
supernatural guidance, and if so, what was the nature and 
extent of that supernatural assistance ? The former is, as we 
shall presently see, a question of vital importance in the 
controversy between Christians and unbelievers ; the latter is 
one internal among Christians, and only admits of discussion 
among those who are already convinced of the historic 
credibility of the New Testament books, and who, because 
they believe what these books relate about Jesus of Nazareth, 
find no difficulty in believing also that He endowed with 
special powers those whom He commissioned to write the 
revelation which He brought into the world. 

I make these remarks at the outset, because it enables us 
at once to set aside certain topics as irrelevant to the present 
investigation. Suppose, for example, it be alleged that 
there are plain contradictions between the first Gospel and 
the fourth ; if we were engaged in an inquiry as to the 
Inspiration of the Gospels, it would be of the utmost im 
portance to examine whether and how far this allegation is 
true. But it may be quite possible to set it aside as entirely 
irrelevant, when we are only inquiring whether or not both 
Gospels were written by Apostles, It is the constant ex 
perience of anyone who has ever engaged in historical 
investigation to have to reconcile contradictions between 
his authorities ; but such contradictions must reach a high 
point in number and gravity before they suggest a suspicion 
that the opposing statements do not both proceed, as they 
profess to do, from persons having a first-hand knowledge 
of the matters about which they write. 

I have just said that I wish to investigate the genuineness , 
and authenticity of the books of the Bible in the same way; 
as we should in the case of any uninspired book. But we 
are not quite permitted to do so. Those who would approve 
of interpreting the Bible according to the same rules by which 
we should interpret any other book apply very different rules 
in determining the authorship of its parts from what are used 

B 2 



4 INTRODUCTORY. [l. 

in the case of other books. If we were to apply to the re 
mains of classical literature the same rigour of scrutiny that 
is used towards the New Testament, there are but few of 
them that could stand the test. There are many of you who 
count as good classical scholars, who have always received 
with simple faith that what you read in your printed books 
is the work of the author to whom it is commonly ascribed, 
and have never applied your minds to consider what answer 
you could give to anyone who should deny it. You are very 
familiar, for instance, with Horace. Do you know what 
interval separates the oldest manuscript of his works from 
the age of Augustus, in which the poet is said to have lived ? 
Can you fill up the gap by quotations from ancient authors ? 
Do you know what ancient authors mention him or quote 
his poems ? Can you tell how far the earliest quotation is 
separated in time from the poet himself? Can you tell 
what extent of his writings is covered by quotations ? Can 
you give separate proofs for each book of the Odes, of the 
Satires and Epistles, and for the Art of Poetry ? And if you 
are able to give a proof for every book, can you meet the 
requirements of a more severe critic, who might demand a 
distinct proof of the Horatian origin of every ode of every 
book ? I suppose the chances are that you would not at 
tempt to answer these questions ; because, though you pro 
bably have heard of the theory of the Jesuit Hardouin, that 
the Odes of Horace and other classical books were written 
by Benedictine monks in the dark ages, it is not likely that 
| you have given that theory a serious thought. Yet, if we 
) were called on to refute it, by producing quotations from the 
Odes by any writer who lived within two centuries of the 
poet s death (and later testimony than that would not be 
thought worth looking at in the case of a New Testament 
book), we should be able to make only a very unsatisfactory 
reply. One example is often cited to show how little this 
kind of investigation is in practice judged to be necessary. 
The Roman History of Velleius Paterculus has come down 
to us in a single very corrupt manuscript, and the book is 
only once quoted by Priscian, a grammarian of the sixth 
century ; yet no one entertains the smallest doubt of its 



I.J PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 5 

genuineness.* The first six books of the Annals of Tacitus 
are also known to us only through a single manuscript which 
came to light in the fifteenth century. Not long ago an 
elaborate attempt was made to show that all the books of the 
Annals were forged in that century by an Italian scholar, 
Poggio. And it was asserted that no clear and definite! 
allusion to the Annals can be found until the first half of the 
fifteenth century. The latest editor of the Annals, Mr. 
Furneaux, is what, if the subject of his labours were a New 
Testament book, would be called an apologist : that is to 
say, he believes that the traditional doctrine as to the 
authorship is true, and that the supposed discovery of 
forgery is a mare s nest ; yet, in answer to the assertion just 
quoted, he can only produce one allusion, by no means 
clear and definite, and that of a date 300 years later than 
the historian. Thus you see that if the external testimony 
to the New Testament books, which I shall discuss in future 
lectures, had not been forthcoming, we might still have 
good reason for holding fast to the traditional theory of their 
authorship. But where external proof is most abundant in 
the case of profane authors, it falls considerably short of 
what can be produced in support of the chief books of the 
New Testament. 

The reason, however, why a more stringent test is applied i 
to our books is on account of their contents, namely, because 
the books contain accounts of miracles and what purport to 
be prophecies. Now, at first sight, it appears unreasonable 
to allow this consideration to enter when we are discussing 
the authorship of books. The works of Livy contain ac 
counts of prodigies which I may perhaps think Livy credu 
lous for believing, yet I am not on that account in the 
slightest degree inclined to doubt that Livy was the author f 
of the history which bears his name. Still more does the 
remark apply to the accounts of miracles which swarm in the 
writings of the monkish historians. I disbelieve the miracles, 
but I make no question that the histories which relate those 




* This case is discussed in the controversy between Boyle and Bentley 
about the Epistles of Phalaris. 



6 INTRODUCTORY. [l. 

miracles were written by the authors to whom they are 
ascribed. But here is the pinch of the matter. These 
miraculous tales to which I refer relate for the most part 
to events which the narrators represent as having occurred 
a long time before their own date. When honest and in 
telligent men relate things of which they have personal 
knowledge, as a general rule we do not find them telling 
of anything miraculous. In short, it is only throwing into 
other words the statement that a miracle is an exceptionjo 
the ordinary course of nature, to say that an account of a 
miracle is not likely to occur in true hisjpry, and therefore 
that, if we meet with such an account, it is likely to proceed 
from persons not truthful or not well informed. So it is a 
canon of criticism that stories embellished with miraculous 
ornaments are distant in time from the age in which the 
scene is laid. Troy may have been really taken ; Achilles 
and Agamemnon may have been real persons ; but when we 
read in the Iliad of gods and goddesses taking part in the 
battles round the city, this in itself is reason enough to suspect 
that Homer lived at such a distance from the events which he 
relates as permitted him to imagine the men of former days 
to be very different from * such as mortals now are, so that 
things might have happened to them unparalleled in his own 
experience. On these principles, then, it is contended that our 
sacred books, from the mere fact of their containing stories of 
miracles, are shown not to be the work of contemporaries. 

If there is one narrative of the New Testament which more 
than another contains internal proof of having been related 
by an eye-witness, it is the account of the voyage and ship 
wreck of St. Paul. I recommend to your attention the very 
interesting monograph of Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill, who 
himself sailed over the entire course, and by a multitude 
of minute coincidences verified the accuracy of St. Luke s 
narrative. Yet, because the story tells of miracles performed 
in the island on which Paul was cast, it has been supposed, 
without the smallest reason of any other kind, that these 
things must have been added by a later hand.* 

* Davidson, for instance, says ( Introduction to the New Testament/ 
II. 134) : The description of the voyage and shipwreck of Paul on his 



I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 7 

The same things may be said as to the prophecies which 
our sacred books contain. In judging of an ordinary book 
there is no more certain canon of criticism than that the 
book is later than the latest person named in it, or the last 
event described in it. If we read a book which contained 
mention of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel and 
of the battle of Waterloo, it would take an amazing amount 
of evidence to convince us that the book was written in the 
reign of Queen Anne. It is by taking notice of anachronisms 
of this kind that the spuriousness has been proved of works 
which had imposed on an uncritical age ; as, for example, 
the Epistles of Phalaris, which were exposed in Bentley s i 
famous essay, or the Decretal Epistles, purporting to be- 
written by the early Bishops of Rome, on which so much of./ 
the fabric of Roman supremacy has been built. Well, the 
same principles of criticism have been freely applied to our 
sacred books. Porphyry contended that the prophecy of 
Daniel must have been written by some one who lived later 
than Antiochus Epiphanes, who is clearly described in the 
book : the latter half of Isaiah, it is urged, must be later than 
Cyrus : the Gospel of St. Luke must be later than the Destruc 
tion of Jerusalem, which it describes as to be trodden down 
of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, 
showing, it is said, that the writer not only lived after the 
siege, but so long after as to have known that Jerusalem 
remained for a considerable time in a condition of abiding 
desolation. 

Now, I have intimated in what I have said that I am 
ready, within reasonable limits, to adopt the canons of criti 
cism to which I have referred. But I cannot admit them to 
be applicable without exception. Miraculous embellishments 

way to Rome is minute and accurate, proceeding from an eye-witness, in 
A few notices here and there betray a later hand, especially those which llj 
are framed to show the wonder-working power of the Apostle, such as ||| 
xxviii. 3-5, 8, 9. 

Dr. S. Davidson, for some time Professor in the Lancashire Indepen- ., 
dent College, published an Introduction to the New Testament, in three I/I 
volumes, 1848-51. In this the main lines of traditional opinion were III 
followed ; but his views show a complete alteration in the new Introduc- II 
tion, in two volumes, which he published in 1868. My quotation is from" 
the second edition of the later book, published in 1882. 



8 INTRODUCTORY. [l. 

may be a ground for suspecting that the narrative is not con 
temporaneous with the events ; but if it is asserted that mira 
culous stones are never told by men contemporary with the 
things related, that certainly is not true. I have, at different 
times, read in periodicals accounts of spiritual manifestations 
which I entirely disbelieve, yet in many cases impute to the 
narrators no wilful intention to deceive, nor do I doubt that 
they were, as they profess, actually present at the scenes they 
describe. The Life of St. Martin of Tours, by his friend Sul- 
Apicius Severus, is full of the supernatural. I do not find that 
any of those who refuse to believe in the miraculous stories 
attempt to justify their disbelief by maintaining that Sul- 
picius was not the author of the Life. These are instances 
of what I reckon as false miracles ; but the course of lectures 
of last year must have been a failure if they did not establish 
that true miracles, though from the nature of the case_not_of 
common occurrence, are still possible. If so, when they 
actually do occur, the witnesses of them may relate them in 
true histories. In short, if miracle and prophecy be impos 
sible, there is an end of the whole matter. Your faith is vain, 
and our teaching is vain. 

Now, this principle, namely, the absolute impossibility of 
miracle, is the basis of the investigations of the school, some 
of whose results must be examined in this course of lectures, 
j Two of its leading writers, Strauss and Renan, in their pre 
faces, make the absolute rejection of the supernatural the 
foundation of their whole structure. Renan* (p. Hi.) declares 
that he will accept a miracle as proved only if it is found that 
it will succeed on repetition, forgetting that in this case it 
would not be a miracle at all, but a newly-discovered natural 



*The first edition of the Vie de Jesus par Ernest Renan was published 
in 1863. It was followed by six successive volumes, relating the history 
of the Origines du Christianisme : that is to say, the formation and early 
history of the Christian Church. The last volume, bringing the history 
down to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, was published in 1882. The refe 
rences in these lectures are usually to an 1863 edition of the Life of 
Jesus, which alone was available when they were written. It has not been 
necessary for my purpose to examine minutely the modifications introduced 
into later editions, because the changes in Kenan s views are sufficiently 
indicated in the later volumes of his series. 



I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 9 

law. Strauss,* equally, in his preface (p. xv) declares it to be 
his fundamental principle that there was nothing supernatural 
in the person or work of Jesus. The same thing may be said 
about a book which made some sensation on its publication a 
few years ago, Supernatural Religion. ! The extreme cap- 
tiousness of its criticism found no approval from respectable 
foreign reviewers, however little they might be entitled to be 
classed as believers in Revelation. Dates were assigned in 
it to some of our New Testament books so late as to shock 

* D. F. Strauss (1808-1874), a pupil of Baur, published, in 1835, his 
* Life of Jesus, the mythical theory propounded in which gave rise to much 
controversy, and stimulated other attempts to disprove the historic credi 
bility of the Gospel narratives. The book had rather fallen into oblivion 
when, in 1864, Strauss, availing himself of the labours of those who had 
written in the interval, published a new Life of Jesus, * for the German, 
people. It is to this popular Life that I refer in the text. In 1872, 
Strauss broke completely with Christianity, in a book called The Old 
Faith and the New. 

t This book, published, vols. i. and ii. in 1874, vo1 - m - in I ^77 obtained 
a good deal of notoriety by dint of enormous puffing, great pains having 
been taken to produce a belief that Bishop Thirlwall was the author. The 
aspect of the pages, bristling with learned references, strengthened the 
impression that the author must be a scholar of immense reading. The 
windbag collapsed when Lightfoot showed that this supposed Bishop 
Thirlwall did not possess even a schoolboy acquaintance with Greek and 
Latin, and that his references were in some cases borrowed wholesale, in 
others did not prove the things for which they were cited, and very often 
appealed to writers whose opinion is of no value. But what I wish here 
to remark is, that what really made the book worthless was not its want of 
scholarship, but its want of candour. An indifferent scholar, if he were 
industrious and honest, and, I must add, modest enough not to find fault 
with the translations of better scholars than himself, might compile a book 
which would only need the removal of some surface errors to be a really valu 
able contribution to knowledge. But want of candour vitiates abook through 
and through. There is no profit in examining the conclusions arrived at 
by a writer who never seems to care on which side lies the balance of his 
toric probability, but only which conclusion will be most disagreeable to 
the assertors of the supernatural. For myself, I find instruction in studying 
the results arrived at by an inquirer who strives to be candid, whether he 
be orthodox or not ; but I have little curiosity to find out the exact amount 
of evidence which would leave a captious objector without a word to say 
in justification of his refusal to admit it. 

Lightfoot s answers to Supeniatural Religion appeared in the Con 
temporary Review, December, 1874 > January, February, May, August, 
October, 1875 ; February and August, 1876 ; May, 1877. In addition to 
their temporary object of refutation, these articles contain so much of per 
manent value on the criticism of the remains of the second century, that 
the announcement is welcome that they are at length to be republished. 

Supernatural Religion has also been dealt with by Westcott in a 
Preface to the later editions of his New Testament Canon. 



10 



INTRODUCTORY. 



[l. 



(sen* 



^ 

V 



/*& 



ft 



anyone who makes an attempt fairly to judge of evidence. 
And the reason is, that the author starts with the denial of 
the supernatural as his fixed principle. If that principle be, 
in his eyes, once threatened, all ordinary laws of probability 
must give way. It is necessary at the outset to call your 
attention to this fundamental principle of our opponents, 
because it explains their seeming want of candour ; why it is 
that they are so unreasonably rigorous in their demands of 
proof of the authenticity of our books ; why they meet with 
evasions proofs that seem to be demonstrative. It is because, 
to their minds, any solution of a difficulty is more probable 
than one which would concede that a miracle had really 
occurred. 

Now, it has become more and more plain that, if it be 
granted that our Gospels were written by the persons to whom 
they are ascribed, two of whom were Apostles, men who had 
personal knowledge of the things which they relate, and 
whose whole narrative bears the impress of honesty, then the 
reality of miracles necessarily follows. No one has proved 
/fc this more clearly than Strauss. He has conclusively shown 
that anyone who has determined to begin by asserting the 
absolute impossibility of miracle cannot come with a per- 
fectly unbiassed mind to investigate the history of our sacred 
books, because an acceptance of the traditional account of 
their origin would be absolutely fatal to this first principle. 
Strauss begins his latest work on the life of Jesus by criticiz 
ing the works of his predecessors, who were as disinclined as 
himself to admit the reality of miracles, and who yet accepted 
the traditional account of the authorship of the Gospels ; and 
he shows that every one of them failed, and could not help 
failing, to maintain this inconsistent position. Paulus* may 
serve as a specimen of writers of this class. He receives the 
Gospel narratives as in some sense true ; the Evangelists do 
not intend to deceive ; they tell things that really occurred, 
but through an error of judgment they represent incidents as 
miraculous which -in truth are capable of a natural explana- 

* Paulus (1761-1851), Professor, first at Jena, afterwards at Heidelberg, 
published his Commentary on the New Testament, 1800-1804, and his 
Life of Jesus in 1828. 



I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. I r 

tion. For example, according to him, there was nothing 
miraculous in Christ s feeding of the multitude. But the 
example of Christ and His Apostles freely distributing their 
scanty store among the people shamed all the rest into pro 
ducing and sharing with their neighbours what they had 
secretly brought each for himself; and so all were filled, and 
supposed there had been something supernatural in the mul 
tiplication of the food. Similarly, Paulus does not deny that 
our Lord seemed to walk on the water ; but, since of course 
He could not really have done so, he concludes that He 
walked on the bank of the lake, where, through an optical 
delusion, his movements conveyed a false impression to the 
spectators. He so far believes the story of the announce 
ment by an angel of the Saviour s Incarnation as to concede 
that the Virgin Mary truly told that a stranger had come in 
to her with this message, who represented himself to be the 
angel Gabriel ; but since this could not possibly be true, we 
must conclude that the messenger was an impostor. These 
few specimens are enough to give you an idea of the mass of 
improbabilities and absurdities which are accumulated in the 
working out of this scheme, so that we may fairly say that 
the history, as Paulus tells it, is a more miraculous one than 
if we take the Gospel narratives in their literal sense. It is 
unnecessary for me to waste words in exposing these absurdi 
ties, because no one has a more lively sense than Strauss 
himself of the failure of the attempts of his predecessors to 
write a non-miraculous life of Jesus ; and he owns distinctly 
that, if the historical character of the Gospels be ever con 
ceded, it will be impossible to eliminate miracle from the life 
of Christ.* 

Strauss s own solution, you no doubt know, was to deny 
that the Gospels are historical. According to him, they arejj 
not written by eye-witnesses of the things related, but are| 
legends put together at a considerable interval of time after 
the supposed events. How Jesus of Nazareth succeeded 
in collecting a number of disciples, and in inspiring them 



* Sind die Evangelien wirklich geschichtliche Urkunden, so 1st das 
Wunder aus der Lebensgeschichte Jesu nicht zu entfernen. Leben Jesu+ 
p. 17. 



1 2 



INTRODUCTORY. [l. 

with a persuasion, not to be shaken by the unhappy end of 
his life, that he was the promised Messiah, Strauss very 
imperfectly explains. But his theory is, that a community 
of Jewish Christians arose who somehow or another had 
come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and who had 
all from childhood been brought up in the belief that the 
Messiah was to have certain distinguishing marks, that he 
was to be born in Bethlehem, and soforth ; that then stories 
circulated among them purporting to show how Jesus actually 
did all that according to their notions he ought to have done ; 
and that these stories, being in perfect accordance with their 
preconceived notions, when once started were readily believed, 
and in simple faith passed on from one to another, until in 
process of time they came to be recorded in the Gospels. It 
is not the business of this Term to expose the weakness of 
this theory ; and, indeed, Strauss himself appears to have 
become sensible what a difficult task he had set himself when 
he undertook to deny the truth of the Gospel histories, and 
yet clear the historians of conscious imposture. Certainly, 
there is a very perceptible shifting of ground from his original 
work, published in 1835, in the new popular version brought 
out for the use of the German people in the year 1864. But 
common to both is the principle of the absolute rejection of 
the supernatural ; and this I single out because the investiga 
tion in which I wish to engage you proceeds on an opposite 
plan, and therefore will naturally lead to a different result. 
My investigation aims at being purely historical. It refuses 
to be dominated by any philosophical or pseudo-philosophical 
principle. I wish to examine the evidence for the date of the 
Christian books on the same principles on which I would act 
if they were ordinary profane histories, without allowing 
myself to be prejudiced for or against them by a knowledge 
of their contents, or by fear of consequences which I shall 
be forced to admit if I own these works to be genuine. For 
I^P not hold our present experience to be the absolute rule 
and measure of all possibilities future and past ; nor do I 
deem it so incredible that God should reveal Himself to 
His creatures, as to refuse to listen to all evidence for such 
a fact when it is offered. 



II.] BAUR S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. I J 



II. 

PART II. 

BAUR S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 

In his new Life of Jesus, Strauss has greatly availed himself 
of the labours of Baur* and of the school founded by him, 
called sometimes, from his place of residence, the Tubingen 
school, or, from the nature of their theories, the Tendency 
school. It will be advisable to give you, by way of preface 
to our course, some short account of these theories : not only 
because of the wide acceptance they have met with from 
writers of the sceptical school both in Germany and of later 
years in England, but also because the view which they 
present of the history of the early Church affects the credit 
to be given to the testimony of that Church concerning our 
sacred literature. There is no use in calling a witness without 
making an attempt to remove prejudices which you know to 
be entertained, whether against his honesty or his means of 
information. Therefore, before producing to you evidence 
as to the reception of the Gospels by the early Church, it is 
expedient to inquire whether certain speculations are de 
serving of regard, which represent that Church as having 
altered so much and so rapidly from its original form, as to 
be put under a strong temptation to falsify the documents 
which relate its early history. According to Baur, our booksMj 
are not the innocent, purposeless collection of legendary tales/I 
for which the disciples of Strauss might take them ; all, even! 
those which seem least artful, are put together with a pur-)/ 
pose, and have a tendency Just as of Mr. Dickens s novels, 
one is intended to expose the abuses of the Poor Law system, 



* F. C. Baur (1792-1860) published in the Tubingen Zeitschrift for 
1831, a paper on the Christ-party in the Church of Corinth, which con 
tained the germs of the theory of which an account is given in the text. 
The fully developed theory was given in his Paulus, published in 1845. 



14 INTRODUCTORY. [ll. 

another of the Court of Chancery, another of Ecclesiastical 
Courts, and so forth; so each of the Christian books, how 
ever innocently it may seem to profess to give straightforward 
narrative, is really written with a secret design to inculcate 
certain dogmatic views. 

But what are these dogmatic views ? To answer this we 
must expound the history which Baur gives of the early 
progress of Christianity. He manufactured it mainly out of 
his own notions of the fitness of things, with very slender 
support from external authority ; and it has obliged him to 
condemn as forged or interpolated the great mass of exist 
ing ancient documents, since they are so perverse as not to 
be reconcilable with the critic s theory. The main pillar of 
the theory is a work of by no means great antiquity as com 
pared with the others which are to be discussed in this 
course of lectures, being not older than the very end of the 
second century. I speak of the spurious literature attributed 
to Clement of Rome, a favourite character with the manufac 
turers of apocryphal literature in the second or third century. 
The history of these writings is so remarkable, that I cannot 
employ a few minutes better than in giving you some account 
of them. The work originated among the Ebionites, or 
Jewish-Christian heretical sects. In its earliest form it 
contained discourses ascribed to the Apostle Peter, both in 
controversy with heathen, and also with heretics, of whom 
Simon Magus was made the representative and spokesman. 
This work underwent a great variety of recastings. It is 
doubtful whether Clement was introduced into the very 
earliest form of it ; but he was certainly, at a comparatively 
early date, made the narrator of the story ; and the account 
of Clement s history gradually grew into a little romance, 
which, no doubt, greatly helped the popularity of the work. 
Clement tells how he had been brought up as a rich orphan at 
Rome, his parents having been lost in his early childhood. 
He gives an affecting account of his search for religious truth, 
which he seeks in vain among the schools of the philosophers, 
but there finds nothing but strife and uncertainty. At last 
news is brought to Rome of the appearance of a wonder 
working prophet in Palestine. Clement sails in search of 



II.] BAUR S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 15 

him, arrives after the death of Jesus, but meets Peter, and 
is instructed and converted by him. Travelling about with 
Peter, he finds first his mother, then his brothers, then his 
father ; and it is from these successive recognitions that the 
work called the Clementine Recognitions takes its name. 
This is one of two forms in which the work is still extant ; 
the other, called the Clementine Homilies, being as respects 
the story substantially the same, but as respects the dis 
courses worked into it, and the doctrine contained in them, 
a good deal different. The Homilies contain the Ebionite 
doctrine in its strongest form ; in the Recognitions the 
repulsive features of Ebionitism are softened down, so as to 
make the book not altogether unfit for use among the ortho 
dox, and in fact the Recognitions are only preserved in a 
Latin translation made for the use of the orthodox by a 
Church writer, Rufinus. There is good evidence that another 
form, still more orthodox, which has not come down to us, 
was once in circulation. And though the heretical character 
of these Clementine writings was well known to the Fathers, 
who therefore rejected their doctrine, yet many of the things 
these writings tell about Peter passed into Church tradition. 
In particular, this Clementine literature has had a marvellous 
share in shaping the history of Christendom, by inventing the 
story that Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that he named 
Clement to succeed him in that See. 

At the revival of learning these writings were at first 
treated with contumely as a good-for-nothing heretical fig 
ment. Long time passed before it was noted that, though 
the book be regarded as no more than a controversial novel, 
yet, dating as it does from the end of the second century, it 
must be a most valuable source of information as to the history 
and opinions of the sect from which it emanated. Baur, in 
particular, has called special attention to the anti-Paulinism 
of the work ; and it is quite true that when we look into it 
carefully, we find that Paul and his labours are passed ove 
in silence, Peter figuring as the Apostle of the Gentiles a 
well as of the Jews. In one passage in the Homilies the 
dislike of Paul passes the bounds of mere silence. For Simon 
Magus is described as withstanding Peter to the face, and 




16 INTRODUCTORY. [ll. 

declaring that he was to be blamed. * Many a reader might 
innocently overlook the malice of these expressions; but when 
attention is called to them, we can hardly deny that the coin 
cidence of language with that in the Epistle to the Galatians 
(ii. 1 1) leads to the surmise that under the character of Simon 
a reference to Paul is cloaked ; and that Paul is intended by 
the enemy, 6 e x#/oos ai/0/ow7ros, who opposed St. Peter and St, 
James. We see also what interpretation is to be put on a 
controversy as to relative superiority between Simon Magus, 
who claims to have seen our Lord in vision, and Peter, who 
had actually seen Him in the flesh. It must be admitted that 
the writer shows a covert dislike to Paul; but we must remark, 
at the same time, that the obscurity with which he veils his 
assault on the Apostle shows plainly that he dared make no 
open attack, and that his views were, at that time, shared by 
no influential party in the Church. 

But the Tubingen school pounced with avidity on this 
book. Here, they say, we have the key to the true history of 
the origin of Christianity. Epiphanius tells us that -the 
Ebionites rejected Paul s Epistles, and looked on him a,s__an 
apostate. This book, then, may be regarded as a specimen of 
the feelings towards Paul of an early section of the Christians. 
Baur s idea is, that in all this anti-Pauline rancour we have a 
survival of an earlier state of things, the memory of which 
had been lost, owing to its variance with the Church s sub 
sequent doctrine. At the beginning of the third century 
we have, in one corner of the Church, men who hate Paul 
with the utmost bitterness, though, in deference to the then 
general opinion, they are obliged to cloak their hatred under 
disguises. At the same time we have, in another corner of 
the Church, the Marcionites,f who recognize no Apostle but 
Paul, who utterly reject the Jewish religion and the Old 

* In order that the coincidence with the Epistle to the Galatians may 
be more easily recognized, I adopt the language of the Authorized Version 
in translating ( evavrios avdeffTrjicds /tot, 5 Kareyvuaufvov jue Ae yets (Horn. 
xvii. 19). 

f The Chronicle of Edessa names A.D. 138 as the date of the rise of the 
heresy of Marcion, and this is probably as near the truth as we have the 

, means of going. The heresy had reached formidable dimensions when 
Justin Martyr wrote his Apology. 



II.] 



BAUR S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 



Testament, and who set aside all the earlier Apostles as of 
no authority. What, asks Baur, if these extreme views on 
both sides be not, as had been supposed, heretical develop 
ments, but survivals of a once general state of things ? Those 
who themselves hold our Lord to have been mere man find it 
natural to believe that this must have been the earliest belief 
of His followers. Consequently, the theory is that the whole 
Christian Church was originally Ebionite ; that Paul was a 
heresiarch, or introducer of novel doctrines violently con 
demned by the great mass of existing believers, of whose 
feelings towards Paul these Clementine writings are regarded 
as a fair specimen ; that the representations in the Acts of 
the Apostles that Paul was on good terms with the elder 
Apostles are altogether false, and that, on the contrary, the 
early Church consisted of two parties, Pauline and anti- 
Pauline, bitterly opposed to each other. 

Such is the general outline of the theory ; but speculation 
has particularly run wild on the assault on Paul in the Cle 
mentines under the mask of Simon Magus. Sceptical critics 
jump at the conclusion that Simon Magus was the nickname 
under which Paul was generally known ; and some even go 
so far as to maintain that the account in Acts viii. is a covert 
libel on St. Paul, which St. Luke, notwithstanding his Paul- 
inism, has been so stupid as to perpetuate in his history ; 
Simon s offer of money to the Apostles representing Paul s 
attempt to bribe the other Apostles into recognition of his 
claims by the gift of money which he had collected for the 
poor saints at Jerusalem. I feel ashamed of repeating such 
nonsense ; but it is necessary that you should know the 
things that are said ; for you may meet these German dreams 
retailed as sober truth by sceptical writers in this country, 
many of whom imagine that it would be a confession of 
inability to keep pace with the progress of critical science, 
if they ventured to test, by English common sense, the suc 
cessive schemes by which German aspirants after fame seek 
to gain a reputation for ingenuity. 

A more careful examination of the Clementines shows that 
they did not emanate from that body which opposed Paul 
in his lifetime. There appear, in fact, to have been two 

c 



18 



INTRODUCTORY. 



[II. 




distinct kinds of Ebionites. One kind we may call Pharisaic 
Ebionites, who may be regarded as representing those who 
strove to combine the acknowledgment of the Messiahship, 
though not the Divinity, of Jesus with the maintenance of 
the full obligation of the Mosaic Law. They appear never to 
have been of much influence, and before long to have died 
out. But the Ebionites among whom the Clementines origi 
nated represented quite a different set of opinions, and appear 
to have been a continuation of the Jewish sect of the Essenes.* 
their doctrines was a fanatical horror of the rite of 
sacrifice, which they could not believe to have been divinely 
instituted. The whole Temple service was abomination in 
their eyes. They believed that the true prophet had ap 
peared in divers incarnations, Adam being the first, and 
Jesus the last. The story of the fall of Adam, of course, 
they rejected. And with these opinions it was necessary 
for them to reject great parts of the Old Testament. The 
Pentateuch alone was used by them, and of this large parts 
were cut out as interpolated. You will remember that 
Paley, in his Evidences, quotes an apocryphal Gospel as 
ascribing to our Lord the saying, * Be_ ye goocLjnoney- 
changers. This they interpreted as a direction not to be de 
ceived by the false coin which purported to be God s Word. 
This doctrine, of which the Clementine Homilies are full, 
would be as repulsive as Paul s own doctrine to the orthodox 
i Jews whom Paul had to encounter; and therefore, as I say, 
these Clementines have no pretence to date from the times, 
or to represent the feelings, of his first antagonists in the 
Christian Church. The true history of these people seems to 
have been that, after the destruction of the Temple at Jeru 
salem by Titus, some of the Essene communities, who lived 
on the other side of Jordan, and who knew that Jesus had 
predicted the destruction of that Temple to whose rites they 
always had been opposed, became willing to own Jesus to 

* On these two kinds of Ebionites, see Lightfoot s Galatians, p. 318. 
The Church History of the period is likely to be misunderstood if the 
identity of the latter kind with the Elkesaites is not perceived ; and if it is 
not recognized, how little claim these heretics have to represent any 
considerable body, even of Jewish Christians; and how late their origin 
was by their own confession. 



II.] BAUR S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 19 

have been divinely sent, but retained a number of their own 
peculiar opinions. They appear to have made a few converts 
among the Jews dispersed by the fall of the capital, but not 
to have extended themselves very widely ; and it is not till the 
end of the second century, or the beginning of the third, that 
some of them made their way to Rome. They had among 
them some men of literary skill, enough at least to produce a 
forgery. Among the documents they brought to Rome, for 
instance, was one called the Book of Elkesai/ which pur 
ported to be a revelation of their peculiar doctrines, but for 
which, it is interesting to remark, no higher antiquity was 
claimed than the reign of Trajan, a time when all the Apostles 
were dead. They accounted for this late date by a theory 
that the ordinary rule of God s Providence was that error 
should come first, and that the truth which corrected it should 
be revealed later. An early book of theirs, The Preaching 
of Peter, was improved, first into the form known as the 

* Recognitions, afterwards into the Homilies, and was made 
to include these Elkesaite revelations. The making Simon 
Magus the representative of Pauline ideas has all the marks 
of being an after-thought. There is not a trace of it in the 

* Recognitions, through the whole of which, as well as in 
every part of the Homilies but the one already referred to, 
Simon is Simon and Paul is Paul. But, from the nature of 
the composition, the opinions which the writer means to 
combat must be put into the mouth of some of the characters 
in the story. When the object is to combat the doctrines of 
Marcion, Simon is made the exponent of these doctrines. 
But this furnishes no justification for the statement that there 
was a general practice of nicknaming Paul as Simon. As far 
as we can see, the author of the Recognitions is quite 
ignorant of it. 

As the anti-Pauline party is judged of by the Ebionites of 
the second century, so the school of Marcion is supposed to 
represent the opposing party. Thus the Christian society is/i 
said to have included two schools a Judaizing school and a 
Gnostic or philosophizing school violently hostile to each! 
other. It is not exactly our experience that theological 
schisms heal up so rapidly and so completely that in fifty 

C 2 



20 INTRODUCTORY. [ll. 

years no trace remains of them, nor even memory of their ex 
istence. But so, we are told, it happened in this case. And 
as in the process of time the bitterness of the dispute abated, 
arose the Catholic Church, in which both Peter and Paul 
were held in honour ; and then were attempts made to throw 
a veil over the early dissensions, and to represent the first 
preachers of Christianity as at unity among themselves. 

It remains to test this whole theory of the conflict of Pau 
line and anti-Pauline parties in the early Church by compari 
son with the documentary evidence ; and the result is that it 
bears the test very ill, so much so that, in order to save his 
theory from destruction, Baur has been obliged to make a 
tolerably clean sweep of the documents. In four of Paul s 
Epistles some symptoms may be found which can be inter 
preted as exhibiting feelings of jealousy or soreness towards 
the elder Apostles. But there is nothing of the kind in the 
other nine. The genuineness of these, therefore, must be 
denied. The Acts of the Apostles represent Paul as on most 
friendly terms with Peter and James, and these Apostles as 
taking his side in the controversy as to imposing Judaism on 
the Gentiles. The Acts, therefore, cannot be true history. 
Not only the discourses ascribed to Peter in the Acts, but the 

i first Epistle, which the ancient Church unanimously accepted 
as Peter s, is thoroughly Pauline in doctrine. We must, 

i therefore, disregard ancient testimony, and reject the Epistle. 
The earliest uninspired Christian document, the Epistle of 
Clement of Rome, confessedly belongs to the conciliatory 
Peter and Paul being placed in it on equal terms of 
reverence an d honour. It, too, must be discarded. So, in 
like manner, go the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, the 
former of whom writes to the Romans (ch. v.), * I do not 
pretend to command you, like Peter or Paul. 

Now, it is very easy to make a theory on any subject if we 
are at liberty to sweep away all facts which will not fall in 
with it. By this method the Elkesaites were able to maintain 
that the Old Testament did not sanction the right of sacrifice, 
and Marcion that the New Testament did not recognize the 
God of the Jews. But one has a right to suspect any theorizer 
if, in order to clear the ground for a foundation for his theory, 



II.] BAUR S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 21 

he has to begin by getting rid of the previously accepted 
facts. So it is a presumption against this theory of Baur s, 
that we find him forced to get rid of nearly all the documents 
purporting to come from the Apostolic age, because, notwith 
standing that they have been searched with microscopic 
minuteness for instances of Pauline and anti-Pauline rancour, 
scarcely anything of the kind can be found. I will give a 
specimen or two of these supposed instances, which will 
enable you to appreciate the amazing amount of misdirected 
ingenuity which has been spent in elaborating this system. 
The first is a specimen which is thought by those who have ^ 
discovered it to be an exceedingly good and striking one. 
St. Matthew (vii. 22, 23), in the Sermon on the Mount, makes 
our Lord speak of men who say, Lord, Lord, and who will, 
at the Last Day, appeal to their prophesying, their driving 
out devils, and their doing of miracles in the name of Jesus, 
but who will be rejected by Him as doers of lawlessness 
(avofjiia), whom He had never known. It may surprise you to 
hear that this sentence was coined by the Jewish Christian ( 
author of the record as a protest against the opposition to the 
Law made by Paul and his followers. And it may surprise 
you more to hear that St. Luke is highly complimented 
for the skill with which (xiii. 26) he turns this Jewish anti- 
Pauline saying into one of a Pauline anti-Jewish character. 
He substitutes the word aSi/aa, injustice, for avo/ua, law 
lessness, and he directs the saying against the Jews, who will 
one day appeal to having eaten and drunk in the presence of 
Jesus, and to His having taught in their streets, but, notwith 
standing, shall be told by Him to depart as doers, not of 
avo/u a, but of iniquity, and shall break forth into loud weeping 
when they see people coming from the east and west, and 
north and south, and sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob, while themselves are shut out. 

One other sample I will give you. St. Matthew says (x. 27), 
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light ; and 
what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. 
St. Luke (xii. 3) Whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness 
shall be heard in the light ; and that which ye have spoken 
in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed on the housetops. ^ 



22 INTRODUCTORY. [ll. 

It is contended that, whereas St. Matthew represents the 
Apostles as directed to speak in the light and on the house 
tops, St. Luke turns the phrase into the passive the pro 
clamation shall be by other than the Apostles, namely, by 

Paul and his party. 
When, however, all ingenuity has been tried, there is no 

^ escaping the acknowledgment that, if we are to look for an 
anti-Pauline Gospel, it cannot be any of those we have now. 
That Matthew s Gospel was made primarily for the use of 
/Jews most critics are agreed. Yet, do we find this Jewish 
Gospel hostile to the admission of Gentiles ? It opens (ii. i) 
with an account of Gentile Magi from the distant East com 
ing to worship the infant Saviour. In the first chapter which 
relates any miracle (viii. 5), we have an account of one per 
formed at the request of a Gentile, who is commended as 
exhibiting faith not to be found in Israel ; and on this occa 
sion there is taught the doctrine of the admission of the Gen 
tiles, not to equal privileges with the Jews, but to a place 

* vacated by the rejection of the Jews. * Many shall come from 
the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and 
Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; but the children 
of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness ; there 
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is to be noted 
that the Gentile centurion of St. Matthew is in St. Luke made 
a kind of Jewish proselyte He loveth our nation, and 
hath built us our synagogue (vii. 5). In a later chapter 
of St. Matthew the same doctrine is taught even more plainly 
The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given 
to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (xxi. 43). The 

/ parting command of our Saviour recorded in this Gospel is, 
Go ye and make disciples of all nations (xxviii. 19). In 
the account of our Lord s death, a critic with a keen eye for 

t tendency, might pronounce Matthew strongly anti-Jewish. 
It is Luke (xxiii. 28), not Matthew, who records our Lord s 
words of tender pity Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for 

^ Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. St. 
Matthew seems anxious to throw the guilt of our Lord s death 
off the Gentiles, and on the Jews. Pilate s wife warns her 

< husband to have nothing to do with that just man (xxviL 



% 



II.] BAUR S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 23 

19). Pilate himself washes his hands before the multitude / 
and declares that he is innocent of the blood of this just 
person. The Jews accept the awful burden, and exclaim, / 
His blood be on us, and on our children (ib. 24, 25).* 
Nay, we find in our St. Matthew a trait also found in St. John s 
Gospel, on account of which the latter has been characterized^ 
as strongly anti-Jewish, namely, that the unconverted mem 
bers of the Jewish nation are spoken of as * the Jews, imply 
ing that the Christians were an entirely separate community. / 
In the last chapter of St. Matthew (v. 15) we have, This 
saying is commonly reported among the Jews unto this day. 
When it is attempted to get rid of these evidences of anti-*^ 
Jewish tendency by the assertion that none of these things 
could have been in the original Matthew, we can only reply, 
that it is open to anyone to say that the original Matthew 
contained just whatever he likes. But no theory can be said to 4 
rest on a scientific basis which, instead of taking cognizance 
of all the facts, arbitrarily rejects whatever of them do not*. 
happen to accord with the hypothesis. 

It is plain from what I have said that, when every ingenuity 
has been expended on our documents, they fail to yield any 
sufficient evidence of the bitter hostility which, according to 
Baur s theory, existed between the two great sections of the 
early Church ; and, therefore, these documents are con 
demned by him and his followers as, at least in their present 
shape, the work of a later age, which had set to work to 
remove all traces of the ancient dissensions. Baur acknow-;, 
ledges only five of our books as genuine remains of thefi 
Apostolic age four Epistles of Paul and the Apocalypse. S 
The four Epistles are those to the Galatians, Romans, and|| 
the two to the Corinthians. It is not much to be grateful for 
that he grants the genuineness of these, for they carry on 
their face such marks of strong personal feeling, and are so 
manifestly not the work of a forger, but the outpouring of a 
heart stirred to its depths by the incidents of a real life, that 
whoever should deny their genuineness would pronounce on 
himself the sentence of incapacity to distinguish true from 
false. But these Epistles have, in Baur s eyes, the further 
recommendation, that they are those in which Paul has to 



24 INTRODUCTORY. [ll. 

deal with his Jewish opponents, and therefore are the most 
likely to yield proofs of that jealousy of the elder Apostles 
and hostility to them which Baur s theory demands. After 
wards, when I come to speak of St. Paul s Epistles and of 
the Acts of the Apostles, I will try to show how little ground 
there is for the assertion that the view of Paul s relations to 
the heads of the Jerusalem Church, exhibited in the Epistle 
to the Galatians, is irreconcilable with that presented by the 
Acts. If, indeed, anyone imagines that the Apostles were 

I not men of like passions with ourselves, and therefore counts 
it a thing impossible that one should feel or express dissatis- 

faction with the conduct of another ; if he cannot believe that 
they should be differently influenced by different aspects of 
the truth, or be of various opinion as to the immediate 

( necessity of guarding against different forms of error ; why, 
then, we need not go beyond what the Epistle to the Galatians 
tells of the dispute between Peter and Paul at Antioch in order 
to convince him of his mistake. But when we have fully 
conceded that there was no rigid sameness of utterance among 
the first preachers of the Gospel, we still fall immensely short 
of what Baur s theory requires us to grant. In order to adopt 

, his view, we must hold that the differences between St. Paul 
and the elder Apostles were not like those which are known 
to subsist at the present day between political leaders of the 
same party differences which do not prevent them from 
sitting in the same cabinet and joining in a common policy ; 

(but rather like the differences which separate the leaders of 
opposite parties, or even of hostile states. The most Ultra 
montane Roman Catholic could not think worse of Martin 
Luther than, if we believe our modern guides, the members of 
the Church of Jerusalem thought of St. Paul.* The wildest 
Protestant could not hate the Pope more than St. Paul s 
Gentile converts are imagined to have hated the Apostles 

f of the circumcision. 

But the most wonderful part of the theory is the alleged 

j * Jamais, en effet, 1 Eglise chretienne ne porta dans son seiii une cause 
de schisme aussi profonde que celle qui 1 agitait en ce moment. Luther 
et le scolastique le plus routinier differaient moms que Paul et Jacques. 
Renan, St. Pattl, p. 289. 



III.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 25 

end of the schism, in which Peter and Paul came to be 
regarded as brothers, and held in equal honour. That is the 
same as if we Protestants held in equal honour Martin Luther 
and Ignatius Loyola, and as if it was our popular belief that 
these two great saints had loved each other as brethren. 
Surely, the Pauline Christians must have been the most for 
giving men in the world. They had been victorious along 
the whole line. The Judaizers had disappeared. No one 
dreamed of imposing the yoke of circumcision on the Gentiles. 
Even in the Clementines no such burden is sought to be laid 
on Gentile converts. Yet these Gentiles agreed in giving 
equal honour to the great Apostle who had gained them their 
liberty and to the bigoted Jews who had cast out his name as 
evil, nicknamed him Balaam and Simon Magus, and orga 
nized conspiracy against him wherever he taught ! Surely 
this is a theory not so recommended by probability that we 
can afford to condone its deficiency in documentary proof; 
and, for my part, I am well content to abide by the old 
representations made by the author of the Acts of the 
Apostles. 



nj. 
PART III. 

THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 

I HAVE said that the Apocalypse is also received by Baur, 
and is acknowledged by him as a genuine work of the Apostle 
John. It is scarcely necessary to say, that he does not look 
upon it as containing any real prophecy, but merely antici 
pations of the future, which have been falsified by the event. 
In owning the Book of the Revelation to be Apostolic, the 
modern school of destructive criticism is more easy of belief 
than part of the early Church ; for in the third century there 
were many who denied the authority of this book, and I shall 
have occasion afterwards to speak of an argument by Diony- 
sius of Alexandria, that the difference in style between this 
book and the Gospel of St. John proves that both could not 



26 INTRODUCTORY. [ill. 

have the same author. This argument has been eagerly 
i adopted by the modern school, only with a reversal of its 
application. They hope now, by conceding that the Apoca 
lypse is the work of John, to found, upon differences of style, 
an argument that the fourth Gospel cannot be his ; and, in 
fact, it is now alleged to be one of the most certain results of 
criticism, that these two works cannot have the same author. 
This, again, suggests a topic which I will not anticipate, as 
the argument must be considered when I come to discuss the 
Gospel according to St. John. Suffice it now to say, that the 
= Apocalypse is held to be strongly Jewish and anti-Pauline. 

In the Epistles to the Seven Churches, Paul is held to be 
the enemy against whom St. John, writing in our Lord s 
name, warns his disciples. Indeed, one German teacher of 
this school (Volkmar) carries out the theory to the absurdity 
of imagining that by the false prophet predicted as upholding 
the power of the Beast we are to understand St. Paul. In 
the Epistle to the Church in Smyrna (ii. 9) we read: I 
know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and 
are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. And in that to 
the Church in Philadelphia (iii. 9) : * I will make them of 
the synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews and are not, 
but do lie, to come and worship before thy feet. We are 
asked to believe that those false Jews, with whom St. John 
has broken so entirely as to call them the synagogue of 
Satan, are St. Paul and his party. The angel of the Church 
of Ephesus (ii. 2) is praised because he has tried them 
which say they are apostles, and are not, and has found them 
liars. Here again we are asked to believe that it was Paul s 
claim to apostleship which was thus rejected ; and we are 
again and again invited by Renan to notice the remarkable 
fact, that in Ephesus, where St. Paul had resided so long, 
and laboured for a time so successfully, a few years after his 
departure his followers had completely disappeared, and his 
claims to apostleship had been generally owned to be based 
in falsehood. Lastly, you will remember that in the Epistle 
to the angel of the Church in Pergamos those are condemned 
(ii. 14, 15) who hold the doctrine of Balaam, and also those 
who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. It had been con- 



III.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 2J 

jectured long since and the conjecture has been received 
with more favour than I think it deserves that Nicolaus, 
conqueror of the people/ was but a Greek translation of the 
name Balaam. The etymology seems to me a forced one ; 
but Renan adopts this view, with the addition, that Balaam 
was a nickname for St. Paul, and that the doctrine of Balaam, 
the teaching to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit 
fornication (by which he understands marriage with Gentiles, 
regarded by strict Jews as fornication), was the doctrine of 
St. Paul. Renan would further have us believe that, in 
another New Testament place where Balaam is mentioned, 
St. Paul is intended I mean the Epistle of Jude (v. 1 1). For 
though that Epistle is one for which we cannot produce as 
early testimony as for the rest, and is consequently not ad 
mitted into Baur s meagre collection of genuine Apostolic 
Letters, yet the temptation is great to gain some addition to 
the scanty evidence of anti-Pauline rancour in the early 
Church ; and so we have presented to us Jude, the brother of 
James, describing Paul as a filthy dreamer, who defiled 
the flesh, despised dominion, and spoke evil of dignities 
(namely, of the original twelve Apostles), and who ran 
greedily after the error of Balaam for reward. 

Now we can understand easily how it was that an obscure 
heretic, in the end of the second century, not daring to attack 
Paul openly, because he knew that such attack would have 
condemned his book to exclusion from the whole circle of 
Christian readers, masked his assault under a false name ; 
so that while he seemed only to expose the wickedness of 
Simon Magus, and could even, if a question were raised by 
any of the orthodox, plausibly maintain that no covert mean 
ing was intended, he would yet be understood by the few 
initiated as gratifying their dislike to Paul. But Apostles 
such as St. John and St. Jude would have had no need to 
descend to such subterfuges. It is not consistent with the 
character of the outspoken son of Thunder (either as that 
character is made known to us by Scripture, or in the tra 
ditional story of his treatment of the heretic Cerinthus) to 
suppose that, if there were false teachers whom he thought 
it his duty to describe as the synagogue of Satan, he would 



28 INTRODUCTORY. [ill. 

have disguised the object of his reprehension under the veil 
of Balaam or Nicolaus, and never have ventured to mention 
the name of Paul. Why should not John, one of the pillar 
Apostles (Gal. ii. 9) of the Church, and Jude, the brother of 
one of the great three, have courage to speak plainly ? But 
let that pass : at least their warning must have been intelli 
gible at the time it was given. The Church would have 
known who it was that it was intended to describe ; and if 
so, is it credible that the tradition should have completely 
perished out of memory, and that Christians, by whom the 
great Apostle of the Gentiles was held in the highest love 
and veneration, should still cherish these letters to the Seven 
Churches, and this Epistle of St. Jude, never once dreaming 
that they were honouring party pamphlets of an opposing 
school ? 

It is worth while to remark how singularly obtuse the 
Paulinist party were as to the meaning of the assaults levelled 
against their master ; or at least at what an early date all 
knowledge as to the true meaning of these assaults had per 
ished. I have already remarked how innocently the author 
of the Acts of the Apostles tells the story of Simon Magus, 
without betraying any suspicion that under the mask of this 
arch-heretic Paul was to be recognized. Twice in the Acts 
(xv. 20, 29 ; xxi. 25) the same writer goes out of his way to 
represent the Apostolic heads of the Church of Jerusalem as 
condemning the eating meat offered to idols and fornication, 
in evident ignorance that these two things were prominent 
heads of the accusation brought against the Pauline Chris 
tians by their Jewish opponents. Nay, St. Paul himself is 
represented as concurring in the condemnation, and as ac 
tively employed in disseminating it (xv. 25 ; xvi. 4). Once 
more, the author of the Second Epistle of Peter (who, if he 
were not Peter himself, certainly wrote at an early date, and 
(iii. 15) was an ardent admirer of Paul) adopts as his own 
(ii. 15) all that was said in Jude s Epistle about Balaam, the 
son of Beor, and clearly has not the smallest suspicion that 
under that name Peter s beloved brother Paul was in 
tended. 

I shall have occasion to say something hereafter as to the 



III.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 29 

use of tradition in the interpretation of Scripture, and the 
present instance serves very well to illustrate what that use 
is. For you can see that these theories as to the reference 
to Paul, both in the Apocalypse and in the Epistle of Jude, 
might have deserved some respectful consideration had they 
dated from the first century instead of the nineteenth. If it 
had been the case that in early times there was hesitation to 
acknowledge the authority of these books, on the ground 
that they disparaged the apostleship of Paul, then we should 
be bound to look the possibility in the face, that tradition 
had preserved correctly the interpretation put on these docu 
ments by those to whom they were first addressed, and to 
inquire dispassionately whether that interpretation were the 
right one. But an interpretation is condemned at once by 
the mere fact that it was left to the nineteenth century to 
discover it, and we may fairly refuse to give it any respectful 
hearing. But I think it well not to cut the matter short, as I 
might ; and will go on to show that we can find parallels in 
Paul s Epistles for all the passages that are cited from the 
Apocalypse as anti-Pauline. 

It must be remembered that the doctrine of the calling of the 
Gentiles is taught as distinctly in the Book of the Revelation 
as in the saying of the Gospel (x. 16) Other sheep I have 
which are not of this fold. We read, indeed, in the Apoca 
lypse of a sealing of 12,000 out of each of the tribes of Israel 
(vii. 4-8) ; but immediately after the account of the bringing 
in of this large but still finite number of Jews there follows : 
4 After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man 
could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and 
tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, 
clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands. And in 
the mouth of the redeemed is placed a new song unto the 
Lamb, who has redeemed them to God by His blood out of 
every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (v. Q). 
The Apocalypse is said to be Jewish, because the heavenly 
city is described under the name of the New Jerusalem 
(xxi. 2) ; but this is the very language of St. Paul in his most 
anti-Jewish Epistle Jerusalem, which is above, is free r 
which is the mother of us all (Gal. iv. 26). For the literal 



30 INTRODUCTORY. [ill. 

Jerusalem the Apocalypse has no more complimentary names 
than Sodom and Egypt (xi. 8). 

I have already quoted the use made of the words those 
who say they are Jews, and are not words imagined to refer 
to St. Paul and his school. Those who give them this refe 
rence have read Paul s Epistles very carelessly, and have 
failed to notice one of his most characteristic traits. It is, 
that this Apostle, who combats so strenuously the notion that 
the Jew was to possess exclusive privileges in Christ s king 
dom, and that circumcision was to be the condition of admis 
sion to it, still retained, as was natural in a Jew by birth, his 
attachment to the name of Jew and the name of circumcision. 
Educated as he had been to regard these as titles of honour, 
and to look down on the uncircumcised Gentile, it pains him 
to hear his disciples called by the name of the uncircumcision, 
and he contends that they were the true Jews theirs the only 
true circumcision. In the Epistle to the Ephesians (ii. n) 
he speaks of his Gentile followers as those who were called 
uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in 
the flesh, made by hands. He tells these Gentiles (Col. ii. 
1 1), ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without 
hands, in putting oft* the body of the sins of the flesh by the 
circumcision of Christ. In the Epistle to the Philippians, 
when about to give to the Jews the name of the circumcision, 
he checks himself, and calls them instead the concision ; 
for we, he says, are the circumcision, which worship God 
in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confi 
dence in the flesh (iii. 2). In the Epistle to the Galatians 
he claims for those who walk according to his rule the 
glorious title of the Israel of God (vi. 16). And in a well- 
known passage in the Epistle to the Romans (ii. 28) the same 
doctrine is summed up. He is not a Jew, which is one out- 
" wardly ; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the 
x flesh : but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; and circum 
cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; 
\ whose praise is not of men, but of God. 

I suppose there is no stronger mark of genuineness in 
Paul s Epistles, nor any trait less likely to have occurred to 
a forger, than this, that his affection for the names of Jew 



III.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 31 

and of circumcision clings to him long after he had ceased to 
attach any value to the things. It need not surprise us to 
find the same trait in St. John, who had grown up subject to 
the same influences ; and we cannot hesitate to believe that 
those against whom the Seven Churches were warned were 
the unbelieving Jews, who are pronounced unworthy of the 
name of Jews, and whose synagogue is called the synagogue 
of Satan. It deserves to be mentioned that the Jews in Asia 
Minor long continued to be the most bitter adversaries of 
the Christian name, and that, when Polycarp was martyred,, 
the Jews were most active in collecting materials for the pyre: 
on which to burn him (Mart. S. Polyc. xiv.,Euseb. H. E. iv. 15). 

As little need it be supposed that in those who say that 
they are apostles, and are not, we must recognize St. Paul. 
Here again we have an exact parallel in St. Paul s Epistles : 
Such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming^ 
themselves into the apostles of Christ (2 Cor. xi. 13). And 
if any proof were needed of the falsity of the assertion that 
the Ephesian Church, ten years after St. Paul had founded it, 
rejected his claims to apostleship, it would be furnished by 
what immediately follows. For, according to Kenan s hy 
pothesis, the Church of Ephesus had at the commencement 
been beguiled into accepting Paul s pretensions, and there 
fore would be bound to look back with some shame and 
regret on its early simplicity. Is there any trace of this in 
the Apocalyptic Epistle ? Nay ; the first state of the Church 
is recalled as its palmy days. The Church is blamed for 
having left its first love, and commanded to remember 
whence it had fallen, and repent and do the first works 
(ii- 4> 5)- 

I must not omit to call attention to the extraordinary 
rapidity ascribed to the supposed counter-revolution in favour 
of Paulinism. For if we are to believe this theory the elder 
Apostles must have persevered to the end of their lives in 
treating Paul as an enemy. St. John, who was their last sur 
vivor, must have continued to hold up Paul and his disciples 
to odium after the death of the Apostle of the Gentiles. No 
one dates the Apocalypse earlier than the year 69, at which 
time, according to all tradition, Paul was dead. Up to that!- 



32 INTRODUCTORY. [ill. 

time, therefore, those who might be regarded as having the 
best authority to speak had disowned Paul as a false Christian. 
Paul therefore must have died an excommunicated heretic. 
Yet, in a quarter of a century later for that is now the re 
ceived date of Clement s Roman Epistle Paul is universally 
regarded as one of the chief of the Apostles, and as having 
been the cherished partner of Peter, both in work and in 
suffering! (Clem. Rom. 5.) 

I have spent more time than you may have thought neces 
sary in refuting an utterly baseless hypothesis ; but my excuse 
is, that this hypothesis is treated as authentic history in almost 
all modern works in England, Germany, and France, which 
profess to give the latest results of critical science as applied 
to our sacred books. 



IV. 

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY 
CHURCH. 



PART I. 

THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 
IREN^US, CLEMENT, AND TERTULLIAN. 

IF I were lecturing on Christian Evidences, I should com 
mence my examination of the books of the New Testa 
ment with the Epistles of St. Paul. There are some of these 
which are owned to be genuine by the most sceptical critics, 
and these universally admitted Epistles are rich in autobio 
graphical details, and set Paul vividly before us as a real 
living, working character. In connexion with Paul s Epistles 
we should consider the book of the Acts of the Apostles, 
the latter half of which bears undeniable marks of having 
emanated from a companion of St. Paul. We have thus the 
fullest knowledge what Paul believed and taught, and to 
what sources of information he had access. We cannot 
doubt that Paul was thoroughly sincere in his belief of what 
he preached ; and it is certain, also, that the central topic of 
his preaching was Christ s Resurrection. He is never weary 
of referring to this cardinal fact. He does not defend or 
prove it, but constantly assumes it as a fundamental fact 
about which no believer has any doubt whatever. This fact 
which Paul receives so confidently was in his time only a few 
years old ; and, without discussing Paul s claims to have 
himself seen his risen Master, it is unquestionable that he 
was on terms of intercourse with Peter, James, John, and 

D 



34 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV. 

others who claimed to be original witnesses of the Resurrec 
tion. If we desire to know what else Paul taught concerning 
the events of our Saviour s life, we have the answer in St. 
Luke s Gospel, which is of indisputably common authorship 
with the Acts, and therefore proceeded from a member of 
Paul s company. 

The order of taking the New Testament books which I 
have thus sketched offers some advantages, but, owing to 
inconveniences resulting from adopting it, which I will not 
delay to describe at length, I have fallen back on the obvious 
course of commencing with the Gospels. If we can establish 
that the Gospels contain the story told at the time by men 
who were eye-witnesses of what they related, and who con 
firmed their testimony by their sufferings, then, full of mi 
racles as our Gospels are, it has been found practically 
impossible to refuse belief to them. But if the Gospels 
were written a hundred years or more after the events which 
they describe ; if the story is not told by eye-witnesses, but 
has been improved by passing through several hands ; if there 
has been time for floating myth and legend to gather round 
the simple facts, and for men s preconceived notions of what 
the Messiah ought to do, to ornament the history of what 
Jesus did ; then the intrinsic improbability of every miracu 
lous story outweighs second-hand testimony separated from 
the original witnesses by so long an interval. Of the two, 
however, it is a more vital matter with unbelievers to reject 
the early date of the Gospels than for us to assert it. Bring 
down the date of the Gospels as low as the most courageous 
of our adversaries can venture to bring them, and though we 
thus lose the proof of the greater part of the wonderful works 
of the Saviour s life, the great miracle of the Resurrection 
remains untouched. Take St. Paul s abridged account of the 
Gospel he had received, as given in an unquestioned Epistle 
(i Cor. xv. 3-7), and, though it is so much shorter than any 
of the four, it contains quite as much stumbling-block for an 
anti-supernaturalist that Christ died for our sins, accord 
ing to the Scriptures ; that He was buried, and that He rose 
again the third day, according to the Scriptures ; that He was 
seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ; after that He was seen of 



IV.] THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 35 

above five hundred brethren at once ; after that He was seen 
of James, then of all the Apostles. Thus, from Paul s writings 
and from other historical evidence, we can still show that 
men who could not easily have been deceived as to the truth 
of what they asserted, and who proved their sincerity by their 
readiness to face sufferings and martyrdom in attestation of 
their doctrine, declared that Jesus of Nazareth, the third day 
after He had died on the cross, rose again from the dead. 
If this one fact be proved, the cardinal principle of the anti- 
supernaturalists, the impossibility of miracle, is demolished. 
Christianity thus could survive the loss of the Gospels ; but 
infidelity is incompatible with the admission of them, as is? 
evidenced by Strauss s confession, already quoted, that if thei; 
Gospels be recognized as historical sources, miracle cannot i> 
be eliminated from the life of Jesus. 

In beginning our inquiry concerning the Gospels, I need 
not take you much later than, at the latest, the year 180. In 
every controversy it is always well to see what facts are un 
disputed which can be taken as common ground between the 
parties. Now, to use the words of Strauss, it is certain that, ^ 
towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels 
which we have still are found recognized in the Church, and 
are repeatedly quoted as the writings of the Apostles, and 
disciples of the Apostles, whose names they bear, by the 
three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers Irenaeus in Gaul, 
Clement in Alexandria, and Tertullian in Carthage. There 
were, indeed, current other Gospels, used not only by here 
tical parties, but sometimes appealed to by orthodox teachers ( 
a Gospel of the Hebrews and of the Egyptians, a Gospel 
of Peter, of Bartholomew, of Thomas, of Matthias, of the 
Twelve Apostles but the four were, at that time, and from 
that time downwards, considered as the peculiarly trustworthy 
foundation on which the Christian faith rested (Leben Jesu 
10, p. 47). I will speak a little about each of these witnesses 
viz. Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian. They are widely 
separated in space, and they represent the whole extent of 
the Christian world. They prove that, if there had been any 
previous doubt or uncertainty which of all the documents 
purporting to contain records of the Saviour s life were to be 

D2 



36 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iv. 

regarded as of superior authority, that doubt had been re 
moved before the end of the second century, and that the 
four Gospels which we recognize had then been established 
in the place of pre-eminence which they have held ever 
since. 

Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, about the year 
1 80.* But Irenaeus not only represents the testimony of the 
Gallican Church ; he had been himself brought up in Asia 
Minor, from which country Gaul had, as we have every 
reason to believe, derived its Christianity as well as its early 
civilization. There remains (ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 2) a most 
interesting record of the connexion between the two countries 
in an affecting narrative of the persecution of the year 177, 
addressed by the Christians of Vienne and Lyons to their 
brethren in Asia Minor. This Epistle, though it does not 
quote any of the books of the New Testament by name, is so 
full of passages in which the writer makes the language of 
these books his own weaving texts into the narrative, as 
you constantly hear preachers doing at the present day that 
we cannot doubt that the sacred books in use in that early 
Church were in the main the same as the books of our own 
New Testament. The bishop at the time of that persecution 
was Pothinus, a man of about ninety years of age, who must, 
therefore, have been born before some at least of the books of 
the New Testament were written, and who must have mixed 
with men contemporary with St. John. His presbyter and 
successor, Irenaeus, was united by other links to the times of 
the Apostles. He tells us how well he remembered Poly- 
carp,! whom in his early years he had known at Smyrna : 
I can recall the very place where Polycarp used to sit and 
teach, his manner of speech, his mode of life, his appearance, 
|the style of his address to the people, his frequent references 
no St. John, and to others who had seen our Lord ; how he 
used to repeat from memory their discourses, and the things 

* Lipsius, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, assigns A.D. 130 
as the most probable date of the birth of Irenseus ; and the period (180-188) 
as that in which it is likely that the different books of his treatise against 
heresies were published. 

f Recent investigations determine A.D. 155 as the date of the martyrdom 
of Polycarp, at which time he was about eighty-six years old. 



IV.] IRENJEUS. 37 

which he had heard from them concerning our Lord, His 
miracles, and His teaching; and how, being instructed him-^ 
self by those who were eye-witnesses of the life of the 
Word, there was in all that he said a strict agreement with 
the Scriptures (Epistle to Florinus, ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 20). 
Observe this word Scriptures, for it is plain that the books 
to which he gave this venerated title are those which contain^ 
the record of our Lord s life the four Gospels. 

There is a passage in the work of Irenaeus against heresies 
which proves that he considered these books as, in the 
highest sense of the word, Scriptures given by inspiration of 
God. The passage is interesting as bearing testimony to a 
New Testament reading not found in our existing Greek 
manuscripts ; but only in the Latin and in the Curetonian 
Syriac versions. It concerns the passage where we now read, 
in the opening of St. Matthew s Gospel, * The birth of Jesus 
Christ was on this wise (i. 18). Irenaeus is arguing against 
those who held that Jesus was at first but an ordinary man, 
and only became Christ when the Holy Spirit descended on 
Him in His baptism ; and he remarks (in. xvi. 2) that 
Matthew might have said that the birth of Jesus was on this 
wise, but that the Holy Spirit, foreseeing the depravers of 
the truth, and guarding against their fraud, said by Matthew, 
* The birth of Christ was on this wise, * showing that Christ 
was born ; in other words, that Jesus was Christ from His 
birth. Thus what might seem the accidental choice of one 
form of expression rather than another is ascribed to the 
directing care of the Holy Spirit. You see then that Irenaeus 
believed not only in the genuineness, but also in the inspira 
tion, of the Gospels. 

1 dare say you have also heard of his reasons why there 
are exactly four Gospels, neither more nor less. He argues 
(in. xi. 8) that the Gospel is the pillar of the Church ; the 
Church is spread over the whole world ; the world has four 
quarters ; therefore it is fitting there should also be four 
Gospels. Again, the Gospel is the divine breath, or wind of 



* Potuerat dicere Matthaeus, Jesu veto generatio sic erat ; sed prae- 
videns Spiritus Sanctus depravatores et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam 
eorum, per Matthaeum ait Christi autem generatio sic erat. 



38 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV. 

life for men ; there are four chief winds ; therefore, four 
Gospels. He builds another argument on the fourfold 
appearance of the cherubim. The cherubim, he says, are 
fourfold, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son 
of God. The first beast was like a lion, signifying His 
commanding and kingly dignity ; the second like a calf, signi 
fying His priestly office ; the third like a man, denoting His 
Incarnation ; the fourth like an eagle, denoting the Holy 
Spirit flying over the Church. Like these are the Gospels. 
John, who begins with the Godhead and descent from the 
Father, is the lion ; Luke, who begins with the priesthood 
and sacrifice of Zacharias, is the calf; Matthew, who begins 
with His human genealogy, the man ; Mark, the eagle, who 
commences with the announcement of the prophetic spirit 
the beginning of the Gospel as it is written by Isaiah the 
prophet. You are aware, I dare say, that this is not the 
apportionment of the four beasts to the Gospels which ulti 
mately prevailed in the West, John being usually represented 
as the eagle ; Matthew as the man ; Luke as the ox ; and 
Mark as the lion.* 

Irenaeus goes on to say that Christ s dealings with the 
world are fourfold. To the patriarchs the word of God came 
directly ; to those under the Law through the priestly office ;. 
Christ Himself came as man ; since then He has dealt with 
the Church by His Spirit overshadowing the Church with 
His wings. Thus the Gospel also is fourfold, and those 
destroy its fundamental conception who make the number 
either greater or less ; either desiring to seem to have found 
out more than the truth, or rejecting part of God s dispensa 
tion. The main point in this quotation is, that Irenaeus 
considers the fourfold character of the Gospel to have been 

* This apportionment seems to have been introduced into the West by 
St. Ambrose (in Luc. Praef. 8). It was made more widely known by 
St. Jerome, who professes therein to follow preceding expositors (Praef. 
in. Matt.; in Ezek. i. 6). St. Augustine (De Consens. Evangg. i. 9) 
adopts the same apportionment, except that he assigns the lion to St. 
Matthew, and the man to St. Mark. He mentions also the arrangement 
of Irenseus, but considers that this being founded merely on the manner 
in which the several Gospels begin, is inferior to an arrangement founded 
on their general contents. The three terrestrial animals, for instance, are 
fitly assigned to the three Gospels which are mainly occupied with our 



IV.] IRENJEUS. 39 

divinely arranged. We are not concerned with the validity 
of his mystical explanations, but with the manifest inference 
that the pre-eminence of four Evangelists must have been, 
in the time of Irenaeus, long established, else he would not 
thus ascribe it to divine appointment. Strauss quotes these 
mystical explanations of Irenaeus with a view to disparage 
his testimony; but he is forced to admit that the fanciful 
character of his reasons why there are only four Gospels 
does not discredit his testimony to the fact that four, and 
only four, were then acknowledged by the universal Church ; 
and he owns that the reasons given by Irenaeus are not his 
grounds for receiving only four Gospels, but only his mode 
of justifying a belief adopted on other grounds.* Thus you? 
see that, without producing a single other witness, we have 
proof that towards the end of the second century the Church 
held the belief that is commonly held by the Church of the 
present day, namely, that the four Gospels are to be venerated 
as inspired records of our Saviour s life, and that no others^, 
can be placed on a level with these. 

Test by the evidence of this one witness the theory of 
some, that St. John s Gospel made its first appearance about 
the year 150 or 160. Is it credible that, if so, Irenaeus could 
have accepted a forgery of which, according to the hypothesis, 
his master, Polycarp, had never told him a word ? For Poly- 
carp, who, as I said just now, used to repeat from memory 
the discourses which he had heard from John, could not have 
been silent about this work, which, if genuine, would be St. 
John s most precious legacy to the Church ; and the fact 
that it had not been mentioned by Polycarp would convince 
Irenaeus that it was an audacious imposture. And again, it 
is impossible that Polycarp could have accepted as genuine 

Lord s earthly life : the eagle, to the spiritual Gospel of St. John, who 
soars above the clouds of human infirmity, and with unwavering eyes gazes 
on the light of immutable truth. 

* Diese seltsame Beweisfiihrung 1st zwar nicht so zu verstehen, als 
waren die angegebenen Umstande der Grund gewesen,warum Irenaus nicht 
mehr und nicht weniger Evangelien annahm ; vielmehr hatten sich diese 
vier eben damals in den Kreisen der nach Glaubenseinheit strebenden 
katholischen Kirche in vorzuglichen Credit gesetzt, und dieses gegebene 
Verhaltniss suchte sich Irenaus im Geiste seiner Zeit zurechtzulegen ( 10, 
p. 48). 



4-0 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV. 

a work of which he had never heard his master, John, speak. 
There are, in short, three links in the chain St. John, Poly- 
carp, Irenaeus ; and I do not see how it is possible to dissever 
any one of them from the other two. 

Similar observations may be made about the conclusions 
of the author of the work called Supernatural Religion. 
Other sceptical writers had thought they had done great 
things if they could bring John s Gospel as late as 150 or 160, 
allowing the Synoptic Gospels to date from the beginning of 
the century. This writer imagines that he has demolished 
all evidence for the existence of the Synoptic Gospels prior 
to the age of Irenaeus, and will only allow them to count from 
the very end of the second century. But it is plain that the 
evidence of Irenaeus, even if we had no other, takes us back 
a long way behind his own time. Books newly come into 
existence in his time could not have been venerated as he 
venerated the Gospels. What length of time must we allow 
for these books to have come into such esteem, that what 
might be regarded as their chance expressions should be 
considered as directed by the Spirit of God, and that among 
all the different attempts to relate the life of Christ none 
should seem fit to be put in comparison with these four ? I 
suppose fifty years would be a very moderate allowance of 
time for such a growth of opinion : for the credit of these 
books mainly rested on a belief that they were of apostolic 
origin, and if they had been anywhere known to have been 
recent modifications of an older story, they could not have 
superseded their progenitors ; so that we may fairly conclude 
that the time of their appearance was beyond then living 
memory. Well, then, what we have thus learned from Ire 
naeus is of important use when we come presently to look at 
the works of the generation next before him. When we 
find in these works what seem to be quotations from our 
Gospels, we shall not easily be persuaded by small verbal 
differences that the writers are drawing from some unknown 
sources, and not from books which we are certain, from Ire 
naeus, must in their time have existed, and have been of such 
credit in the Church as to be well known to these writers. 
The second witness to whom I have appealed gives us the 



IV.] CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 41 

verdict of another large portion of the Christian world. Cle 
ment* of Alexandria lived in what was perhaps the city in all 
the world where literary criticism was most cultivated. He 
had been there the disciple of Pantaenus, who very possibly 
may have been personally connected with disciples of the 
Apostles. And Clement travelled and learned from other in 
structors of various nations, whose names he does not tell us, 
but only their nationalities, an Ionian, an Italian, a Syrian, an 
Egyptian, an Assyrian, a Hebrew in Palestine. These men, 
as he says, preserving the true tradition of the blessed teach 
ing directly from Peter and James, from John and Paul, son 
receiving it from father, came by God s providence even to 
us, to deposit among us those seeds of truth which were de 
rived from their ancestors and the Apostles (Strom, i. u). 
It is needless to quote particular passages from Clement : 
suffice it to say, that there is no more doubt as to his use of 
the Gospels than there is as to the place assigned them by 
any clergyman of the present day. He has traditions to tell 
concerning the composition of Mark s and of John s Gospel, 
both of which he regards as later than Matthew s and Luke s. 
That, like Irenaeus, he recognized as authoritative four Gos 
pels, neither more nor less, may be inferred from the manner 
in which he deals with a saying ascribed to our Lord (Strom. 
\\\. 13) We have not this saying in the four Gospels which 
have been handed down to us ; it is found in the Gospel 
according to the Egyptians t Besides this Gospel according 
to the Egyptians, he was acquainted with other apocryphal 
writings a Gospel according to the Hebrews, Traditions of 
Matthias, and others ; but the passage I have just cited is evi 
dence enough that, in his estimation, no other account of the 
Saviour s deeds or words stood on the level of the four Gospels. 



* Clement, possibly a Greek by birth, was born about the middle of the 
second century, and was head of the Catechetical School in Alexandria 
(192-202). We last hear of him as alive in 211 (Euseb. H. E. vi. n). 

t Some have doubted whether Clement had himself seen the Gospel ac 
cording to the Egyptians. He had said a little before that he thought 
(ol/xcu) that the passage under discussion was to be found in the Gospel 
according to the Egyptians. It has been inferred, therefore, that this was 
either a book which he only knew by hearsay, or else one which it was so 
long since he had looked into, that he did not quite like to trust his 
memory in speaking of it. 



42 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV. 

When we compare the quotations of Clement and Irenseus 
a new phenomenon presents itself, which throws back the 
date of the Gospels still further behind their own times. We 
become aware of the existence of various readings. In fact, 
in some of the texts, where the reading is now controverted, 
there are second century witnesses on opposite sides. And 
the general type of the text in use in Alexandria was different 
from that in use in the West. Thus you see that the Gospels 
were not only in existence at the end of the second century, 
but they had by that time been copied and re-copied so often, 
that errors from transcription and otherwise had time to creep 
in, and different families of text to establish themselves. 

The third witness to whom I have appealed, Tertullian,** 
also lived at the end of the second century, but represents a 
different section of the Church, the Latin-speaking section. 
Nothing need be said as to his use of the Gospels, about 
which there is as little question as to my own use of 
them, but it is worth while to call attention to the evidence 
his writings afford, that in his time they had already been 
translated into Latin. In fact he finds fault with the current 
Latin rendering of the first verse of St. John s Gospel, in 
which the word Logos was translated by Sermo. f Ter- 
tullian would have preferred Ratio. I may say in passing that 
the difficulty here found by Tertullian that of adequately 
rendering the Greek word Logos has been experienced 
by every translator of the New Testament. For Logos not 
only means the spoken word the only sense suggested by 
our English version but still more, as Tertullian renders it, 
reason. And so the early Greek Fathers give the double 
sense to the term in the Prologue of St. John, inferring that 

* The data for fixing the chronology of Tertullian s writings are scanty; 
but we shall not be far wrong in counting that he first appeared as a 
Church writer about 197, and that his literary activity continued some 
thirty years longer. His New Testament quotations have been collected 
by Ronsch, Das neue Testament Tertullian s. The quotations from the 
Gospels occupy over 200 pages, and if the Greek Gospels had not come 
down to us, we could from this source alone obtain a knowledge of far the 
greater portion of their contents. 

t Jam in usu est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis Sermo- 
nem dicere in primordio apud deum fuisse cum magis rationem competat 
antiquiorem haberi. Adv.Prax. c. 5. Yet Tertullian himself habitually 



IV.] TERTULLIAN. 43 

it designates the Second Person of the Trinity not only as 
God s spoken Word, by which He made known His will to 
men, but also as having before this utterance dwelt from eter 
nity with the Father ; some analogy to help us to conceive 
such an indwelling being found in the dwelling in man of the 
principle of reason. So it is that the Fathers almost unani 
mously interpret the description of Wisdom in the 8th of Pro 
verbs, of the Second Person of the Trinity, whom the Collect 
in daily use in our own College Chapel describes as the 
Eternal Wisdom of the Father. This interpretation was 
received by the Arians as well as the orthodox. 

Now this fact, that Tertullian criticized renderings which 
nevertheless he adopts in his own quotations, throws back 
the range of his testimony. We must allow some consider 
able time for a version to acquire such currency as to mould 
the popular theological dialect, and to give authority to 
renderings which were in the judgment of good scholars 
capable of improvement. Towards the end of the second 
century it is not only the fact that our Gospels are in sole 
possession all over the Christian world, but translations of 
them have gained an established rank. That is to say, at the 
time when it is doubted if our Gospels were born, we find 
their children in vigorous life.* 

I believe, then, that if anyone fairly weighs all that is in 
volved in the undisputed fact that Irenseus, Clement, and 
Tertullian show that at the end of the second century all the 
principal books of our New Testament were received all over 
the civilized world as the works of the authors to whom we 
still ascribe them, he will own it to be unreasonable to demand 

uses Sermo as the equivalent for Logos, and even in the same treatise 
(c. 20) when he formally quotes John i. I, he does so in the form : In 
principio erat sermo et sermo erat apud deum et deus erat sermo. Hie 
erat in principio apud deum. Another passage in which Tertullian 
appeals from the current Latin translation to the Greek original is (De 
Monog. c. ii.): Sciamus plane non sic esse in Grasco authentico, quo- 
modo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut callidam aut simplicem 
eversionem ; Si autem dormierit "vir ejus, quasi de future sonet, ac per 
hoc videatur ad earn pertinere quse jam in fide virum amiserit. But here 
again it is to be noted that Tertullian, when quoting the passage himself, 
conforms to common usage and does not introduce the correction which 
he suggests. 

* See note at end of Lecture (p 44). 



44 TH E GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV. 

further evidence, when we do not dream of requiring such 
evidence in the case of any secular work. 

The remains of the first generation of Christians are scanty, 
and of the few works that have come down to us, several are 
apologies intended for heathen readers,* to whom it would 
not be appropriate to cite the New Testament Scriptures. 
There is an advantage then in commencing with that age of 
which we have remains so full and abundant as to leave no 
room for controversy as to the sentiments of the writers ; and 
which at the same time is so near the age of the Apostles, 
that what was then the undisputed established opinion as to 
the authorship of their sacred books, held by common consent 
of distant Churches, is very likely to be a true opinion. 
Should a question arise some centuries hence whether Pope 
wrote the Dunciad and the Rape of the Lock, or whether 
Goldsmith wrote the * Deserted Village and the Vicar of 
Wakefield, it would go far to settle the question, if it were 
proved that in our generation no doubt was entertained by 
anyone on the matter, even if all preceding testimony had 
perished. 

Though, in my opinion, the testimony of the three witnesses 
already considered might suffice to produce conviction, we 
can produce trustworthy evidence of considerably earlier date, 
which will be the subject of future Lectures. 



N o TE. 

Scholars had generally agreed in inferring from the evidence 
here appealed to that there existed in the time of Tertullian 
a Latin translation that was in general use in Africa. This 
inference has been lately contested by Zahn Geschichte des N. 
T. Kanons, 1888, I. 35, sq. He admits that the reading of the 
Gospels then formed part of the service at Christian meetings 



* From the nature of the case, references to the New Testament books 
are infrequent in works addressed to such readers ; for example, if only 
Tertullian s Apology had come down to us it would not have been 
possible to prove that he was acquainted with the Gospels. 



IV.] THE LATIN TRANSLATION. 45 

for worship ; but he contends that this did not necessitate a 
Latin Bible. Irenaeus preached to the Celts of Gaul, but we 
do not hear of a Celtic Bible. We do not hear of any Punic 
Bible in Africa, though Christianity made many converts 
among those who spoke no other language. He points out 
that in the Jewish Synagogues the Bible was read in Hebrew, 
and then orally interpreted to those who did not understand 
the ancient language, and he cites two or three examples of a 
similar use of interpreters in the Christian Church. In his 
opinion then the needs of those who spoke no other language 
than Latin were at first met, not by any authorized Latin 
version of Scripture, but by independent oral interpretation 
at the Christian meetings. It may readily be conceded that, 
as has been often remarked, the Gospel was introduced into 
Rome in the colony of Jews or other foreign settlers whose 
ordinary language was Greek, whom Paul addressed in Greek 
in the Epistle to the Romans, for whose use, according to 
early tradition, the Greek Gospel of St. Mark was written, 
and whose liturgical service no doubt was Greek. Nor would 
such a service be unintelligible when converts were made 
among native Romans of higher rank ; for a knowledge of 
Greek was the ordinary accomplishment of a Roman gentle 
man. This was equally true of Africa, as Zahn illustrates 
from the martyrdom of Perpetua, a document not much later 
than the year 200. Perpetua was a lady of good position, 
honeste nata, liberaliter instituta, matronaliter nupta. When 
converts of lower rank came in, it is extremely credible that 
the transition from liturgical service in Greek to liturgical 
service in Latin was bridged over by liturgical service in 
Greek accompanied by Latin oral interpretation. The only 
question is at what epoch the transition took place, and Zahn 
gives no sufficient evidence that a Latin service had not been 
fully established in the time of Tertullian. He himself admits 
that the context indicates that the agios, agios, agios, in the 
martyrdom of Perpetua was derived directly from the Book of 
Revelation rather than from liturgical use ; but in any case it 
is quite conceivable that an African Latin Liturgy might retain 
these words in the original. At any rate, though the method 
of interpretation would enable persons ignorant of Greek to 



46 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV. 

join intelligently in a Greek service, it presupposes clergy 
able to interpret. Now, though the clergy who at the end of 
the second century ministered to Celtic or Punic congregations 
are likely to have known enough either of Greek or Latin to 
enable them to interpret, it is not likely that Greek alone 
would have sufficed, or that those who ministered to rural 
congregations in Africa would all be such good Greek scholars 
as to be able to dispense with a Latin Bible. Another weak 
point in Zahn s comparison is that Celtic was not a literary 
language, and the rude people who spoke it might easily be 
content with such portions of Scripture as they could hear 
read in Church ; but among Latin-speaking Christians there 
would be many of such literary cultivation as to wish to read as 
well as hear the Scripture. 

A much stronger point in Zahn s case is that Tertullian 
himself repeatedly quotes directly from the Greek, and not 
from a Latin version, as we can tell from his translating the 
same passage in different ways. This has been noticed 
before: see for example Hort (N. T., ii. 78). Tertullian was 
a good Greek scholar, who could not only read that language, 
but had even written some tracts in it. It is to be noted that 
far the larger part of instances of his direct use of the Greek 
Testament occur in his work against Marcion. Now Ter 
tullian must have written that work with his Greek Testament 
open before him, for Tertullian s object was to maintain the 
true text of New Testament passages which Marcion had 
falsified or omitted ; and as Marcion s work was certainly in 
Greek, it must have been with the Greek original that he 
compared it. Tertullian s other citations require careful 
examination, but I may remark that Zahn is willing (p. 58) 
to make an admission fatal to his case in conceding that 
Tertullian was acquainted with the Latin translation of 
Irenaeus. The proofs of this offered by Massuet in the 
prolegomena to his edition of Irenaeus have been accepted 
by many scholars as sufficient, but certainly need further sift 
ing. But we may dismiss as quite incredible Zahn s idea (p. 58) 
that Latin-speaking Christians demanded a translation of the 
work of Irenaeus, and of other pieces of Greek literature, before 
they cared to have a translation of their Greek Bible. If the 



V.] MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 47 

resemblances between Tertullian and the Latin translation of 
Irenaeus are enough to prove that Tertullian was acquainted 
with this translation, the differences are certainly enough to 
prove that, notwithstanding, he constantly preferred, instead 
of using it, to translate for himself. However, the question 
is not whether Tertullian himself used a Latin translation of 
the Bible a thing which we readily grant he had no need to 
do but whether he bears testimony to the existence of such 
a thing in his time. Now it seems to me that the practice of 
a number of independent interpreters, each in his own Church, 
could never have sufficed to establish such a use as that 
which is attested in the passages already cited. If Tertullian 
or anyone else did not like the interpretation given by his 
neighbours, he would have felt himself perfectly free to give 
a better one of his own. I am, therefore, not prepared to 
abandon the hitherto received opinion that in the time of 
Tertullian a Latin translation existed in writing. Put the 
matter, however, at the lowest, and it is certain that in his 
time the Latin translation, whether known orally through the 
work of different interpreters or by writing, had assumed a 
definite form, so as to constitute an established use. So that 
my assertion remains true, that in the time of Tertullian not 
only the Gospels existed but their children, the only dispu 
table point being whether or not the latter had attained their 
full growth. 



v. 
PART II. 

MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. CAIUS HIPPOLYTUS. 

It would take more time than I can ask you to give, if I 
were to bring before you all the second century testimonies to 
the Gospels ; and I had intended to go back at once from the 
three witnesses whose testimony is admitted by Strauss to 
Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of the second cen 
tury ; but I see that to do this would oblige me to omit some 



48 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. 

things of which I think you ought to be told, and with which 
I mean to occupy the present Lecture. I call your attention, 
in the first place, to a very interesting document, commonly 
known as the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. It is a 
list of the books accepted at its date as authoritative, and it is 
called Muratorian, because first published, in the year 1740, 
by the Italian scholar Muratori, from a manuscript now, as 
then, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, but which had origi 
nally belonged to the great Irish monastery of Bobbio. This 
manuscript is a collection of extracts from various authors, 
made about the eighth century, and the particular extract 
with which we have now to deal must have been made from 
what was then a mutilated manuscript, which the transcriber 
was desirous to preserve ; for the existing manuscript is quite 
perfect no leaves are lost ; but the extract begins in the 
middle of a sentence, and ends quite as abruptly. It bears 
marks of having been a rude translation from the Greek ; and 
the transcriber was clearly a very indifferent Latin scholar, 
for his work is full of misspellings and other blunders, such 
as in some places quite to obscure the meaning. In fact, it 
was as a specimen of such blundering that Muratori first 
published it. 

So much interest attaches to this extract, as containing the 
earliest extant attempt to give anything like a formal list of 
New Testament books, that I must not grudge the time ne 
cessary for laying before you the internal evidence which 
approximately fixes the date of the composition of the work 
from which the extract was taken.* In reading Paley s Evi- 

* A monograph on the Muratorian Fragment was published by Tregelles 
in 1867. Considerable additional light was thrown on it by Dr. Westcott, 
the results of whose study of it are given in the appendix to his New 
Testament Canon, p. 514. As I have frequently occasion to refer to this 
Fragment, it is convenient to print it here entire, as restored by Westcott ; 
but it will be observed that some passages are too corrupt to be restored 
with certainty. For a transcript of the actual text I refer to Westcott s 
New Testament Canon, and for other sources of information to my 
article, MURATORIAN FRAGMENT, in Smith s Dictionary of Christian 
Biography. 

. . . quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit. Tertium Evangelii librum 
secundum Lucan, Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi, cum eum 
Paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum adsumsisset, nomine suo ex 
opinione conscripsit. Dominum tamen nee ipse vidit in carne, et idem 



V.] MUR.ATORIAN FRAGMENT. 49 

dences last year you must have become familiar at least with 
the name of the Shepherd of Hermas. This work is quoted 
as inspired by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria ; and in 
the third century Origen hazarded the conjecture that it 
might have been written by Hermas, who is mentioned in the 
Epistle to the Romans ; and this, though, as I say, a compara 
tively late conjecture, has been accepted by some as if it were 
tradition. The Muratorian Fragment gives a different account 
of the authorship, and one which has all the air of being tra 
dition, and not conjecture. It would appear that, at the time 
this fragment was written, there was some disposition to 
accept the Shepherd as canonical ; for, in a passage where, 
notwithstanding corruption of text, the writer s general mean 
ing can be clearly made out, he lays down that this book may 
be read, but not be publicly used, with the Apostles and 
Prophets, whose number is complete, seeing that it was 
written very recently in our own time by Hermas, while his 
brother Pius sat in the chair of the See of Rome. Now, the 
date when Pius was Bishop of Rome is variously given ; those 
who place him latest make him bishop between 142-157 ; so 
the question as to the date of the fragment is, How long after 

prout assequi potuit, ita et a nativitate Johannis incepit dicere. Quarti 
evangeliorum Johannes ex discipulis. Cohortantibus condiscipulis et 
episcopis suis dixit, conjejunate mihi hodie triduum et quid cuique fuerit 
revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andrese 
ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta 
describeret. Et ideo licet varia singulis Evangeliorum libris principia 
doceantur, nihil tamen differt credentium fidei, cum uno ac principal! 
Spiritu declarata sint in omnibus omnia de nativitate, de passione, de 
resurrectione, de conversatione cum discipulis suis ac de gemino ejus ad- 
vento, primum in humilitate despectus, quod fuit, secundum potestate 
regali prseclarum, quod futurum est. Quid ergo minim si Johannes tarn 
constanter singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semetipsum, 
Quae vidimus oculis nostris et auribus audivimus et manus nostrae pal- 
paverunt, hsec scripsimus. Sic enim non solum visorem, sed et auditorem, 
sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium domini per ordinem profitetur. 

Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas 
optime Theophilo comprendit, quia sub prsesentia ejus singula gerebantur, 
sicuti et semote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem 
Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. 

Epistulae autem Pauli, quia, a quo loco, vel qua ex causa directs sint, 
volentibus intellegere ipsse declarant. Primum omnium Corinthiis schisma 
hseresis interdicens, deinceps Galatis circumcisionem, Romanis autem 
ordine scripturarum, sed et principium earum esse Christum intimans, 
prolixius scripsit ; de quibus singulis necesse est a nobis disputari, cum 

E 



50 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. 

could a writer fairly describe this period as nuperrime tem- 
poribus nostris ? It is urged that we cannot well make this 
interval much more than twenty years. I have been accus 
tomed to speak of the definition of the dogma of Papal In 
fallibility at the Vatican Council of 1870 as very recent, and 
as an event of our own time, though I begin to doubt whether 
I can go on much longer with propriety in using such 
language ; but though the definition of the dogma of the 
Immaculate Conception in 1852 is also an event of my own 
time, you would think it strange if I called it very recent, 
seeing that it occurred before most of you were born. It is 
concluded, therefore, that the date of this fragment cannot be 
much later than 170. 

There is, however, great difficulty in finding any writer of 
that date to whom it can be plausibly assigned, especially as 
internal evidence limits us to Rome or Italy as the place of 
composition. This consideration sets aside a very improb 
able guess of the late Baron Bunsen Hegesippus, commonly 
called, but probably incorrectly, the earliest ecclesiastical 
historian. The extracts from his work which have been pre 
served by Eusebius, and by which alone he is now known, 

ipse beatus Apostolus Paulus, sequens prodecessoris sui Johannis ordinem 
nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat ordine tali ; ad Corinthios 
(prima), ad Ephesios (secunda), ad Philippenses (tertia), ad Colossenses 
(quarta), ad Galatas (quinta), ad Thessalonicenses (sexta), ad Romanos 
(septima). Verum Corinthiis et Thessalonicensibus licet pro correptione 
iteretur, una tamen per omnem orbem terrae ecclesia diffusa esse dinoscitur; 
et Johannes enim in Apocalypsi, licet septem ecclesiis scribat, tamen 
omnibus dicit. Verum ad Philemonem unam, et ad Titum unam, et ad 
Timotheum duas, pro affectu et dilectione; in honore tamen ecclesise 
catholicae in ordinatione ecclesiasticae disciplinae sanctificatae sunt. Fertur 
etiam ad Laodicenses, alia ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine finctse ad 
haeresim Marcionis, et alia plura, quas in catholicam ecclesiam recipi non 
potest : fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit. 

Epistula sane Judae et superscript Johannis duas in Catholica habentur ; 
et Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta. 

Apocalypses etiam Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus, quam quidam 
ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt. Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus 
nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae 
Ecclesiae Pio Episcopo fratre ejus ; et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se 
publicare vero in Ecclesia populo, neque inter prophetas, completum 
numero, neque inter apostolos in finem temporum potest. 

Arsinoi autem seu Valentini vel Metiad [ ] nihil in totum recipimus. 
Qui etiam novum psalmorum librum Marcioni conscripserunt, una cum 
Basilide, Assiano Cataphrygum constitutorem . . . 



V.J MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 51 

though historical in their character, are thought by the best 
recent critics more likely to have been taken from a doctrinal 
or controversial book than from a regular history. Hege- 
sippus lived about the right time, but he had no connexion 
with Italy : and besides, since Eusebius tells us that in the 
passages he cites from earlier writers he had particularly in 
view to illustrate the testimony borne by them to the New 
Testament Scriptures (H. E., iii. 3), I count it improbable 
that, if Eusebius had found in Hegesippus so remarkable an 
enumeration of books owned as canonical, he would not have 
made some mention of it. Muratori himself, when he pub 
lished the fragment, conjectured as its author Caius, the 
Roman presbyter ; and there is vastly more to be said for that 
guess than for Bunsen s. Caius was the author of a dialogue 
against the Montanists. The dialogue has been lost, but, 
Eusebius (H. E., vi. 20) tells us that, in rebuking the rashness 
and impudence of the Montanists in composing new Scrip 
tures, he counts only thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, omitting 
that to the Hebrews. Thus it seems certain that this lost 
dialogue contained a list of canonical books, which Caius set 
down, intending by this closed Canon to exclude Montanist 
additions. It is natural to ask, then, May not this Muratorian 
list be the very list of Caius ? Like that, it was drawn up at 
Rome ; and like that also, it only counts thirteen Epistles of 
St. Paul, leaving out the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the 
date has been thought a fatal objection. Caius wrote in the 
episcopate of Zephyrinus we may say about the year 210; 
how, then, could he speak of the year 140 or 150 as very 
recent ? The objection is a serious, but I do not count it a 
fatal one. When a writer is only known to us by a single 
fragment, we have no means of judging of his habitual care 
fulness in the use of language, and so we are not safe in 
considering ourselves bound to put the strictest interpretation 
on his words. Instances have been produced where similar 
expressions have been used about events which happened a 
century or two ago. Everything is comparative. We should 
call Luther and Calvin quite modern writers if anyone im 
agined them to be contemporary with St. Augustine. 
Although, as I said just now, I should not dream, in ordinary 

E 2 



52 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. 

conversation, of describing an event of the year 1852 as quite 
recent ; yet, if I were writing controversially, and contrasting 
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with the articles 
of the Apostles Creed, it would not be in the least unnatural 
if I described the former as a dogma formulated quite re 
cently and in our own time. And I might say this even if 
the promulgation of the doctrine had been fifty years earlier 
than it was. Why, even Pope Pius s Creed, which was made 
some three hundred years ago, is often spoken of as quite new 
when it is put in comparison with the Nicene Creed. Now, 
the object of Caius (as described by Eusebius) and of the 
author of the fragment clearly was controversial ; it was to 
draw a broad line of separation between the inspired writings 
of the Apostolic age and modern additions ; and, therefore, 
we need not press too closely the energetic language with 
which the author of the fragment protests against placing on 
a level in Church reading with the Sacred Scriptures a writing 
that he believed to be no older than Pope Pius I. 

Now a careful examination of the * Shepherd of Hermas 
has quite convinced me that, instead of being a work of the 
middle of the second century, it dates from its very beginning. 
If the Muratorian writer has made a mistake about the date 
of Hermas, it is likely he was not so near a contemporary of 
Pius as people have thought. I have also found reason, on 
investigating the history of Montanism, which clearly is com 
bated in the Muratorian fragment, to think that it did not 
make its appearance in the West until a little after the year 
200. On these and other grounds* I came to the conclusion 
that the fragment is of the same age as the dialogue of Caius ; 
and, then, I did not think I could fairly refuse to accept 
Muratori s hypothesis, although I had myself proposed to as 
cribe the fragment to Caius s contemporary Hippolytus, being 
led to that idea by finding the same note about the authorship 
of the Shepherd in an early list of Roman bishops which I 
believe to be derived from Hippolytus.f Further, the whole 
tone of the fragment is rather didactic than controversial 

* See Smith s Dictionary of Christian Biography, ARTS, MURA 
TORIAN FRAGMENT and MONTANISM. 
t Hermathena, I. 125 (1874). 



V.] MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 53 

rather the lesson of a master to disciples than of a disputant 
with opponents, so that it scarcely seemed likely to have come 
from the dialogue against the Montanists. But though I ac 
cepted the Caius hypothesis for a time, a new difficulty has 
since arisen. Very little had been known of Caius, but Dr. 
Gwynn has lately (Hermathena, 1888), recovered some frag 
ments of his writings which leave no doubt that Caius rejected 
the Apocalypse of St. John, a work accepted in the Muratorian 
fragment. I return, therefore, to my former opinion that 
Hippolytus was probably the author of the work of which this 
fragment formed a part. 

I have frankly told you my own opinion, but you must 
remember this is only my individual notion, and that the re 
ceived doctrine of scholars (orthodox and sceptical alike) is 
that the document is not later than 170 or 180. It is a pity 
that the impossibility of laying before you any view but that 
which, however mistakenly, I believe to be true, obliges me 
both to be guilty of the immodesty of setting myself in oppo 
sition to the received opinion of scholars, and also to forego 
the controversial advantage that arises from accepting the 
date commonly ascribed to the fragment. According to that 
date we gain a witness to our Canon, who, if not many years 
earlier than Irenaeus, would be at least an elder contemporary: 
according to my view, he is but a younger contemporary (for 
both Caius and Hippolytus* are said to have been disciples of 
Irenaeus), and the main value of the fragment is the testimony 
it gives to the wide line of distinction that at that early date 
was drawn between canonical books and the most valued of 
uninspired writings. I shall frequently have occasion to refer 
to this document in the course of these Lectures. At present 
I will merely report the account it gives of the Gospels. 

The fragment begins with a few words which evidently 
are the end of a description of St. Mark s Gospel, for it pro 
ceeds to describe what it calls the third book of the Gospels, 
that by Luke, whom it states to have been a companion of 
Paul, but not to have himself seen our Lord in the flesh, 

* These writers were both leading members of the Church of Rome in 
the first quarter of the third century. It is likely that each may have com 
menced his literary activity before the end of the second. 



54 THE GOSPELS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. 

mention being made that he commenced his history from 
the nativity of John the Baptist. The fourth Gospel it states 
to have been written by St. John on the suggestion of his 
fellow-disciples and bishops (by which, I suppose, is meant 
the other Apostles), whereupon John proposed that they 
should all fast three days, and tell each other whatever 
might be revealed to any, and it was the same night revealed 
to Andrew that, under the revision of all, John should 
in his own name write an account of everything. Wherefore, 
it adds, although the teaching of the separate books be diver 
sified, it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since in 
all, by one guiding Spirit, are declared all things concerning 
our Lord s Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, conversation with 
His disciples, and concerning His double Advent the first 
in humility, which is past ; the second in royal majesty,, 
which is still to come.* Thus full and clear is the testimony 
of the latter half of the second century, not only to the 

* It would be interesting if there were clear evidence that the work from 
which our fragment was taken was read by any ancient author. I 
think it, therefore, worth while to copy the account which St. Jerome, in 
the preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew, gives of the four Gospels, 
because the coincidences with our fragment, which I have marked in Italics, 
seem to me more than accidental. Primus omnium Matthaeus est publi- 
canus, cognomento Levi, qui Evangelium in Judaea Hebraeo sermone edidit : 
ob eorum vel maxime caussam, qui in Jesum crediderant ex Judaeis, et ne- 
quaquam legis umbram, succedente Evangeli veritate servabant. Secundus 
Marcus, interpres Apostoli Petri, et Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus epis- 
copus ; qui Dominum Salvatorem ipse non vidtt, sed ea quae magistrum 
audierat praedicantem, juxta fidem magis gestorum narravit quam ordinem. 
Tertius Lucas medicus, natione Syrus Antiochensis, cujus laus in Evan- 
gelio, qui et ipse discipulus Apostoli Pauli, in Achaiae Bceotiseque partibus 
volumen condidit, quaedam altius repetens : et ut ipse in procemio confitetur 
audita magis quam visa describens. Ultimus Johannes Apostolus et Evan- 
gelista, quern Jesus amavit plurimum; qui supra pectus Domini recumbens, 
purissima doctrinarum fluenta potavit, et qui solus de cruce meruit audire, 
Ecce mater tua. Is quum esset in Asia, et jam tune haereticorum semina 
pullularent, Cerinthi, Ebionis, et caeterorum qui negant Christum in carne 
venisse (quos et ipse in Epistola sua Antichristos vocat, et Apostolus 
Paulus frequenter percutit), coactus est ab omnibus pene tune Asiez episcopis 
et multarum ecclesiarum legationibus de divinitate salvatoris altius scribere ; 
et ad ipsum (ut ita dicam) Dei Verbum, non tarn audaci, quam felici teme- 
ritate prorumpere. Et ecclesiastica narrat historia, quum a fratribus 
cogeretur ut scriberet, ita facturum se respondisse si indicto jejunio omnes 
Deum precarentur, quo expleto, revelatione saturatus, in illud procemium 
ccelo veniens eructavit : In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud 
Deum, et Deus erat Verbum ; Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. 



v.] CAIUS. 55 

genuineness of the four Gospels, but to their inspiration. If 
nothing more could be adduced, it is better evidence than 
that which satisfies us in the case of most classical writers. 

As I have had occasion to mention these two disciples of 
Irenaeus Caius and Hippolytus I have a few words more to 
say about each. In point of antiquity they may be regarded 
as on a level with Clement and Tertullian, though but younger 
contemporaries of Irenaeus. And I may say in passing, that 
the long continuance of a large Greek element in the Roman 
Church is testified by the fact, that although Caius and 
Hippolytus both held office in that Church in the first 
quarter of the third century, all that remains of either is in 
Greek ; and Hippolytus published so many Greek books, 
including some sermons, that I am not without doubts 
whether he could use Latin at all for literary purposes. 

In speaking of Irenaeus, 1 mentioned that he builds an 
argument on the words of a text in St. Matthew s Gospel, in 
such a way as to show that he was a believer in the verbal 
inspiration of the Evangelist : that is to say, that he looked 
on the choice by the Evangelist of one word rather than 
another as a matter to be regarded not as due to the acci 
dental caprice of the human writer, but as directed and over 
ruled by the Holy Spirit. It is plain that anyone who holds 
such an opinion about any book must feel himself bound to 
see that special care shall be used in the transcription of it, 
in order that no copyist may carelessly or wilfully substitute 
words of his own for the words dictated by the Holy Ghost. 
It is notorious with what care the Massoretic text of the Old 
Testament has been preserved by men who thought that a 
mystery might lie in every word, every letter of the sacred 
text. What kind of care was used in the time of Irenaeus we 
may gather from an interesting adjuration which he prefixed 
to a work of his own Whosoever thou art who shalt tran 
scribe this book, I charge thee with an oath by our Lord Jesus 
Christ and by His glorious appearing, in which He cometh to 
judge the quick and dead, that thou carefully compare what 
thou hast transcribed, and correct it according to this copy 
whence thou hast transcribed it ; and that thou transcribe 
this oath in like manner, and place it in thy copy (Euseb., 



56 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. 

H. E., v. 20) We may safely assume that Irenaeus would be 
solicitous that fully as much care and reverence should be 
used in perpetuating the text of the Gospels, which he vene 
rated so highly ; and we may, therefore, regard the end of the 
second -century as a time when a check was being put on the 
licentiousness of scribes in introducing variations into the 
text of the New Testament writings. It is in reference to this 
point that I think it worth while to make a quotation from 
Caius. Eusebius (H. E., v. 28) has preserved some extracts 
from a work directed against the followers of Artemon, who, 
of those calling themselves Christians, was amongst the 
earliest to hold our Blessed Lord to have been mere man. 
Internal evidence shows the work to belong to the beginning 
of the third century, and it has been ascribed both to Caius 
and Hippolytus ; but the greater weight of critical authority, 
and, in my opinion, also far the greater weight of evidence, 
is in favour of the ascription to Caius. The writer pronounces 
the doctrine of our Lord s simple humanity to be in contradic 
tion to the Holy Scriptures ; and it is plain, from the nature 
of the case, that the writings which he thus describes as Holy 
Scriptures, and as teaching the doctrine of our Lord s Divinity, 
must have been Scriptures of the New Testament. But from 
a later part of the same writing, it appears that the subject 
of various readings had, at that early date, given rise to 
controversy. Caius accuses his opponents of having tam 
pered with the Holy Scriptures, of having published what 
they called corrected copies, but which, in his judgment, 
were simply ruined. He appeals to the fact that different 
* correctors did not agree among themselves, and that the 
same man was not always consistent with himself, his later 
text being often at variance with his earlier ; and he adds : * I 
think they can hardly be ignorant themselves what impudent 
audacity their offence involves. For either they do not be 
lieve the Divine Scriptures to have been spoken by the Holy 
Spirit, and then they are nothing but infidels ; or else they 
think that they are wiser than the Holy Spirit, and who could 
entertain such an idea but a demoniac ? We have not the 
means of judging whether the anger of Caius was justly 
roused by perversions of the sacred text, wilfully made in 



V.] HIPPOLYTUS. 57 

order to remove its testimony to our Lord s Divinity, or 
whether he was but the blind champion of aTextus Receptus 
against more learned critical revisers. The important point 
for us to observe is how strongly the doctrine of Scripture 
Inspiration was held at the beginning of the third century ; 
and you will see how well justified I am in thinking it need 
less, in our investigation about the Gospels, to go below the 
age of Irenaeus, the tradition which he handed on to his dis 
ciples being identical with that which the Church has held 
ever since. 

It might seem, then, needless to say anything about Hip- 
polytus, whose literary activity mainly belonged to the first 
quarter of the third century ; and so it would be needless, if 
the question were merely about his own opinions ; but the 
chief value of Hippolytus consists in the information he has 
preserved to us about the sentiments of earlier writers, and 
these, men whose testimony is of high value to us in the 
present investigation, namely, the heretics of the second 
century. 

We are never so secure that a tradition has been trans 
mitted to us correctly as when it comes through different in 
dependent channels. For example, to touch by anticipation 
on subjects on which I shall have to speak at more length in 
other courses of Lectures, the value of a version as a witness 
in any controversy respecting the true text of the sacred 
writings depends on the facts that the version is, for all 
essential purposes, a duplicate of the manuscript from which 
the translation was made, and that the corruptions which the 
two will suffer in the process of transcription are likely to be 
different, since words resembling each other in one language 
will probably not correspond to words easily interchanged in 
the other. Hence things in which the version and copies of 
the original agree may safely be counted to be as old as the 
time when the translation was made. In like manner, if, in 
any investigation as to the liturgical usages of the Eastern 
Church, we find details of Eucharistic celebration common 
to the Catholics, the Nestorian, and the Eutychian sects, we 
may safely reckon these details to be at least as ancient as 
the time when the splitting off of these sects took place ; for 



58 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. 

the simple reason, that it is very unlikely that anything sub 
sequently introduced in one of mutually hostile communities 
would be adopted by the other. Similarly, if we find books 
enjoying the prerogatives of Scripture in orthodox Churches 
and heretical sects alike, we may safely conclude that these 
books had gained their position before the separation of the 
heretical sects in question. A forgery of later date would not 
be likely to be accepted by both alike, and to be treated as 
common ground on which both could argue. 

The work of Hippolytus, which has thrown a great deal of 
light on the Gnostic speculations of the second century, has 
only become known in my own time, having been preserved 
in only a single manuscript, which was brought from Mount 
Athos to Paris, and published for the first time in 1851. The 
title is the Refutation of all Heresies. The method of refu 
tation which Hippolytus principally employed is one which 
is very convenient to us, and probably was quite enough for 
his orthodox readers. It consisted in simply repeating the 
heretics doctrine in their own words, the object being to ex 
hibit its identity with heathen speculations. In this way we 
obtain a knowledge of several heretical writings, of which, 
except through this book of Hippolytus, we should not have 
heard. Now common to all these writings is the copious use 
as authoritative of our four Gospels, and in particular of that 
Gospel whose date has been brought down lowest, the Gospel 
according to St. John. We do not gain much by these cita 
tions when the heretics quoted are only known to us by the 
extracts given by Hippolytus ; for then it is open to any ob 
jector to say, Oh ! perhaps these writers were contemporary 
with Hippolytus himself, or very little older. Who can assure 
us that the heretical documents dragged to light by Hippo 
lytus had been in circulation for a dozen years before he ex 
posed them ? But the heretics from whose works Hippolytus 
gives extracts are not all of them unknown persons. I name 
in particular Basilides and Valentinus, who hold a prominent 
place in the lists of everyone who has written about the 
heretics of the second century. Basilides taught in the reign 
of Hadrian let us say about the year 130 and Valentinus 
taught in Rome between the years 140 and 150. In fact, 



V.] HIPPOLYTUS. 59 

both these schools of heretics are mentioned by Justin 
Martyr, so that they clearly belong to the first half of the 
second century, and chronologically come before Justin 
Martyr, of whom I had proposed next to speak. Now in 
the extracts given by Hippolytus purporting to be from 
Basilides and Valentinus, each of these writers not only 
quotes from Paul s Epistles (including that to the Ephesians, 
one doubted by Renan, who accepts all the rest, except the 
Pastoral Epistles), but each also makes use of the Gospels, in 
particular of the Gospel according to St. John. I may say in 
passing, that though the fourth Gospel is that which is most 
assailed by sceptical writers, yet as far as external evidence 
is concerned, if there be any difference between this Gospel 
and the others, the difference is in its favour that is to say, 
I think there is even greater weight of external attestation to 
this than to the rest. And the use made of St. John s Gospel 
by all the heretics of the second century is no small argument 
in favour of its early date. The answer made by sceptical 
writers to these quotations in Hippolytus is, Can you be sure 
that the Valentinian and Basilidian works from which Hippo 
lytus quotes were really w r ritten by the heresiarchs themselves ? 
Is it not possible that, when he professes to describe the 
opinions of Valentinus or Basilides, he is drawing his infor 
mation from the work of some disciple of each of these sects 
who lived nearer his own time, the ^r/o-i with which Hippo 
lytus introduces the quotations being merely intended to 
have the effect of inverted commas in an English book, and 
not to be pressed to mean that Valentinus himself is the 
speaker ? If I were to deal with this answer in a contro 
versial spirit I might describe it as a quite gratuitous as 
sumption, and a mere evasion to escape a difficulty, to 
imagine that Hippolytus can mean anything but what he 
says, or to suppose that words which he distinctly states are 
those of Valentinus are to be understood as spoken by some 
body else. But I should be sorry to press any argument the 
least degree further than in my own heart I considered it 
would justly bear ; and when I ask myself whether I can say 
that I regard Hippolytus as incapable of the laxity here im 
puted to him, I cannot say that I do. I do not think highly 



60 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. 

of his critical acumen, and I cannot pronounce it impossible 
that he may have erroneously accepted or described a Valen- 
tinian book as the work of Valentinus himself. I therefore 
do not insist on the admission that the heretical works cited 
are as old as the words of Hippolytus, literally understood, 
would make them out to be ; and for my purpose I can be 
quite satisfied with the incontrovertible fact that, in the time 
of Hippolytus, there was no controversy between the Valen- 
tinians and the orthodox as to their New Testament Canon, 
and in particular that the Gospel of John was alike venerated 
by both parties. 

This is a fact which we can abundantly establish by other 
evidence. The whole vocabulary of the system of Valentinus 
is founded on the prologue to St. John s Gospel. The system 
of Yalentinus uses as technical words, /xovoyev^s, <o?7, dA^em, 
Xapis, 7rA?7peo//,a, Xoyos, <wg. It is quite impossible to invert 
the order, and to suppose these words first to have been the 
key-words of a heretical system, and then to have been bor 
rowed by someone desirous to pass himself off as St. John, 
or to suppose that in such a case the Gospel could ever have 
found acceptance in the Church. You might as well conceive 
someone who wanted a document to be accepted as authori 
tative by us Protestants, stuffing it with Roman Catholic 
technical words Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and such 
like. Putting in such words would clearly show any Protes 
tant that the document emanated from a hostile body ; and 
so, in like manner, if the theory of Valentinus had been pro 
mulgated before the publication of the fourth Gospel, the 
vocabulary of the prologue to that Gospel would have ex 
cluded it from Catholic use. There is abundance of other 
evidence that Catholics and Valentinians were agreed as to 
the reverence paid to this Gospel. Tertullian contrasts the 
methods of dealing with the New Testament pursued by 
Marcion, of whom I shall speak a little later, and by Valen 
tinus. Marcion mutilated his New Testament, rejecting all 
parts of it which he could not reconcile with his theories ; but 
Valentinus, as Tertullian says, integro instrumento uti vide- 
tur (De Pmscrip. 38); that is to say, he did not reject the 
Gospels accepted by the Catholic Church, but he strove by 



V.] THE VALENTINIANS. 6 1 

artificial interpretation to make them teach his peculiar doc 
trine. How true this statement is we have extant evidence. , 
The earliest commentary on a New Testament book of which)] 
we have any knowledge is by a heretic that by the Valen-n 
tinian Heracleon on St. John. It is known to us through the! 
use made of it by Origen, who, when commenting on the 
same book, quotes Heracleon some fifty times, sometimes 
agreeing with him, but more usually controverting him. We 
have thus a very minute knowledge of Heracleon s commen 
tary on at least four or five chapters of St. John. And this 
characteristic prevails throughout, that the strongest believer 
in verbal inspiration at the present day could not dwell with 
more minuteness on the language of St. John, or draw more 
mysteries from what might seem the accidental use of one 
expression rather than another. 

There is controversy as to the date of Heracleon. All we 
know with certainty is, that he must have been earlier than 
Clement of Alexandria, who quotes him twice (Strom, iv. 9; 
Eclog. ex Scrip. Proph. 25). Sceptical writers make Heracleon 
as little earlier than Clement as they can help, and say his 
commentary may have been as late as 180. Orthodox writers 
would give it thirty or forty years greater antiquity. For my , 
part, I think it makes little difference as far as the question 
of the antiquity of St. John s Gospel is concerned. Heracleon 
was a Valentinian, and it appears that in his time the autho 
rity, and I think we may say the inspiration, of John s Gospel 
was common ground to the Valentinians and the Catholics, 
How could that be possible, if it had not been acknowledged 
before the Valentinians separated from the orthodox? If 
the book had been written, subsequently to the separation, 
by a Valentinian, the orthodox would not have received 
it ; if by a Catholic the Valentinians would not have re 
ceived it. If it had been of unknown parentage, it is in 
credible that both communities should have accepted it as 
Apostolic. 

What has been said about Valentinus may be repeated 
about Basilides. Hippolytus produces an extract in which 
the words of St. John s Gospel are twice quoted (vii. 22, 27), 
and which he says, as plain as words can do it, is taken from 



62 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. 

a writing of Basilides.* 1 Admit that Hippolytus was either 
misinformed on this point, or through inaccuracy said what 
he did not mean to say, it still remains that the extract was 
written by at least a disciple of Basilides. It follows that 
Basilidians and orthodox agreed in their reverence for St. 
John s Gospel ; and it follows, then, by the same argument 
which I have used already, that St. John s Gospel must have 
gained its authority before Basilides separated from the 
Church that is to say, at least before 130. This evidence 
for the antiquity of St. John is an argument a fortiori for the 
antiquity of the other Gospels, which all admit to be earlier. 

I may here mention the only point of any consequence on 
which a difference is attempted to be made between the testi 
mony to the fourth Gospel and to the others, viz. that though 
Papias, of whom I will speak presently, names Matthew and 
Mark as the authors of Gospels, and though there are early 
anonymous quotations of John s Gospel, the first to mention 
John by name as its author is Theophilus, who was bishop of 
Antioch about 170 (adAutol., ii. 22). But this point is of very 
small worth ; for not to say that the argument might be used 
equally against Luke s Gospel, the authorship of which is not 
seriously contested, there cannot be a doubt that any evidence 
which proves the antiquity of John s Gospel proves also its 
authorship. In other words, it is plain from the work itself 
that whoever composed it intended it to be received as ema 
nating from the beloved disciple ; and we cannot doubt that it 
was as such it was received by those who did accept it. Let 
me call your attention to the singular fact, that the name of 
the Apostle John is never mentioned in St. John s Gospel. 
If you had only that Gospel, you would never know that there 
was an Apostle of the name. The other Gospels, when they 
speak of the forerunner of our Lord, always give him the title 
of the Baptist, so as to prevent confusion between the two 

* Wesrcott New Testament Canon, p. 288) gives strong reasons for 
believing the extract to be from a work of Basilides himself. So also 
Hort, Dictionary of Christian Biography, I. 271. The same view is 
taken by Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible, p. 268, quoted by Dr. 
Ezra Abbot (Authorship of Fourth Gospel, p. 86). But since there is 
room for doubt, I use an argument which does not assume the Basilidian 
authorship. 



VI.] THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 63 

Johns. This Gospel speaks of him simply as John, so that a 
reader not otherwise informed would never have it suggested 
to him that there was another of the name. This fact is 
worth attention in connexion with what I shall have here 
after to say on the omissions of the Gospel, and on the ques 
tion whether John is to be supposed ignorant of everything 
he does not record in his Gospel. I shall contend, on the 
contrary, that the things which John omits are things so very 
well known that he could safely assume his readers to be 
acquainted with them. It certainly is so in this instance ; for 
no one disputes that, if the writer were not the Apostle John, 
he was someone who wished to pass for him. But a forger 
would be likely to have made some more distinct mention of 
the person who played the principal part in his scheme ; and 
he certainly could scarcely have hit on such a note of genuine 
ness as that, whereas almost everyone in the Church had felt 
the necessity of distinguishing by some special name John 
the forerunner from John the Apostle, there was one person 
who would feel no such necessity, and who would not form 
this habit namely, the Apostle himself. 



VI. 

PART III. 

THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 
JUSTIN MARTYR TATIAN. 

It may now be regarded as proved, that towards the end of 
the second century our four Gospels were universally accepted 
in the Catholic Church as the peculiarly trustworthy records 
of the Saviour s life, and that they were then ascribed to the 
same authors as those to whom we now ascribe them. Why, 
then, are we not to accept this testimony ? Is it because of 
any opposing evidence, external or internal ? Postponing for 
a moment the question of internal evidence, opposing ex 
ternal evidence there is none. All that can be said is, The 



64 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. 

evidence you have produced bears date a hundred years later 
than the books ; we desire to have earlier testimony. Now, 
to take the case of a classical author, the testimony to whom 
bears some faint comparison with that to the Gospels ; the 
plays of Terence are quoted by Cicero and Horace, and we 
require neither more nor earlier witnesses. No one objects : 
Cicero and Horace wrote a hundred years after Terence ; 
what earlier witnesses can you produce to account for the 
intervening time ? In the case of the Gospels, however, we 
can meet what I account an unreasonable demand. I began 
with the end of the second century, because then first the 
Christian literature of the period is so abundant as to leave 
no room for controversy as to the Gospels accepted by that 
age. We can, however, go back a couple of generations 
and remain on ground which cannot reasonably be con 
tested. 

The Apology of Justin Martyr was written about A.D. 150. 
That is the date Justin himself gives (ApoL, i. 46) ; and though, 
no doubt, it is only a round number, it is as near the truth 
as we can go. The Apology is addressed to the Emperor 
Antoninus, who reigned from 138-161, and it twice (cc. 29, 31) 
speaks of events in the preceding reign (Hadrian s) as having 
happened just now. Hence, some place the Apology in the 
very beginning of the reign of Antoninus. Eusebius dates it 
141. Dr. Hort, in one of his earliest writings,* tried to prove 
that Justin died in 148. He did not convince me that there is 
evidence to justify any positive assertion about the matter ; 
but in placing the Apology in 150, about the middle of the 
reign of Antoninus, we are sure that we cannot be very far 
wrong either way. 

There has been a good deal of dispute about Justin s New 
Testament citations ; but, as far as the judgment of candid 
men is concerned, the question may now be regarded as 
settled. The result of very long discussions and of a good 

* Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, iii. 155. 1856. On the 
other hand, if we can rely on the genuineness of the Acts of Justin s 
martyrdom, he was condemned by Rusticus ; and Borghesi, Outrages, 
viii. 545, has made out a probable case that Rusticus was praefectus 
urbi between 163 and 167. 



VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 65 

deal of fighting has been to leave us where we had been. 
Any ordinary reader would have no doubt that Justin s 
works contain copious quotations from our Gospels ; and 
the objections to accepting this conclusion made by those 
who professed to have gone closely into the matter have 
been dissipated by still closer examination. In his refe 
rences to the events of our Lord s life, Justin goes over all) 
the ground covered by our Evangelists, and almost com 
pletely abstains from going beyond it. He informs us also 
that he drew from written sources the accounts which he 
gives of our Lord s life. It is true, and our adversaries make 
the most of it, that he does not mention the names of the 
authors of these records. But the reason is, that he is ad 
dressing heathen who would not be interested in knowing 
the names of the Christian writers quoted ; and he purposely 
avoids using Christian technical language. Thus, when he 
describes the Christian meetings for worship on the Lord s 
day, he says that they take place on the day which is called 
the day of the sun ; and again, he calls the Jews bar 
barians. And so now he tells his heathen readers that 
he is quoting from memoirs of our Lord which are called 
* Gospels, and which were composed by the Apostles and 
by those who followed them. Observe how accurately this! 
agrees with our present Gospels two being composed by) 
Apostles, two by their immediate followers. 

Justin adds that these memoirs were read along with the 
writings of the prophets at the meetings of Christians on each 
Sunday. Now, is it credible that the Gospels which Justin 
attests to have been placed by the Christian Church in equal 
rank with the prophets of the Old Testament, and to have 
been weekly read in their public assemblies, could be different 
from those Gospels which were confessedly a few years after 
wards exclusively recognized through the Christian world ? 
Here comes in with great force the reflex action, to which I 
have already referred, of the testimony of Irenaeus. In his 
time our four Gospels were in such long-established honour, 
that it is certain they must have had the same rank at least 
one generation earlier. In Justin s time, some Gospels were 
in such honour as to be placed on a level in Church use with 

F 



66 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. 

the Old Testament Scriptures. We never hear of any revolution 
dethroning one set of Gospels and replacing them by another ; 
and we may therefore conclude with tolerable certainty that 
the Gospels honoured by the Church in Justin s day were the 
same as those to which the same respect was paid in the days 
of Irenaeus, some twenty or thirty years later. 

The only plausible ground on which this has been con 
tested is that Justin s citations frequently do not verbally 
correspond with our Gospels. Many of the differences that 
have been pointed out are trivial enough, as an example will 
enable you to judge. In order to show how pure was the 
morality taught by our Lord, Justin devotes three consecu 
tive chapters to quoting his precepts. No other idea than 
that Justin was quoting our Gospels would occur to anyone 
whose acuteness had not been sharpened by the exigencies 
of controversy. For instance, He said, "Give to him that 
asketh, and from him that would borrow turn not away ; for 
if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive what new 
thing do ye ? Even the publicans do this. Lay not up for 
yourselves treasure upon earth, where moth and rust doth 
corrupt, and where robbers break through ; but lay up for 
yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust 
doth corrupt. For what is a man profited if he shall gain 
the whole world and lose his own soul ? or what shall a man 
give in exchange for it ? Lay up treasure, therefore, in 
heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt." And, 
i " Be ye kind and merciful, as your Father also is kind and 
merciful, and maketh His sun to rise on sinners, and the 
righteous and the wicked. Take no thought what ye shall 
eat or what ye shall put on ; are ye not better than the birds 
and the beasts ? and God feedeth them. Take no thought, 
therefore, what ye shall eat or what ye shall put on ; for your 
heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. 
But seek ye the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall 
\be added to you. For where his treasure is, there also is the 
mind of a man." And, " Do not these things to be seen of 
men, otherwise ye have no reward from your Father which is 
in heaven." I need not pursue the quotation. I have read 
enough to enable you to understand the general character of 



VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 67 

Justin s quotations. You will at once have recognized the 
words I read. If I ask you whence are they taken, you may 
perhaps reply, From the Sermon on the Mount. But if I go 
on to ask : Do you mean from the discourse recorded by St. 
Matthew, or from a parallel passage in St. Luke ? you examine 
more minutely, and perhaps you find that Justin s version 
does not verbally agree with one or other. Then comes the 
question : How do you know that Justin is quoting either : 
May he not be taking his account from some other Gospel 
now lost, which contained a record of the same discourses ? 
As far as the evidences of our religion are concerned, it 
makes no difference whether or not the hypothesis of a lost 
Gospel be true. It is no part of our faith to hold the doctrine 
of Irenseus, that it was in the nature of things impossible 
there should be more than four Gospels. We want to know 
what was the story concerning Jesus of Nazareth, in attes 
tation of which the first preachers of Christianity were con 
tent to suffer hardships, and if need be to give their lives ; and* 
to give us that information the Gospel used by Justin, what 
ever it was, answers our purpose as well as any Gospel we have. 
It might be uncomfortable to our feelings to believe that 
Christian writers for the first century and a half used a dif 
ferent Gospel from ours, and that the Church, A.D. 170, for 
some unaccountable reason, thought proper to bury its 
ancient text-book in oblivion, and set up our four Gospels in 
its room. But what would scepticism have gained, when it 
is also proved that this lost Gospel must have been as like to 
our present Gospels as the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. 
Mark are to each other ?* Substantially the same facts are 
related in all, and told in the same way. 

I will just take the account of our Lord s infancy, the sub 
ject above all others on which the apocryphal Gospels after 
wards ran wild, and you will see that Justin follows throughout 
the narrative of our existing Evangelists. He does not appear 
to have known anything more than they knew, and he tells, 
without doubt, what they have related. I give a summary in 



* This idea has been worked out by Mr. Sadler in his book called The 
Lost Gospel. 

F2 



68 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. 

Westcott s words (New Testament Canon, p. 101): He 
tells us that Christ was descended from Abraham through 
Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David that the angel 
Gabriel was sent to announce His birth to the Virgin Mary 
that this was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah (vii. 14) 
that Joseph was forbidden in a vision to put away his 
espoused wife when he was so minded that our Saviour s 
birth at Bethlehem had been foretold by Micah that His 
parents went thither from Nazareth, where they dwelt, in 
consequence of the enrolment of Cyrenius that as they could 
not find a lodging in the village, they lodged in a cave close 
by it, where Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a manger 
that while there, wise men from Arabia, guided by a star, 
worshipped Him, and offered Him gold, and frankincense, 
and myrrh, and by revelation were commanded not to return 
to Herod, to whom they had first come that He was called 
Jesus, as the Saviour of His people that by the command of 
God His parents fled with Him to Egypt for fear of Herod, 
and remained there till Archelaus succeeded him that Herod, 
being deceived by the wise men, commanded the children of 
Bethlehem to be put to death, so that the prophecy of Jere 
miah was fulfilled, who spoke of Rachel weeping for her 
children that Jesus grew after the common manner of men, 
working as a carpenter, and so waited thirty years, more or 
less, till the coming of John the Baptist. I need not continue 
Justin s account of our Saviour s life. This specimen of his 
account of that part of it where, if anywhere, a difference 
from the canonical Gospels would be likely to be found, is 
enough to show that the Gospel used by Justin told substan 
tially the same story as that related in the Gospels we have, 
and that, as far as controversy with unbelievers is concerned, 
it is quite immaterial which Gospel is appealed to. 

There remains the purely literary question, Is there reason 

to believe in the existence of this alleged lost Gospel ? Entia 

non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, and the question 

II is, Are we put under a necessity of postulating the existence 

I of a Gospel which has disappeared, by reason of verbal differ- 

jj ences forbidding us to find in our present Gospels the source 

V of Justin s quotations ? An answer to this question has been 



VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 69 

provided by a study of Justin s quotations from the Old Tes 
tament, which enables us to know what degree of accuracy is 
to be expected from him. In that case we know what he 
means to quote, and we find him quoting loosely and inaccu 
rately, and quoting the same passage differently different 
times.* When we think it strange that an ancient father of 
Justin s date should not quote with perfect accuracy, we for-| 
get that in those days, when manuscripts were scarce, and 
when concordances did not exist, the process of finding a 
passage in a manuscript (written possibly with no spaces 
between the words), and copying it, was not performed with 
quite as much ease as an English clergyman, writing his 
sermon with his Bible at his side, can turn up any text he 
wishes to refer to; and yet I should be sorry to vouch for 
the verbal accuracy of all the Scripture citations we hear in 
sermons at the present day. The excuse for such inaccuracy 
at present is one which Justin, too, may have pleaded that 
exactly in proportion to a man s familiarity with a book is 
his disposition to trust his memory, and not verify a reference 
to it. And the applicability of this remark is confirmed by 
the fact that there is very much less accuracy in Justin s short 
quotations, which would be made from memory, than in his 
long ones, where it would be worth while or necessary for 
him to turn to the book. 

On the whole, then, the general coincidence, in range and 
contents, of Justin s quotations with our Gospels is enough 
to show that they are the sources whence Justin drew his 

* See a table of Justin s Old Testament quotations given by Westcott 
(New Testament Canon, p. 172). Dr. Sanday, in his Gospels in the 
Second Century, has shown that no greater exactness of quotation is 
found when we study the quotations of the Old Testament in the New, or 
in the Apostolic Fathers, or the quotations of the New Testament by 
Irenseus. I find in an unpublished Paper by the late Bishop Fitz Gerald 
an apposite quotation from the preface to Pearce s Longinus : Neque 
enim aut Longino aut aliis priorum saeculorum scriptoribus videtur usi- 
tatum fuisse accurate fideque satis verba citare. Imo nusquam si bene 
memini, Longinus per totum suum Commentarium cujusvis auctoris locum 
iisdem verbis (modo pluribus quam duobus aut tribus consisteret) exhibuit ; 
nee aliter ab aliis scriptoribus factum video. Si enim sensum auctoris et 
praecipua citatae sententiae verba ob oculos lectoris ponerent, de caeteris 
minus soliciti fuere. Accurata haec citandi diligentia, qua hodie utimur, 
-quaeque laudabilis sane est, frustra in veteribus quaerenda est. Praef. in 
Longinum, p. xix., ed. 1732. 



70 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. 

information. I will give for each of the Gospels one speci 
men of a multitude of proofs. In relating the murder of the 
innocents at Bethlehem, he quotes Jeremiah s prophecy of 
Rachel weeping for her children, and that in a form agreeing 
with St. Matthew and differing from the Septuagint. Hence, 
even if we had no other proof, we could infer that he used 
St. Matthew s Gospel. Mark has so little that is not in St. 
Matthew or St. Luke that it might be thought difficult to 
identify anonymous citations with his Gospel. Yet Justin s 
quotations from the Gospels are so numerous, that besides 
some very probable references to Mark, they touch on one 
point certainly peculiar to him, namely, that Jesus gave to 
the sons of Zebedee the name of Boanerges. St. Mark alone 
has preserved to us this and some other Aramaic words used 
by our Saviour, as Corban, Ephphatha, Abba, Talitha Cumi. 
St. Luke is, no doubt, Justin s authority for stating that the 
visit of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem was occasioned by 
the taxing under Cyrenius. And I may add that Justin even 
helps us in the case of disputed readings in St. Luke, for he 
has a reference to our Lord s bloody sweat, which gives an 
important attestation to the verses, Luke xxii. 43, 44, which 
are wanting in the Vatican and Alexandrian MSS., but found 
in the Sinaitic as well as in almost all other MSS. As I have 
mentioned the subject of various readings, I may add that if 
it could be proved that Justin never trusted his memory, but 
always literally copied the Gospel he was using a thing that 
cannot be proved, for he sometimes quotes the same passage 
differently it still would not follow that he was using a 
different Gospel from ours. It might only be that his copy 
of Matthew or Luke had readings different from our received 
text. I will not anticipate what belongs to another branch of 
our subject by entering into the proofs of the early existence 
of various readings. Suffice it to say that this is a point which 
has to be attended to by any careful critic of Justin s quota 
tions. That Justin used the three Synoptic Gospels may be 
regarded as now accepted by the common consent of candid 
critics : being as freely acknowledged by Hilgenfeld* in Ger- 

* Professor of Theology at Jena, one of the ablest living representatives 
of the school of criticism founded by Baur. 



VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 7 1 

many as by Lightfoot or Westcott in England. Justin s varia 
tions, then, from our text of these Gospels may be divided 
into three classes. The greater number are quite sufficiently 
accounted for by the ordinary looseness of memoriter citations ; 
a few demand the attention of the textual critic as suggesting 
the possible existence of a various reading in Justin s manu 
script ; and lastly, a few more suggest the possibility that, in 
addition to our Gospels, Justin may have used an extra- 
Canonical Gospel. For example, in the abstract I read of 
Justin s account of our Lord s childhood, you may perhaps 
have noticed that he says that the Magi came from Arabia. 
Now, St. Matthew only says that they came from the East ; 
and the question arises, Did Justin draw this localization 
from a written source, or was he merely expressing the view 
in his time popularly held as to what St. Matthew meant by 
the East ? A similar question arises as to the statement that 
Joseph and Mary, when they could find no room in the inn, 
lodged in a cave. It seems to me very possible that Justin 
was here drawing from no written source, but that, being a 
native of Palestine, he described what the received tradition 
of his time accepted as the scene of our Lord s birth. Justin s 
additions to our evangelic narrative are exceedingly few and 
unimportant ; but there is no reason why we should not 
admit, as a possible account of them, that our Gospels were 
not the only written documents with which Justin was ac 
quainted. But I do not think it possible that any such 
document could be raised to the level of our four Gospels, 
even if it had the benefit of far more distinct recognition by 
Justin than it can actually claim. 

I have said that Justin s use of the Synoptic Gospels is 
now pretty generally admitted; but there is still a good deal 
of unwillingness to acknowledge his use of St. John s. That 
Gospel deals less in history than do the first three Gospels ; 
and so there are fewer incidents mentioned by Justin which 
we can clearly prove to be taken from St. John, while the 
discourses of that Gospel present little that is suitable for 
quotation in discussion with unbelievers. Yet there are coinci 
dences enough to establish satisfactorily Justin s acquaintance 
with the fourth Gospel, there being scarcely a chapter of it 



72 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [VI. 

of which some trace may not be found in his works.* But 
what weighs with me far more is, that the whole doctrinal 
system of Justin, and in particular his conception of our Lord 
as the eternal Logos, presupposes St. John to such an extent, 
that anyone who does not acknowledge it is, in my judgment, 
either a poor critic or an uncandid controversialist. The 
name Logos is habitually used by Justin, occurring more 
than twenty times. His doctrine is, that this Logos existed 
before all creation, dwelling with the Father ;f that He was 
God;J that by Him all things were made; that this pre- 
existent Word took form and became man, and was called 
Jesus Christ (Apol. i. 5, 63 ; Dial. 48) ; and that He was the 
only-begotten || of the Father. 

* See an Article by Thoma in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftl. 
Theologie for 1875. Thoma does not discuss Justin s knowledge of the 
Synoptic Gospels, regarding this as having passed out of the reign of con 
troversy; but he takes St. John, chapter by chapter, exhibiting for each 
the trace it has left in Justin s works : the result being to show that Justin 
is completely saturated with that Gospel. Thoma is less successful in 
establishing a special theory of his own, namely, that Justin, though 
acquainted with the fourth Gospel, did not regard it as of equal authority 
with the others, or number it among the Memoirs of the Apostles, 
which were read in the Christian public worship. For this he has no 
proof but the very precarious argument ex silentio, that Justin does not 
make as much use of the fourth Gospel as Thoma thinks he would have 
made if he owned its authority. Dr. Ezra Abbot, a Unitarian, Professor 
in Harvard University, has dealt well with this argument in his Authorship 
of the Fourth Gospel, p. 63. He shows that Justin, writing to unbelievers, 
cannot be expected to make the use of New Testament writings he would 
have made if addressing men who owned their authority ; that he actually 
uses them more than do other apologists ; that he does not offer proofs 
from the Apocalypse, though he confessedly accepted it as an inspired 
prophecy; and Dr. Abbot adds some instances from modern writers 
of surprising neglect to use an argument or recognize a fact which we 
should have confidently expected them to use or recognize. Dr. Abbot, 
who was one of the most learned of American Theologians, died in 1885. 

1" <5 Se vihs efceij/ou, 6 /j.6i/os \ty6/mevos Kvpiws vl6s, 6 \6yos irpb TUV irotrj- 
Kal ffvvtav KO.\ ytvv&iJ.svos, ore rrjv apxty 8t avrov irtivTa. e/CTt(Te Kal 
. ApoL ii. 6. 

Trp"h iravTiav rfav Krifffjiarfav 6 &ebs yeyevvrjKe Svvaftiv Tij/a e 
eai/Tov XoyiKTjv, TJTJS Kal 8cJ|a Kvpiov inrb rov jrvevfj.a. ros rov ayiov KaXe?T<U, 
iroTe 5e vlbs, Trore 5e ffocpia, Trore 5e &yyz\os, Trore Se 0ebs, TTOTC Se Kvpios Kal 
\6yos. Dial. 61. 

7rp& Ttavrcav TU>V TronjfjLaTcav ffvvriv Ty Trarpi. Dial. 62. 

+ ourbs S>v OVTOS 6 debs airb rov Trarpbs TGOV oXtav yevvrjOeis. Dial. 6 1 ; 
see also Apol.i. 63; Dial. 56, 58, 126, 128. 

Share Xoycf Qtov . . . yeyevfjadai rbv irdvra K6ffp.ov. Apol. i. 5 2 > see 
also c. 64, and Apol. ii. 6. 

|| fji.ovoyfvrjs i\v ry trarpl TWV S\cov. Dial. 105. 



VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 73 

I have by no means enumerated all the coincidences be 
tween the teaching of Justin and the prologue of St. John ; 
but that there is very striking agreement you cannot have 
failed to see. We ask, is there any reason for rejecting the 
simple account of this agreement, that Justin was a disciple 
of St. John : not indeed by personal companionship, but by 
study of his Gospel, which we have good independent reason 
to think must have been current at the time, and which Jus 
tin could hardly have helped knowing ? And it deserves to 
be borne in mind that Justin seems to have learned his 
Christianity at Ephesus (Euseb., H. E. iv. 18), which is 
generally allowed to have been the birthplace of the fourth 
Gospel. When we have to speak of the agreement between 
Justin and the Synoptic Evangelists as to the incidents of our 
Saviour s life on earth, it is now felt to be a gratuitous and 
unreasonable assumption to imagine that Justin drew his 
account not from our Synoptics, but from a lost Gospel 
-coincident with them in a multitude of particulars. Have, 
we any stronger justification for imagining a lost spiritual) 
Gospel identical with St. John s in respect of its teaching as : 
to the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord ? Not that; 
these doctrines are peculiar to St. John : they are taught 
as distinctly by St. Paul (see in particular Col. i.) ; but what 
may be regarded as special to St. John is the use of the word 
Logos, to denote the pre-existent Saviour. This name is not 
found in any of the New Testament writings but the Johan- 
nine,* nor does John represent our Lord as ever calling him 
self by it. If we ask from what other source but St. John the} 
name could have been derived by Justin, we are referred to 
the writings of the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who speaks fre 
quently of the Divine Word, though there has been much 
controversy whether he means to ascribe to Him a distinct 
personality, or merely uses personifying language about the 
Divine attribute of Wisdom. Nothing forbids us to believe 
that the speculations of Philo may have been known to St.. 
John.f We have in fact a connecting-link in the Alexandrian 

* It is not certain whetherHeb. iv. 12 is an exception to what is here stated, 
t Philo was teaching in Alexandria in our Lord s lifetime, so there is 
no chronological difficulty. 



74 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. |_VI. 

Jew Apollos, who taught in Ephesus. It would be quite in 
the spirit in which Paul dealt with the Grecian philosophers 
at Athens if John, when not professing to record the words of 
Jesus, but speaking in his own person, presented Christianity 
to those whose training had been Alexandrian, by acknow 
ledging and accepting all that was true in the Philonic specu 
lations about the Divine Logos, but went on to tell of what 
Philo had not dreamed, that the Word became flesh, and 
dwelt among us. Now what we find in Justin is not the 
. Philonic but the Johannine doctrine of the Logos, the doc 
trine of the Logos incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.. 
If before Justin s time anyone but the fourth Evangelist had 
presented in this form his doctrine concerning our Lord, how 
is it that all memory of it has perished ?* 

Let me next say something of Justin s mode of presenting 
another Christian doctrine, that of Baptism. Justin s name 
for the rite is * regeneration. Speaking of new converts, he 
says (Apol. i. 61): They are brought by us where there is 
water, and are regenerated in the same manner that we our 
selves were regenerated. For they then receive the washing 
of water in the name of God the Father and Lord of the 
Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy 
Spirit. For Christ also said, " Except ye be born again, ye 
shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Now that it is im 
possible for those who have been once born to enter into 

* The relations between the Logos doctrine of Justin and that of Philo 
and of St. John have been carefully investigated by a very able and learned 
Unitarian, Dr. James Drummond, Principal of Manchester New College, 
London, in a Paper published by him in the Theological Review, April, 
1877. In connexion with this may be read a Lecture on Philo, published 
by him in the same year, and since enlarged into a treatise in two 
volumes, 1888. Dr. Drummond conclusively establishes the depen 
dence of Justin s doctrine on St. John s, of which internal evidence 
shows it to be a later development. Not only is every point in the 
Johannine doctrine contained in Justin s, but almost every portion of it is 
presented with amplifications ; its ambiguous statements are resolved into 
the requisite number of definite propositions, and questions which it sug 
gests, and does not answer, are dogmatically settled. The same Paper 
contains an excellent enumeration of verbal coincidences between Justin 
and the fourth Gospel. Of these, one which Dr. Drummond has himself 
added to the list of those previously observed has special interest for me, 
on account of its turning on an interpretation of John xix. 13, which many 
years ago I had been in the habit of hearing maintained by Archbishop 
Whately. He held that, in the phrase ea0t(rej> fvl ^TJ^CCTOS, the verb 



VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 75 

their mothers wombs is manifest to all. I am sure it is 
equally manifest to all that there is here striking coincidence, 
with the discourse with Nicodemus recorded by St. John. 

Now let me add a word as to the cumulative effect of 
Justin s doctrinal agreements with St. John, and his verbal 
agreements of which this is a specimen. His doctrine is in 
perfect harmony with St. John, and we are puzzled to say from 
what other source he could have derived it. There are also a 
number of verbal echoes of St. John, not indeed exact, but 
very closely reproducing him. If Justin used St. John, every 
thing is explained : you may try to find some hypothesis 
which will account for one sort of agreements, and some 
hypothesis which will account for the other ; but how violent 
the improbability that both hypotheses shall be true. In the 
present case, when we ask where Justin found these words of 
Christ, Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the 
kingdom of heaven, we are inclined to laugh at the special 
pleading which answers us, Surely not in St. John. Justin 
says, except ye be born again ; St. John, except a man be 
born again. Justin says, the kingdom of heaven ; St. John, 
the kingdom of God. * And we are referred, as the more 
probable original of Justin s quotation, to St. Matthew 
(xviii. 3), Except ye become as little children ye shall not 
enter the kingdom of heaven. But what, then, about the 
following sentence as to the impossibility of again entering 



to be understood transitively, as in I Cor. vi. 4 ; Eph. i. 20. 
Then the translation would run : Pilate brought Jesus forth, seated him 
on the judgment-seat, . . . and saith unto the Jews, Behold your 
King. That is to say, Pilate in presenting Jesus to the Jews as their 
King, seats Him, with mock reverence, in his own judgment-seat. Now 
Dr. Drummond points out that Justin (Apol. i. 35), has Siaffvpovres avrbv 
fKaOiffav firl ^rj^aros Kal elTrov, Kptvov yfjuv. Except for the change of the 
singular into the plural, Justin s phrase is identical with St. John s. It 
seems a reasonable inference that Justin read the verse in St. John, and 
that he there understood the verb transitively. 

* Dr. Ezra Abbot shows that Justin has the company of several sub 
sequent Fathers in every one of his variations from St. John. He gives 
references to nine passages where Jeremy Taylor (who is not supposed to 
have used apocryphal Gospels) quotes the text ; none of the quotations 
agreeing with St. John, and only two with each other. And he remarks 
that the English Book of Common Prayer, which twice quotes the text, 
in neither case agrees with St. John. The late Irish revisers have been so 
punctilious as to correct this irregularity. 



76 THE GOSPELS TN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. 

our mother s womb ? Is this but a chance thought which 
occurred to Justin and to St. John independently ? 

It may be well, however, not to omit to notice one of 
Strauss s supposed proofs, that Justin did not use the dialogue 
with Nicodemus, because the argument has recoiled on him 
self. A reference to this same passage in John is found also 
in the Clementine Homilies (Horn. xi. 26), of which I made 
mention in a previous Lecture. The quotation is, like Justin s, 
inexact; and though it does not verbally agree with Justin s 
either, it agrees with him in this point, that both use the 
second person plural,* except ye be born again, while St. 
John says, except a man be born again. Hence it was argued 
that Justin and the Clementines both drew the idea, not from 
St. John, but from some other common source. Now, the 
Clementines contained other apparent proofs of acquaintance 
with St. John s Gospel, as, for instance, that they attribute to 
Jesus the sayings, I am the door, and My sheep hear My 
voice. (Horn. iii. 52). But the Tubingen writers expended 
their ingenuity to prove that this coincidence in language 
was only accidental, and their cardinal argument was that the 
author of the Clementines could not have used the fourth Gos 
pel. He was, as I have already said, an Ebionite ; John, on 
the contrary, the most anti-Jewish of New Testament writers. 
The Clementine writer, therefore, could not have accepted a 
book so opposed to his tendency; and, if he had known it, 
would have cited it only to combat it. 

While this dispute was going on, a manuscript was dis 
covered, containing a completef copy of the twenty Clemen 
tine Homilies for the manuscript previously known was 
defective, breaking off in the middle of the nineteenth and 
lo, in the newly-recovered part of the nineteenth, we read, 
4 Our Lord answered to those who asked Him, " Is it he who 
hath sinned, or his parents, that he was born blind?" 
" Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents ; but that 
through him might be manifested the power of God, which 
heals sins of ignorance." There are verbal differences of 
quotation here, but only a few of our adversaries have, as yet, 

* Not so, however, in the parallel passage (Recog. vi. 9). 
t The work was first published complete by Dressel, in 1853. 



VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 77 

mustered courage to make them a ground for denying that 
it is a quotation.* 

Now, it being thus proved that the Clementine writer 
acknowledged the fourth Gospel, the argument which had 
been used by the deniers of this fact recoils on them with 
immense force namely, the argument founded on the diame 
trical opposition between the views of the Clementine author 
and of the Evangelist. Ebionites would not easily accept a 
work proceeding from quite an opposite school, if it were one 
of modern origin, or if there were any reasonable pretext for 
denying its apostolic authority. The conclusion follows that,, 
at the time of the composition of the Clementines, which 
some place as early as the year i6o,f the authority of St. 
John s Gospel was so universally recognized in the Church by 
men of all parties, and dated so far back, that no suspicion 
occurred to men strongly interested in rejecting the book if 
they could have ventured to do so. Thus the Clementines, to 
which Strauss referred us, prove that, in the time when Justin 
lived, he could hardly help being acquainted with the fourth 
Gospel ; so that there is no reason whatever for not drawing 
the obvious inferences from those passages in his writings 
which are on the face of them quotations from it. 

I have not time to speak of Justin s Eucharistic doctrine, nor 
of a number of verbal coincidences with John ; but must 
repeat that the critics who deny Justin s use of the fourth 

* Among those who had this courage was the author of Supernatural 
Religion ; but Hilgenfeld (who, in a review of this work (Zeitschrift, 
1875, 582), pronounces that this author exhibits as much partiality against 
as do the orthodox for the received acceptation of the Gospels), declares 
here that it will be difficult to find anyone in Germany or Switzerland to 
believe that the Clementine writer is independent of St. John In 
Deutschland und der Schweiz wird es kaum jemand glauben dass Clem. 
Horn. xix. 22 von Joh. ix. 1-3 unabhanging sein sollte. Renan, whose 
memory seems to have failed him a good deal in the composition of his 
later volumes, states (vi. 73) that the author of the Pseudo-Clementine 
Homilies did not know the fourth Gospel, and in the same volume (p. 500) 
that he knew all four. The explanation probably is, that Renan in 
the two places was relying on different authorities, one of whom wrote 
before, the other after, the , discovery of the conclusion of the nineteenth 
Homily. 

t I am myself willing to accept so early a date only for the discourses 
of Peter against the heathen, which were the basis of the work, and which 
seem to me to have been used in 180 by Theophilus of Antioch (ad Autol. 
i. 10 ; cf. Clem. Horn. x. it> ; Recog. v. 20). 



78 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. 

Gospel seem to have no conception of the cumulative force 
of evidence. After giving a forced explanation of one of 
these coincidences, they go on to explain away another, and 
another after that, without ever reflecting that it is necessary 
for the success of their argument that every one of these ex 
planations should be correct ; and that if there are chances 
against the correctness of each one of them, the chances 
against the correctness of the entire series must be enormous. 
I will only add that Justin used not only St. John s Gospel, 
but also his First Epistle. This is shown by a coincidence 
which seems to me to afford decisive proof. In i John, iii. i, 
the four oldest manuscripts, well confirmed by other evidence, 
add to the received text the words /cat eoyxeV Behold what 
manner of love the Father hath bestowed on us, that we 
should be called the sons of God ; and such we are This 
reading is accordingly adopted by all recent critical editors. 
Now, Justin has (Dial. 123) KOL Otov re /cra dXrjOiva 



* One of the latest essays on Justin s use of St. John is by Dr. Edwin 
A. Abbott, Master of the City of London School (Modern Review, 1882, 
pp. 559, 716). Dr. Abbott adopts Thoma s theory, only in a less prob 
able form. He does not deny that Justin may have been acquainted with 
St. John s Gospel, but he denies that he valued it, or, indeed, that he ever 
used it. A number of coincidences are explained away one after another. 
In some cases Justin is drawing directly from Philo, in others from 
Christian disciples of Philo, or he is using traditions which were also 
known to the fourth Evangelist. The saying about entering into the 
mother s womb referred, no doubt, to a stock objection made by heathens 
to Christian missionaries, who spoke to them of the necessity of a new 
birth and of becoming like little children. It seems to me that, however 
difficult it might have been to resist the cumulative force of so many 
coincidences, Dr. Abbott would have done better for his theory if he had 
avoided making the fatal concession that Justin might have known the 
fourth Gospel. For then we have a vera causa which at once accounts 
for his coincidences with it, and it becomes unscientific in the last degree 
to invent imaginary disciples of Philo or unrecorded traditions in order to 
explain what can be perfectly well explained without any such hypothesis. 
If any author of the present day presented as many coincidences with a 
previous writer, he would be laughed to scorn by his reviewers if, while 
he had to own that he had seen the previous book, he denied that he 
valued it or had used it. 

Thoma s question, If Justin valued the fourth Gospel, why did he not 
use it more ? has been so well answered by Dr. Drummond and by Dr. Ezra 
Abbot, that a man must be argument-proof who repeats the question 
after reading what they have said. It seems to me clear that, if Justin 
knew the fourth Gospel, he used it, and that copiously ; if he used it, he 
valued it, for his whole theological system is founded on it. If he 



VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 79 

Kenan s vacillations on the subject of St. John s Gospel are 
extraordinary. In the preface to his first volume (p. xxv.) he 
gives a summary, endorsing the conclusions which I have 
presented for your acceptance : Nobody doubts that, 
towards the year 150, the fourth Gospel existed, and was as 
cribed to John. Formal citations by St. Justin (Apol. i. 32, 
6 1 ; Dial. 88) ; by Athenagoras (Legal. 40) ; by Tatian (Adv. 
Graec. $,7\cf. Euseb. H. E., iv. 29 ; Theodoret, Haer. Fab. i. 
20) ; by Theophilus of Antioch (ad. Autol. ii. 22) ; by Irenaeus 
(n. xxii. 5 ; iii. i ; cf. Euseb. H. E.,\. 8), show this Gospel, from 
that time forward, mingling in all controversies, and serving 
as a corner-stone in the development of dogma. Irenaeus is 
express : now Irenaeus came out of the school of John, and 
between him and the Apostle there was only Polycarp. The 
part played by our Gospel in Gnosticism, and in particular in 
the system of Valentinus (Iren. i. iii. 6; in. xi. 7; Hippol. 
Philosoph. vi. ii. 29, &c.), in Montanism (Iren. in. xi. 9), and 
in the Quarto-deciman dispute (Euseb. H. E., v. 24), is not 
less decisive. The school of John is that whose influence 

adopted the fourth Evangelist as his theological instructor, he must have 
admitted the claims which that Evangelist implicitly makes for himself, 
and which were acknowledged all over the Christian world within thirty 
years of Justin s time. 

Dr. Abbott s views are most eccentric when he treats of the Gnostic 
use of St. John s Gospel. He admits that it was a favourite with the 
Valentinians, but he thinks that to be a reason why it could not have 
been a favourite with Justin, who opposed these heretics. He owns that 
it was used by Tatian, but he thinks that must have been after Justin s 
death, and when Tatian had become a Gnostic. He does not seem to 
have studied the links by which Tatian s apologetic work is doubly con 
nected with Justin and with the fourth Gospel. Finally, when called on 
to explain how this Gospel, in such favour with the Gnostics, but rejected 
by their orthodox opponent, came into equal favour with the Catholics also, 
and that so rapidly, that all traces of hesitation have been obliterated 
except what may be discovered in Justin ; Dr. Abbott replies that the 
success was due to the intrinsic power of this most spiritual treatise, 
because it truthfully protested against the thaumaturgic tendencies of 
the Church, by exhibiting Jesus principally as a worker of spiritual, and 
not material, marvels. This seems undeserved praise to give to the 
narrator of the healing of the man born blind, and of the raising of 
Lazarus ; nor does it seem a satisfactory explanation to say that a heretical 
book won the favour of the Church by reason of its protest against the 
tendencies of the Church. In my judgment, a critic who cannot divest 
himself of the anti-supernaturalist feelings of the nineteenth century is not 
one who can enter into the mind of the second century, and is no com 
petent judge what arguments a writer of that date would have been likely 
to use. 



80 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. 

can be most distinctly traced in the second century ; but that 
school cannot be explained unless we place the fourth Gospel 
at its very cradle. Let us add, that the first Epistle ascribed 
to John is certainly by the same author as the fourth Gospel.* 
Now, that Epistle is recognized as John s by Polycarp (ad 
Philipp. 7), by Papias (Euseb., H. E. iii. 39, 40), and by Ire- 
naeus (in. xvi. 5, 8 ; Euseb., H. E. v. 8). 

During the interval, however, between the publication of 
his first volume and his sixth, Renan appears to have received 
a revelation (for he makes no pretence of offering a proof) that 
the fourth Gospel was unknown to several of those whom he 
had already cited as authorities.! He assures his readers, as 
a positive fact (vi. 73), that neither Papias nor Justin, nor the 
Pseudo-Clementines, nor Marcion, were acquainted with the 
fourth Gospel ; and he suggests that the Evangelist must have 
taken some pains not to let his Gospel be seen by those who 
would know that it did not come from John. Renan owns 
(p. 69) that Justin has a theory of the Logos analogous to that 
of the Pseudo-John, and he refers to Apol. i. 23, 32 ; ii. 6, 
10, 13; Dial. 61, 62, 70, 98, 100, 102, 105, 127; but we are 
on no account to believe that Justin derived this theory from 
the fourth Gospel. He tells us (p. 503) that Tatian did not 
know, or did not admit, the fourth Gospel ; that it is wrong 
to think that Tatian s Diatessaron commenced with In 
the beginning was the Word ; wrong to think that this title 
implied the four Canonical Gospels. It is a term borrowed 
from Greek music, and only implies perfect harmony. The 
Synoptics, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Gospel of 
Peter, were the basis of this harmony. I shall speak pre 
sently of Tatian, and you will then know why Renan was 
obliged entirely to alter in his seventh volume the account 
he had given of the Diatessaron in his sixth. But Renan s 
perplexity rises to its height when (p. 129) he speaks of 
Papias, of whom I shall treat in the next Lecture, and when 
he tries to account for the singular fact that Papias, who 



* T John, i. 3, 5. The two writings offer the most complete identity 
of style, the same terms, the same favourite expressions (Renan s note). 

f Accordingly, I find that the passage cited above has been modified in 
later editions. 



VI. J TATIAN. 8 1 

does not know the fourth Gospel, should know the Epistle 
falsely ascribed to John. After some lame attempts at ex 
planation, he exclaims, One can never touch the question 
of the writings ascribed to John without falling into contra 
dictions and anomalies. But there would have been neither 
contradiction nor anomaly if Renan had remained content 
with the statement of evidence given in his first volume. 

To return to Justin : we are happily able to bridge over 
the interval between him and Irenaeus by means of Justin s 
pupil, Tatian the Assyrian. It is related that Tatian was con 
verted by Justin ; and in Tatian s apologetic work, the 
Address to the Greeks, Justin is spoken of with high ad 
miration.* On the other hand, after Justin s death, Tatian 
joined himself to one of those ascetic sects which condemned 
both marriage and the use of wine and flesh meat as abso 
lutely unlawful to a Christian .f And he is said to have held 
some other heretical opinions besides. Irenaeus has a chap 
ter on the heresy of Tatian, and he speaks of him in the past 
tense in a way which conveys the idea that he was dead, and 
his teaching over, at the time Irenaeus wrote. Clement of 
Alexandria tells us that one of his own teachers was an 
Assyrian, and it has been very commonly thought that this 
was Tatian. Thus we see that Tatian comes midway between 
Justin Martyr and the age of Irenaeus and Clement. Now, 
when we take up Tatian s apologetic work already mentioned, 
we find at the outset a statement of Logos doctrine near akin 
to Justin s ; while Tatian s use of St. John is evinced by 
some distinct quotations * All things were made by him, and 
without him was not anything made, This is the saying, 
"The darkness comprehendeth not the light," and God is 
a Spirit. Thus Tatian gives distinct confirmation to the 
conclusion we already arrived at as to the derivation of 

* Zahn gives some probable reasons for dating this work not later than 
161 (Forschungen i., 279.) 

f It is necessary to bear in mind this special feature of Tatian s heresy 
in order to appreciate the merits of Dr. Abbott s suggestion that, after 
Tatian had come to think it a sin to marry or to drink wine, the 2nd chapter 
of St. John s Gospel began to have an attraction for him which it did not 
possess in the days of his orthodoxy. Plainly, no Encratite would receive 
the fourth Gospel unless, before embracing his heresy, he had been so 
long in the habit of using that Gospel that he could not then give it up. 

G 



82 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. 

Justin s Logos doctrine from St. John. But Tatian also 
enables us to settle the question raised by Thoma, If Justin 
knew St. John, did he put it on an equality with the Synoptic 
Gospels ? 

I have already said that the earliest commentary on a New 
Testament book of which we have knowledge is by a heretic, 
Heracleon ; and I have now to add that it was also a heretic, 
Tatian, who appears to have been the first to make a harmony 
of the Gospels. Eusebius tells us that Tatian made a com 
bination of the Gospels, and that he called it Diatessaron, * 
which, being a recognized musical term, answers in some sort 
to what we call a harmony. Sceptical critics have made 
enormous efforts to escape the inferences suggested by the 
use of the name * Diatessaron viz., that the harmony was 
based on four Gospels, and that these were the four which we 
know were, in the next generation, regarded as holding a 
place of divinely ordained pre-eminence. It is unnecessary 
for me to state the reasons which first led me to pronounce 
these efforts to have utterly failed, because recent discoveries 
have since given them a decisive refutation. 

Tatian s arrangement of the Gospel history obtained very 
large circulation, which amounts to saying that it found ac 
ceptance with the orthodox ; for the followers of Tatian in 
his heretical opinions were very few. The use of the * Diates 
saron at Edessa is mentioned in an apocryphal Syriac book, 

* The following note on the musical term 5t& reffaapwv has been given 
me by my friend Professor Mahaffy : 

Among the old Greeks only the octave (8m irafftav), the fifth (5ta ireWe), 
and the fourth (Sia reffffdpwv), were recognized as concords (avutyuvoi 
Qdoyyol) , whereas the rest of the intervals are called discords (8id(f)wvoi). 
This definition of concord, excluding thirds, which are now accepted as 
the simplest and easiest case, arises from Pythagoras discovery, that if, 
of two equal strings, one be stopped at points dividing the string in the 
ratios of I : 2 ; 2:3; and 3 : 4, the octave, fifth, and fourth above the 
sister string are produced. Hence he regarded these intervals as perfect 
concords, and this opinion was general till the time of Des Cartes, who 
first boldly asserted that thirds were concords. It may be added that, 
even now, most of the major thirds we hear are less than two whole tones 
apart. This interval, when strictly produced, sounds like a sharp third, 
and is disagreeable. The difficulty is avoided by the temperament in our 
tuning. 

From this explanation it is seen to be improper to treat the phrase 
Diatessaron as one merely denoting harmony, and not implying any 



VI.] T ATI AN. 83 

probably written about the middle of the third century.* 
Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 20), writing in the middle of the 
fifth century, bears witness to the still extensive use of it, 
apparently in the public Church reading of his own diocese 
(Cyrus, near the Euphrates) ; and states that he found more 
than two hundred copies in use in the churches of his district, 
which he took away, and replaced by copies of the four 
Gospels. The work of substituting a single narrative for our 
four would naturally involve many omissions from the text of 
our Gospels, and it would seem to be this mutilation of the 
sacred text which brought Tatian s work into disrepute. At 
least Theodoret censures it for cutting out the genealogies 
and other passages which show that our Lord was born of the 
seed of David after the flesh ; and he implies, though perhaps 
the imputation is undeserved, that Tatian had a heretical 
object in this mutilation. A harmony not open to this 
objection was made, in the third century, by Ammonius of 
Alexandria. He took St. Matthew s Gospel as the basis of 
his work, and put side by side with St. Matthew the parallel 
passages from other Gospels. We learn this from a letter of 
Eusebius (Epist. ad Carpianum} prefatory to his own improved 
way of harmonizing the Gospels the Eusebian Canons 
which will come under our consideration later. 

To return to Tatian : the strongest proof of the orthodox 
use of his harmony is that the most famous of the native 
Syrian fathers, Ephraem of Edessa, who died in 373, wrote a 

particular number of Gospels. We see also that, since the phrase denotes, 
not a harmony of four, but a concord between the first and fourth terms 
of a series, it was used improperly by Tatian, unless his work had been one 
on the relations between the Evangelists Matthew and John. But strict 
propriety of language is rare when terms of art are used metaphorically by 
outsiders. 

My friend Dr. Quarry has given me the curious information that Dia- 
tessaron is not only a musical but a medical term. It denoted a plaister 
made of four ingredients ; the Diapente was another common plaister 
made of five (Caelins Aurelianus, iv. 7, vol. ii. p. 331 : ed. Haller, 1774). 
See also Galen, De compositione medicament, per genera, v. p. 157, Leip 
zig, 1827. Dr. Quarry thinks that a well-known blunder made by Victor 
of Capua, in writing Diapente where he ought to have written Diatessaron, 
is a confusion more likely to have arisen from the common use of the 
words as medical than as musical terms ; the former use being popular at 
the time in question, the latter then confined to a few. 

* Phillips, Doctrine of Addai, p. 34. 

G 2 



84 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. 

commentary on the Diatessaron, apparently as if it were the 
version of the New Testament then in ecclesiastical use. This 
fact till lately rested on the testimony of a rather late Syrian 
writer, Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who wrote towards the end of 
the twelfth century, and who gives the further information 
that the harmony commenced, In the beginning was the 
Word, which would place Tatian s use of St. John s Gospel 
beyond doubt. You can well imagine that sceptical critics 
made every effort to set aside testimony which would force on 
them so unwelcome a conclusion. Bishop Lightfoot, in an 
article in the Contemporary Review (May, 1877), convincingly 
showed that the attempts to break down the testimony of 
Bar-Salibi had been utterly unsuccessful. But since then the 
question has assumed a new aspect, by the substantial re 
covery of the very work of Ephraem Syrus which Bar-Salibi 
described. It comes to us, indeed, in a roundabout way. 
The common opinion has been that Tatian s harmony was 
originally written in Greek, and so the Greek name Diates 
saron would lead us to suppose. Zahn* has lately taken a 
good deal of pains to maintain that the original language was 
Syriac, and it is certain that the Diatessaron had considerable 
circulation in Syriac-speaking countries, and apparently very 
little where Greek was spoken.f However that may be, if it 
had been originally Greek, it had been translated into Syriac, 
and had come into use in Syriac-speaking churches before 
Ephraem commented on it. This commentary of Ephraem 
is extant in an Armenian translation, apparently of the fifth 



* Tatian s Diatessaron, Erlangen, 1881. Zahn is Professor of Theo 
logy at Leipzig, and belongs to the Conservative school. 

f Baethgen maintained the somewhat startling thesis that the Diates 
saron was the earliest form in which the Gospel history became known 
to Syriac-speaking people ( Evangelienfragmente, Leipzig, 1885.) His 
view has been adopted by Zahn, who now holds that Tatian returning 
from the West to his native Edessa, gave the Syriac-speaking people their 
first history of our Lord s life in their own tongue, in the form of a single 
Gospel, framed by combining the Greek four. Zahn holds that the 
Diatessaron continued for more than a century to be the only Gospel 
known to Syriac-speaking people ; and he accounts for the affinities that 
have been noticed between the Diatessaron and the Syriac version pub 
lished by Dr. Cureton, by the supposition that those who first translated 
the entire Greek Gospels into Syriac were influenced by the phraseology 
of the Diatessaron with which they were familiar. If Zahn s speculations 



VI.] TATIAN. 85 

century, and was actually published in that language by the 
Mechitarist Fathers, at Venice, so long ago as 1836. But in 
the obscurity of that language it remained unknown to 
Western scholars until a Latin translation of it was published 
by Moesinger, in 1876, and it took three or four years more 
before the publication attracted much attention.* That this 
work is Ephraem s I think there can be no reasonable doubt. 
It consists of a series of homiletic notes, and these (as we had 
been led to expect) not following the order of any one of our 
Gospels, but passing from one to another : in other words, 
the commentary is on a narrative framed by putting together 
passages from different Gospels. The commentary enables 
us to reconstruct, at least in its substance, the text which was 
commented on. I say in its substance/ because we cannot 
infer with certainty that a verse was absent from the harmony 
because it is not commented on by Ephraem, it being possible 
that he found nothing in the verse on which he thought it ne 
cessary to remark ; nor, again, can we infer that a verse was 
present in the harmony because Ephraem, commenting on a 
different verse, refers to it, since Ephraem was no doubt 
familiar, not only with the harmony on which he commented, 
but with the full text of the four Gospels. But although, for 
the reasons I have indicated, we cannot pretend to be exact 
in every detail, we can recover the general outline of the text 
commented on. 

We have important helps in the work of reconstruction. 
In the year 543 Victor of Capua found a Latin harmony of 



as to the Latin translation be correct, Tatian would deserve the honour of 
being the first to make a vernacular translation of any part of the New 
Testament. But it seems to me very improbable that the idea of trans 
lating into Syriac would have occurred to Tatian if he had not already in 
the West known of Latin translations. It would, however, be beside my 
present purpose to discuss the interesting questions suggested in this note. 
All that we are here concerned with is, that it has been put beyond con 
troversy that Tatian acknowledged our four Gospels as the primary sources 
of a knowledge of the Saviour s life. 

* The first formal account of it was given by Harnack in the Zeitschrift 
fur Kirchengeschichte, 1 88 1. He had previously, in the same journal, for 
1879, p. 401, given a reference to the book without explaining its nature. 
The book was more largely referred to by Dr. Ezra Abbot, in America, 
in his Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1880. The first detailed account 
-of it in England was given by Dr. Wace in articles in The Expositor^ 1882. 



86 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. 

the Gospels without title or author s name, and knowing 
from Eusebius that Tatian had been the author of a 
harmony, he conjectured that the harmony which he found 
was Tatian s. This conjecture did not receive much atten 
tion until on the publication of Moesinger s work, the co 
incidences made it apparent that the Latin harmony really 
was based on Tatian s Diatessaron.* The compiler, however, 
instead of following Tatian s text, has copied the Vulgate 
translation of the verses selected. He has also restored the 
genealogies and corrected some other omissions, so that the 
Latin harmony is no more than a help towards the restoration 
of the Diatessaron, and could not singly be relied on for that 
purpose. But the interest excited by Moesinger s publica 
tion has led to the recovery of an Arabic translation of the 
Diatessaron. One MS. copy had been known to exist in the 
Vatican Library, and another was lately brought from Egypt 
to Rome. An edition founded on these two MSS. was printed, 
with a Latin translation by Ciasca, as a present for the 
jubilee of Leo XIII., in 1888. The result is, that the 
obscurity which for so many centuries lay over the Diates 
saron has been now in great measure rolled away, and we 
can speak of its contents with tolerable certainty.f 

We find then that it begins, as Bar-Salibi had told us, with 
the prologue of St. John. It then takes up the first chapter 
of St. Luke, and so it goes on, passing freely from one 
Gospel to another, and (I may add) including part of the last 



* See Wace s paper referred to, p. 85. 

f Using the sources enumerated above, Mr. Hemphill has edited the 
Diatessaron in an English form (Hodder & Stoughton, 1888). He makes 
one interesting new observation. Eusebius, as has been mentioned above, 
had stated that what he calls rb Sia reffffdpcav evayye\iov left by Ammonius 
of Alexandria had St. Matthew s narrative as its basis. Now, at first 
sight, this appears not to be the case with Tatian s Diatessaron which, as 
we have said, begins with the prologue of St. John, passes then to St. 
Luke, and seems to use all four Gospels on equal terms. But Mr. Hemphill 
notes that the passages extracted from St. Matthew in this Diatessaron 
follow, with scarcely an exception, the order of that Gospel, while the 
extracts from the other Gospels are taken promiscuously. Thus we may 
conceive the Diatessaron as made by taking St. Matthew s Gospel, leaving 
out some things, and interpolating others derived from the other Gospels. 
The idea thus suggests itself, that Tatian s Diatessaron may have been the 
basis of the harmony of Ammonius, but the total loss of the latter work 
leaves us without the means of verifying this conjecture. St. Jerome (Ep* 



VII.] THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 87 

chapter of St. John, as to the genuineness of which some very 
unreasonable doubts have, in modern times, been entertained. 
If, then, it appears that Justin s pupil, Tatian, used all 
four Gospels on equal terms, the conclusion at which we had 
already arrived, that Justin himself did so, is abundantly 
confirmed.* 



VII. 

PART IV. 

THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 



PAPIAS APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 

WE have seen now that in the middle of the second cen 
tury our four Gospels had obtained their pre-eminence, and 
enjoyed the distinction of use in the public service of the 
Church. To-day I go back to an earlier witness, Papias, who 
was bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first half of the 
second century. Although all that we have remaining of 
him which bears on the subject is half-a-dozen sentences, 
which happen to have been quoted by Eusebius, countless 
pages have been written on these fragments ; and, what 
seems not reasonable, almost as much stress has been laid 
on what they do not mention as on what they do. Indeed, 
nothing can be more unfair or more absurd than the manner 

121, ad Algas., i. 860) speaks also of Theophilus of Antioch as the author 
of a harmony. As we do not hear of this elsewhere, it is commonly sup 
posed that Jerome made a mistake in ascribing to Theophilus the work of 
Tatian. 

* I observe that Dean Burgon refuses to join in the general recognition 
of the harmony published by Moesinger as Tatian s, and refers to the 
author as Pseudo-Tatian. But every specialist is in danger of being biassed 
by the consideration how a decision affects his own subject. A very 
ancient reading of Matt, xxvii. 49 recorded there the piercing of our Lord s 
side, now found only in St. John s Gospel, and placed the incident before 
our Lord s death. On the authority of a scholium which made Diodorus 
and Tatian responsible for this reading, a plausible explanation was given, 
that the currency of Tatian s harmony, in which the words of different 
Evangelists had been mixed together, had, in this instance, led to a trans 
ference of an incident related by St. John to an improper place in the first 
Gospel. But this explanation receives no confirmation from the newly- 
recovered text of Ephraem. It seems to me that this is not a sufficient 
reason for discrediting that text. 



88 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [VII. 

in which the argumentum ex silentio has been urged by scepti 
cal critics in the case of writers of whom we have scarcely any 
extant remains. The author of Supernatural Religion, for 
instance, argues: The Gospels of St. Luke and St. John can- 
Snot be earlier than the end of the second century, because 
Hegesippus, because Papias, because Dionysius of Corinth, 
&c., were unacquainted with them. Well, how do you know 
that they were unacquainted with them ? Because they never 
mention them. But how do you know that they never men 
tioned them, seeing that their writings have not come down 
to us ? Because Eusebius does not tell us that they did ; and 
he would have been sure to tell us if they had, for he says 
that he made it his special business to adduce testimonies to 
the Canon of Scripture. Now, here is exactly where these 
writers have misunderstood Eusebius ; for the point to which 
he says he gave particular attention was to adduce testimonies 
to those books of the Canon which were disputed in his time;* 
and, in one of his papers,! Bishop Lightfoot most satisfac 
torily shows that this was his practice, by examining the re 
port which Eusebius gives of books which have come down 
.to us. Eusebius tells us (H. E. iii. 37) that Clement of Rome 
used the Epistle to the Hebrews, but never says a word as to 
his quoting the First Epistle to the Corinthians, though the 
latter quotation is express (Clem. Rom. 47), and the use of 
the former Epistle is only inferred from the identity of certain 
^expressions. The explanation plainly is, that there was still 
, some controversy in the time of Eusebius about the Epistle 
|to the Hebrews, and none at all about the Epistles to the 
Corinthians. In like manner, he tells us (H. E. iv. 24) that 
Theophilus of Antioch used the Revelation of St. John, but 
never says a word about his quotation of the Gospel ; though, 
las I have already said, Theophilus is the earliest writer now 



* The words in which Eusebius states his design (iii. 3) are : 
fj.riva.ffQa.1 rives rcav Kara. -)^p6vovs fKK^ffiaffriKcav <rvyypa<pcav diroiais 
KC XP^VTCU rcav avn^eyo^fvcav, riva re TTfpl rcav fvSiaOriitcav Kal 6/no\oyov[jievwv 
ypa<j>a>v, Kal off a -rrtpl rcav ^ rotovrcav, avro is eiprjrai : that is to say, he 
undertakes to mention instances of the use of any of the disputed writings 
together with any statements that he found concerning the composition of 
any of the writings, whether canonical or not. 

f Contemporary Review, January, 1875. 



VII.] PAPIAS. 89 

extant who mentions John by name as the author of the\ 
fourth Gospel. Why so ? Plainly because the Revelation 
was still matter of controversy, and there was no dispute in 
the time of Eusebius about the fourth Gospel. Other in 
stances of the same kind may be given. Perhaps the most 
remarkable is the account which Eusebius gives (v. 8) of the 
use which Irenaeus makes of the Holy Scriptures. Eusebius 
begins the chapter by calling to mind how, at the outset of 
his history, he had promised to quote the language in which 
ancient ecclesiastical writers had handed down the tradition 
which had come to them concerning the canonical Scrip 
tures ; and, in fulfilment of this promise, he undertakes to 
give the language of Irenaeus. He then quotes some things 
said by Irenaeus about the four Gospels, something more said 
by him about the Apocalypse, and then mentions, in general 
terms, that Irenaeus had quoted the First Epistle of John and 
the First Epistle of Peter, and that he was not only acquainted 
with the Shepherd of Hernias but accepted it as Scripture. 
Not a word is said about Irenaeus having used the Acts and 
the Epistles of St. Paul. If the writings of Irenaeus had 
perished, and our knowledge of them had depended on this 
chapter, he would have been set down as an Ebionite anti- 
Pauline writer ; for it would have been argued that the silence 
of Eusebius, when expressly undertaking to tell what were the 
Scriptures used by Irenaeus, was conclusive evidence that the 
latter did not employ the Pauline writings. Actually, how 
ever, Irenaeus refers to Paul more than two hundred times, 
and it becomes plain that the reason why Eusebius says 
nothing about it is, because in his mind it was a matter 
of course that a Christian should acknowledge St. Paul s 
Epistles. We see, then, that we have not the slightest rea 
son to expect that Eusebius should go out of his way to 
adduce testimonies to the Gospels about which no one in 
his time had any doubt whatever ; and, therefore, that no 
argument against them can be built on his silence. 

To return to Papias : it is necessary that you should have 
before you the facts about Papias in order to enable you to 
judge of the theories of Renan and others as to the origin of 
the Gospels. Papias was the author of a book called XoytW 



90 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [VII. 



s, an Exposition* of the oracles of the Lord, 
of which Eusebius and Irenaeus have preserved a very few 
fragments ; and in this is the earliest extant mention of the 
names of Matthew and Mark as the recognized authors of 
Gospels. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 36), according to some manu 
scripts of his work, describes Papias as a man of the greatest 
erudition, and well skilled in the Scriptures ; but it must be 
owned that this favourable testimony is deficient in manu 
script authority ; and elsewhere (H. E. iii. 39) commenting 
on some millennarian traditions of his, he remarks that 
Papias, who was * a man of very narrow understanding (o-^oSpa 
oyu/cpos TOV vovv}, as his writings prove, must have got these 
opinions from a misunderstanding of the writings of the 
Apostles. It is a very possible thing for a man of weak 
judgment to possess considerable learning and a good know 
ledge of Scripture ; and so what Eusebius says in disparage 
ment of Papias in one place does not forbid us to believe 
that he may have given him some measure of commendation 
in another. What is the exact date of Papias is uncertain. 
We know that he lived in the first half of the second century; 
but some place him at the very beginning ; others, not earlier 
than Justin Martyr. But the chief authority for placing him 
at the later date has been exploded by Bishop Lightfoot.f 
The Paschal Chronicle, a compilation of the sixth or 
seventh century, states that Papias was martyred at Pergamum 
in the year 164. But coincidences of language clearly show 
that the compiler is drawing his information from a passage 
in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, where the mar 
tyrdom of one Papylus at Pergamum is mentioned. The 
confounding of this man with Papias is a mere blunder of the 
Paschal compiler ; and so we are left to gather the date of 
Papias from his own writings. These clearly show that he 
lived at a time when it was still thought possible to obtain 
oral traditions of the facts of our Saviour s life.J 



* Or Expositions ; for readings vary between the singular and the 
plural. 

f Contemporary Review, Aug. 1875, Colossians, p. 48. 

J On this account it seems to me that A.D. 125 or 130 is as late as we 
can place his work. 



VII.] PAPIAS. 91 

I will ask you to attend carefully to what Papias says as 
to the sources of his information : If I met anywhere with 
anyone who had been a follower of the elders, I used to 
inquire what were the declarations of the elders ; what was 
said by Andrew, by Peter, by Philip, what by Thomas or 
James, what by John or Matthew, or any other of the disciples 
of our Lord ; and the things which Aristion and the elder [or 
presbyter] John, the disciples of the Lord say ; for I did not 
expect to derive so much benefit from the contents of books 
as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice. * By 
disciples of our Lord Papias clearly means men who had 
personal intercourse with him ; but it is a point which has 
been much discussed whether Papias claims to have known 
the Apostle John. The name John, you will observe, occurs 
twice over in this extract What was said by John or 
Matthew ; what is said by Aristion and John the elder. 
The question is, whether he only means to distinguish these 
last two, concerning whom the present tense is used, as men 
still surviving ; or whether, beside John the Apostle, there 
was another later John, from whom Papias derived his infor 
mation ; whether, in short, Papias was so early as to have 
been actually a hearer of the Apostle John, or whether he 
was separated from him by one link. Eusebius was, I believe, 
the first to remark the double mention of John, from which 
he concluded that two Johns were referred to ; and those in 
the third century who denied the Apostolic origin of the 
Revelation had already suggested that a John different 
from the Apostle might have been its author. It must, how- 

* The following is the extract given by Eusebius from the Preface of 
Papias : but the student ought to read carefully the whole chapter (Euseb. 
H. E. iii. 39). He will find the other fragments of Papias in Routh s Rell. 
Sac. i. 8, or in Gebhardt and Harnack s Apostolic Fathers, I. ii. 87 : 

Owe oKV-fjo-ca Se <roi Kal uffa -rrore irapa rSov irpefffivrepcav /coAcDs t/uaOov Kal 
Ka\u>s efj.vf}fj.6vevffa, o~vyKarard^ai rats ep/j.r]veiais, 8t.a&ff3aiov[j.evos virep 
avruv aXriQeiav. Ov yap roTs TO, TroAAo Xeyovffiv e^aipov &wrep ol TTO\\O\ 
a\\a rots ra.\ri&ri SiSdffKOvo iv ovSe rots ras a\\orpias eVroAas fj.VTf)fj.ovevov- 
o~iv, oAAa TO?S ras irapa rov Kvpiov rrj iriffrei SeSo/nevas, Kal air avrrjs irapa- 
ytvo/jievas TTJS aXrjdeias. Et Se TTOU Kal Trapi]Ko\ovdr]K(as TLS TO?S Trpe<T@vTpois 
e\0oi, rovs T&V irpea-^vrepcav aveKpivov \6yovs ri AvS/je as, ^ TI Herpes 
flireVy $) ri &i\LTnros, ^ ri a^uas, 3) Ia/ca>$os ^ ri loadvvrjs, 7) Marda?os, % 
rls frfpos ra>v rov Kvpiov fj.(idr)rcav a re Apiffricav, Kal 6 Trpeo~0vrepos 
Iwai/j/rjy of rov Kvpiov u.aQi]ra\ \eyovo~iv. Ov yap ra eK r&v 
ro<Tovr6v fj.e w(pe\e iv i)ire\ap.$a.vov, 6ffov ra Trapa 



92 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vil. 

ever, be borne in mind that the fact that Papias twice men 
tions the name John does not make it absolutely certain that 
he meant to speak of two Johns ; and there is no other in 
dependent witness to the existence of the second. Irenaeus 
(v. xxxiii. 4), in fact, makes no doubt that it was John the 
Apostle of whom Papias was a disciple ; and this view was 
generally adopted by later ecclesiastical writers. 

In order that we may have before us all the facts we are 
discussing, I will read at once the two passages in which 
Papias speaks of Matthew and Mark. I told you already 
that in his fragments we find the first mention of any of our 
Evangelists by name. On the authority of John the elder 
Papias writes : And this also the elder said : Mark, having 
become the interpreter (ep/^i/eimjs) of Peter, wrote accurately 
all that he remembered of the things that were either said or 
done by Christ ; but, however, not in order. For he neither 
heard the Lord nor followed Him, but subsequently, as I said,* 
[attached himself to] Peter, who used to frame his teaching 
to meet the immediate wants [of his hearers], but not as 
making a connected narrative of our Lord s discourses.! 
So Mark committed no error in thus writing down particulars 
just as he remembered them ; for he took heed to one thing, 
to omit none of the things that he had heard, and to state 
nothing falsely in his narrative of them. Eusebius next 
gives Papias s statement concerning Matthew : * Matthew 
wrote the oracles (ra Xoyta) in Hebrew, and each one inter 
preted them as he could. J Eusebius gives no quotation from 
Papias concerning St. Luke s or St. John s Gospels. He 
mentions, however, that Papias quoted John s first Epistle; 
and since that Epistle and the Gospel have evident marks of 

* Eusebius states that Papias quoted the First Epistle of Peter; and 
reasons will be given afterwards for thinking that in the place here referred 
to Papias quoted I Pet. v. 13. 

t Or oracles : the reading varies between \6ytav and \oyiwv. 

+ Kai Tov0 6 TrpefffivTepos H\sy. MdpKOS /J.V epurjvevT^js Herpov 
fjifvos, offa e/j.vr)/u.6jsV(rev, aKpifioas fypatyev, ov p.fV roi raet TO vi 
XpifTToD 3) Xexdfvra 3} Trpax^evTa. Oivre yap tffcovffe rov Kvpiov, cure 
KO\ov9r)(Tfi avrif vffTepov 8e, us ffpffv, Herpci}, e>s irpbs ras XP e/ias 
TOS SiSacrKaA/as aAA ovx. &o"Tep ffvvTa^iv ruv KvpiaKwv Troiov/mevos X6^(i>v } 
&ffre ovSev rj/mapTf MapKos, OVTODS evict ypd\]/as ws a.TTf/ni rj/Lioufvae^. Evbs yap 
4iroi-r)ffaTo irpovoiav, rov /j.r)8ev wv TJKOvce itapaXnrelv, 3) \l/ev<raadai TI ff auro?s. 

MaT0a?o$ [i.fv ovv EfipatSi StaXfKTcp ra \6yia <rweypd\l/aTo. t Hp/j.-f]vevff 8 
avra CDS i\v Svvarbs e /cacrros. 



VII.] PAPIAS. 93 

common authorship, the presumption is that he who used the 
one used the other also. The passages I have just quoted 
were until comparatively modern times regarded as undoubted 
proofs that Papias knew our present Gospels of Matthew and 
Mark. Principally on his authority the belief was founded 
that Matthew s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, 
and that Mark s Gospel was founded on the preaching of 
Peter.* But it has been contended by some modern critics 
that our present first two Gospels do not answer the descrip 
tions given by Papias of the works of which he speaks. You 
see how hard it is to satisfy the sceptical school of critics. 
When we produce citations in verbal accordance with our 
Gospels, they reply, The source of the quotation is not men 
tioned ; how can you be sure that it is taken from your 
Gospels ? Here, when we have a witness who mentions 
Matthew and Mark by name, they ask, How can you tell 
whether Papias s Matthew and Mark are the same as the 
Matthew and Mark we have now ? 

To the question just raised I am going to pay the com 
pliment of giving it a detailed examination ; but I cannot 
forbear saying that the matter is one in which doubt is wildly 
unreasonable. Juvenal tells us that the works of Virgil and 
Horace were in the hands of schoolboys in his time. Who 
dreams of raising the question whether the works referred 
to by Juvenal were the same as those we now ascribe to 
these authors ? And yet that a change should be made in 
books in merely private circulation is a small improbability 
compared with the improbability that a revolutionary change 
should be made in books in weekly ecclesiastical use. We 
have seen that in the time of Justin the Gospels of Matthew 

* The dependence of Mark s Gospel upon Peter is also asserted by 
Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. H. E. vi. 14), who, no doubt, may have 
had Papias for his authority. It has even been thought that Justin Martyr 
refers to the second Gospel as Peter s. In the passage quoted, p. 70, 
where Justin says that our Lord gave to the sons of Zebedee the name 
Boanerges, he adds that Christ changed the name of one of the Apostles 
to Peter, and that this is written in his memoirs. Grammatically, this 
may mean, either Christ s memoirs or Peter s memoirs; and considering 
that Justin s ordinary name for the Gospels is the Memoirs of the 
Apostles, some have supposed that he here uses the genitive in the same 
way, and that he describes the second Gospel (the only one containing the 
name Boanerges) as the memoirs of the Apostle Peter. 



94 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [VII. 

and Mark were weekly read in the Church service. It is 
absurd to imagine that the liturgical use described by Justin 
originated in the year his Apology was written. We must 
in all reason attribute to it some years of previous existence. 
Again, we must allow a book several years to gain credit 
and authority, before we can conceive its obtaining admis 
sion into Church use. If our present Matthew and Mark 
supplanted a previous Matthew and Mark, at least the new 
Gospels would not be stamped with Church authority until 
so many years had passed that the old ones had had time 
to be forgotten, and the new to be accepted as the genuine 
form of Apostolic tradition. Put the work of Papias at its 
earliest (and I do not find sceptical critics disposed to place 
it so very early), and still the interval between it and Justin s 
Apology is not adequate to account for the change alleged 
to have taken place. Observe what is asserted is not that 
some corruptions crept into the text of the Gospels ascribed 
to Matthew and Mark, but that a change was made in them 
altering their entire character. And we are asked to believe 
that no one remonstrated, that the old Gospels perished out 
of memory, without leaving a trace behind, and that the 
new ones reigned in their stead, without anyone finding out 
the difference ! I shall afterwards have to consider specu 
lations as to the process by which it is imagined floating- 
traditions as to the Saviour s life crystallized into the form 
of our present Gospels. What I say now is, that the interval 
between Papias and Justin is altogether too short to leave 
room for such a process. The mention by Papias of Matthew 
and Mark by name is evidence enough that in his time these 
Gospels had already taken their definite form ; for it is incon 
ceivable that if anyone in the second century had presumed 
to remodel a Gospel which bore the name, and was believed 
to be the work, of an Apostle, there would not be many who 
would prefer and preserve the older form. I am persuaded, 
then, that interpreters of the words of Papias get on an 
entirely wrong track if, instead of patiently examining what 
opinion concerning our present Gospels his words indicate, 
they fly off to imagine some other Matthew and Mark, to 
which his words shall be more applicable. 



VII.] PAPIAS. 95 

Once more, I may take a hint from our opponents, and, 
with better reason than they, build an argument on the 
silence of Eusebius. He had before him the whole book, 
which we only know by two or three extracts ; and no 
passage in it suggested to him that Papias used different 
Gospels from ours, or that he even used an extra-canonical 
Gospel. Now, although Eusebius is apt to see nothing call 
ing for remark when an ecclesiastical writer expresses the 
opinion which the later Church generally agreed to hold, 
he takes notice readily enough of any divergence from that 
opinion. For instance, in his account of the Ignatian 
Letters he takes no notice of a couple of fairly accurate 
quotations from our Gospels ; but he singles out for remark 
the only passage suggesting a possible use of a different 
source. (H. E. iii. 36 ; Ignat. Smyrn. 3.) 

To return now to the reasons alleged for facing so many 
improbabilities, it is urged that there is a striking resemblance 
between the Gospels of Matthew and Mark as we have them 
now, but that Papias s description would lead us to think of 
them as very different. Matthew s Gospel was, according to 
him, a Hebrew work, containing an account only of our Lord s 
discourses ; for so Schleiermacher* would have us translate 
TO, Xoyta, the word which I have rendered oracles. Mark, 
on the other hand, wrote in Greek, and recorded what was 
done as well as what was said by Christ ra VTTO TOV X/HO-TOV ?} 
\x@*vTa ?} Trpa^eVra. Again, Mark s Gospel, which in its 
present state has the same claims to orderly arrangement as 
Matthew s, was, according to Papias, not written in order. 
The conclusion, then, which has been drawn from these 
premisses, is that Papias s testimony does not relate to our 
present Gospels of Matthew and Mark, but to certain un 
known originals, out of which these Gospels have sprung ; 
and in some books of the sceptical school the original 
Matthew and original Mark (Ur-Markus) are constantly 
spoken of, though there is no particle of evidence, beyond 
that which I have laid before you, that there ever was any 
Gospel by Matthew and Mark different from those we have got. 

* Schleiermacher (1768- 1834), Professor of Theology at Halle, and after 
wards at Berlin. His essay on the testimony of Papias to our first two 
Gospels appeared in the Theol. Stud, ^md Krit. y 1832. 



96 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [VIT. 

Thus, according to Renan, Papias was in possession of 
two documents quite different from one another a collection 
of our Lord s discourses made by Matthew, and a collection 
of anecdotes taken down by Mark from Peter s recollections ; 
and Renan (Vie de Jesus, p. xxii.) thus describes the process 
by which Matthew s Gospel gradually absorbed Mark s anec 
dotes, and Mark s derived a multitude of features from the 
Logia of Matthew: As it was thought the world was 
near its end, men were little anxious about composing books 
for the future : all they aimed at was to keep in their hearts 
the living image of Him whom they hoped soon to see again 
in the clouds. Hence the small authority which the evan 
gelic texts enjoyed for one hundred and fifty years.* No 
scruple was felt as to inserting additions in them, combining 
them diversely, and completing one by another. The pas 
sage I am reading illustrates the character of Renan s whole 
book, in which he trusts far more to his power of divination 
than to evidence, his statements being often supported by the 
slenderest authority. Thus, for this statement that for a 
century men had no scruple in transposing, combining, and 
interpolating the evangelic records, there is not a shadow of 
proof. Renan goes on to say : The poor man who has 
only one book wants it to contain everything which goes to 
his heart. These little books were lent by one to another. 
Each transcribed in the margin of his copy the words, the 
parables, which he found elsewhere, and which touched him. 
Thus has the finest thing in the world issued from a process 
worked out unobserved and quite unauthoritatively. f In this 
way we are to suppose that the Gospels of St. Matthew and 
St. Mark, which were originally unlike, came, by a process 
i of mutual assimilation, to their present state of resemblance. 

If this theory were true, we should expect to find in early 
times a multitude of Gospels, differing in their order and in 
their selection of facts, according as the different possessors 
of manuscripts had differently inserted the discourses or 
events which touched their hearts. In the more ancient 
manuscripts the order of the events would become uncertain. 

* Later editions, nearly one hundred. 

t La plus belle chose du monde est ainsi sortie d une elaboration obscure 
et completement populaire. 



VII.] PAPIAS. 97 

It would even be doubtful to which Gospel this or that story 
should be referred. Why we should have now exactly four 
versions of the story is not easy to explain. We should expect 
that, by the process of mutual assimilation which has been 
described, all would, in the end, have been reduced to a single 
Gospel. Attempts would surely have been made to bring the 
order of the different Evangelists to uniformity. If one poor 
man had written an anecdote in his manuscript in a wrong 
place, another would not scruple to change it. 

But the fact is that our four Gospels are as distinct, and 
the order of the events as definite, in the earliest manuscripts 
as in the latest ; and if such variations as I have described 
had ever prevailed, it is incredible that no trace of them 
should be found in any existing authority. The two Gospels 
of Matthew and Mark, with all their likeness, remain quite 
distinct as far as we can trace them back. Nor is there the 
slightest uncertainty as to the order of narration of either. 
One solitary fact is appealed to by Renan in his note as the 
sole basis for his monstrous theory. The section of St. John s 
Gospel which contains the story of the woman taken in adul 
tery is, as you probably know, wanting in the most ancient 
manuscripts; in a few copies it is absent from the place where 
it occurs in the received text, but is added at the end of the 
Gospel ; and in five manuscripts of comparatively late date, 
which, however, show evident marks of having been copied 
from a common original, it is inserted in St. Luke s Gospel 
at the end of* the 2ist chapter. It would be out of place to 
discuss here the genuineness of this particular passage.* 
Critics generally regard it as an authentic fragment of apos 
tolic tradition, but not as a genuine part of St. John s Gospel. 
But now it is manifest that the phenomena which present 
themselves in a small degree in the case of this story would, 
if Kenan s theory were true, show themselves in a multitude of 
cases. There would be a multitude of parables and miracles 
with respect to which we should be uncertain whether they 

* Eusebius gives us some reason to think that the story of the adulteress tf 
was related in the work of Papias. If, as Lightfoot conjectures, it was 
told in illustration of our Lord s words, I judge no man (John viii. 15), | 
we have an explanation how the paragraph has come to be inserted in thei! 
particular place in which we rind it. 

H 



98 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [VII. 

were common to all the Evangelists or special to one, and 
what place in that one they ought to occupy. Further, 
according to the hypothesis stated, Mark s design was more 
comprehensive than Matthew s. Matthew only related our 
Lord s discourses ; Mark, the things said or done by Christ 
that is to say, both discourses and actions of Jesus. If this 
were so, it might be expected that Mark s Gospel would differ 
from Matthew s by excess, and Matthew s would read like a 
series of extracts from Mark s. Exactly the opposite is the 
case. 

But I wholly disbelieve that the word Aoyta in the extract 
from Papias is rightly translated the speeches of our Lord. 
Not to speak of the absurdity of supposing a collection of our 
Lord s sayings to have been made without any history of the 
occasions on which they were spoken, Aoyia is one word, 
Aoyoi another. Examine for yourselves the four passages in 
which the former word occurs in the New Testament : Acts 
vii. 38, Moses received the lively oracles to give unto us; 
Rom. iii. 2, To the Jews were committed the oracles of 
God; Heb. v. 12, Ye have need that we teach you which 
be the first principles of the oracles of God; and lastly, 

1 Peter iv. n, If anyone speak let him speak as the oracles 
of God. Now, when Paul, for example, says that to the Jews 
were committed the oracles of God, can we imagine that he 
confines this epithet to those parts of the Old Testament 
which contained Divine sayings, and that he excludes those 
narrative parts from which he has himself so often drawn 
lessons in his Epistles ; as, for instance, the account of the 
creation which he uses, i Cor. xi. 8 ; the account of the fall, 

2 Cor. xi. 3, i Tim. ii. 14.; the wanderings in the wilderness, 
i Cor. x. i ; the story of Sarah and Hagar, Gal. iv. 21 ; or 
the saying (Gen. xv. 6) that Abraham believed God, and it 
was counted unto him for righteousness, of which such use 
is made both in the Epistles to the Romans and to the 
Galatians. Thus we find that in the New Testament Aoyia 
has its classical meaning, oracles, and is applied to the 
inspired utterances of God in His Holy Scriptures. This is 
also the meaning the word bears in the Apostolic Fathers 
and in other Jewish writers. Philo quotes as a Ao ycoi/, an 



VII.] PAPIAS. 99 

oracle of God, the narrative in Gen. iv. 15, The Lord set a 
mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him ; and 
as another oracle the words, Deut. x. 9, The Lord is his 
inheritance. The quotations from latter writers, who use 
the word Adyta generally as inspired books, are too abundant 
to be cited. We must recollect also that the title of Papias s 
own work is AoytW KVPLO.KUV e^y^o-ts,* while it is manifest 
that the book was not confined to treating of our Lord s 
discourses. I consider the true conclusion to be, that as we 
find from Justin that the Gospels were put on a level with 
the Old Testament in the public reading of the Church, so 
we find from Papias that the name Adyta, the oracles, given 
to the Old Testament Scriptures, was also given to the Gos 
pels, which were called TO, Kvpta/ca Adyta, the oracles of our 
Lord. The title of Papias s own work I take as meaning 
simply an exposition of the Gospels; and his statement 
about Matthew I take as meaning : Matthew composed his 
Gospel in Hebrew, the word Adyta implying its Scriptural 
authority. I do not know any passage where Adyta means 
discourses ; and I believe the notion that Matthew s Gospel 
was originally only a collection of speeches to be a mere 
dream. Indeed the theory of an original Matthew contain 
ing speeches, and an original Mark containing acts, has been 
so worked out that the best rationalist critics now recognize 
its absurdity. For it was noticed that our present Matthew 
contains a great deal of history not to be found in our pre 
sent Mark ; and that our present Luke contains a great many 
discourses not to be found in Matthew ; and so the theory 
led to the whimsical result of critics looking for the ori 
ginal Matthew in St. Luke, and for the original Mark in St. 
Matthew. 

A more careful examination of what Papias says leads us, 
I am convinced, to a very different conclusion. On read 
ing what Papias says about Mark s Gospel, two things are 

* If there were any doubt as to the meaning of this title, it would be 
removed by the words of Irenseus in the preface to his treatise. Certain, 
he says, Trapdyovffi rbv vovv ruv airfipOTepoav, . . . paSiovpyovvTes T& \6yia 
Kvptov, e|7j777Tal ttaitol rwu /caA<s etprj/xeVwj/ yiv6[Jievoi. Papias wished to 
combat false interpretations of the " oracles " by true. Westcott, N. T 
Canon, p. 577. 

H 2 



100 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vil. 

apparent first, Papias had a strong belief in Mark s perfect 
accuracy. Three times in this short fragment he asserts it : 
* Mark wrote down accurately everything he remembered ; 
Mark committed no error; He made it his rule not to omit 
anything he heard, or to set down any false statement there 
in. Secondly, that Papias was for some reason dissatisfied 
with Mark s arrangement, and thought it necessary to apolo 
gize for it. No account of this passage is satisfactory which 
will not explain why, if Papias reverenced Mark so much, he 
was dissatisfied with his order. Here Kenan s hypothesis 
breaks down at once the hypothesis, namely, that Papias 
was in possession of only two documents, and these totally 
different in their nature : the one a collection of discourses, 
and the other a collection of anecdotes. Respecting, as he 
did, Mark s accuracy, Papias would assuredly have accepted 
his order had he not been in possession of some other docu 
ment, to which for some reason he attached more value in 
this particular a document going over somewhat the same 
ground as Mark s, but giving the facts in different order. 
It is clear that the Mark of which Papias was in possession 
did not merely consist of loose collections of unconnected 
anecdotes of our Lord s life, but was a Gospel aiming at 
some orderly arrangement. It was not the case that the 
copies of this Gospel so differed from each other as to make 
it uncertain what was the order in which it gave the facts. 
This order was definite, and though Papias was dissatisfied 
with it, and tried to explain why it was not different, he 
never maintained that Mark had originally written the facts 
in any different or preferable order. And it is clear that 
he had more such Gospels than one, namely, at the least, 
St. Mark s Gospel, and some other Gospel, with whose order 
he compared St. Mark s, and found it different. 

The question then remains to be answered : If Papias 
held that Mark s Gospel was not written in the right order, 
what was, in his opinion, the right order ? Strauss considers 
and rejects three answers to this question, as being all in 
admissible, at least on the supposition that the Gospel known 
to Papias as St. Mark s was the same as that which we 
receive under that name. These answers are : first, that the 



VII.] PAPIAS. 10 1 

right order was St. John s ; secondly, that the right order 
was St. Matthew s; thirdly, that Papias meant to deny to 
Mark the merit not only of the right order, but of any his 
torical arrangement whatever. Of these three solutions, the 
first that the right order in Papias s mind was St. John s 
is that defended with great ability by Bishop Lightfoot. 
Besides these there remains another, which I believe to be 
the true one, namely, that what Papias regarded as the right 
order was St. Luke s. The reason, I suppose, why this 
solution has been thought unworthy of discussion is, that 
no mention of St. Luke is made in any of the fragments 
of Papias which have reached us ; from which it has been 
assumed to be certain that Papias was unacquainted with 
Luke s writings. Now, if we had the whole work of Papias, 
and found he had said nothing about St. Luke, it might be 
reasonable to ask us to account for his silence ; but when we 
have only remaining some very brief extracts from his book, 
it seems ludicrous to conclude that Papias was ignorant of 
St. Luke, merely because Eusebius found in his work no 
statement concerning Luke which he thought worth copy-^ 
ing. With regard to Matthew and Mark, Eusebius found the 
statements that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and that 
Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and these he thought worth pre 
serving; but if Papias added nothing to what was known; 
about Luke, we can understand why Eusebius should not I 
have copied any mention of Luke by Papias. The fragments 
preserved contain clear traces that Papias was acquainted 
with the Acts, and since, as we have seen, Luke s Gospel 
was certainly known to Justin Martyr, who was not so much, 
later than Papias that both may not have been alive at the* 
same time, the conclusion that it was known by Papias also 1 
is intrinsically most probable. When, therefore, in explain 
ing the language used by Papias, we have to choose between I 
the hypothesis that he was acquainted with Luke s Gospel, 
and the hypothesis that the Matthew and Mark known to 
Papias perished without leaving any trace of their existence, 
and were in the next generation silently replaced by another ,- 
Matthew and Mark, the former hypothesis is plainly to be 
preferred, if it will give an equally good account of the pheno-^ 



102 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vil. 

mena. Since we know from Justin that it was the custom to 
read the Gospels every Sunday in the Christian assemblies, 
the notion that one of these could have been utterly lost, and 
another under the same name substituted, is as extravagant a 
supposition as can well be imagined. 

In support of my opinion that Papias knew St. Luke, I 
may quote an authority above suspicion Hilgenfeld, who 
may be pronounced a leader of the present German Ration 
alist school. His notion is that Papias was acquainted with 
Luke s Gospel, but did not ascribe to it the same authority as 
to Matthew and Mark. And his opinion, that Papias knew 
St. Luke, is founded on a comparison of the preface to Luke s 
Gospel with the preface to Papias s work, in which he finds 
many phrases which seem to him an echo of St. Luke. I am 
disposed to think he is right ; but the resemblance is not 
striking enough to convince anyone inclined to deny it. 
Lightfoot comes to the same conclusion on different grounds, 
namely, on account of a striking coincidence between one of 
the fragments of Papias and Luke x. 18. 

But if we assume that Papias recognized St. Luke s Gos 
pel, the language which he uses with respect to St. Mark s 
is at once accounted for. The preface to St. Luke s Gospel 
declares it to be the Evangelist s intention to write in order 
ypdif/ai Ka6cf)<s, but a reader could not go far without finding 
out that Luke s order is not always the same as Mark s. In 
the very first chapter of St. Mark the healing of Peter s wife s 
mother is placed after the Apostle s call to become a fisher of 
men, in opposition to Luke s order. It is on this difference 
of order that, as I understand the matter, Papias undertook 
to throw light by his traditional anecdotes. And his account 
of the matter is that Mark was but the interpreter of Peter, 
whose teaching he accurately reported; that Peter had not 
undertaken to give any orderly account of our Lord s words 
or deeds ; that he only delivered these instructions from time 
to time as the needs of his people required ; and that Mark 
was, therefore, guilty of no falsification in faithfully reporting 
what he had heard. 

We have no evidence that Papias s notice about St. Matthew 
occurred in the same context as that about St. Mark ; but I 



VII.] PAPIAS. 103 

think it likely that this remark was also made in explanation 
of an apparent disagreement between the first Gospel and 
one of the others. And I conceive Papias s solution of the 
difficulty to be, that the Church was not then in possession 
of the Gospel as Matthew wrote it that the Greek Matthew 
was but an unauthorized translation from a Hebrew original, 
which each one had translated for himself as he could. Thus, 
in place of its being true that Papias did not use our present 
Gospels, I believe the truth to be that he was the first who 
attempted to harmonize them, assuming the principle that 
no apparent disagreement between them could affect their 
substantial truth. 

Thus, then, these explanations lead to the same inference 
as the use of the word Aoyta in speaking of St. Matthew s 
Gospel ; both indicate that Papias regarded the Gospels as 
really inspired utterances. When he finds what seems a 
disagreement between the Gospels, he is satisfied there can 
be no real disagreement. Mark s order may be different from 
Luke s ; but, then, that was because it was not Mark s design 
to recount the facts in their proper order. Three times over 
he repeats that Mark committed no error, but wrote all things 
truly. If in Matthew s Gospel, as he read it, there seemed 
any inaccuracy, this must be imputed to the translators ; the 
Gospel as Matthew himself wrote it was free from fault. 

Weighing these things, I have convinced myself that Bishop , 
Lightfoot has given the true explanation of a passage, from, 
which ah erroneous inference has been drawn. Papias de 
clares, in a passage which I have already cited, i If I met 
with anyone who had been a follower of the elders anywhere, 
I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the , 
elders, what was said by Andrew, by Peter, by Philip, what! 
by Thomas or James, what by John or Matthew, or any other 
of the disciples of our Lord, and the things which Aristion 
and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, say ; for I did 
not think that I could get so much benefit from the contents 
of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding 
voice. The question is : Does this disparagement of written , 
books extend to our Gospels? Are we to suppose that Papias 
regarded these books, if he had them, as in no sense inspired, 



104 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [VII. 



at he preferred to obtain his knowledge of the Saviour s 
earthly life from viva voce tradition ? Considering his solici 
tude to clear the Gospels from all charge of inaccuracy, I feel 
convinced that these were not the writings which he found 
comparatively useless to him for his work. The title of his 
book was, as I understand it, An Exposition of the Gospels; 
and it was in seeking for traditions to supplement and illus 
trate the Scripture history that he found it useless to search 
the Gnostic interpretations* then current, and that he preferred 
his own collection of viva voce traditions, whose genuineness 
could, as he alleged, be proved by tracing them up, like the 
I four Gospels, to the Apostles themselves. 

It is worth while to take notice also of the commencement 
of the preface of Papias : * I shall not scruple also to place 
along with my interpretations anything that I carefully learned 
from the elders. Here we have in the first rank, as the object 
of Papias s work, expositions of the oracles of our Lord inter 
pretations; that is to say, he assumes an existing authoritative 
text, on which he comments, and which he tries to explain ; 
and then, with a little apology, he takes leave to put his 
traditions forward as on the same level with his interpretations. 
But neither one nor the other seems to come into competition 
with the text. Those who would have us believe that Papias 
preferred his traditions to the Evangelic text forget that he 
tells us the two things that he was in possession of a book 
written by Matthew, and that he also made it his business to 
inquire from anyone who could tell him what Matthew had 
said. Papias must have been even of weaker understanding 
than Eusebitis would lead us to think, if he regarded hearsay 
reports as better evidence what were the statements of Matthew 
than the testimony of a book which he believed to have been 
written by that Apostle. But Papias might fairly retort the 
charge of stupidity on his critics. He had called Matthew s 

* Basilides, apparently a contemporary of Papias, is said to have written 
twenty-four books on the Gospel (Euseb. H. E. iv. 7). Two fragments 
of these Exegetica have been preserved : one by Clement of Alexandria 
(Strom, iv. 12), the other in the Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus 
and Manes (Routh, Rell. Sac.v. 196). These extracts make it probable 
that the Gospel of St. Luke was one of the books on which Basilides 
commented. 



VII.] PAPIAS. . 105 

book the Logia, and his own book an interpretation of 
* Logia. To find a parallel case, then, we must imagine a 
writer of the present day publishing a commentary on the 
* In Memoriam, and stating in his preface that he had taken 
pains to question everyone that he met with who had conversed 
with the Laureate, and that he regarded the interpretations he 
had thus been able to collect as more valuable than anything 
he had seen in print. What should we think of a reviewer 
who, reading no further than the preface, should report that 
the author maintained that none of the printed editions of 
Tennyson s Poems could be relied on, and that he attached 
no value to anything save certain stanzas he had heard in 
conversation to have been recited by the poet ? 

On the whole, then, I arrive at the conclusion that Papias 
recognized an Evangelic text, to which he ascribed the 
highest authority, and in the perfect accuracy of which he 
had strong faith. In my own mind I have no doubt that this 
text consisted of the four Gospels we now have. Papias has 
named two of his Gospels, those of St. Matthew and St. 
Mark ; and I see no ground for imagining that these names 
totally changed their signification in the course of a genera 
tion. With regard to the use of St. John s Gospel by Papias, 
the presumption arising from his confessed use of the First 
Epistle is confirmed by several indications in the list of names 
already quoted. Andrew is placed before Peter, as in John 
i. 44 (compare Mark i. 29) ; Philip and Thomas are selected 
for mention, who have no prominence except in St. John s 
Gospel; Matthew and John are coupled together, the simplest 
explanation of which is that both were known to Papias as 
authors of Gospels. In the context of this list, Papias calls 
our Lord by the Johannine title of the Truth. And Light- 
foot gives strong reasons for thinking Papias to be the author 
of a passage quoted anonymously by Irenaeus, and which 
contains a quotation from St. John. Lightfoot s reasons 
have been accepted as convincing by an unprejudiced critic, 
Harnack. Of Papias s use of St. Luke s Gospel I have 
spoken already, and we shall not doubt that he recognized 
this Gospel if we afterwards find reason to think that he was 
acquainted with the Acts of the Apostles. 



106 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vil. 

If still earlier evidence than that of Papias is required, the 
only difficulty is that the books from which we might have 
drawn our testimony have perished. The extant remains of 
earlier Christian literature are few ; and, indeed, it is likely 
that the first generation of Christians, among whom there 
were not many learned, and who were in constant expectation 
of their Master s second coming, did not give birth to many 
books. As to the remains we do possess, I avoid burdening 
your memory with too many details, and I will only quote a 
specimen from him who is accounted the earliest of uninspired 
writers, Clement of Rome, in order to show the kind of testi 
mony which those who are known as the Apostolic Fathers 
afford : Remember the words of our Lord Jesus, for he said, 
Woe to that man ; it were better for him that he had not been 
born than that he should offend one of my elect. It were 
better for him that a millstone should be tied about his neck,, 
and that he should be drowned in the sea, than that he should 
offend one of my little ones (Clem. Rom. 46). Elsewhere he 
says : Especially remembering the words of our Lord Jesus, 
which he spake, teaching gentleness and long-suffering. For 
thus he said, Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy : 
forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall 
it be done unto you : as ye give, so shall it be given unto 
you : as ye judge, so shall ye be judged : as ye show kind 
ness, so shall kindness be shown unto you : with what 
measure ye mete, with the same shall it be measured unto 
you (Ch. 13). Similar quotations are found in the Letters of 
Polycarp and Ignatius, but the passages I have read illustrate 
the two characteristics of these early citations first, that 
they do not mention the name of the source whence they 
are taken ; secondly, that, though they substantially agree 
with passages in our present Gospels, they do not do so lite 
rally and verbally. There are two questions, then, to be 
settled First : Is the writer quoting from a written source at 
all, or is he merely using oral traditions of our Lord s sayings 
and doings ? Secondly : Is he using our Gospels, or some 
other record of our Saviour s life ? It seems to me that the 
words Remember the words of our Lord Jesus, when ad 
dressed to the members of a distant Church who had received 



VII.] CLEMENT OF ROME. 10y 

no oral instructions from the writer, point distinctly, not to 
oral tradition, but a written record, which Clement could 
know to be recognized as well by those whom he was addres 
sing as by himself. St. Paul, addressing the Ephesian elders, 
might say, Remember the words of our Lord Jesus, how he 
said, It is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts xx. 35 ), 
although these words do not occur in our Gospel history, 
because he had taught for three years in Ephesus, and there 
fore had the means of knowing that his readers had heard 
the same words before. But the words, Remember the words 
of our Lord Jesus, when addressed to men, as to the oral 
instruction delivered to whom the writer apparently had no 
means of knowledge, point, in my opinion, plainly to written 
sources of information. And it appears to me unreasonable 
to suppose that these written sources of information were 
works which have disappeared, and not those works to which 
we find testimonies very little less ancient than the quotations 
to which I refer, and which contain the passages cited, the 
verbal differences not exceeding those that are commonly 
found in memoriter quotations. I have already spoken of the 
degree of accuracy that may reasonably be looked for in the 
memoriter quotations of the very early Fathers. 

But, before parting with the Apostolic Fathers, I must 
produce a passage which illustrates the skill of critics in re 
sisting evidence produced to prove something which they 
have, on a priori grounds, decided not to admit. There are 
those who have made up their minds that the Gospels are 
comparatively late compositions, and who are certain that 
they could not, for a long time, have been looked on as 
inspired or treated as Scripture. Now, the Epistle of Barna 
bas is a work which, though not likely to have been written 
by the Apostle Barnabas, is owned on all hands to be one of 
great antiquity, dating from the end of the first century, or at 
least the beginning of the second,* a period at which, accord 
ing to some of our opponents, St. Matthew s Gospel was per 
haps not written, and at any rate could not yet have been 
counted as Scripture. But this Epistle contains (c. 4) the 

* Hilgenfeld dates it A.D. 97. 



108 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vil. 

exhortation, Let us take heed lest, as it is written, we be 
found, many called, but few chosen. Here we have a plain 
quotation from St. Matthew, introduced with the well-known 
formula of Scripture citation, It is written. But this part 
of the Epistle of Barnabas was till lately only extant in a 
Latin translation ; hence it was said that it was impossible 
that these words, It is written, could have been in the ori 
ginal Greek. They must have been an interpolation of the 
Latin translator. Hilgenfeld, in an early work,* went so far 
as to admit that the Greek text contained some formula of 
citation, but he had no doubt it must have been * as Jesus 
says, or some such like. Unfortunately, however, lately the 
Greek text of this portion of the Epistle of Barnabas came to 
light, being part of the newly- discovered Sinaitic Manuscript, 
and there stands the as it is written, cos yey/oaTrrai, beyond 
mistake. Then it was suggested that the quotation is not 
from St. Matthew, but from the second book of Esdras. 
Now, it is a question whether this book is not post-Christian 
(as certainly some portions of the present text of it are), and 
possibly later than St. Matthew say as late as the end of 
the first century. But the words there are, Many are created, 
but few shall be saved. The contention that the words 
Many are called, but few chosen, are not from St. Matthew, 
but from this passage, though this itself may have been 
derived from our Gospels, is only a proof of the straits to 
which our opponents are reduced. Then it was suggested 
that the quotation was perhaps from some lost apocryphal 
book. And lately a more plausible solution, though itself 
sufficiently desperate, has been discovered. Scholtenf sug 
gests that the phrase It is written was used by Barnabas 
through a lapse of memory. The words many are called, 
but few chosen, ran in his head, and he had forgotten where 
he had read them, and fancied it was somewhere in the Old 
Testament. I think this is an excellent illustration of the 
difficulty of convincing a man against his will. 



* Die apostolischen Vater, p. 48 (1853). 

+ Scholten (born 181 1), Emeritus Professor of the University of Ley den, 
representative of the extreme school of revolutionary criticism. 



( I0 9 ) 



VIII. 



THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 

PART I . 

INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THEIR ANTIQUITY. 

have now traced back, as far as we had any materials, 
the history of the reception of the Gospels in the 
Church ; and have found no sign that the existing tradition 
concerning their authorship has ever varied.* 

One remark I must make as to what that tradition exactly 
was. Renan observes (p. xvi) that the formulae according 
to Matthew, according to Mark, &c., indicate that the 
earliest opinion was, not that these stories were written from 
one end to the other by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but 
only that they contain traditions emanating from these re 
spective sources and guaranteed by their authority.! But 
assuredly if that had been what was intended by the phrase 
according to, the second and third Gospels would have been 
known as the Gospel according to Peter, and the Gospel 
according to Paul. The account of Papias, that Mark did 
nothing but record narrations of Peter concerning our Lord> 

* The student who desires to see the evidence of the early use of the 
Gospels in fuller detail will find valuable assistance in Anger s Synopsis. 
It is an arrangement of the Evangelic text in the form of a harmony, and 
aims at giving in connexion with each passage any illustrative parallel to be 
found in writers earlier than Irenaeus. 

f I observe that Renan has struck this sentence out of his later editions, 
which, I suppose, is to be regarded as a confession that the argument it 
contained cannot be relied on. 



110 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [vill. 

was received with general belief by the early Church.* And 
it was just as generally believed that the third Gospel rested 
on the authority of St. Paul. Irenaeus, for instance, says (in. i.) 
Paul s follower, Luke, put in a book the Gospel preached 
by him. Some ancient interpreters even understand the 
phrase according to my Gospel, which occurs in the Pauline 
Epistlesf to refer to the Gospel according to St. Luke (Euseb., 
H. E. iii. 4). Clearly, then, if the phrase according to* had 
been understood to imply anything less than actual author 
ship, the Church would never have been content to designate 
these Gospels by the names of those who transmitted the 
tradition at second-hand, but would have named them more 
honourably after the great Apostles on whose authority they 
were believed to rest. It is plain, then, that the phrase the 
Gospel according to indicates only the Church s sense of the 
unity of the fourfold narrative, the same good tidings being 
contained in all, only presented differently by different hands. 
Thus, though Justin Martyr uses the word Gospel in the 
plural number, speaking of the Memoirs that are called 
Gospels (see p. 65), and Irenaeus also speaks of four Gospels, 
and tries to prove that there could neither be more nor 
fewer, yet the use is quite as early of the word Gospel in the 
singular number to denote the entire record of the Saviour s 
life. Thus we find in Justin Martyr, the precepts in what is 
called the Gospel (Trypho, c. 10), it is written in the 
Gospel (c. 100). In the passage of Irenaeus to which I 
have just referred, though he does occasionally use the plural 
number, yet the singular prevails, and it would be more 
accurate to state his thesis as The Gospel is essentially four 
fold, rather than as There can be only four Gospels. And 
he habitually uses the form of citation as it is written in the 
Gospel, % and so do other early writers. Clement of Alex- 



* See note, p. 93. Clement states (/. c.} that the tradition which had 
reached him was, that the Gospels containing the genealogies had been 
written first, and that Mark afterwards wrote his Gospel at Rome at the 
request of Peter s hearers, who desired to have a permanent record of the 
Gospel orally preached by that Apostle ; Peter himself not interfering 
either to forbid or encourage the design. 

t Rom. ii. 16 ; xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; see also 2 Thess. ii. 14. 

J For example : n. xxvi. 2 ; in. xxiii. 3 ; IV. xx. 6. 



VIII.] THEIR TITLES. I I I 

andria speaks of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel 
(Strom, iii. 70; iv. 2, 91). Accordingly the earliest MSS. 
represent the Gospels not as four separate works, but as one 
work bearing the title Gospel, divided into four sections, 
according to Matthew, according to Mark, &c. These 
were, in short, but the forms in which four different Evan 
gelists had committed the Gospel to writing.* And so St. 
Augustine speaks of the four Gospels, or rather the four 
books of the one Gospel. f 

The titles of the Gospels regarded in another point of view 
prove their own historic character. If they had been arbi 
trarily chosen, we may be sure that persons of greater 
distinction in the history of the Church would have been 
selected. Matthew is one of the least prominent of the 
Apostles, and the dignity of Apostleship is not even claimed 
for Mark and Luke. It would have been so easy to claim a 
more distinguished authorship for the Gospels, that we have 
the less right to refuse credence to what is actually claimed, 
namely, that the two Evangelists just named, though not 
Apostles, and possibly not even eyewitnesses themselves, 
were in immediate contact with Apostles and eyewitnesses. 

It remains, then, to test this tradition by internal evidence. 
When we examine the Gospels with a critical eye, do we 
find reason to think that they cannot be so early as the date 
claimed for them, viz. the first age of the Church the age 
when Apostles and other eyewitnesses of our Saviour s 
ministry were still alive and accessible to the writers of 
these narratives? If we reflect for a moment we shall be 
convinced that in that early age there must have been Gos 
pels: if not the Gospels we know, at least some other Gospels. 
Two things may be regarded as certain in the history of our 
religion: first, that it spread with extraordinary rapidity 
that within twenty or thirty years of our Lord s death the 
Gospel had travelled far outside the borders of Palestine, so 
that there were Christians in widely separated cities ; and, 
secondly, that the main subject of the preaching of every 

* I take this to be what is intended in the account of Irenseus (III. i.) 
AOVKO.S rb UTT e/ceiVou Kr^pvcro ofj.evov evayy\iov V fii$\i 
Icoai/j/Tjs Kal avrbs e|e5w/ce rb tvayyehiov eV E<eV<p Siurpi/Suv. 

t Tract in Joan,, xxxvi. vol. ill. 543. 



112 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 

missionary of the Church was Jesus Christ. Numerous pas 
sages will rise to your minds in which the work of these first 
missionaries is described as preaching Christ. St. Luke 
says of the Apostles at Jerusalem, Daily in the temple and 
in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus 
Christ (Acts v. 42). When persecution scattered away the 
disciples from Jerusalem, St. Luke tells us of those who> 
came to Antioch and spoke to the Grecians, preaching the 
Lord Jesus (Acts xi. 20). We preach not ourselves, says 
St. Paul (2 Cor. iv. 5), but Christ Jesus the Lord. What 
ever were the dissensions in the early Church, of which we 
now hear so much, they did not affect this point. Some, 
says St. Paul (Phil. i. 15), preach Christ even of envy and 
strife, and some also of goodwill; but every way, whether 
in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached. The zeal of the 
first disciples made every Christian a missionary into what 
ever town he went ; and the work of the missionary was, as we 
have seen, to preach a person. Consequently the preacher 
must have been prepared to answer the questions, Who was 
this Jesus whom you preach ? What did he do ? What did 
he teach ? And since the preachers could rarely answer 
these questions from their personal knowledge, it was a 
necessity for their work that they should be furnished with 
authentic answers resting on a higher authority than their 
own. We cannot doubt, then, that the first age of the Church 
must have had its Gospels, and the question is whether we 
are bound to reject the claim of these books of ours to have 
been, at least, among the number. 

When I discussed the external evidences to the Gospels, 
I considered all four together ; for my judgment is that, with 
respect to external evidence, there is no appreciable difference 
between them. But the internal characteristics of the fourth 
Gospel are so different from those of the other three, and the 
special objections made against it so numerous, that it will be 
necessary to consider this Gospel separately. I shall, there 
fore, now speak only of the first three, commonly called the 
Synoptic Gospels a title which is so well established that it 
is now too late to discuss its propriety.* 

* The idea is that these Gospels agree in giving one synopsis or general 
view of the same series of events. 



VIII.] THEIR REPORT OF OUR LORD S DISCOURSES. 113 

There is one class of passages in these Gospels on which 
the stamp of antiquity is impressed so deeply as to leave no 
room for dispute : I mean those which record discourses of 
our Lord. That the report of these discourses is substantially 
accurate no unprejudiced critic can doubt. Renan speaks of 
the naturalness, the ineffable truth, the matchless charm of 
the Synoptic discourses ; their profoundly Hebrew turn ; the 
analogies they present to the sayings of Jewish doctors of 
the same time; their perfect harmony with the scenery of 
Galilee (p. xxx). Elsewhere (p. xxxvii) he says, A kind of 
brilliancy at once mild and terrible, a divine force, underlines 
these words, if I may say so, detaches them from the context, 
and enables the critic easily to recognize them. The true 
words of Jesus, so to say, reveal themselves. When they are 
touched in this chaos of traditions of unequal authenticity 
we feel them vibrate. They come, we may say, spontaneously 
to take their places in our story, where they stand out inf 
striking relief. 

Indeed, I need hardly quote the testimony of Renan or of 
anybody else ; for we have sufficient evidence of the substan 
tial truthfulness of the Gospel report of our Lord s discourses 
in the fact that in all Christian literature there is nothing 
like them. If, instead of simply reporting these discourses, 
the first disciples had invented them, they could have invented 
something else of the same kind. Actually, it is a little sur 
prising that the men who were so deeply impressed by our 
Lord s teaching, and who so fully imbibed the spirit of it, 
should never have attempted to imitate its form. In point of 
style, we travel into a new country when we pass from the 
Synoptic Gospels to the Apostolic Epistles. Those who 
heard our Lord s parables, and who could not fail to have 
been struck by their beauty, and by the force with which they 
brought to the mind the lessons they were meant to convey, 
never, as far as we know, used the same method of impressing 
any lessons of their own. Among early uninspired Christian 
writers there were several imitators of the Apostolic Epistles, 
but only one, Hermas, who attempted to imitate the parables, 
and that with such poor success that we need the less wonder 
that others did not try the experiment. 

i 



114 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [vill. 

Thus we see, that if tradition had been silent, criticism 
would have told us the story that tradition now tells : There 
are things here which must either have been written down by 
men who heard Jesus of Nazareth speak, or else by men who 
faithfully transmitted the account given to them by the actual 
hearers. And we have every reason also to think that no 
great time could have elapsed before the recollections of our 
Lord s teaching were reduced to a permanent form. Cer 
tainly those who exclude miracle, and who look upon our 
Lord merely as an eminent teacher, cannot otherwise account 
for the substantial faithfulness of the evangelistic record of 
His discourses. A few detached aphorisms of a great teacher 
may be carried by the memory for some time, and be passed 
on from one to another ; but discourses of the length we find 
in the Gospels would, in the ordinary course of things, have 
perished, if they had not been from the first either committed 
to writing, or, if committed to memory, kept alive by constant 
repetition. It is surprising how little of spoken words ordi 
nary memories are able to retain. I believe that anyone who 
has been much in the company of a distinguished man will, 
on his death, be astonished to find how extremely little in the 
way of reminiscences of his conversation he will be able to 
recall. If Boswell has been able to give a vivid representa 
tion of Dr. Johnson s Table-Talk, it is because he used to 
stand behind the chair of the object of his veneration, with 
note-book in hand. And it was in the same way that Luther s 
Table-Talk was preserved. It is quite true that some memo 
ries are exceptionally retentive, and true also that the words 
of Jesus were of surpassing interest. All however that follows 
from this is, that it is not necessary to conclude that our 
Lord s discourses were written down in His own lifetime: 
but it seems to me not rational to suppose that, if any long 
time had passed after the day of Pentecost before his dis 
courses were reduced to a permanent form, they could have 
been preserved to us with so much faithfulness and so much 
purity. 

Nor do I think that the case is altered when we look at 
the matter from a Christian point of view. We believe that 
the Apostles were aided by the Holy Spirit, who brought to 



VIII.] THEIR REPORT OF OUR LORD S DISCOURSES. 115 

their memories the things that Jesus had said. But we have 
no reason to think that this assistance was bestowed on such 
terms as to relieve them from the duty of taking ordinary 
precautions for the preservation of what was thus recalled to! 
their minds. 

I hold it, then, to be certain that the existing Gospels con 
tain elements which are, in the highest sense of the word, 
Apostolic ; and the present question is, Are we to confine 
this character to that part of them which records our Lord s 
discourses ? Are we to suppose that the Apostles carefully 
remembered and accurately reported what Jesus said, and 
that they neglected the easier task of recording what he did ? 
or was this a point on which their hearers would not be 
curious for information? No one can answer this or any 
other historical question rightly who projects his own feel 
ings into the minds of men who lived centuries ago. A 
nineteenth-century critic may be deeply impressed by the 
excellence and beauty of the moral teaching ascribed to Jesus 
of Nazareth. He very willingly grants that it would be in 
conceivable that four illiterate Jews should each indepen 
dently arrive at a degree of wisdom far surpassing that 
obtained by any other of their nation ; and so he may readily 
accept their own account of the matter, namely, that all had 
obtained their wisdom from one common source. But 
the modern critic does not care to hear of miracles ; and 
he would, if possible, prefer to believe that one in other 
respects so admirable as Jesus had made no pretensions to 
supernatural power. But it is absurd to imagine that this was 
the frame of mind of the first disciples. Who can conceive 
of them as men only solicitous to hear what had been the 
words of Jesus, and indifferent to the report of His works ? 
I have said that the first Christian missionaries summarized 
their work as preaching Christ. And if we look at the 
specimens of their teaching, whether as presented in the 
book of the Acts or in the unquestioned Apostolic Epistles, 
we see that this meant far less preaching what Christ had 
said than what He had done. The character in which He is 1 
presented is not that of a wise moral teacher, but of one 
anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power, who wentl 

I 2 



Il6 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [vill. 

about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed with 
the devil. Look at any of the places in the Epistles where 
the word Gospel is used, and you will see that * preaching 
the Gospel meant telling the story of the life and death and 
resurrection of our Lord. It follows then (without taking 
into account the fact that many of our Lord s sayings would 
not have been intelligible without an explanation of the cir 
cumstances under which they were spoken) that we cannot 
reasonably believe that those who preserved a record of our 
Lord s words did not also relate something of His acts. In 
point of fact, our three Synoptic Gospels contain a common 
element, which includes deeds as well as words of Christ; and 
the only satisfactory account of this common element is, that 
it represents an apostolic tradition used by all three. 

Later on I shall have to say a little as to the theories that 
have been framed to explain the mutual relations of the 
Synoptic Gospels: theories which propose to account as well 
for their substantial agreement as for their variations in detail. 
At present I am concerned with the coincidences between the 
three narratives which are altogether too numerous to be 
referred to chance. They agree in the main in their selection 
of facts all travelling over nearly the same ground ; though 
independent narrators would be sure to have differed a good 
deal In their choice of subjects for narration out of a public 
life of three years. In point of fact we do find exactly 
such a difference between the life of our Lord as related by 
St. John and by the Synoptics. These last agree in the main 
in the order of their narrative; and in many cases they tell 
the story in almost identical words. If these coincidences of 
language only occurred in the report of our Lord s discourses, 
they would not afford much ground for remark; though even 
in that case, before we could assert the perfect independence 
of the reporters, we should have to inquire in what language 
our Lord spoke. If He spoke in Aramaic, different indepen 
dent translators of His words into Greek would not be likely to 
coincide not only in words* but in grammatical constructions. 

* As an example how likely independent translators are to differ in their 
choice of words, compare the following two translations given in the 
Authorized Version for the same Greek words : The scribes which love 



VIII.] THEIR REPORT OF OUR LORD S ACTIONS. 117 

If we were to consider nothing more than the fact that in 
Aramaic there are but two tenses, and in Greek a great many, 
we see that the translator into Greek of an Aramaic sentence, 
even if he were left no choice as to the words he was to 
employ, would still have great liberty of choice as to the 
grammatical structure of his sentence. But although the 
greater number of coincidences naturally occur in the report 
of our Lord s discourses, which every narrator would be 
anxious to repeat in the very words in which they had been 
delivered to him; yet there are, besides, so many cases where, 
in the relation of incidents, the same words are employed 
by different Evangelists, that it would be a defiance of all 
probability to ascribe these coincidences to chance.* Yet, 
with all these agreements, there is so much diversity, as to 
suggest the idea to orthodox and sceptical critics alike, that 
we have here recastings by three later hands of one original 
Gospel. The difference is just this, that while the orthodox 
critic makes the original Gospel proceed from apostolic lips 
or pen, and ascribes the recastings, if we may call them so, 
to men who were in immediate contact with the Apostles ; 
sceptical critics place their original Gospel at about the same 
date that we assign to the present form of the Gospel ; while 
to the latter they assign, with one consent, a date later than 
Papias ; and many of them, owing to a blunder, of which I 
have already told you, place the death of Papias as late as 
A.D. 165. 

I have already argued that the external tradition as to the 
authorship of a book, if well confirmed, is entitled to much 
respect, and is not liable to be displaced unless confuted by 
internal evidence. Now, the mere fact that criticism can 
discover in the Gospels traces of a still older original is no 

to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the market places and the 
chief seats in the Synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts, which 
for a pretence make long prayers. St. Mark xii. 38. The scribes which 
desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the 
highest seats in the Synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts : which for 
a shew make long prayers. St. Luke xx. 46. 

* Here are two examples : His hand was restored, aTre/careo Ttier/ 77 
X*tp avrov (Mark iii. 5 ; Luke vi. 10 : Matt. xii. 13); Let it out to hus 
bandmen and went into a far country. e|e 8oTo avrbv yecapyo is xal 
(Matt. xxi. 33 ; Mark xii. I ; Luke xx. 9). 



Il8 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [VIII. 

proof whatever that they are not of the antiquity that has 
been claimed for them. Give them that date, and there still 
remains room for an earlier original ; while I hope to show 
you that there is not room for any later recasting. But I 
must first remark that the concessions which the later school 
of sceptical critics has been forced to make have evacuated 
the whole field in which critical science has a right to assert 
itself against tradition. We can well believe that there would 
be considerable differences between a document written in 
A.D. 60 and in 160 ; and, therefore, if the question were 
between two such dates, one who judged only by internal 
evidence might be justified in maintaining his opinion in 
opposition to external evidence. But now that all sober 
criticism has abandoned the extravagantly late dates which at 
one time were assigned to the Gospels, the difference between 
the contending parties becomes so small, that mere criticism 
cannot without affectation pretend to be competent to give 
a decision. Take, for example, the difference between an 
orthodox critic, who is willing to believe that the fourth 
Gospel was written by the Apostle John in extreme old age, 
towards the end of the first century, and a sceptical critic of 
the moderate school, who is willing to allow it to have been 
written early in the second century. It seems to me that this 
difference is smaller than criticism can reasonably pronounce 
upon. For I count it unreasonable to say that it is credible 
a book should have been written eighty years after our Lord s 
death, and incredible it should have been written only sixty ; 
when we have scarcely any documentary evidence as to the 
history of the Church, or the progress of Christian thought 
during the interval. So I think that the gradual approaches 
which Baur s successors have been making to the traditional 
theory indicate that criticism will in the end find itself forced 
to acquiesce in the account of the origin of the Gospels which 
the Church has always received. 

Let us examine, then, the Church account of the origin of 
the Gospels, and see whether there is anything in it which 
what we know of the histoiy of the period gives us a right to 
pronounce improbable. Although there is no evidence that 
the existing Gospels have suffered material change since 



VIII.] THEIR PREDECESSORS. 119 

their first composition, or that our present Matthew and 
Mark differ from the original Matthew and Mark, of whom 
German writers speak so much ; yet it is not asserted that 
these Gospels of ours had no predecessors. St. Luke tells us 
that he was not the first to write a Gospel ; nay, that many 
before him had taken in hand to set forth in order a declara 
tion of the things most certainly believed among Christians. 
What, then, has become of these predecessors of our Gos 
pels ? How is it that they have so utterly vanished out of 
existence ? 

That there are extant apocryphal Gospels you have doubt 
less heard. In another lecture I hope to give some account 
of them. Suffice it now to say, that none of them is imagined 
by critics of any school to be earlier than our four, because 
the shortest inspection of them shows that they presuppose 
and acknowledge the Canonical. Accordingly, when Tisch- 
endorf maintained that the present apocryphal Gospel of 
St. James was known to Justin Martyr, and that the Gospel 
of Nicodemus represents the Acts of Pilate, probably current 
in the second century, such a theory was loudly protested 
against by sceptical critics, because these documents presup 
pose respectively the Gospels of Matthew and John, which, 
therefore, must have been much earlier. The choice of sub 
jects in the apocryphal Gospels is enough to show that they 
did not proceed from independent tradition. It is a conceiv 
able thing that since our Lord, after He had become famous, 
had crowds of hearers about Him, others besides the Apostles 
might commit to writing their recollections of His words and 
deeds : so that if the apocryphal Gospels had purported to 
give an account of our Lord s public ministry, it might at 
least deserve an examination whether they do not perchance 
contain some genuine traditions. But that they proceeded 
from invention, not from tradition, is shown by the fact that 
they are silent on those parts of our Lord s life about which 
traditions might be expected to exist. They rather under 
take to fill up the gaps of the Gospel history, to tell us the 
history of Joseph and Mary previous to their marriage, or 
the events of the Saviour s infancy or childhood. No doubt, 
Christians would naturally be curious for information about 



120 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [VIII. 

these topics, and, finding the Gospels silent, might be pre 
pared to welcome some answer to their questions from 
anyone who professed to be able to give it. But nothing is 
more intrinsically improbable than that anyone should possess 
trustworthy information on such points as these who could 
add nothing to the Gospel history of the deeds and words of 
our Saviour after He became a public teacher. 

Acknowledging, then, that no Gospel earlier than the 
Canonical is now extant, we have to ask, Did the Church 
formally select our four from the mass of evangelical tradi 
tion ; and was it in consequence of the pre-eminence given to 
these by the force of authority that the others then disap 
peared ? Not so : it is a remarkable fact that we have no 
early interference of Church authority in the making of a 
Canon ; no Council discussed this subject ; no formal deci 
sions were made. The Canon seems to have shaped itself ; 
and if, when we come further on, you are disposed to com 
plain of this because of the vagueness of the testimony of 
antiquity to one or two disputed books, let us remember that 
this non-interference of authority is a valuable topic of evi 
dence to the genuineness of our Gospels ; for it thus appears 
that it was owing to no adventitious authority, but by their 
own weight, that they crushed all rivals out of existence. 
Whence could they have had this weight except from its 
being known that the framers of these Gospels were men 
of superior authority to the others, or with access to fuller 
information ? 

Accept Luke s account of the matter as given in the pre 
face to his Gospel and in the Acts, and all is plain. He tells 
us at the beginning of the Acts that the qualification necessary 
in one to be added to the apostolic body was, that he should 
have companied with the Apostles all the time that our Lord 
went in and out among them, beginning from the baptism of 
John until the day that He was taken up. And although it is 
stated that the specific object of this was in order that the 
person chosen might give witness of the Resurrection ; yet 
the qualification itself implies that it was the special function 
of an Apostle to bear witness to the whole public life of our 
Lord, from His baptism to His ascension. Even if it had 



VIII.] THEIR PREDECESSORS. 121 

not been the official duty of an Apostle to bear this testimony, 
who can suppose that the eager curiosity of Christians for 
authentic information concerning the early life of Him, on 
whom their whole faith was built, could leave unquestioned 
the men who had been His intimate companions ; men, 
moreover, who had the promise of His Spirit to bring to 
their recollection the things that Jesus had said to them? 
It could not be, therefore, but that each Apostle would be 
frequently called on to repeat the story of the things which 
Jesus had said or done. Nothing would be more probable 
than that, on repetition he should tell the story nearly in the 
same way. Yet we cannot well suppose that the Apostle 
would at first give one continuous narrative, intended to 
embrace all that Jesus had said or done. He would be more 
likely, as Papias tells in the case of St. Peter, to give the ac 
counts of separate incidents, as the wants of his hearers made 
it expedient that this or that history should be related. Now, 
nothing would be more probable also, than that those who 
heard these sacred narratives, and desired, as every Christian 
would, to preserve the memory of them, should write down 
what they had heard ; and the next step would be to frame 
such detached accounts into an orderly narrative. This is 
what I understand from Luke s Preface, that before him 
many had taken in hand to do ; not to write from their own 
resources a life of Christ, but merely to arrange into an 
orderly story (di/araao-#at Stryy^criv) the things which had 
been orally delivered to them by those who were from the 
beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. And 
this, which they had undertaken to do, Luke, who claims to 
be possessor of more complete and accurate knowledge, also 
undertakes to do (ypanj/at /catfe^s), that so Theophilus might 
have certain knowledge of the things in which he had been 
instructed. 

It is easy to conceive that when Luke had performed his 
task, his work was recognized as so much more full, and so 
much more trustworthy than most previous arrangements of 
the apostolic traditions, that no one tried to preserve these 
abortive attempts. Similarly, if Matthew s Gospel and Mark s 
were written by the persons to whom we ascribe them, we can 



122 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [vill. 

understand how they at once superseded attempts to supply 
the same want made by men of less estimation in the Church. 
But all the facts lead us to the conclusion that these Gospels, 
which have absorbed all other attempts to commit our Lord s 
teaching to writing, must have been of so early a date, that 
no previous Gospel had had time to gain an established repu 
tation, and that they must have been written by men holding 
in the Church some position of distinction. 

We may draw what I think is a strong proof of the anti 
quity of our Gospels from the absence of all authentic tradi 
tion as to the manner of their first publication. Such tradition 
would be very welcome if it could be had, and might help us 
to a solution of several difficulties. For instance, there are 
verses wanting from some early manuscripts of the Gospels 
which internal evidence strongly disposes us to pronounce 
genuine, and yet which we find it hard to conceive that any 
transcriber would leave out, who found them in the text he 
had to copy. So the idea suggests itself, Is it not possible 
that the Evangelist may have published more than one edition 
of his Gospel, so that each of the types of manuscript repre 
sents a genuine text; the shorter representing the first edition 
of the Gospel, the fuller representing the text as subsequently 
completed by genuine additions made by the Evangelist him 
self ? But no tradition is early enough to throw any light on 
such a hypothesis, either in the way of confirmation or refuta 
tion. At the latter part of the second century, which is the 
first date from which Christian writings in any abundance 
have been preserved to us, it is evident no more was known 
on the subject than is known now. The publication of the 
Gospels dated from a time of then immemorial antiquity. 
There sprang up a belief that Matthew had published his 
Gospel in Palestine, Mark in Italy, Luke in Greece ; and at a 
later period, John in Asia-Minor, by way of supplement to 
the previous histories. It is by no means incredible that the 
fact that we have three versions of our Lord s life, with so 
much in common, may have arisen from independent publi 
cation at different places at nearly the same time ; but any 
tradition on the subject is too late for us to build much on it. 
If any traditions deserve respect they are those of Papias, 



VIII.] NECESSITY FOR WRITTEN GOSPELS. 12$ 

who made it his business to collect them, and who was com 
paratively early in date ; but even Papias is too late to give us 
much help in solving the difficulties which the question of the 
origin of the Gospels presents. 

In the absence, then, of any contemporary testimony as to 
the manner of publication of the Gospels, or as to the exist 
ence of any form of them different from what we have now, 
we have tried to examine whether there is anything opposed 
to probability in what tradition does assert, namely, that the 
books were written either by Apostles or companions of the 
Apostles. We have seen that the admission of this author 
ship still leaves an interval between the first publication of 
the Gospel story and the existing record, quite long enough 
to afford room for explaining the phenomena which the actual 
texts present. The question with which we have now to deal 
is, Can we reasonably go later ? How long could the Chris 
tian world manage to do without authoritative Gospels ? I 
answer, Not long after the first outburst of missionary zeal, 
and the consequent foundation of Churches distant from 
Jerusalem. Remember what I said just now, that there was 
a time before the word Gospel denoted the name of a book : 
the Gospel then signified the subject of the preaching of every 
Christian missionary, and that was in two words Jesus 
Christ. It was because it told the story of Jesus Christ that 
the Book of Matthew, or John, or Mark, or Luke, came to be 
called the Gospel. We know from the first detailed account 
of the Christian weekly meetings for worship that given by 
Justin Martyr that the reading of the story of Jesus Christ 
was part of the stated business of these meetings. How early 
are we to date the origin of this practice ? We have only our 
sense of historical probability to guide us. But take these 
five documents, which Baur does not question four Epistles 
of St. Paul, and the Apocalypse and gather from them what 
the early Church thought of Jesus Christ, and I feel you will 
be persuaded that to tell of Him must, from the first, have 
been the business of every Christian preacher. If a Church 
were presided over by Apostles or others who had first-hand 
knowledge of the facts, such presidents would be able to tell 
all that was necessary from their personal recollections, un- 



124 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [vill. 

assisted by any written record. But what would happen when 
the apostolic preachers who had founded a new Church went 
away ? The first expedient, no doubt, would be to leave in 
charge of it a disciple who had been thoroughly trained and 
catechized, and so might be trusted to give the people the 
lessons of which they had need. But with the multiplication 
of Churches it would become more and more difficult to find 
persons possessing that long familiarity with the facts which 
would qualify them for this task. 

It is indeed a point in which modern missions contrast 
with apostolic missions, that in our day the formation of a 
native ministry is of slow growth, and in most places where 
congregations have been gathered from the heathen, the 
majority of the teachers are furnished by the Church which 
sent forth the first missionaries. But in the apostolic days, 
soon after the first burst of missionary effort, and the preach 
ing of the Gospel in foreign cities, we read of the Apostles 
ordaining Elders in every city How were these new Elders 
to be supplied with the knowledge their office required ? The 
obvious remedy would be, that men who knew the story well 
should commit it to writing for the benefit of a new genera 
tion of teachers. Have we any cause to pronounce it unlikely 
that such a remedy should be adopted? We are not speaking 
of a pre-historic age like that of the composition of the 
Homeric poems, in the case of which it maybe deemed more 
probable that ballads should pass on from mouth to mouth, 
than that they should be preserved by the then unknown or 
unfamiliar art of writing. We have to do with a literary age. 
If we want to know what amount of literary culture was pos 
sessed by the first Christian Churches, we have, in Paul s 
unquestioned Epistles, specimens of the communications 
that passed between a Christian missionary and his converts. 
Can anyone read these letters and doubt that the first Chris 
tian teachers included men quite competent to commit their 
message to writing, and that the communities which they 
founded included men capable of appreciating and being 
grateful for such a service ? If Matthew, Mark, and Luke 
wrote their Gospels at the time tradition says they did, they 
! only met a demand which must have been then pressing, and 



VIII.] DIFFICULTY OF CHANGING AN ACCEPTED GOSPEL. 125 

which, if they had not then satisfied it, somebody else must 
have attempted to supply. 

Well, if we find reason to hold that Gospels were written 
by Apostles or their companions, is it consistent with proba 
bility to believe that they were subsequently changed from 
their original form ? I have told you of Kenan s explanation 
of the original of the Gospels in the little books in which 
different simple Christians wrote down such stories as they 
had come across concerning the Saviour s life and teaching. 
To me it is the most amazing thing in the world that a man 
should write seven volumes about the Origins of Christianity, 
and not have become cognizant of the existence of the Chris 
tian Church. One of the most patent facts in the history of 
our religion is its organization : wherever there were Chris 
tians they formed a community ; wherever a Church was 
founded it was provided with duly commissioned teachers. 
It was not the business of the individual Christian to compile 
a Gospel for himself; he was duly instructed in it by the 
recognized heads of the Christian community to which he 
belonged. I do not pretend that there was any decision of 
the universal Church on the subject. I well believe that 
the adoption of a definite form of evangelic instruction was 
regulated for each Church by its bishop, if you will permit me 
to call him so; or if any difficulty is raised as to the use of 
this word, I will say, by its presiding authority. But, on any 
view of this authority, its extension renders it incredible that 
the Gospels originated in the haphazard way which Renan 
describes. 

When the choice of which I speak was once made, was 
it liable to be easily changed ? I have spoken already of the 
blunder in historical inquiries of projecting our own feelings 
into the minds of men of former generations. This is what 
we are accused of doing here. We have been brought up 
from childhood to believe in the inspiration of these sacred 
narratives ; wilfully to change a word of them seems to us 
sacrilege. But, it is said, we have no right to attribute any 
such feeling to the first disciples, whose sole anxiety was to 
know as much as possible of what Jesus had said or done, 
and to whom it would be a matter of comparative indifference 



126 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [VIII. 

whether or not they had the exact form in which Mark or 
Luke had recorded it. But people would at least be solici 
tous about the historic certainty of the things to which they 
were to give their faith. St. Luke tells his disciple his object 
in writing was Iva eTTtyvws Trepl wi/ Karrj^Orj^ Aoyoov rrjv cur<a- 
Aetav. Without such acr<aA.eia the Christian people could not 
be satisfied. Theophilus of Antioch, writing about A.D. 180, 
says : Writers ought either to have been eyewitnesses them 
selves of the things they assert, or at least have accurately 
learned them from those who had seen them. For those who 
write uncertain things do nothing but beat the air. The 
feeling here expressed is so natural that I cannot believe that 
those who were in possession of narratives, supposed to have 
been written by men of such rank in the Church as Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke, could allow them to be altered by inferior 
authority. Little do those who suppose such an alteration 
possible know of the conservatism of Christian hearers. St. 
Augustine, in a well-known story, tells us that, when a 
bishop, reading the chapter about Jonah s gourd, ventured 
to substitute St. Jerome s hedera for the established cucur- 
bita, such a tumult was raised, that if the bishop had perse 
vered he would have been left without a congregation.* The 
feeling that resents such change is due to no later growth of 
Christian opinion. Try the experiment on any child of your 
acquaintance. Tell him a story that interests him; and when 
you next meet him tell him the story again, making variations 
in your recital, and see whether he will not detect the 
change, and be indignant at it. I do not believe, in short, 
that any Church would permit a change to be made in the 
form of evangelic instruction in which its members had been 
catechetically trained unless those who made the change 
were men of authority equal to their first instructors. Take 
the age in which the Apostles and apostolic men were going 
about as teachers ; and with regard to that age I can believe 
in recastings and divers versions of the evangelic narrative, 
all commended to the Christian world by equal authority. 
But if a bishop of the age of Papias had presumed to inno- 

* Augustine, Ep. 71, vol. ii., pp. 161, 179. 



IX.] THEORIES AS TO THEIR ORIGIN. 12 J 

vate on the Gospel as it had been delivered by those which 
from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of 
the Word, I venture to say that, like the bishop of whom 
Augustine tells, he would have been left without a congre 
gation. 



IX. 

PART II. 

THEORIES AS TO THEIR ORIGIN. 

HAVING at some length laid before you the account which 
Church tradition gives of the origin of our Gospels, I went 
on in the last lecture to compare with this the conclusions 
to which we are led by a study of these writings themselves; 
and I did not then proceed further than was necessary to 
show that these conclusions are in no wise contradictory to 
the traditional account, but rather are confirmatory of it. 
But the study of the genesis of the Gospels has much more 
than an apologetic interest. Critics of all schools have been 
tempted to grapple with the perplexing problems presented 
by the aspect of three narratives of the same series of events, 
so like each other, not only in arrangement, but in verbal 
details, as to convince us that there must be a close affinity 
of some kind between them, and yet presenting manifold 
diversities, such as to be irreconcilable with the most obvious 
ways of accounting for the resemblances. 

It is not without some reluctance that I go on to describe 
to you more minutely the problems that have to be solved, 
and to tell you something of the attempts made to solve 
them. Not that I share the feelings of some who regard their 
belief in the inspiration of the Gospels as precluding any such 
inquiry. They cannot imagine that one inspired by the Holy 
Spirit should have need to consult any previous document, 
and they think it enough to hold that such as the Gospels are 
now, such their Divine Author from the first ordained they 
should be. Some such feeling stood for a time in the way of 



128 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

geological inquiries. If the markings of a stone resembled a 
plant or a fish, it was held that this was but a sport of Creative 
Power, which had from the beginning made the fossil such as 
we see it. Yet we now feel that we may lawfully study the 
indications of their origin which God s works present, in the 
reverent belief that He has not mocked us with delusive sug 
gestions of a fictitious history. Similarly we may pronounce 
it to be not truly reverent to decline a careful study of God s 
Word on account of any preconceived theory as to the mode 
of composition most befitting an inspired writer. 

My reluctance to enter with you upon this inquiry arises 
solely from my sense of its extreme difficulty. As I have 
already said, we are on ground where we have no authentic 
history to guide us; for the earliest uninspired Church writers 
are far too late to have had personal knowledge of the pub 
lication of the Gospels, and such traditions as they have 
preserved are extremely scanty, and not always to be im 
plicitly relied on. And the history of the present speculations 
shows how difficult it is to plant firm footsteps where we are 
obliged to depend on mere criticism, unaided by historical 
testimony. For if I wished to deter you from forming any 
theory as the origin of the Gospels, and to persuade you that 
knowledge on this subject is now unattainable by man, I 
should only have to make a list for you of the discordant 
results arrived at by a number of able and ingenious men 
who have given much study to the subject. 

Yet patient and careful thought has so often gained un 
expected victories, that we incur the reproach of indolent 
cowardice if we too easily abandon problems as insoluble. 
In particular, we ought not to grudge our labour when it is 
on God s Word we are asked to bestow our study. It is 
scarcely creditable to Christians that in recent years far more 
pains have been expended on the minute study of the New 
Testament writings by those who recognized in them no 
Divine element, than by those who believe in their inspira 
tion. In fact, their very belief in inspiration, fixing the 
thoughts of Christians on the Divine Author of the Bible, 
made them indifferent or even averse to a comparative ex 
amination of the work of the respective human authors of the 



IX.] WAYS OF ACCOUNTING FOR THEIR AGREEMENTS. 129 

sacred books. They were sure there could be no contradiction 
between them, and it was all one to their faith in what part of 
the Bible a statement was made, so that no practical object 
seemed to be gained by inquiring whether or not what was 
said by Matthew was said also by Mark. In modern times the 
study of the New Testament has been taken up by critics who, 
far from shutting their eyes to discrepancies, are eager to 
magnify into a contradiction the smallest indication they can 
discover of opposite tendencies in the different books; and 
we must at least acknowledge the closeness and carefulness 
of their reading, and be willing in that respect to profit by 
their example. For these reasons, notwithstanding the dis 
couraging absence of agreement among the critics who have 
tried from a study of the Gospels themselves to deduce the 
history of their origin, I think myself bound to lay before you 
some account of their speculations. 

The hypotheses which have been used to account for the 
close agreement of the Synoptic Evangelists in so much com 
mon matter are three-fold : (i) The Evangelists copied, one 
from another ; the work of him whom we may place first having 
been known to the second, and these two to the third. (2) The 
Evangelists made use of one or more written documents 
which have now perished. (3) The common source was not 
written but oral, the very words in which Apostles had first 
told the story of the Saviour s works having been faithfully 
preserved by the memory of different disciples. There is wide 
room for differences among themselves in details between the| 
advocates of each of these three solutions ; and the solutions 
also may be variously combined, for they do not exclude one 
another. If the first of the three Synoptics, whichever he 
was, made use of a previous document, it is conceivable that 
the second Evangelist may have not only made use of the 
first Gospel, but also of that previous document ; while, again, 
if we assert that an Evangelist used written documents, we 
are still not in a position to deny that some of the things he 
records had been communicated to him orally. Evidently, 
therefore, there is room for a great variety of rival hypotheses. 

Before I enter on any detailed discussion of them there is 
a preliminary caution which it is by no means unnecessary 

K 



130 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

to give, viz. that in our choice of a solution we ought to be 
determined solely by a patient comparison of each hypothesis 
with the facts ; and that we are not entitled to decide off-hand 
on any solution according to the measure of its agreement 
with our preconceived theory of inspiration. For example, 
there are some who think that they are entitled to reject with 
out examination both the first and the second of the solutions 
I have stated, because they cannot believe that if the story of 
our Lord s life had been once written down by an inspired 
hand, any subsequent writer who knew of it would permit 
himself to vary from it in the slightest degree ; while they do 
not find the same difficulty in conceiving that variations may 
have been introduced into the narrative in the process of oral 
transmission before it was written down.* For myself, I see 
no a priori reason for preferring one account of the matter to 
the other. If we had had to speculate beforehand on the way 
in which it was likely God would have provided an inspired 
record of the life of His Son upon this earth, we should not 
have guessed that there would be four different narratives 
presenting certain variations among themselves. But we 
know, as a matter of fact, that He has not seen fit to secure 
uniformity of statement between the sacred writers. I need 
not delay to give reasons for thinking that the Bible, such as 
we have it, is better adapted for the work it was to accom 
plish than if it had been endowed with attributes which men 
might think would add to its perfection. I content myself 
with the matter of fact that God has permitted that there 
should be variations between the Gospels ; and if He did not 
choose to prevent them by miraculously guarding the memory 
of those who reported the narratives before they were written 
down, I know no greater reason for His interfering miracu- 

* Thus Mr. Sadler, a writer for whom I have much respect, says (Comm. 
on St. Matthew, p. xi) : St. Luke, if he had either of the two first 
[Gospels] before him, would have scarcely reproduced so much that is 
common to both, with alterations also which he could never have made if 
he looked upon them as inspired documents. And again, The inspira 
tion [of the Gospels] is incompatible with the theory that they were all 
taken from one document, for in such a case that unknown and lost 
document must have been the only one which could be called the work 
of the Spirit; and the alterations which each one made in it, which their 
mutual discrepancies show, prove that in altering it they individually were 
not so far guided by the Holy Spirit.* 



IX.] THEORIES AS TO INSPIRATION IRRELEVANT. 131 

lously . for a similar purpose on the supposition that the 
Evangelists used written documents. 

Needless embarrassment, in fact, has been caused by 
theories invented under a fancied necessity of establishing 
that conditions have been satisfied in the transmission of the 
Divine message, which cannot be shown to be essential to 
what one of the Evangelists declares to have been his object 
in writing, viz. That ye might believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life 
through His name. We do not imagine that when two of 
the apostolic missionaries went about preaching the Gospel 
they would think themselves bound to tell the story of the 
Saviour s life exactly in the same way, nor even that if one 
were relating an incident at which he had not been present 
himself, he would think it necessary to repeat the identical 
words of his informant. If God did not see fit to provide 
statements of rigid uniformity for the establishment of the 
faith of the first generation of Christians, whose souls were, 
no doubt, as dear to Him as those of their successors, what 
warrant have we for asserting that He must have dealt 
differently with later generations ? When anyone imagines 
himself entitled to pronounce off-hand that the second Evan 
gelist (whichever he was) could not have known that an inspired 
writer had performed the task before him, we cannot but ask 
him if he does not believe that the second Evangelist was 
inspired as much as the first. Whether the human author of 
the second Gospel knew or not that he had had a predecessor, 
the Divine Author of the work assuredly knew; and, notwith 
standing, it was His will that the second Gospel should be 
written. The fact that the two Evangelists stood precisely 
on a level, in respect of supernatural assistance, makes all 
the difference in the world to the argument. We justly assign 
to the four Gospels a place apart. Though many in our day 
undertake to write Lives of Christ, we know that what they 
presume to add without warrant from these inspired narratives 
may freely be rejected. But the apostolic preachers were 
not dependent on any written Gospel for their knowledge. 
Every one of our Evangelists has told us many things which 
he could not have learned from the work of any of the other 

K 2 



I J2 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [lX. 

three. If one of the apostolic band of missionaries, on 
quitting a Church which he had founded, desired to leave 
behind, for the instruction of his converts, a record of the 
facts on which their faith rested, I know no reason why he 
should not be free to choose whether he should give to be 
copied the story as written by another Evangelist, or whether 
he should commit to writing the narrative as he had been 
accustomed, in his oral teaching, to deliver it himself. I am 
sure that we are over-arrogant if we venture to dictate the 
conditions according to which inspiration must act, and if 
we undertake to pronounce, from our own sense of the fitness 
of things, what mode of using his materials would be per 
missible to one commissioned to write by God s Holy Spirit. 
But Alford objects, that if one of our Evangelists knew 
the work of another, or a document on which it was founded, 
the arbitrary manner in which he must have used his arche 
type at one moment servilely copying its words, and the 
next moment capriciously deviating from them is inconsis 
tent not only with a belief in the inspiration of the antecedent 
document employed, but also with the ascription to it of any 
authority whatever. I am persuaded that this assertion can 
not be maintained by anyone who takes the pains to study 
the way in which historians habitually use the documents 
they employ as authorities. The ordinary rule is, that a 
great deal of the language (including most of the remarkable 
words) of the original passes into the work of the later 
writer, who, however, is apt to show his independence by 
variations, the reasons for which are often not obvious. Mr. 
Smith, of Jordan Hill, whose work on the Shipwreck of St. 
Paul I have already recommended to you, wrote also a 
treatise on the origin of the Gospels. In this he places side 
by side accounts of battles, as given in Napier s History of the 
Peninsular War, in Alison s History, and in a French military 
memoir employed by both writers; and he finds just the same 
phenomena as our Gospels exhibit. The three narratives not 
only agree in their general purport, but have many common 
words: sometimes a whole sentence is common to two; and 
yet identity of narration is never kept up long without some 
interruption. 



IX.] VARIATIONS IN TRANSCRIPTION. 133 

In ancient times it was considered legitimate to use, with 
out acknowledgment, the very words of a preceding writer 
to a much greater extent than would now be regarded as 
consistent with literary honesty. But even when one mea ns 
to copy the exact words of another, it is very easy to deviate 
from perfect accuracy. It might be amusing, but would lead- 
me too far from my subject, if I were to give you illustrations 
how little we can be sure that what modern writers print with 
inverted commas does really contain the ipsissima verba of the 
writer whom they profess to quote. Of ancient writers, there* 
is none whose reputation for accuracy stands higher than 
that of Thucydides: yet, what he gives (v. 47) as the accurate 
copy of a treaty presents no fewer than thirty-one variations 
from the portions of the actual text recently recovered.* The 
frequent occurrence of variations in what are intended to be 
faithful transcripts arises from the fact that it is irksome to 
stop the work of the pen in order to refer to the archetype, 
and so the copyist is under a constant temptation to try to 
carry more in his head than his memory can faithfully retain. 
Naturally, then, when a writer undertakes no obligation of 
faithful transcription, but of his own free will uses the words 
of another, he will look at his archetype at longer intervals 
not referring to it as long as he believes that he sufficiently 
remembers the sense; and consequently, while he reproduces 
the more remarkable words which have fixed themselves in 
his memory, will be apt to vary in what may seem a capri 
cious way from his original. I do not think that the varia 
tions between the Synoptic Gospels exceed in number or 
amount what might be expected to occur in the case of 
three writers using a common authority ; nor do I think that 
we have any right to assume that God would miraculously 
interfere to prevent the occurrence of such variations. 

If we desire to know what amount of variation an Evange 
list might probably think it needless to exclude, some means 
of judgment are afforded by the three accounts of the conver 
sion of St. Paul contained in the Acts of the Apostles. These 
accounts present the same phenomena of great resemblance 

I * Mahaffy s History of Greek Literature, ii. 121. J 



134 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

\vith unaccountable diversities, and even apparent contradic 
tions. If they had been found in different works it might 
have been contended that the author of one had not seen 
the others; and ingenious critics might have even discovered 
the different tendencies of the narrators. As things are, we 
seem to have in the comparison of these narratives a measure 
of the amount of variation which St. Luke regarded as com 
patible with substantial accuracy. I am therefore unable to 
assent to those who would set aside without examination the 
hypothesis that one Evangelist was indebted to another, or that 
both had used a common document ; and who would reduce 
us to an oral tradition as the only source of their agreements 
that can be asserted without casting an imputation on the 
inspiration or on the authority of our existing documents. 

Yet, after all, we have advanced but a little way when we 
have vindicated for the advocates for the documentary hypo 
thesis* the right to get a hearing. We may now go on to 
examine what need there is of any such hypothesis. The 
oral teaching of the Apostles was, no doubt, the common 
basis of all the Evangelic narratives. Does this common 
basis sufficiently account for all the facts? 

Let us then observe the precise nature of the agreement 
between the Synoptic narratives. If the story of a miracle 
were told by two independent witnesses we should have 
delations in substantial agreement no doubt, but likely to 
differ considerably in their form. But in a number of cases 
;the Synoptic narratives agree so closely, in form as well as 
in substance, as to convince us that they are not stories told 
iby independent witnesses, but different versions of the story 
some one witness had told. Take, for example, a verse 
common to all three Synoptics (Matt. ix. 6; Mark ii. 10; 
Luke v. 24) : But that ye may know that the Son of Man 
(hath power on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick 
lof the palsy), Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. 



* Hypothesis, perhaps, is hardly a right word to use. We know as a 
certain fact, from St. Luke s preface, that other documents were in exist 
ence when he wrote. It is then scarcely an hypothesis to assume that he 
made use of these documents, however much his superior knowledge 
enabled him to supplement or correct them. 



IX.] THE TRA7 riON HAD BECOME FIXED. 135 

You will feel that i( would be scarcely possible for three in 



dependent narrators to agree in interpolating this parenthesi 
into their report of our Lord s words. Take another example : 
St. Luke (viii. 28), relating the miracle of the healing of the: 
demoniac, tells that when he saw Jesus he cried out, What 
have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high ? 
I beseech thee, torment me not. For he had commanded 
the unclean spirit to come out of the man. Now, if the 
story had been told in the chronological order we should 
first have Jesus command to the unclean spirit to depart, 
and then the remonstrance of the demoniac. So when we 
find Mark (v. 7) agreeing with Luke in the minute detail of 
relating the remonstrance first, and then adding parentheti 
cally that there had been a command, this coincidence alone 
gives us warrant for thinking that we have here, not the story 
as it might have been told by two different witnesses to the. 
miracle, but the story in the form in which a single witness) 
was accustomed to tell it. 

Add now the consideration that both in the instances just 
produced, and in many others, we have a vast number of 
verbal coincidences between the corresponding narratives of 
different Evangelists ; and we may go further. Either the 
story, as it proceeded from the lips of that single witness, 
was written down ; or at least the hearers did not content 
themselves with a faithful report of the substance of what he 
related, but must have striven to commit to memory the very 
words in which he related it. Before the narrative came into 
our Gospels it had passed out of the fluidity of a story, told 
now one way, now another, and had crystallized into a 
definite form. 

When we have reached this point, it seems to become 
practically unimportant to determine whether or not writing 
had been used for the preservation of the story before it was 
included in our Gospels. If writing was so used, it would 
clearly be idle to inquire whether the material to which the 
writing had been committed was papyrus, or parchment, or 
waxen tablets. Well, if we are willing to believe that the 
memory of the first disciples, unspoiled by the habit of writ 
ing and stimulated by the surpassing interest of the subject, 



136 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [iX. 

retained what was entrusted to it as tenaciously and as faith 
fully as a written record, then the hypothesis that a story 
had been preserved by memory stands on the same level 
as the hypothesis that it had been preserved on papyrus or 
on parchment. We should have no means of determining, 
and very little interest in determining, which hypothesis 
was actually true. In either case we acknowledge that the 
tradition had assumed the fixity of a written record. 

It is because we have not only one but a series of stories 
common to the Synoptics that the difference between docu 
mentary and oral transmission comes to have a practical 
meaning. The latter supposition contemplates a number of 
stories preserved independently : the former regards them as 
already embodied in a document which, even if it did not 
pretend to be a complete Gospel, contained the narration of 
more incidents than one, disposed in a definite order. Our 
choice between the two suppositions can be guided by exa 
mining whether the Evangelists agree, not only in their way 
of relating separate stories, but also in the order in which 
they arrange them. Now, a careful examination brings out 
the fact that the likeness between the Synoptic Gospels is 
not confined to agreement in the way of telling separate 
stories, but extends also to the order of arranging them. 

JTake, for instance, the agreement between Matthew and 
Mark as to the place in which they tell the death of John 

the Baptist (Matt. xiv. i ; Mark vi. 14). They relate that 

\ when Herod heard of the fame of Jesus he was perplexed 
who He might be, and said to his servants, This is John 
whom I beheaded. And then, in order to explain this 

speech, the two Evangelists go back in their narrative to 
relate the beheading of John. Their agreement in this 
deviation from the natural chronological order can scarcely 
be explained except by supposing either that one Evange 
list copied from the other, or both from a common source. 
The order of St. Luke deviates here from that of the other 

two Evangelists. He relates the imprisonment of John in 

its proper place (iii. 19), and the perplexed inquiry of Herod 

| later (ix. 7); but we are not entitled to infer that he did not 

employ the same source, for the change is an obvious im- 



JX.] AGREE IN ORDER OF NARRATIVE. 137 

provement that would suggest itself to anyone desirous to 
relate the history in chronological order. And we may even 
conjecture that it was in consequence of Luke s thus depart 
ing from the order of his archetype that he has come to 
omit altogether the direct narrative of the beheading of 
John. 

The example I have cited is not an isolated one. Our 
attention, indeed, is caught by a few cases in which an in 
cident is differently placed by different Evangelists, but the 
rule is uniformity of order ; and in particular Mark and Luke 
are in very close agreement. Of course as to a few leading 
events, the arrangement would admit of no choice. All 
narratives would begin with the story of our Lord s Birth, 
would go on to tell of His Baptism, and would finish with 
His Passion and Resurrection. But there is a host of in 
cidents, the order of arranging which is dictated by no 
internal necessity. If these had been preserved separately 
by oral tradition, the chances are enormous that different 
persons weaving them into a connected narrative would 
arrange them differently ; for the stories themselves but 
rarely contain notes of time, such as would direct the 
order of placing them. I feel bound, therefore, to con 
clude that the likeness between the Gospels is not suffi 
ciently explained by their common basis, the oral narrative 
of the Apostles ; and that they must have copied, either one 
from the other the later from the earlier or else all from 
some other document earlier than any. Reuss * has divided 
the Evangelic narrative into 124 sections, of which 47 are 
common to all three Synoptics ; and I believe that in thesei 
common sections we have, represented approximately, ajj 
primary document used by all three Evangelists. I say 
approximately, for of course we cannot assume without 
careful examination that some of these sections may not 
have come in from a different source, or that some sections 



* Professor at Strassburg. The division is given, p. 17 of the introduc 
tion to his Histoire Evaugeligue, which forms part of his French transla 
tion of the Bible, with commentary. I have found this introduction very 
instructive, and it would have been more so if Reuss had cleared his mind 
of the cobwebs that have been spun about the fragments of Papias. 



138 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

which we now find only in two Evangelists, or even only in 
one, may not have belonged to the common basis. 

On the other hand, a study of the order of narration gives 
the death-blow to Schleiermacher s theory that the Logia 
of St. Matthew consisted of a collection of our Lord s dis 
courses. It is not only that the words of Papias, as I have 
contended, give us no authority for believing in the exis 
tence of this * Spruchsammlung, which so many critics 
assume as undoubted fact ; but critical comparison of the 
Gospels gives us reason to assert the negative, and say that 
no such collection of discourses existed. If the Evangelists 
took their report of our Lord s sayings from a previously 
existing document, they would have been likely in their 
arrangement to follow the order of that document ; but if 
the sayings were separately preserved by the memory of the 
hearers, two independent arrangers would probably dispose 
them in different order. Now, the sections common to the 
three Synoptics contain some discourses of our Lord, and, as 
a rule, these follow the same order in all ; but besides these 
Matthew and Luke report many other of His sayings, and 
in the case of these last there is no agreement between the 
, order of the two Evangelists. Take, for example, the Ser 
mon on the Mount, which seems to offer the best chance of 
complete agreement, there being a corresponding discourse 
in St. Luke. But the result is, that of the 107 verses in the 
Sermon on the Mount only 27 appear in the corresponding 
discourse in Luke vi. Twelve more of these verses are found 
in the nth chapter, 14 in the izth, 3 in the i3th, i in the 
1 4th, 3 in the i6th, and 47 are omitted altogether. The 
same dislocation is found if we compare any other of the 
discourses in St. Matthew with St. Luke. And if we further 
take into account how many parables and other sayings of 
our Lord there are in each of these two Gospels, which are 
not found in the other, and yet which no one who found 
them in a document he was using would be likely to omit, 
we can assert, with as much confidence as we can assert 
anything on critical grounds alone, and in the absence of 
external evidence, that Matthew and Luke did not draw 
from any documentary record containing only our Lord s. 



IX.] MATTHEW AND LUKE INDEPENDENT. 139 

discourses, but that the sayings they have in common must 
have reached them as independent fragments of an oral 
tradition. 

What I have said gives me occasion to remark that 
theories as to one of the Synoptics having copied another 
seem to me deserving consideration, only if we confine them 
to the relations of Mark to the other two, for Matthew and 
Luke show every sign of being quite independent of each 
other.* When we compare the accounts which they give 
of our Lord s birth, we find them proceed on such different 
lines as to suggest that they have been supplied by inde 
pendent authorities. The two accounts agree in the main 
facts that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Virgin 
Mary, who was espoused to a man named Joseph, of the 
lineage of David; that the birth took place at Bethlehem, < 
and that the family afterwards resided at Nazareth. But the 
two Gospels give different genealogies to connect Joseph 
with David, and with respect to further details those which 
the one gives are absent from the other. In the one we 
have successive revelations to Joseph, the visit of the Magi,] 
the slaughter of the Innocents, the flight into Egypt. In thej 
other the annunciation to Mary, the visit to Elisabeth, thej 
taxing, the visit of the shepherds, the presentation in thej 
temple, and the testimony of Simeon and Anna. As we| 
proceed further in our comparison of the two Gospels, we 
continue to find a number of things in each which are not 
recorded in the other ; and it is not easy to see why, if one 
were using the other as an authority, he should omit so J 
many things well suited to his purpose. When, therefore, 
we have to explain the agreements of these two Evangelists, 
the hypothesis that one borrowed directly from the other is 
so immensely less probable than the hypothesis that both 
writers drew from a common source, that the former hypo 
thesis may safely be left out of consideration. 

The hypothesis that the later of the Synoptics borrowed 
from the earlier may evidently be maintained, and has actu- 

* If this be so, no great interval of time can have separated their publi 
cations ; otherwise the later could scarcely fail to have become acquainted 
with the work of the earlier. 



140 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

[ally been maintained in six different forms, according as 
they are supposed to have written in the orders : Matthew, 
Mark, Luke ; Matthew, Luke, Mark ; Mark, Matthew, Luke ; 
Mark, Luke, Matthew ; Luke, Matthew, Mark ; Luke, Mark, 
Matthew. You will find in Meyer s Commentary (or, perhaps, 
more conveniently in that of Alford, who has copied Meyer s 
list) the names of the advocates of each of these arrange 
ments. However, if we regard it as established that Matthew 
jand Luke were independent, it is only with regard to the 
relations of these two to Mark that the hypothesis that one 
Evangelist used the work of another need come under 
jconsideration. Some maintain that Mark s Gospel was the 
earliest, and that Matthew and Luke independently incor 
porated portions of his narrative with additions of their own : 
Bothers believe that Mark wrote latest, and that he combined 
and abridged the two earlier narratives.* To this question I 
mean to return. 

The theory that one Evangelist copied the work of another 
is sometimes modified by the supposition that the Gospel 
copied was not one of those we read now, but the supposed 
original Matthew or original Mark, from which it is imagined 
that our existing Gospels were developed. I count this as 
but a form of the solution which will next come under con 
sideration, viz. that the Evangelists used common documents. 
To give to one of these documents the question-begging name 
of original Matthew, &c., is to overload the hypothesis with 
an assumption which it is impossible to verify. Such a name 
implies not only that the compiler of that which we now call 
St. Matthew s Gospel used previous documents, but that he 

* This controversy illustrates a source of difficulty in these critical 
inquiries, viz. : that there is scarcely anything which may not be taken up 
by one or other of two handles, it constantly happening that the same facts 
are appealed to by critics who draw from them quite opposite conclusions. 
For example, certain miracles recorded by St. Mark (i. 32) are related to 
have been performed at even when the sun did set (tyias yvofj.evr]S 8re 
eSvffev 6 ^Aioy). Here St. Matthew (viii. 16) has at even (oij-ios yevo- 
^.4vn]s) , St. Luke (iv. 40), when the sun was setting (Svvovros TOV f)\iov). 
One critic argues that this comparison clearly shows Mark to be the earliest, 
his two successors having each omitted part of his fuller statement. Another 
critic pronounces this to be a clear case of conflation, the latest writer evi 
dently being Mark, who carefully combined in his narrative everything that 
he found in the earlier sources. 



IX. J HYPOTHESIS OF HEBREW ORIGINAL. 141 

used some one document in a pre-eminent degree, taking it 
as the basis of his work; and further, that the name of the 
compiler of the present document was not Matthew, and that 
this was the name of the author of the basis-document. It 
is unscientific so to encumber with details the solution of a 
problem which, in its simplest form, presents quite enough of 
difficulty. Accumulation of unverifiable details is a manifest 
note of spuriousness. We should, for instance, be thankful 
to anyone who could tell us in what year Papias or Justin 
Martyr was born ; but if our informant went on to tell us the 
day of the month and hour of the day, we should know at 
once that we had to do with romance, not with history. Quite 
in like manner we feel safe in rejecting such a history as 
Scholten has given of the origin of St. Mark s Gospel. He 
tells how, from the proto-Marcus combined with the collection 
of speeches contained in the proto-Matthaeus, there resulted 
the deutero-Matthaeus ; how this was in time improved into a 
trito-Matthaeus, and, finally, this employed by a new editor of 
the proto-Marcus to manufacture by its means the deutero- 
Marcus which we have now. A story so circumstantial and 
so baseless has no interest for the historical inquirer. 

The advocates of the documentary hypothesis have also 
been apt to encumber their theories with details which pass 
out of the province of history into that of romance, as they 
undertake to number and name the different documents 
which have been used in the composition of the Gospels. 
Anyone who assumes that our Evangelists used a common 
document has first to settle the question, In what language 
are we to suppose that document to have been written : Greek 
or Hebrew ? where, of course, the latter word means not the 
classical Hebrew of the Old Testament, but the modern type 
of the language, Aramaic, to which the name Hebrew is given 
in the New Testament, and which we know was extensively 
used in Palestine in our Lord s time. It was employed for 
literary purposes : Josephus, for instance, tells us in his pre 
face that his work on the Jewish wars had been originally 
written in that language. It is intrinsically probable that the 
Hebrew-speaking Christians of Palestine should have a Gos 
pel in their own language, and |we actually hear of Hebrew 



142 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

Gospels claiming great antiquity. It is therefore no great 
stretch of assumption to suppose that a Hebrew Gospel was 
jthe first to be written, and that this was made use of by the 
writers of Greek Gospels. 

The hypothesis of a Hebrew original at once accounts for 
a number of verbal differences between corresponding pas 
sages in different Gospels. How easy it is for the process of 
translation to introduce variations not to be found in the 
original may be abundantly illustrated from the Authorized 
Version,* the translators of which declare in their preface that 
they deliberately adopted the principle of not thinking them 
selves bound always to translate the same Greek word by the 
same English. For example, there is considerable verbal 
difference between the two following texts : John had his 
raiment of camel s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins, 
and his meat was locusts and wild honey (Matt. iii. 4); John 
was clothed with camel s hair, and with a girdle of a skin 
about his loins, and he did eat locusts and wild honey (Mark 
i. 6). Yet the sense is so precisely the same that the varia 
tions would be completely accounted for, if we suppose the 
two to be independent translations of the same original in 
another language. We know for certain that the most 
important difference between the two texts can be thus 
accounted for ; the girdle of a skin in one Evangelist and 
the leathern girdle of the other being both translations of 
the same Greek words, t^v-^v Se/o/xanV??!/. It is, then, a very 
tempting conjecture that the further differences, had his rai 
ment of camel s hair, was clothed with camel s hair; his 
meat was locusts and wild honey, he did eat locusts and 
wild honey differences which exist in the Greek as well as 
in our version might be explained by regarding the two 
Greek accounts as translations from a common Aramaic 
original. This supposition evidently gives a satisfactory 
explanation of all variations between the Gospels which are 
confined to words and do not affect the sense. Some inge 
nious critics have gone further, and tried to show how some 
of the variations which do affect the sense might have arisen 

* See note, pp. 116, 117. 



IX.] POSSIBLE EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS. 143 

in the process of translation from an Aramaic original. But 
I do not feel confidence enough in any of these explanations 
to think it worth while to report them to you. 

Even when the sense is unaffected, the idea may be pushed 
too far, and we may easily mistake for translational variations 
what are really editorial corrections. For example, in Mat 
thew (ix. 12) and Mark (ii. 17) we read, They that are strong 
(ot to-xv oi/res) have no need of a physician ; in Luke (v. 31) 
it is they that are well (ot vytatVovres). Now Matthew and 
Luke may have independently translated the same Aramaic 
word by different Greek ones ; but it is also a possible sup 
position that, having Matthew s or Mark s Greek before him, 
but knowing that our Lord had not spoken in Greek, Luke 
purposely altered the popular phrase ot tcr^voi/rcs into the 
more correct word to denote health, vyiaiVoi/Tes.* Again, St. 
Mark uses several words which we know, from the gram 
marian Phrynichus, were regarded as vulgarisms by those 
who aimed at elegance of Attic style. Such are ecrxarw? e^ct 
(v. 23), euo-x^wv (xv. 43), KoAAv/?io-rat (xi. 15), Kopdcriov (v. 41), 
Kpd(3/3a.Tos (ii. 4), nov6<f>9a\iJLOS (ix. 47), 6/>/aa) (v. 7), pa7rtoy>ia 
(xiv. 65), pact s (x. 25)4 Now when Luke avoids all these 
words, we cannot infer with any certainty that he is merely 
making an independent translation of an Aramaic original. 

* Similarly, Luke v. 18 has Trapa\\vfj.4vos, not Tra.pa\vTiK6s, Mark ii. 
3 ; laffOai (vi. 19), not 8iacrweiv (Matt. xiv. 36) ; Tprj/j.a @e\6vr)s (xviii. 25). 
not TpuTTTj/io a(/n 5os (Matt. xix. 24), or Tpv^aXia pcupiSos (Mark x. 25). 
Many more instances of the kind will be found in Dr. Hobart s interesting 
book on The Medical Language of St. Luke. In this work the Church 
tradition that the author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles 
was the same person (viz. he who is described [Col. iv. 14] as Luke 
the beloved physician) is confirmed by a comparison of the language of 
these books with that of Greek medical treatises. The result is to show 
that a common feature of the Third Gospel and the Acts is the use of 
technical medical terms, which in the New Testament are either peculiar 
to St. Luke, or at least are used by him far more frequently than by any 
other of the writers. Dr. Hobart sometimes pushes his argument too far, 
forgetting that medical writers must employ ordinary as well as technical 
language, and therefore that every word frequently found in medical books 
cannot fairly be claimed as a term in which medical writers can be supposed 
to have an exclusive property. But when every doubtful instance has been 
struck out of Dr. Hobart s lists, enough remain to establish completely 
what he desires to prove. 

t I take this list from Dr. Abbott s article Gospels in the ninth 
edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 



144 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

The case may be, that St. Luke, having more command of 
the Greek language than the other Evangelists, designedly 
altered phrases which he found in a Greek original intended 
for a circle of readers the majority of whom were not Greek 
by birth, and who habitually spoke the Greek language with 
less purity than those for whom his Gospel was composed. 

However this may be, the hypothesis of an Aramaic original 
does not suffice to explain all the phenomena. For there are 
very many passages where the Evangelists agree in the use 
of Greek words, which it is not likely could have been hit on 
independently by different translators. If such cases are to 
be explained by the use of a common original, that original 
must have been in the Greek language. On the CTTICWO-IOS 
of the Lord s Prayer, though the word plainly belongs to the 
class of which I speak, I do not lay stress, because we can 
well believe that a liturgical use of that Prayer in Greek had 
become common before our Gospels were written ; and such 
a use would affect the language of translators. Nor again can 
I lay stress on a very striking and oft-cited specimen : Matt. 
xxi. 44, 6 Treo-wv evrt rov \iOov TOVTOV dvvOXaorOrjfrerai, e< ov o* 
av Treo-y, Xt/cjurjcret avTov. We have the very same words in St. 
Luke xx. 1 8, with only the exception of e/ceti/oi/ X(.6ov for \i6ov 
TOVTOV. It is certainly not likely that two independent trans 
lators from the Aramaic should hit on identical expressions. 
But though the words I have read are found in the text of 
St. Matthew, as given by an overwhelming majority of Greek 
MSS., including all the oldest ; yet there is a minority, insig 
nificant in numbers, no doubt, but sufficient to establish the 
fact that a text from which these words were wanting early 
obtained some circulation. And then we must admit it to be 
possible that the shorter reading represents the original text 
of St. Matthew ; and the longer, one which a very early tran 
scriber had filled up by an addition from St. Luke. We have 
no need to insist on any doubtful cases, the instances of the 
use of common words being so numerous. And in order to 
feel the force of the argument you need only put in parallel 
columns the corresponding passages in the different Evange 
lists: say, of the parable of the Sower or of the answer to the 
question about fasting (Mark ii. 18-22; Matt. ix. 14-17; Luke 



IX.] A COMMON GREEK ORIGINAL NECESSARY. 145 

v. 33-39), when you will find such a continuous use of common 
words as to forbid the idea that we have before us independent 
translations from another language.* 

The use of a common Greek original is further established 
by a study of the form of the Old Testament quotations in the 
Gospels. Several such quotations are peculiar to St. Matthew, 
and are introduced by him with the formula that it might be 
fulfilled. In these cases the ordinary rule is, that the Evan 
gelist does not take the quotation from the LXX., but translates 
directly from the Hebrew. It is otherwise in the case of 
quotations which Matthew has in common with other Evan 
gelists. As a rule they are taken from the LXX., and when 
they deviate from our text of the LXX. all agree in the 
deviation. For example, all three quote Malachi s prophecy 
in the form i$ov, aTroo-TeXAw TOV ayyeAoV pov Trpo Trpoo-wTrou 
<rov, os KaTacr/ceuao-ei ryv 6SoV a~ov (Matt. xi. 10; Mark i. 2; 
Luke vii. 27). Here the LXX. has iSov, c^a-Troo-reAXw r. a. /*., 
xal 7ri/?Ae / i/ eTat o&bv Trpo Trpoo-toTrov fjiov. Similarly, Matt. xv. 
8, 9, is in verbal agreement with Mark vii. 6, 7, but the 
quotation is considerably different from the LXX. In Matt, 
iv. 10; Luke iv. 8, both Evangelists have Thou shalt worship 
the Lord thy God, while the LXX. have Thou shalt fear. 

The result is, that if an Aramaic original document is 
assumed in order to account for the verbal variations of the 
Gospels, a Greek original (whether a translation of that 
Aramaic or otherwise) is found to be equally necessary in 
order to explain their verbal coincidences. 

Again, there are verbal coincidences between St. Matthew 
and St. Luke in their account of our Lord s temptation and 
other stories not found in St. Mark. If we account for Mark s 
omission by the solution that these stories were not contained 
in the document used by all three Evangelists, we are tempted 
to imagine a second document used by Matthew and Luke. 
Thus in hypotheses of this nature documents have a tendency 



* See also p. 117. Other examples of common words are avdyaioy 
(Mark xiv. 15; Luke xxii. 12); 8vffit6\<t>s (Matt. xix. 23; Mark x. 23; 
Luke xviii. 24) ; Kare /cAao-e (Mark vi. 41 ; Luke ix. 16) Ko\of}ovv (Matt, 
xxiv. 22 , Mark xiii. 20) ; Trrepvyiov (Matt. iv. 5 ; Luke iv. 9) ; 
(Matt. vii. 5 ; Luke vi. 42). 

L 



146 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

to multiply. Eichhorn,* for example, having put forward in 
1 794 the idea of an Aramaic original from different recensions 
of which the different Gospels had sprung, Marshf pointed 
out the necessity of a Greek original also; and he constructed 
an elaborate history, how, out of ten different documents, 
which he distinguished by different Hebrew, Greek, and 
Roman letters, the Synoptic Gospels severally took their 
origin. Eichhorn then, in the second edition of his Intro 
duction, adopted Marsh s theory as to its general outline, but 
added to the number of assumed documents, and otherwise 
complicated the history. It is not wonderful that these 
theories found little acceptance with subsequent scholars, 
who have not been able to believe in so complicated a his 
tory, resting on no external evidence, and obtained solely by 
the inventor s power of critical divination. Nor, indeed, is 
there much to attract in a theory which almost assumes that 
in the production of their Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke used no other instrument of composition than paste 
and scissors. 

It may further be remarked that as the number of docu 
ments is increased, the documentary theory ceases to differ 
much from that which makes a common oral tradition the 
basis of the Gospel narratives. On the latter hypothesis 
nothing forbids us to suppose that each story when orally 
delivered may have been separately written down by the 
hearers, so that the hypothesis is practically equivalent to 
one which assumes as the basis a large number of inde 
pendent documents. 

I certainly have not courage to follow out the documen 
tary hypothesis into details ; but one is strongly tempted to 
examine whether it does not at least afford the best account 
of the matter common to the three Synoptics. If you wish 



* Eichhorn (1752-1827), Professor at Jena and afterwards at Gottingen, 
published his Introduction to the New Testament in successive volumes, first 
edition, 1804-1812; second edition, 1820-1827. 

t Herbert Marsh (1758-1839), Bishop of Peterborough in 1819, having 
himself studied in Germany, did much to introduce into England a know 
ledge of German theological speculation. The theory referred to in the 
text was put forward in 1803 in an Appendix to his translation of Michaelis s 
Introduction to the New Testament. 



ix.] THE TRIPLE TRADITION. 147 

to pursue this study you can now do so luxuriously by means 
of Mr. Rushbrooke s Synopticon, published by Macmillan in 
1880. The corresponding passages are printed in parallel 
columns, matter common to the three Synoptics being printed 
in red, and that common to each two being also distinguished 
by differences of type. Mr. Rushbrooke s work was undertaken 
at the suggestion of Dr. Edwin Abbott, whose article Gospels 
in the Encyclopaedia Britannica contains a summary of results 
thus obtained. Dr. Abbott gives in detail the contents of 
what he calls the triple tradition that is to say, the matter 
common to the three Synoptics ; then of the three double 
traditions that is to say, the matter common to each pair ; 
and, lastly, the addition which each separately has made to 
the common tradition. Dr. Abbott has accompanied his 
analysis with many acute remarks, but there are some con 
siderations which it seems to me he has not sufficiently 
attended to, and which ought to be kept in mind by way of 
caution by anyone who uses his work. 

In the first place, it is obvious that the phrases triple 
tradition, twofold tradition, express phenomena as they 
appear to us, not things as they are in themselves. You 
would feel that a man knew very little of astronomy if he 
spoke of the full moon, and the half moon, and the new 
moon, in such a way as to lead one to think that he took 
these for three distinct heavenly bodies, and not for the same 
body differently illuminated. Now, considering that the triple 
tradition becomes a double tradition every time that one of 
the three writers who transmit it chooses to leave out a word 
or a sentence, we are bound in our study of the subject con 
stantly to bear in mind the possibility that the triple and 
the double, and perhaps even the single tradition, may be 
only the same thing differently illuminated. 

The business of science is to interpret phenomena: to 
deduce from the appearances the facts that underlie them. 
The work, no doubt, must begin by an accurate study of the 
phenomena, but it must not stop there. When the painter 
Northcote was asked with what he mixed his colours, he 
answered : With brains. The deduction of the original 
tradition from the existing narratives must be done by 

L 2 



iq-S THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

brains ; it cannot be done merely by blue and red pencils. 
The present is not the only case in which it has been 
attempted to restore a lost document by means of the 
use made of it by three independent writers.* But was ever 
critic unintelligent enough to imagine that such a restoration 
could be effected by the mechanical process of taking out 
the words common to the three more recent writers ? Surely 
a careful study of the things in which two of the witnesses 
agree is essential to the investigation; for in such a case it 
appears, at first sight, a more probable explanation that the 
third witness here, for some reason, did not care to copy the 
common document, than that the other two here both de 
serted it and agreed in drawing their information from a 
new common source. Moreover, it ought also to be examined 
whether for the purposes of the investigation the three 
witnesses are all of equal value, or whether one does not 
show signs of having adhered closer to his original than the 
others. For in the latter case a probable claim to belong to 
the common original might be made on behalf of things re 
ported by that witness, though not confirmed by the other 
two.f 

Now, Dr. Abbott dispenses too summarily with all this 
brain-work. Having crossed out of his New Testament all 
the words that are not common to the three Synoptics, he 
forthwith accepts the residuum as the original tradition upon 
which the Synoptic Gospels are based, or at least as repre 
senting that tradition as nearly as we can now approach to 
it; and in his work the name triple tradition is constantly 
used so as to convey the idea of original tradition. ! 

* I refer in particular to the attempt made by Lipsius in his Quellen- 
kritik des Epiphanios to restore a common document used by three 
writers on heresy Epiphanius, Philaster, and pseudo-Tertullian. 

t Thus there is a general agreement among critics that St. Mark 
adhered to the common document more closely than the other two 
Evangelists, and some have even supposed that his Gospel exactly was the 
common document. I do not believe that it was, but I believe that it re 
presents it infinitely more closely than does Dr. Abbott s triple tradition/ 

J Since the first edition of this lecture was printed, Dr. Abbott, in 
conjunction with Mr. Rushbrooke, has published what he calls The 
Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels ; and he promises to follow it 
up with another volume containing the Double Tradition, that is to say, 



IX.] THE TRIPLE TRADITION. 149 

Thus the triple tradition is said to verify itself, because 
the sayings of Jesus as they appear in it answer to Justin 
Martyr s description of being * short, pithy, and abrupt. 
But how could they be otherwise ? If the most diffuse 
orator in the kingdom were treated in the same way, and 
only those portions of his speeches recognized as genuine, of 
which three distinct hearers gave a report in identical words, 
the fragments that survived such a test would assuredly be 
yS/aa^et? KCU O-VI/TO/AOI, short, and very much cut up.* But Dr. 
Abbott commits a far more serious mistake, in the tacit 
-assumption he makes in proposing to search for * the original 
tradition upon which the Synoptic Gospels are based. Admit 
that the Synoptic Evangelists used a common document, and 
we are yet not entitled to assume without examination that 
this contained a complete Gospel, or that it was more than 
one of the materials they employed. Dr. Abbott treats the 
triple tradition as if it were not only the original Gospel, but 
represented it in so complete a form that its omissions might 
be used to discredit later additions to the story. Thus the 
* triple tradition does not contain the story of our Lord s 
Resurrection, and of all the miracles ascribed to Him it 
relates only six.f 

the portions of the Synoptic narrative common to two Evangelists. This 
rending the evidence in two seems to me as sensible a proceeding as if a 
printseller were to cut his stereoscopic slides in two and sell them separately. 
The double traditions are an essential part of the evidence by which the 
common original is to be recovered. It must be remembered also that, 
even if it be granted that the triple tradition and the three double 
traditions represent four different documents, one at least of the double 
traditions stands on a level with the triple tradition as respects claims 
to antiquity. A document antecedent to the two earliest of our Synoptics 
must be antecedent to all three. 

* Here is the narrative of two miracles, as given in the triple tradition : 

(1) ... to the mountain . . walking on the sea . . it is I, be 

not afraid. 

(2) He came into the house . . not dead but sleepeth, and they 

mocked him. . . Having taken her by the hand . . 

arise. 

t This limitation of number, combined with the casting out of many of 
the details, facilitates much the application of the methods of Paulus (see 
p. 10) ; and the curious reader will find in the Appendix to Dr. Abbott s 
Through Nature to Christ how all six may be explained as being cases 
where either the spectators of the supposed miracle imagined occurrences 
to be supernatural, which in truth were not so, or elsewhere the language 
used by the reporters of the event was misunderstood. 



150 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

It is certainly worth considering, if we could find the 
original Gospel, what would be its value as compared with 
those we have. Suppose, for instance, we could recover one 
of those earlier Gospels which Luke mentions in his preface, 
that would certainly be entitled to be called an original 
Gospel. It was probably defective rather than erroneous ; 
and we may certainly believe that all that was not erroneous 
has been embodied by St. Luke in his work, so that by a 
simple process of erasure, if we only knew how to perform 
it, we might recover all that was valuable in the original 
Gospel. But would that be an improvement on St. Luke? 
The Primitive Church did not think so, which allowed the 
earlier work to drop into oblivion. But could it now be 
restored, the whirligig of time would bring in its revenges. 
In the eyes of modern critics every one of its omissions 
would be a merit. It only relates six miracles. What a 
prize ! It does not tell the story of the Resurrection/ 
Why, it is a perfect treasure ! 

But before we can build an argument on the omissions of a 
document, we must know what it aims at doing ; and as far 
as the triple tradition is concerned, quite a new light is 
cast on the matter when we examine it more closely. We 
find, then, that it is certainly true that this tradition gives no 
account of the Resurrection ; but then it is also true that it 
does not contain the history of the Passion : in other words, 
it was no complete Gospel, but at most the narrative of cer 
tain events given by a single relater. Compare the story of 
jthe Crucifixion, as told by St. Luke, with that told by St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, and we find the two accounts com 
pletely independent, having scarcely anything in common 
except what results necessarily from the fact that both are 
histories of the same event. Again, though with regard to 
this history, Matthew and Mark are in close agreement, the 
nature of this agreement is quite different from that which 
prevails in the earlier narrative. There the two Evangelists 
present the appearance of using the same source, though in a 
different way, Matthew reproducing it in an abridged form, 
Mark with an abundance of pictorial detail. In the history 
of the Passion, on the contrary, the relation between Matthew 



IX.] MEANING OF TRIPLE TRADITION. 151 

and Mark is constantly one of simple copying. We may 
conclude then with confidence that if the three Evangelists 
drew their history from a common source, that source did 
not extend so far as the relation of the Passion. 

There is one remark, obvious enough when it is made, but 
of which it is quite necessary for you to take notice, viz. that 
triple tradition does not mean triply attested tradition, 
but singly attested tradition. If you compare the history of 
the early Church, as told by three modem historians, you 
will find several places where they relate a story in nearly 
identical words. In such a case an intelligent critic would 
recognize at once that we had, not a story attested by three 
independent authorities, but one resting on the credit of a 
single primary authority, coming through different channels. 
When we come further down in the history, and Eusebius 
is no longer the unique source of information, exactly as 
authorities become numerous, verbal agreement between the 
histories ceases, and our triple tradition comes to an end. 
Thus, instead of its being true that the triple tradition is 
the most numerously attested portion of the Gospel narrative, 
we may conclude that this is just the part for which we have 
a single primary authority. Now, when the first Christian 
converts desired to hear the story of their Master s life there 
would be no difficulty in finding many who could tell them of 
the Passion and the Resurrection. Everyone who had lived 
through that eventful week, in which the triumph of Palm 
Sunday was so rapidly exchanged for the despair of Good 
Friday, and that, again, for the abiding joy of Easter Sunday, 
would have all the events indelibly burned on his memory. 
In comparison with these events, those of the Galilean 
ministry would retire into the far back distance of things 
that had occurred years ago ; and there would be more than 
the ordinary difficulty we all experience, when we unex 
pectedly lose one whom we love, of recalling words which we 
should have taken pains to treasure in our memory, could we 
have foreseen we should hear no such words again. I have 
often thought that the direction to the Apostles to return to 
Galilee for the interval between the Resurrection and the gift 
of the Holy Ghost was given in order to provide them with a 



I5 2 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

season for retirement and recollection, such as they could not 
have again after they had become the rulers of the newly- 
formed Church. When we return to the place where we last 
conversed with a departed friend, as we walk over the ground 
we trod together, the words he then spoke rise spontaneously 
to the mind ; and nothing forbids us to believe that the Holy 
Spirit, whose work it was to bring to the disciples memory 
the things that Jesus had said, employed the ordinary laws 
which govern the suggestion of human thoughts. Yet so 
difficult is it, as I have already observed, to remember with 
accuracy words spoken at some distance of time, that there 
would be nothing surprising if the story of the Galilean 
ministry mainly depended on a single witness, whose recol 
lections were so much the fullest and most accurate that 
they were accepted and adopted by all. 

It seems to me that if it be admitted that the triple tra 
dition rests on the testimony of a single witness, we can go 
very near determining who that witness was. Take the very 
commencement of this triple tradition/ The whole of the 
first chapter of St. Mark is occupied with a detailed account 
of the doings of one day of our Lord s ministry. It was the 
Sabbath which immediately followed the call of Simon and 
Andrew, John and James. We are told of our Lord s teaching 
in the Synagogue, of the healing of the demoniac there, of 
the entry of the Saviour into Simon s house, the healing of 
his wife s mother, and then in the evening, when the close of 
the Sabbath permitted the moving of the sick, the crowd of 
people about the door seeking to be healed of their diseases. 
In whose recollections is it likely that that one day would 
stand out in such prominence ? Surely, we may reasonably 
conjecture that the narrator must have been one of those four 
to whom the call to follow Jesus had made that day a crisis 
or turning-point in their lives. The narrator could not well 
have been John, whose authorship is claimed for a different 
story ; nor could it have been Andrew, who was not present 
at some other scenes depicted in this triple tradition, such 
as the Transfiguration and the healing of Jairus s daughter. 
There remain then but Peter and James the son of Zebedee ; 
and it is again the history of the Transfiguration which deter- 



IX.] AUTOPTIC CHARACTER OF SECOND GOSPEL. 153 

mines our choice in favour of Peter ; for to whom else is it 
likely that we can owe our knowledge of the words he caught 
himself saying as he was roused from his heavy sleep, though 
unable, when fully awake, to explain what he had meant by 
them ? It seems to me then that we are quite entitled to sub 
stitute, for the phrase triple tradition, Petrine tradition ; 
-and to assert that a portion, if not the whole of the matter 
common to the three Synoptics, is based on what Peter was 
able to state of his recollections of our Lord s Galilean ministry. 
Although I have given reasons for thinking that these recol 
lections had been arranged into a continuous narrative before 
the time of the composition of the Synoptics, we are not 
bound to believe that this had been done by Peter himself. 
These recollections would naturally have been made use of 
-by some of those who, as St. Luke tells us, had before him 
attempted to arrange an orderly narrative of the Saviour s 
life ; and when St. Luke entered on the same work, with 
more abundant materials and more certain knowledge, he 
might still have followed the order of his predecessors as 
regards the truly apostolic traditions which they did record. 

Thus are we led, by internal evidence solely, to what 
Papias stated had been communicated to him as a tradition, 
viz., that Mark in his Gospel recorded things related by Peter ; 
but we must add, not Mark alone, but Luke and Matthew also 
only we may readily grant that it is Mark who tells the 
stories with such graphic fulness of detail as to give us most 
nearly the very words of the eyewitness. To this Renan 
bears testimony. He says (p. xxxix.): Mark is full of minute 
observations, which, without any doubt, come from an eye 
witness. Nothing forbids us to think that this eyewitness, 
who evidently had followed Jesus, who had loved Him, and 
looked on Him very close at hand, and who had preserved a 
lively image of Him, was the Apostle Peter himself, as Papias 
would have us believe. 

If you will take the trouble to compare any of the stories 
recorded by St. Mark with the corresponding passages in 
the other Evangelists, you will be pretty sure to find some 
example of these autoptic touches. Read, for instance, the 
history of the miracle performed on the return from the 



154 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX, 

mount of Transfiguration (ix. 14), and you will find the story 
told from the point of view of one of the little company who 
descended with our Lord. We are told of the conversation 
our Lord held with them on the way down. Next we are 
told how, when they caught sight of the other disciples, they 
saw them surrounded by a multitude, and scribes questioning 
with them ; and how when our Lord became visible there was- 
a rush of the crowd running to Him. It is then Mark alone 
who records the conversation between our Lord and the 
parent of the demoniac child; who tells the father s half- 
despairing appeal: If thou canst do anything; and then, 
when our Lord has said that all things are possible to him 
that believeth, the parent s agonizing cry: Lord, I believe, 
help thou mine unbelief; and then, as the child s convulsive 
struggles drew new crowds running, the performance of the 
miracle. This one narrative would suffice to banish the idea, 
taken up by some hasty readers, that Mark was a mere copyist 
and abridger an idea indeed countenanced by St. Augustine, 
who says of Mark, * Matthseum secutus tanquam pedissequus 
et breviator (De consent. Evangg. i. 4). It is Mark who 
tells that when children were brought to our Lord, He took 
them up in His arms and blessed them (ix. 36, x. 16). It is 
Mark who, in telling of the feeding of the multitude (vi. 39), 
depicts the companies showing as garden-beds (Trpao-ial 
TT/oao-tai) on the green grass. It is Mark who tells of the 
little boats which accompanied the vessel in which, during 
the storm, our Lord lay asleep on the pillow; Mark again 
who tells of the look of love which our Lord cast on the 
young man (x. 17) who asked what he should do to inherit 
eternal life; and again of His look of anger on the hypocrites 
who watched Him (iii. 5). I have already referred to Mark s 
record of different Aramaic words used by our Lord. He 
gives us also several proper names the name of the father 
of Levi the publican, the name and father s name of the blind 
man healed at Jericho, and the names of the sons of Simon 
of Gyrene. Baur struggled hard to maintain that all these 
details were but arbitrary additions of a later writer, who 
having a pretty turn for invention and an eye for pictorial 
details, used his gifts in ornamenting the simple narrative 



IX.] MATTHEW AND LUKE DID NOT COPY MARK. 155 

of the primitive Gospel. But subsequent criticism has 
generally acknowledged the view to be truer which recog 
nizes in these details particulars which had fastened them 
selves on the memory of an eyewitness. And I cannot read 
the early chapters of St. Mark without the conviction that here 
we have the narrative, not only in its fuller but in its older 
form. Observe how carefully the name Peter is withheld 
from that Apostle until the time when it was conferred by 
our Lord: in the opening chapters he is only called Simon. 
Again, Mark alone tells of the alarm into which our Lord s 
family was cast by His assuming the office of a public teacher: 
how they thought He was out of His mind, and wished to put 
Him under restraint. Again, on comparing Mark s phrase, 
vi. 3 : the carpenter, the son of Mary, with Matthew s in the 
parallel passage, xiii. 55: the carpenter s son, the son of 
Joseph, I am disposed to accept the former as the older 
form. When Jesus first came forward, He would probably 
be known in His own city as the carpenter ; and if, as seems 
likely, Joseph was dead at the time, as the son of Mary. 
But after our Lord devoted Himself to the work of public 
teaching, and ceased to labour at His trade, He would be 
known as the carpenter s son. Justin Martyr shows his 
knowledge of both Gospels by his use of both titles. On 
the whole, internal evidence gives ample confirmation to the 
tradition that Mark s Gospel took its origin in a request, 
made by those who desired to have a permanent record 
of the things Peter had said, that Peter s trusted companion 
should furnish them with such a record.* 

Does it follow, then, that Mark s was the earliest Gospel 
of all, and that it was used by the other two Evangelists ? 
Not necessarily; and the result of such comparison as I have 
been able to make is to lead me to believe that Matthew and 
Luke did not copy Mark, but that all drew from a common 

* I fear Klostermann s remark is a little too ingenious (cited by Godet, 
Etudes Bibliques, ii. 38), that some statements become clearer if we go 
back from Mark s third person to Peter s first. For example (Mark i. 29) : 
They entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and 
John. If we look for the antecedent of they, we find that it includes 
James and John. But all would have been clear in Peter s narrative, We 
entered into our house with James and John. 



156 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

source, which, however, is represented most fully and with 
most verbal exactness in St. Mark s version. It is even 
possible that the second Gospel may be the latest of the 
three. It contains a good deal more than the Petrine tra 
dition ; and it is conceivable that when Mark was asked to 
record that tradition, he chose to complete it into a Gospel ; 
and that he may even have used in his work the other 
two Synoptics, which may have been then already written. 
Whether they were so or not is a question on which I do not 
feel confidence in taking a side. 

It has been contended that the fact that Mark contains so 
little outside the Petrine tradition, that is not found either in 
Matthew or Luke, is most easily explained on the supposition 
that he was the latest ; for if it was the case that the other 
two Evangelists had used his work, it is hardly likely that their 
borrowings would have so supplemented each other as to leave 
nothing behind. Although in many places Mark s narrative 
compared with the others shows clear indications of priority, 
^ ^ there are other places where I find no such indications, and 
where the hypothesis that Mark simply copied Matthew or 
\ /Luke seems quite permissible. 

But here the question becomes complicated with one on 
criticism of the text ; for our decision is seriously affected 
according as we recognize or not the last twelve verses as an 
integral part of the Gospel. Some of these verses appear to 
give an abridged account of what is more fully told elsewhere: 
in particular, one of them reads like a brief reference to Luke s 
account of the appearence to the two disciples at Emmaus. 
The current of critical opinion runs so strongly in favour of 
the rejection of these verses that it seems presumptuous to 
oppose it. But no one can be required to subscribe to a 
verdict which he believes to be contrary to the evidence ; and 
he sufficiently satisfies the demands of modesty if, in differing 
from the opinion of persons of higher authority than himself, 
he expresses his dissent with a due sense of his own fallibility. 
This is not the place to enter into a discussion of the critical 
question. Here I have only to observe how the question is 
affected by the view I take that in Mark we have the Petrine 
tradition completed into a Gospel. Of course, it is not to be 



IX.] LAST TWELVE VERSES OF ST. MARK. 157 

expected that there should be uniformity of style between 
verses that belong to the tradition and those which belong to 
the framework in which it is set ; and, therefore, arguments u 
against the last twelve verses, drawn from a comparison ofll 
their language with that of other parts of the Gospel, at once 
lose their weight. On the other hand, if we compare the last 
twelve verses with the first fifteen, we do find features of re 
semblance, and in particular I think that it is either on the 
opening verses or on the concluding ones the still prevalent 
idea that Mark s Gospel is an abridgment of the others is 
founded. And opening and conclusion seem to me to have 
equal rights to be regarded as part of the framework in which 
the tradition is set. 

It seems to me also that the hand of the writer of the con 
cluding verses is to be found elsewhere in the Gospel. Three 
times in these concluding verses attention is called to the 
surprising slowness of the disciples to believe the evidence 
offered them (w. n, 13, 14). Now, you will find that, the 
thought is constantly present to the mind of the second 
Evangelist, how slow of heart were the beholders of our 
Lord s miracles ; how stubborn the unbelief which the evi 
dence of these miracles was obliged to conquer. Thus, in 
the account of the healing of the man with the withered hand 
(common to the three Synoptics), Mark alone relates (iii. 5) 
that before commanding the man to stretch forth his hand 
our Lord looked round on the bystanders with anger, being 
grieved for the hardness of their hearts. Again, in Mark vi. 6 
there is a note special to this Evangelist : Jesus marvelled 
because of their unbelief. And in the history of the tempest 
on the lake of Gennesaret, told both by Matthew and Mark, 
there is a noticeable difference between the two accounts. 
Where Matthew (xiv. 33) tells of the conviction effected by 
the miracle in those who beheld it, Mark (vi. 52) has instead 
an expression of surprise at the stupidity and hardness of 
heart of those who had not sooner recognized our Lord s 
true character. 

Believing, then, the existing conclusion to have been part 
of the second Gospel, ever since it was a Gospel, I look on 
the marks of posteriority which it exhibits as affecting the 



158 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. [iX. 

whole Gospel ; and I am, therefore, disposed to believe that 
Mark s is at once the oldest and the youngest of the three 
Synoptics : the oldest as giving most nearly the very words 
in which the apostolic traditions were delivered ; the youngest 
as respects the date when the independent traditions were set 
in their present framework. 



NOTE 

ON 
THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 

THE following is a statement of my reasons for thinking that in this in 
stance critical editors have preferred (I.) later testimony to earlier, and 
(II.) a less probable story to a more probable. The question is one that 
stands by itself, so that the conclusions here stated may be adopted by one 
who has accepted all Westcott and Hort s other decisions. 

I. As to the first point there is little room for controversy, (i) The dis 
puted verses are expressly attested by Irenseus in the second century, and 
very probably by Justin Martyr, who incorporates some of their language, 
though, as usual, without express acknowledgment of quotation. The 
verses are found in the Syriac version as early as we have any knowledge 
of it ; in the Curetonian version as well as in the Peshitto. Possibly we 
ought to add to the witnesses for the verses Papias, Celsus, and Hippo- 
lytus. On the other hand, the earliest witness against the verses is 
Eusebius, in the fourth century, whose testimony is to the effect that some 
of the copies in his time contained the verses, and some did not ; but that 
those which omitted them were then the more numerous, and, in his 
opinion, the more trustworthy. There is no reason for doubting this tes 
timony ; but Eusebius stands strangely alone in it. It is true that several 
writers used to be cited as bearing independent witness to the same effect. 
But all this confirmatory testimony was demolished by Dean Burgon in 
what seems to me the most effective part of his work On the Last Twelve 
Verses of St. Mark. He shows that three of the authorities cited reduce 
themselves to one. A homily of uncertain authorship having been inserted 
among the works of three different writers ; each of these writers was 
separately cited as a witness. And he shows, further, that all the writers 
cited do no more than copy, word for word, what had been said by Eusebius ; 
and in some cases indicate that they were of a different opinion themselves. 
Dr. Hort replaces, or reinforces these discredited witnesses by an argument, 
fx silentio, that the disputed verses were unknown to Cyril of Jerusalem, 
who otherwise would not have failed to use them in his catechetical lectures. 



IX.] THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 159 

But the argument from silence is always precarious. It is a common expe 
rience with everyone who makes a speech or writes a book to find after he 
has brought his work to a conclusion that he has failed to use some telling 
argument which he might have employed. Dr. Hort owns that the same 
argument might be used to prove that the verses were unknown to Cyril of 
Alexandria and to Theodoret, neither of whom could possibly be ignorant 
of the verses, which in their age were certainly in wide circulation. But 
supposing it proved that the text of St. Mark used by Cyril of Jerusalem 
did] not contain the verses, it only results that the recension approved by 
the great Palestinian critic, Eusebius, found favour in Palestine for a few 
years after his death. We still fail to find any distinct witness against the 
verses who, we can be sure, is independent of Eusebius. 

It is more to the point, that Dr. Hort contends by a similar argument 
from silence that neither Tertullian nor Cyprian knew the disputed verses. 
In order to maintain this thesis, as far as Cyprian is concerned, Dr. Hort 
is forced to contend that the quotation by a bishop at one of Cyprian s 
councils, of words of our Lord, In my name, lay on hands, cast out devils, 
implies no knowledge of Mark xvi. 17, 18! All extant copies of the old 
Latin, with but one exception, recognize the disputed verses ; but that 
one has so many points of agreement with the quotations of Cyprian that 
it seems probable that the translation first in use in Africa was made from 
a copy of the shorter version. On the other hand, the disputed verses 
were used in the West by Irenseus, and were in the Curetonian version, 
which has many affinities with the old Latin. Indeed we are led to 
suspect that Eusebius must have been guilty of some exaggeration in his 
account of the general absence of the verses from MSS. of his day. The 
presence of the verses in all later MSS., and the testimony of writers who 
lived within a century of Eusebius, prove that the scribes of the generation 
next to him found copies containing the verses, and that, notwithstand 
ing his great authority, they gave them the preference. And, if the argu 
ment from silence is worth anything, the fact deserves attention, that we 
have no evidence that any writer anterior to Eusebius remarked that there 
was anything abrupt in the conclusion of St. Mark s Gospel, or that it gave 
no testimony to our Lord s Resurrection. 

(2) But the two great uncials B and agree in rejecting the verses, and 
though these be but fourth-century MSS., yet as they were made from 
different archetypes, the common parent of these archetypes, presumably 
the common source of readings in which they agree, is likely to have been 
as old as the second century. Let it be granted that this inference holds 
good in the case of ordinary agreements between B and ; but the present 
case is exceptional. The MSS. are here not independent, the conclusion 
of St. Mark being transcribed in both by the same hand. This was pointed 
out by Tischendorf ; but it is to be observed that his opinion does not 
merely rest on his general impression of the character of the handwriting, 
concerning which only an expert like himself would be competent to 
judge. He gives a multitude of conspiring proofs, which can be verified 



l6o THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF ST. MARK S GOSPEL. [iX. 

by anyone who refers to the published facsimile of the Sinaitic MS. 
The leaf containing the conclusion of St. Mark is one of six leaves 
which differ from the work of the Sinaitic New Testament scribe and 
agree with that of the Vatican in a number of peculiarities : in the shape 
of certain letters, for instance E ; in the mode of filling up vacant space at 
the end of a line ; in the punctuation ; in the manner of referring to an 
insertion in the margin ; in the mode of marking the end of a book, includ 
ing what Tischendorf calls arabesques, or ornamented finials, those used in 
the Sinaitic being quite unlike those used in the Vatican, except in the 
leaves now under consideration. Further, in these leaves the words fodpuiros, 
v!6s, ovpav6s, are written at full length, as in the Vatican, not abbreviated, 
as elsewhere in the Sinaitic. Again, these leaves agree with the Vatican 
against the Sinaitic as to certain points of orthography. For instance, 
Pilate s name is spelt with t in the Sinaitic, with et in these leaves and in 
the Vatican ; Iwdvv-rjs is spelt with one v by the Vatican scribe, with two 
by the Sinaitic. Such an accumulation of indications does not come short 
of a demonstration ; and, accordingly, Tischendorf s conclusion is accepted 
by Dr. Hort, who says (p. 213) : The fact appears to be sufficiently es 
tablished by concurrent peculiarities in the form of one letter, punctuation, 
avoidance of contractions, and some points of orthography. As the six 
leaves are found on computation to form three pairs of conjugate leaves, 
holding different places in three distant quires, it seems probable that they 
are new or clean copies of corresponding leaves which had been executed 
by the scribe who wrote the rest of the New Testament, but had been so 
disfigured either by an unusual number of clerical errors, or from some 
unknown cause, that they appeared unworthy to be retained, and were 
therefore cancelled and transcribed by the "corrector." Tischendorf s 
view, that these leaves were transcribed by the corrector is confirmed 
by the fact that these leaves themselves contain scarcely any corrections. 
Not that they do not require them. In the first verse of Mark xvi., for 
instance, there is a very gross blunder which could not have failed to be 
discovered if the leaf had been read over ; but it is intelligible that the 
corrector, whose duty it was to read over the work of other scribes, 
thought it unnecessary to read over his own. 

But why was this leaf cancelled ? On inspection of the page, two 
phenomena present themselves, which go far to supply the answer. First, 
on looking at the column containing the conclusion of St. Mark, and at 
the next column, containing the beginning of St. Luke, it is apparent that 
the former is written far more widely than the latter. There are, in fact 
only 560 letters in the former column, 678 in the latter. This suggests that 
the page as originally written must have contained something of consider 
able length which was omitted in the substituted copy. Unless some pre 
caution were taken an omission of the kind would leave a telltale blank. 
In fact, if the concluding column of St. Mark had been written in the 
same manner as elsewhere, there would have been a whole column blank. 
But by spreading out his writing the scribe was enabled to carry over 37 



IX.] THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF ST. MARK S GOSPEL. l6l 

letters to a new column, the rest of which could be left blank without 
attracting notice, as it was the conclusion of a Gospel. The second pheno 
menon is that the Gospel ends in the middle of a line, and the whole of 
the rest of the line is filled up with ornament, while, underneath, the 
arabesque is prolonged horizontally, so as to form an ornamented line 
reaching all across the column. This filling up the last line occurs nowhere 
else in the Sinaitic (though the same scribe has written the conclusion of 
three other books), nor in the Vatican New Testament. It occurs three 
or four times in the Vatican Old Testament, but the prolongation of the 
arabesque has no parallel in either MS. We see that the scribe who 
recopied the leaf betrays that he had his mind full of the thought that the 
Gospel must be made to end with ftyoftovvro yap, and took pains that no 
one should add more. I do not think these two phenomena can be 
reasonably explained in any other way than that the leaf, as originally 
copied, had contained the disputed verses ; and that the corrector, regard 
ing these as not a genuine part of the Gospel, cancelled the leaf, recopying 
it in such a way as to cover the gap left by the erasure. It follows that 
the archetype of the Sinaitic MS. had contained the disputed verses. But 
what about the archetype of the Vatican? In that manuscript there 
actually is a column left blank following the end of St. Mark, this being 
the only blank column in the whole MS. All critics agree that the blank 
column indicates that the scribe was cognizant of something following 
fQofiovvTo ydp which he did not choose to copy. But surely before he 
began St. Luke he would make up his mind whether or not the additional 
verses deserved a place in his text. If he decided against them he would 
leave no blank, but begin St. Luke in the next column. But what we have 
seen in the case of the Sinaitic suggests the hypothesis that the Vatican 
also as first copied had contained the disputed verses, and that on the leaf 
being cancelled, the gap left by the omission was bigger than spreading 
out the letters would cover. Thus both MSS., when cross-examined, give 
evidence, not against, but for the disputed verses, and afford us reason to 
believe that in this place these MSS. do not represent the reading of their 
archetypes, but the critical views of the corrector under whose hand both 
passed ; and as they were both copied at a time when the authority of 
Eusebius as a biblical critic was predominant, and possibly even under the 
superintendence of Eusebius himself (for Canon Cook thinks that these 
two were part of the 50 MSS. which Constantine commissioned Eusebius 
to have copied for the use of his new capital), we still fail to get distinctly 
pre-Eusebian testimony against the verses. 

II. Supposing that we cannot produce against the verses any witness 
earlier than Eusebius, still Eusebius in the fourth century used a purer text 
than Irenseus in the second, and, therefore, his testimony deserves the more 
credit. Again, I raise no question as to general principles of criticism, 
nor shall 1 inquire whether in this case Eusebius was not liable to be unduly 
influenced by harmonistic considerations ; but if we accept the fourth- 
century witness as on the whole the more trustworthy, it remains to be 

M 



I 62 THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF ST. MARK S GOSPEL. [iX. 

considered whether we are to prefer a credible witness telling an in 
credible story to a less trustworthy witness telling a highly probable 
one. 

The rejection of the verses absolutely forces on us the alternative either 
that the conclusion which St. Mark originally wrote to his Gospel was lost 
without leaving a trace of its existence, or else that the second Gospel 
never proceeded beyond verse 8. The probability that one or other of 
these two things is true is the exact measure of the probability that the 
Eusebian form of text is correct. 

(1) "We may fairly dismiss as incredible the supposition that the con 
clusion which St. Mark originally wrote to his Gospel unaccountably 
disappeared without leaving a trace behind, and was almost universally 
replaced by a different conclusion. It has been suggested that the last 
leaf of the original MS. became detached, and perished ; and it is true that 
the loss of a leaf is an accident liable to happen to a MS. Such a hypothesis 
explains very well the partial circulation of defective copies of a work. 
Suppose, for instance, that a very old copy of St. Mark s Gospel, wanting 
the last leaf, was brought, let us say, to Egypt. Transcripts made from 
that venerable copy would want the concluding verses ; or if they were 
added from some other authority, indications might appear that the 
addition had been made only after the Gospel had been supposed to 
terminate. In this way might originate a local circulation of a defective 
family of MSS. But the total loss of the original conclusion could not take 
place in this way, unless the first copy had been kept till it dropped to. 
pieces with age before anyone made a transcript of it, so that a leaf once 
lost was lost for ever. 

(2) It has been imagined that the Gospel never had a formal conclusion : 
but this also I find myself unable to believe. Long before any Gospel 
was written, the belief in the Resurrection of our Lord had become 
universal among Christians, and this doctrine had become the main topic 
of every Christian preacher. A history of our Lord, in which this cardinal 
point was left unmentioned, may be pronounced inconceivable. And if 
there were no doctrinal objection, there would be the literary one that 
no Greek writer would give his work so abrupt and ill-omened a termination 
as styoftovVTO yap. 

Two explanations of the absence of a suitable conclusion have been 
offered. One is that the Evangelist died before bringing his work to a 
conclusion. But even in the supposed case, that St. Mark, after writing 
verse 8, had a fit of apoplexy, the disciple who gave his work to the world 
would surely have added a fitting termination. The other is that Mark 
copied a previous document, to which he was too conscientious to make 
any addition of his own. Then our difficulties are simply transferred from 
St. Mark to the writer of that previous document. But, not to press this 
point, we must examine whether internal evidence supports the theory 
that Mark acted the part of a simple copyist, who did not attempt to set 
the previous tradition in any framework of his own ; and that, consequently 



IX.] THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 163 

the second Gospel, as it stands now, was the source used by Matthew and 
Luke in the composition of their Gospels. I do not believe this to be 
true; and so I find no explanation to make it conceivable that Mark s 
Gospel could have finished with tyofiovvro ydp. 

On the other hand, the opinion that the concluding verses, just as much 
as the opening ones, belong to the original framework of the Gospel has 
no internal difficulties whatever to encounter. The twelve verses have 
such marks of antiquity that Dr. Tregelles, who refused to believe them 
to have been written by St. Mark, still regarded them as having a full I 
claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel. In fact, 
we have in the short termination of Codex L, a specimen of the vague 
generalities with which a later editor, who really knew no more than was 
contained in our Gospels, might attempt to supply a deficiency in the 
narrative. The twelve verses, on the contrary, are clearly the work of one 
who wrote at so early a date that he could believe himself able to add 
genuine apostolic traditions to those already recorded. If he asserts that 
Jesus was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God, he 
only gives expression to what was the universal belief of Christians at as 
early a period as anyone believes the second Gospel to have been written 
(see Rom. viii. 34 ; Eph. i. 20 ; Col. iii. I ; I Peter iii. 22 ; Heb. i. 3 ; viii. 
i ; x. 12; xii. 2). This belief was embodied in the earliest Christian 
Creeds, especially in that of the Church of Rome, with which probable 
tradition connects the composition of St. Mark s Gospel. Further, the 
twelve verses were written at a time when the Church still believed herself 
in possession of miraculous powers. Later, a stumbling-block was found 
in the signs which it was said (verse 17) should follow them that believe. 
The heathen objector, with whom Macarius Magnes* had to deal, asked 
if any Christians of his day really did believe. Would the strongest 
believer of them all test the matter by drinking a cup of poison ? The 
objection may have been as old as Porphyry, and may have been one of the 
reasons why Eusebius was willing to part with these verses. We must, 
therefore, ascribe their authorship to one who lived in the very first age 
of the Church. And why not to St. Mark ? 

Thus, while the Eusebian recension of St. Mark presents intrinsic diffi 
culties of the most formidable character, that form of text which has the 
advantage of attestation earlier by a century and a -half contains nothing 
inconsistent with the date claimed for it. In spite, then, of the eminence 
of the critics who reject the twelve verses, I cannot help looking at them 

* The author of a book called Apocritica, written about A.D. 400, and 
containing heathen objections against Christianity, with answers to them. 
In answering an objection founded on the disputed verses, Macarius shows 
no suspicion that it was open to him to cast any doubt on their genuine 
ness. Nothing is known with certainty about this Macarius, and indeed 
his book had been known only by a few short extracts, until a considerable 
portion of it, which had been recovered at Athens, was published in Paris 
in 1876. 

M 2 



1 64 THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF ST. MARK S GOSPEL. [iX. 

as having been from the first an integral part of the second Gospel ; and I 
regard the discussion of them as belonging not so much to the criticism of 
the Text as to the subject of the present lecture, the history of the genesis 
of the Synoptic Gospels.* 

* It seems to me that textual critics are not entitled to feel absolute 
confidence in their results, if they venture within range of the obscurity 
that hangs over the history of the first publication of the Gospels. Such 
a task as Bentley and Lachmann proposed to themselves, viz. to recover a 
good fourth-century text was perfectly feasible, and has, in fact, been 
accomplished by Westcott and Hort with triumphant success. I suppose 
that if a MS. containing their text could have been put into the hands of 
Eusebius, he would have found only one thing in it which would have been 
quite strange to him, namely, the short conclusion on the last page of St. 
Mark, and that he would have pronounced the MS. to be an extremely 
good and accurate one. But these editors aim at nothing less than going 
back to the original documents ; and, in order to do this, it is in some 
cases necessary to choose between two forms of text, each of which is 
attested by authorities older than any extant MS. Now, a choice which 
must be made on subjective grounds only cannot be made with the same 
confidence as when there is on either side a clear preponderance of his 
torical testimony. And, further, there is the possibility that the Evangelist 
might have himself published a second edition of his Gospel, so that 
two forms of text might both be entitled to claim his authority. 



X. 



THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. 



THE HEBREW GOSPEL. 

IN this lecture I propose to discuss what amount of 
credence is due to the statement of Papias that St. 
Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew that is, in the later 
form of the language which was popularly spoken in Palestine 
in our Lord s time. The question is a very difficult one, on 
account of the conflict between external and internal evidence. 
The difficulty I speak of lies in the determination of the exact 
nature of the relationship between our Greek Gospel and its 
possible Aramaic predecessors. We need have no difficulty 
in believing that, before our Gospels, there had been written 
records of discourses of our Lord and of incidents in His life; 
that one or more of these may have been in Aramaic, and may 
have been used by our Evangelists. But when all this has 
been granted, it still remains a subject for inquiry whether 
any of these preceding documents had assumed the form of 
a complete Gospel, and whether our Greek St. Matthew is to 
be regarded as a mere translation of it, or as an independent 
work. 

It is certain that in very early times Hebrew-speaking 
Christians had in use Gospels in their own language : and 
these were quite different in character from the Apocryphal 
Gospels, of which I mean to speak in the next lecture. It 
was a necessity for Greek Apocryphal Gospels to be different 
from the Canonical ; for unless they had something new to 
tell, why should they be written ? They were either framed 



1 66 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

in the interests of some heresy, the doctrines of which were 
to obtain support from sayings put into the mouth of our 
Lord or His Apostles ; or else they were simply intended to 
satisfy the curiosity of Christians on some points on which 
the earlier Evangelists had said nothing. In either case it 
was the very essence of these Gospels to tell something diffe 
rent from the Gospels we have. It was quite otherwise with 
the Hebrew Gospels. They were intended to do the very same 
thing for the benefit of the disciples who spoke Hebrew that 
the Greek Gospels were to do for those who could speak Greek. 
There was no necessity that either class of disciples should 
be taught by means of a translation from a different language. 
There were, among those who had personal knowledge of the 
facts of the Gospel history, men competent to tell the story 
in either tongue. We might, therefore, reasonably expect 
that there would be original Gospels in the two languages, 
proceeding on the same lines, the same story being told in 
both, and possibly by the same men ; and yet, though in sub 
stantial, not in absolute, agreement with each other. There 
would be no a priori reason why an independent Hebrew 
Gospel might not differ as much from our Synoptics, as one 
of these does from another ; and since each of the Synoptics 
contains some things not told by the rest, so, possibly, might 
an independent Hebrew Gospel record some sayings or acts 
of our Lord other than those contained in the Greek Gospels. 
It is reasonable to believe that if there were any material 
difference in the way of telling the history, the Hebrew 
Gospel would be translated into Greek; but if the resemblance 
between the Hebrew Gospel and one of the Greek ones was 
in the main very close, it would not be worth while to make 
a translation of the whole Gospel, and anything special which 
it contained might pass into Greek independently. I have par 
ticularly in my mind the story of the woman taken in adultery. 
Eusebius, who probably did not read that story in his copy of 
the Gospel according to St. John, informs us (iii. 39) that 
Papias had related a story of a woman accused of many sins 
before our Lord, and that the same story was contained in 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Well, I have no 
difficulty in admitting it to be possible that a perfectly 



X.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR HEBREW ORIGINAL. 167 

authentic anecdote of our Lord might have been related in 
the Hebrew Gospel alone, that this might be translated into 
Greek, and find its way, first into the margin, ultimately into 
the text, of one of our Greek Gospels. And it seems to me 
by no means unlikely that this may afford the true explanation 
of some more trifling insertions found in Western MSS., which 
the severity of modern criticism rejects as not entitled to a 
place in the Greek text. This also may give the explanation 
of an interpolation in the zoth Matthew, found in some early 
authorities, containing instructions substantially the same as 
those given in i4th Luke, against taking the highest place at 
a feast. 

I have said enough to show that there is no antecedent 
improbability, such as to throw any difficulty in the way of 
our accepting a statement that an Apostle wrote a Gospel in 
Hebrew, and that this Gospel was afterwards translated into 
Greek. Now, that our first Gospel actually is such a trans 
lation from one written in Hebrew by St. Matthew is testified 
by an overwhelming mass of Patristic evidence, which has 
been accepted as conclusive by a number of the most eminent 
modern critics. In the first rank of these witnesses must be 
reckoned Papias, whom I have already quoted. I do not 
know whether Irenseus can be counted an independent wit 
ness: for he knew and valued the work of Papias, and may 
have thence drawn his information; but as he gives a note of 
time not found in the extract quoted by Eusebius, he may 
possibly have derived a tradition from some other source. 
What Irenaeus says (iii. i) is, that Matthew, among the 
Hebrews, published a Gospel in their own dialect when Peter 
and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the Church. 
Again, Eusebius (v. 10) tells a story of Pantaenus, who, about 
the beginning of the last quarter of the second century, was 
the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, where he 
accordingly was the teacher of Clement of Alexandria. The 
tradition, which Eusebius reports with an it is said, is, that 
Pantaenus went to preach to the Indians, and that he found 
the Gospel of Matthew had got there before him : for that the 
Apostle Bartholomew had preached to the Indians, and had 
left them St. Matthew s Gospel written in Hebrew letters, 



1 68 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

which they had preserved to the time of Pantsenus s visit and 
later. The external evidence for this tradition, it will be 
seen, is weak; and it certainly has no internal probability to 
recommend it. A Greek book would have had a better 
chance of being understood in India (no matter what that 
word means) than an Aramaic one. 

What these early fathers asserted, those who came after 
them naturally echoed, so that the testimony of the majority 
of later writers cannot be regarded as adding much to the 
weight of these early witnesses : especially as very few of 
them knew Hebrew, or could say that they themselves had 
seen the Hebrew original of St. Matthew. We have, how 
ever, in St. Jerome a witness who seems above all suspicion. 
He says that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew words- 
and letters for the sake of those of the circumcision who 
believed in Christ, and that it is uncertain who translated it 
into Greek. He adds that a copy of the original Hebrew was 
then still preserved in the library at Caesarea, founded by the 
martyr Pamphilus, and that he himself had transcribed the 
Hebrew Gospel with the leave of the Nazaraeans who lived at 
Beroea in Syria [Aleppo], and who used that Gospel.* We 
have the further testimony of Epiphanius,f who was well 
acquainted with Eastern languages. He mentions the same 
sect of the Nazarenes to which Jerome refers, for he describes 
Beroea as one of the places where they most flourished ; and 
he says that they had the Gospel of St. Matthew complete, 
written in Hebrew, only he is not sure whether they did not 

* De Viris illustr., 3. Jerome resided in the desert east of Syria, 374- 
379, and it seems to have been at this period that he made acquaintance 
with the Hebrew St. Matthew. The work from which the citation is 
taken was published in 392. 

t Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, published his great work on 
Heresies in 377. "We have often reason to remark that the literary work 
of the Fathers falls short of the modern standard of accuracy ; but there is 
none who is more apt than Epiphanius to make blunders through careless 
ness, want of critical discrimination, and, through a habit not unknown at 
the present day, of stating what he guessed might be true, as if he had 
ascertained it to be time. On this account his unsupported testimony can 
only be used with great caution. But he is well entitled to be heard on 
the present question, since Syriac was his native language, and he appears 
to have been well acquainted with Hebrew, besides knowing Egyptian, 
Greek, and Latin, whence he was called 



X.] INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR GREEK ORIGIN. 1 69 

take away the genealogy from the beginning (Haer. 29). 
This confession of ignorance gives us reason to infer that 
he does not speak of this Gospel from personal knowledge. 
In calling their version complete (irXypeo-TaTov) he meant to 
contrast it with that used by another Jewish sect whom he 
calls the Ebionites, and which he describes in his next 
section. They also had a Hebrew Gospel which they called 
that according to St. Matthew : and this Epiphanius knew, 
and gives several extracts from it. He tells us that it was 
not perfect, but corrupted and mutilated (ov\ oty Se 
TrX^pecrrara), aAAa vei/o^ev/xevw /cat ^/cpwnypiaoy/.ej/a)). 

In point of external evidence, then, the proof of the 
Hebrew original of St. Matthew s Gospel seems as complete 
as could be desired. Yet there are two considerations to be 
attended to before we accept all this testimony as absolutely 
conclusive. 

One is, that internal evidence leads us to regard our 
present Matthew as an original work, not a translation. In 
the first place, we have translations of Hebrew words : They 
shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, 
God with us (i. 23). A place called Golgotha, that is to- 
say, a place of a skull (xxvii. 33); Eli, Eli, lama sabach- 
thani, that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
me? (xxvii. 46). It is evident these explanations could not 
have been in the Hebrew original, and that they must have 
been introduced by the translator, if there was one. Next, 
there are explanations which show a regard to the case of 
readers unacquainted with the customs of Palestine at the 
time in question : The same day came to him the Sadducees, 
which say that there is no resurrection (xxii. 23); Now at 
that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a 
prisoner whom they would (xxvii. 15) ; That field was called 
the field of blood unto this day (xxvii. 8); This saying is 
commonly reported among the Jews until this day (xxviii. 15). 
These explanations would not have been necessary for one 
writing in Hebrew to the Jews of Palestine, but are quite 
suitable in a work written in Greek, and expected to pass 
outside the limits of the Holy Land. I do not venture to lay 
much stress on instances of paronomasia, to which attention 



1 70 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 



has been called, such as d^avi^ova-iv OTTW? <av6kriv (vi. 16); 
a/ctos (xxi. 41); nor on expressions such as PO.TTO- 
/, TroXvAoyia. Possibly instances of this kind are not 
more than might be unconsciously introduced by a translator. 
But the investigation in which we engaged in the last lecture 
goes very near to determine the present question. For 
example, I regard it as almost certain that our first Gospel 
did not copy the third, nor the third the first, but that both 
drew from a common source. And I have stated my opinion 
that the facts are not explained by the supposition that that 
source was Aramaic : being led to this conclusion by an 
examination of the coincidences of language in the Greek of 
the Gospels, and in particular by a study of the manner in 
which the first Gospel cites the Old Testament. Now, if we 
come to the conclusion that the first Gospel, such as we have 
it, shows traces of the use of a Greek source, the only way in 
which it is possible to maintain the Hebrew original is by 
adding the hypothesis that the translator of the Gospel into 
Greek was acquainted with the source in question, and used 
it to guide him in his work. I will not delay now to speak of 
the difficulties of this hypothesis, as I shall presently give 
reasons for thinking it needless to have recourse to it. Nor 
will I dwell on certain minute marks of originality in our 
present first Gospel. Some of them, indeed, can better be 
felt than described ; but certainly the impression on any 
reader of Matthew and Luke is, that one is as much an original 
as the other. 

I pass to the second consideration, namely, that none of 
the Fathers show acquaintance with any Greek text of the 
first Gospel other than that we have. If a Hebrew Gospel 
by St. Matthew had been recognized as a primary source of 
information concerning our Lord s history, we might expect 
that more persons than one would have been anxious to 
translate it into Greek. Actually there is no trace of any 
Greek text but one, and that seems to have been established 
in exclusive possession in the days of our earliest witness, 
Papias. Observe his words : Matthew wrote the oracles in 
Hebrew, and everyone interpreted them as he could. Here 
you may take everyone in the strict sense, and understand 



X.] EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS. iyi 

Papias to say that there was no Greek translation, and that 
everyone who desired to use St. Matthew s Gospel was forced 
to translate it for himself as best he could; or, you may take 
* everyone as more loosely used, and may understand Papias 
only to say that there was no authorized Greek translation, 
but that certain persons had published translations which 
each had made to the best of his ability. I rather think the 
first is what he means: but in either case the point to observe 
is, that Papias uses the aorist tense ^p/n^evo-e. The days of 
new independent translation appear to have been over when 
Papias wrote, and we have every reason to believe that there 
was one authoritative Greek St. Matthew. The citations of 
it are as early and as constant as those of the other Gospels. 
Even those Fathers who tell us that Matthew s Greek Gospel 
is a translation seem to forget themselves, and elsewhere to 
speak of it and use it as if it were an original. In short, the 
Church has never made the difference between the first and 
the other Synoptic Gospels that this theory demands. I 
mean the theory that in each of the latter two we have the 
work of an inspired writer: in the first, a translation made by 
an unknown interpreter who clearly acted the part rather of 
an editor than translator, and who in some places inserted 
explanations and additions of his own. 

The difficulty of claiming inspired authority for the Greek 
St, Matthew has been felt so strongly, that in modern times 
a theory has been started to which no ancient author gives 
countenance, namely, that there was a double original : that 
Matthew first wrote in Hebrew and afterwards himself trans 
lated his work into Greek. If we are to reject the testimony 
of the ancients at all, I should prefer to reject their assertion 
that the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew; but those 
who say that it was testify also that there was no authorized 
translation. On this point both Papias and Jerome are 
-express, so that it seems to me there is no middle course. 
We must choose between the two hypotheses a Greek 
original of St. Matthew, or a lost Hebrew original with a 
translation by an unknown author.* Or rather, since our 

* That the existing Greek text is not authoritative is assumed also by 
Eusebius. One of the solutions which he offers (Quaest. ad Mann. II.) 



172 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

Greek Gospel bears marks of not being a mere translation, 
we must choose between the hypotheses that we have in the 
Greek the Gospel as written by Matthew himself, or the 
Gospel as written by an unknown writer, who used as his 
principal materials an Aramaic writing by St. Matthew which 
has now perished. 

We turn back, then, to examine more closely the external 
evidence for the Hebrew original, when we find that it melts 
away in a wonderful manner. Observe what is the point to- 
be determined. It is not disputed that Hebrew-speaking 
sectaries in the third and fourth centuries used a Gospel in 
their own language, and that they ascribed it to St. Matthew,- 
but the question is, What was the relation of that Gospel to 
our Greek St. Matthew? was it that of original to translation? 
For that purpose we must inquire what information is to be 
had about that Hebrew Gospel. In the next lecture I shall 
speak of other Apocryphal Gospels; but it is not inconvenient 
to treat of the Hebrew one separately, because its character 
is different from that of the others. These last I have de 
scribed as either supplemental or heretical : that is to say, 
as either such as assume the Canonical Gospels and try to 
make additions to their story, or else such as were framed 
to serve the interests of some heresy. But the Hebrew 
Gospel is the only one which has pretensions to be an in 
dependent Gospel: that is to say, one which claims to be 
set on a level with the Canonical Gospels, as one accepted 
by the Church as containing an authentic history of our 
Lord s life and teaching. 

I begin by putting out of court the Ebionite Gospel 
described by Epiphanius, this being clearly to be banished 
to the class of heretical gospels. Epiphanius tells us enough 
about it to make us at any rate sure that this was not the 

of the difficulty which he finds in Matthew s statement, that Mary Mag 
dalen s visit to the sepulchre took place o^e craQftdruv, is that this phrase, 
used by the Greek translator, does not quite accurately give the meaning 
of Matthew s Hebrew text, which would have been better expressed by 
PpaSiov than o\|/e. It seems to me not impossible that Eusebius might 
have got this solution from Papias, and that this might have been the very 
occasion on which Papias found occasion to observe that Matthew had 
written his Gospel in Hebrew, 



X.] THE EBIONITE GOSPEL. 173 

original of our St. Matthew. It contained nothing corre 
sponding to the first two chapters, and its actual beginning 
was quite different from what we find in the third chapter. 
The Gospel emanated from the Ebionite sect which I have 
described already (p. 18), and to which I find it convenient 
to give the distinctive name of Elkesaite, thereby avoiding 
some controversy as to the proper extension of the name 
Ebionite.* These Jewish sectaries, being few in number and 
not widely diffused, were little known to the Church at large 
until the end of the second century or the beginning of the 
third, when an extreme section of them assumed an aggres 
sive and proselytizing attitude, and in particular attempted to 
make converts at Rome. This section included some men 
who did not scruple at literary imposture. They produced 
the Book of Elkesai (see p. 19), and they refashioned for their 
purposes earlier documents which professed to relate the 
preaching of Peter. In this way originated the Clementine 
Recognitions and Homilies. It is for this section that 
Epiphanius reserves the name Ebionite, giving to the other 
Judaizers the name of Nazarenes. My judgment concerning 
what Epiphanius describes as the Ebionite Gospel is, that it 
was a Greek book compiled by these Elkesaites for the use 
of their converts, and purporting to be a translation of the 
Hebrew Gospel. But I am persuaded that these adepts in 
literary forgery, instead of giving a faithful translation of 
that Gospel, manufactured a new Gospel of their own, using 
for that purpose not only the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 
but also that according to St. Luke, and perhaps also that 
according to St. John. That this Ebionite Gospel never 



* The name Ebionite seems to have been originally given to all Jewish 
Christians who observed the Mosaic law (Orig. adv. Cels. ii. i) ; and 
though the earlier authorities distinguished between those Christians of 
Jewish birth who, after their conversion, merely continued to observe 
the Mosaic law themselves, and those who insisted on such observance as 
necessary to salvation, and who besides denied our Lord s Divinity and His 
miraculous Conception ; yet these early authorities give to both classes the 
name of Ebionites (see in particular Orig. adv. Cels. v. 61 ; Euseb. H. E. 
iii. 27). It seems to have been first towards the end of the fourth century 
that the name Nazarene was applied (by Epiphanius and Jerome) to the 
first class, while the name Ebionite was left as the peculiar designation of 
the second. 



174 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

existed in Aramaic is more than I can venture to assert ;* 
but I hold that the Gospel which Epiphanius describes was 
in Greek, and that our Greek Gospels were used in it& 
manufacture. 

I have already said that this Elkesaite sect was charac 
terized by an abhorrence of sacrifice, and by an objection to 
the use of flesh meat ; and the extracts given by Epiphanius 
show how they made their Gospel emphatically sanction 
these opinions of theirs. In one place (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 16) 
our Lord is made to say : I came to put an end to sacrifices, 
and until ye cease from sacrifices the wrath of God shall not 
cease from you. The same hand was evidently at work here 
that in the Clementine Recognitions (i. 64) makes Peter say 
to the priests in the temple : We are certain that God is only 
made more angry by the sacrifices which ye offer, seeing that 
the time of sacrifices is now passed ; and because ye will not 
acknowledge that the time for offering victims has passed, 
your temple shall be destroyed, and the abomination of 
desolation set up in the holy place. f 

It was a natural object of solicitude with these Elkesaites to 
get rid of the encouragement to the eating of flesh afforded 
by our Lord s participation in the Passover feast. Accord 
ingly, in their Gospel, the disciples question, Where wilt 
thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover ? receives- 
from our Lord the answer, Have I with desire desired to eat 
this Passover, even flesh, with you ? Two things deserve to- 
be noticed in this passage besides its hostility to the use of 
flesh. The first is that Epiphanius, in commenting on the 
two changes introduced by the insertion of the word flesh r 
and of the interrogative particle, describes the latter as made 
by the addition of the two letters /A, rj ; showing plainly that 
it was a Greek book he had before him. The other is, that 
the text on which the Elkesaite forger has operated is not 
from St. Matthew s Gospel, but from St. Luke s, viz. xxii. 15. 

Another New Testament example of the use of animal food 

* Epiphanius states (Haer. xxx. 3) that both the Gospel according to St. 
John and the Acts of the Apostles had been translated into Aramaic. 

t We may gather from this Clementine passage in what part of the 
Gospel the saying quoted by Epiphanius was inserted. 



X.] THE EBIONITE GOSPEL. 175 

seemed to contradict the teaching of these Elkesaites I mean 
the passage which describes locusts as having been the food 
of John the Baptist. Accordingly they substituted His food 
was wild honey, the taste of which was that of the manna, 
as a honey-cake dressed with oil (compare Numbers xi. 8, 
LXX.) The substitution here of the word ey/cpts, a cake, for 
a /cpi?, a locust, has convinced the great majority of critics that 
this Ebionite forger here did not translate from the Hebrew, 
but worked on the Greek texts of our Gospels. 

In the very few fragments of this Gospel that have been 
preserved there are several other indications of the use of St. 
Luke besides those already mentioned. It names Zacharias 
and Elisabeth as the parents of John the Baptist; it dates the 
preaching of the Baptist, Caiaphas being the high priest, 
Luke iii. 2. It tells that Jesus, when He came forward as a 
teacher, was about thirty years of age (Luke iii. 23); and 
it shows signs of following Luke iii. 21, in the phrase, when 
the people were baptized came Jesus also. In this Ebionite 
Gospel what Matthew calls the sea of Galilee becomes the 
lake of Tiberias: lake being Luke s ordinary phrase and 
Tiberias John s. And I am disposed to recognize as an 
indication of the use of St. John s Gospel a point noted by 
the late Bishop Fitz Gerald. According to St. John it was. 
the descent of the Holy Ghost at our Lord s baptism which 
taught the Baptist to recognize Jesus as the Son of God 
(John i. 33.) Now, according to Matthew s Gospel, John, 
before the descent of the Holy Ghost, confesses that he has 
need to be baptized by Jesus. This Ebionite Gospel trans 
poses the confession so as to make it agree with what John s 
account would at first sight appear to require. And it is only 
when the Baptist sees the miracle and hears the voice from 
heaven that he falls at the feet of Jesus, with the prayer, I 
beseech thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. 

Now, according to all the authorities, the genuine Hebrew 
Gospel was identical, or nearly so, with St. Matthew, so that 
these coincidences, not with Matthew, but with other Gospels, 
arrest attention. And considering by what tainted hands this 
document is presented, I will not detain you with a discussion 
of the abstract question whether coincidences with Luke and 



176 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

John ought necessarily to cause us to reject the claim of a 
document to be regarded as the original Hebrew Gospel. 
I content myself with expressing my conviction that this 
Ebionite Gospel of Epiphanius is nothing of the kind. I 
look on it as a third-century forgery, made with heretical 
intent by one who was well acquainted with the Greek 
Gospels, in a workshop discredited by other forgeries and 
impostures; and I hold that it must be altogether cast out of 
consideration by anyone who seeks to restore a considerably 
older document, namely, the Hebrew Gospel in use among 
those whom Epiphanius and Jerome call Nazarenes, and for 
which these sectaries claimed the authorship of St. Matthew. 
For the same reason it is only with great reserve I can 
employ another source of information about the Hebrew 
Gospel, namely, the Clementine Homilies. These frequently 
quote sayings of our Lord, and they contain other passages 
resembling texts in the Canonical Gospels, but often differing 
a good deal from them in form. It was a natural explanation 
of these variations to suppose that the Clementine writer was 
quoting a gospel different from any of our four, and to assume 
that the Gospel which, as a Jewish Christian, he was accus 
tomed to use must have been the Hebrew Gospel. The idea 
receives some confirmation from the fact that it is Matthew s 
Gospel which the Clementine quotations ordinarily recall. 
But they do not so exclusively. In a table of the Clementine 
Gospel quotations given by Westcott {Introduction to the Study 
of the Gospels, p. 468) there are about sixty coincidences with 
St. Matthew, three with Mark, six with Luke, and four with 
John. But one thing must be borne in mind before we infer 
that a peculiarity in the form of a Clementine citation implies 
that the writer used a different Gospel. It is that when such 
citations are made in the Homilies Peter is usually the 
speaker ; and he is represented not as reading our Lord s 
sayings from a book, but as giving his own recollections of 
His teaching and His acts. The conditions of the story then 
required that Peter should show himself to be an indepen 
dent authority, and not the servile copier of a previous record. 
I feel no doubt that the story of the man born blind, which 
I have quoted (p. 76), was taken from St. John ; and a com- 



X.] THE NAZARENE GOSPEL. 177 

parison of the two versions shows the amount of licence 
which the Clementine writer conceived himself at liberty to 
use. The fact, then, that a report of our Lord s words, made 
by so arbitrary a writer, differs from the canonical text gives 
us no assurance that he derived it from the Hebrew Gospel, or 
even from any written source. On the other hand, since he 
was no doubt acquainted with the Hebrew Gospel, there is 
always a possibility of his having used it ; and if the same 
peculiar form of citation occurs more than once, or if it 
agrees with the citation of another writer, then we are led 
to regard it as taken from a written source, and not impro 
bably from the Hebrew Gospel.* 

When we have cast aside these Elkesaite authorities, we 
have no more copious source of information about the Hebrew 
Gospel than St. Jerome ; and it might seem that he sets at 
rest the question of the Hebrew original of St. Matthew, for 
he tells us that he had seen it himself and made a copy of it. 
Unfortunately, he goes on to tell us that he proceeded to 
translate it into Greek and Latin. That alone would lead us 



to suspect that the book must be something different from 






our Gospel of St. Matthew, or that, if the latter be a trans- * 
lation, it cannot be an accurate translation. And this sus 
picion is turned into certainty by abundant extracts which 
St. Jerome gives from the same book, sufficiently confirmed 
by the testimony of other Fathers. We are thus enabled to 
say with certainty that whatever affinities there may have 
been between this Nazarene Gospel and St. Matthew s, the 
latter can with no propriety be said to be a translation of the 
former. The Nazarene Gospel contained some things that 

* The most remarkable instance of the kind is the saying Be ye 
approved money-changers (yivearde 5^/ct/^ot TpaTre^trcu), which I have 
quoted already (p. 18). The meaning of it was that we ought to emulate 
the skill of money-changers in understanding how to reject the evil and 
choose the good (compare I Thess. v. 21, a text often quoted in connexion 
with this saying). The saying is quoted three times in the Clementine 
Homilies, ii. 51 ; iii. 50; xviii. 20. Clement of Alexandria, who is lax in 
his use of non-canonical and even heretical documents, expressly quotes 
this saying as Scripture (Strom, i. 28), and three times again indirectly 
refers to it (ii. 4 ; vi. 10 ; vii. 15). It is also quoted in the second century 
by the Gnostic Apelles (Epiph. Haer. xliv. 2). It is referred to by a 
whole host of later writers, of whom a list will be found in Nicholson s 
Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 157. 

N 



178 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

are not in St. Matthew, and wanted some things that are in 
St. Matthew,* and told in different ways stories that were 
common to both. The most interesting of the additions 
made by the Nazarene Gospel to the Canonical history is 
its account of our Lord s appearance to James after His 
resurrection. It runs : Now the Lord, when He had given 
the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, went to James, 
and appeared to him. For James had taken an oath that he 
would not eat bread from that hour on which he had drunk 
the cup of the Lord till he saw him risen from the dead/ 
Then our Lord says, Bring a table and bread. And a little 
further on it is added: He took bread, and blessed and brake, 
and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, My brother, 
eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the dead 
(De Viris Illustr. 2). We may be sure that if this story had 
been in the original St. Matthew, it would not have been 
omitted in the Greek translation, and therefore this one 
specimen would give ground for the opinion, which the 
other specimens I shall produce establish beyond doubt, 
that Jerome s Hebrew Gospel is not a different form of the 
first Gospel, but to all intents a fifth Gospel. f It is another 
question whether the story may not be authentic. We know 
from i Cor. xv. 7 that our Lord did appear to James, and 
nothing forbids us to believe that a true tradition of that 
appearance may have been preserved. But it is also possible 
that this very verse of i Cor. may have suggested to the 
Jewish Christian framer of the Nazarene Gospel to supple 
ment the defect of the authentic history by an invented 
narrative of the details of our Lord s appearance to the vene 
rated head of the Jerusalem Church. And some suspicion 

* The proof of this is, that the Hebrew Gospel is the shorter. The 
Stichometry of Nicephorus gives 25OOo-Tixot for the length of St. Matthew, 
and 2200 for that of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The authority 
here cited is a list of ecclesiastical books, with the length of each, which is 
evidently very old, though only preserved by a ninth-century writer. The 
reader will find it in Westcott s N. T. Canon, p. 552. 

t An abstract preserved by Photius (Cod. 177) gives us curious infor 
mation about a work of Theodore of Mopsuestia, directed against a 
Western writer whose name is not given, but who plainly is Jerome ; and 
one of the charges brought against him is that of having forged a fifth 
Gospel. Prof. Westcott has noted that the same charge was brought by 
Julian the Pelagian (Augustine, Opus Imperf. cont. Julian., iv. 88). 



X.] THE NAZARENE GOSPEL. 179 

is suggested by the fact that St. Paul puts the appearance to 
James quite late in the list of our Lord s appearances, while 
the Nazarene account would lead us to regard it as one of 
the first. 

The next specimen which I shall produce deserves re 
mark on many accounts. It is quoted by Origen as well as 
by Jerome, and so gives us reason to think that the same 
Hebrew Gospel was used by these two writers. But you 
must observe that although Origen believed that the original 
of Matthew s Gospel had been in Hebrew (Euseb. vi. 25), it 
does not appear that he identified it with the Hebrew Gospel 
which he quotes ; nor can I find that this idea was enter 
tained by any of the other Church writers who quote what 
they generally call the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
The notion seems to have been peculiar to St. Jerome. 

Our Saviour is introduced as saying, My mother the Holy 
Ghost lately took me by one of my hairs and carried me to 
the great mountain Tabor. * The words by one of my 
hairs might easily be accounted for as an enlargement of 
St. Matthew s led up of the Spirit (iv. i), by an apocryphal 
addition (founded on Ezek. viii. 3 ; Bel and the Dragon, 36), 
and this would be an indication that this Hebrew Gospel is 
posterior to our Greek St. Matthew. But the phrase My 
mother the Holy Ghost requires more comment. In the 
Aramaic the Holy Spirit is denoted by a feminine noun ; 
consequently, in the Gnostic sects, which took their origin 
where a Shemitic language was spoken, and which deduce 
the origin of things from a male and female principle, the 
Holy Spirit is usually the female principle. Hence Hilgen- 
feld, who tries to discover in St. Matthew an anti-Pauline 

* Origen in Johan., torn. ii. 6 ; Horn, injerem., xv. 4 ; Hieron. in Mich., 
vii. 6 ; in Isai., xv. u ; in Ezech., xvi. 13. The first passage quoted from 
Origen is curious. In expounding St. John s words -jrdvra 81 avrov e^eVero 
he includes the Holy Spirit among the irdvra; and adds, that if anyone 
accepts the Gospel according to the Hebrews, there is still no difficulty in 
interpreting the words my mother the Holy Ghost, &c., since Jesus said 
Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which sent me, the same is my 
brother and sister and mother? In the second passage he is explaining 
the words my mother (Jer. xv. 10), and, in addition to other solutions, 
notices that which is suggested If anyone receives " my mother the 
Holy Ghost, &c." 

N I 



l8o THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

Hebrew nucleus, considers that the part ascribed in the first 
chapter to the Holy Spirit in the generation of our Lord 
shows that this chapter at least was no part of the original 
Hebrew, but must have been added by the Greek translator 
or rather adapter. But St. Jerome gives no hint that the 
Gospel which he read was defective at the beginning; and 
it must be borne in mind that if a Gnostic writer spoke of 
the Holy Spirit as the mother of Christ it would be with 
reference to His premundane generation. He could without 
inconsistency adopt Matthew s account of the miraculous 
birth of Jesus, but would probably lay stress chiefly on the 
union of Jesus with a higher power at His baptism. In the 
passage of the Nazarene Gospel which relates the baptism, 
the Holy Spirit addresses our Lord as My Son. The nar 
rative runs : It came to pass, when the Lord had come up 
from the water, the entire fountain of the Holy Spirit de 
scended and rested upon him and said to him, My Son, in 
all the prophets did I await thee that thou mightest come 
and I might rest in thee : for thou art my rest, thou art my 
firstborn Son that reignest for ever. I may as well quote 
also the account this Gospel gives of our Lord s coming to 
be baptized : Behold the mother of the Lord and his 
brethren said to him, John the Baptist baptizeth for the 
remission of sins ; let us go and be baptized by him. But 
he said to them, Wherein have I sinned that I should go 
and be baptized by him, except, perchance, this very thing 
that I have said is ignorance ? 

I have given examples enough to show that this Nazarene 
Gospel was a very different book from our St. Matthew. Lest, 
however, it should be thought that the difference between 
the books arises from one of them having received interpola 
tions, I shall show you how differently a story is told which 
both have in common : Another rich man said to Jesus, 
Master, what good thing shall I do that I may live ? He 
said, Go and sell all that thou hast, and distribute among the 
poor, and come and follow me. But the rich man began to 
scratch his head and was displeased. And the Lord said to 
him, How canst thou say thou hast kept the law and the 
prophets, since it is written in the law, Thou shalt love thy 



X.] THE NAZARENE GOSPEL. l8l 

neighbour as thyself: and behold many of thy brethren, 
children of Abraham, are clothed with dung and dying with 
hunger, while thy house is full of many good things, and 
nothing is sent out of it to them ? And turning to His dis 
ciple Simon, who sat beside Him, he said : * Simon son of 
John, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a 
needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of 
heaven. * Again, the man with the withered hand is made 
to say, I was a mason seeking a livelihood by the labour of 
my hands. I pray thee, Jesus, to restore me to health, that 
I may not beg my bread in disgrace (Hieron., in Matt. xii. 
13). If so ran the original Hebrew St. Matthew, our Greek 
Evangelist must have been a most unfaithful translator. 

Again, the parable of the talents was improved so as not 
to inflict so severe a punishment on mere sloth. There are 
three servants : one multiplies his talent ; another hides it ; 
the third wastes it with harlots and riotous living. The 
second is only rebuked ; the third is cast into prison. f 
The only other things about the Hebrew Gospel which I 
think it worth while to quote are, that instead of relating 
that the veil of the Temple was rent, it told that a lintel 
of the Temple of immense size was shattered ; and that in 
the Lord s Prayer, instead of daily bread it had bread for 
the morrow. This is the meaning of the word eTrioverios, 
adopted by Bishop Lightfoot (New Testament Revision, Ap 
pendix) ; and it is no small argument in his favour that 
such was the interpretation accepted in Palestine apparently 
before the end of the first century. But if the Aramaic had 
been the original, and had said plainly bread for the mor- 

* This passage is given in the vetus interpretatio of Origen s Com 
mentary on Matthew xix. (torn. xv. 14, Delarue, iii. 671). The passage is 
not found in the extant Greek. 

t This is told by Eusebius in one of the Greek fragments of his 
Theophaneia, published by Mai (Nov. Pat. Bibl., iv. 155). The passage 
does not seem to be contained in the Syriac version translated by Lee, 
which, however, contains (p. 234) another quotation from the Hebrew 
Gospel. Some critics, who think unfavourably of other variations of the 
Nazarene Gospel from the Canonical narrative, find marks of originality in 
this version of the parable of the talents. But to me this variation seems 
to show plainly the handiwork of a corrector who fancies he is making an 
improvement and really changes for the worse. And I suspect that this 
corrector was acquainted with Luke xv. 



1 82 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

row, it seems to me not likely that so difficult a word would 
have been used in the translation. The Greek Fathers were 
as much puzzled by it as ourselves (see Origen, de Orat. 27, 
quoted by Lightfoot, New Testament Revision, p. 195). 

It would be time wasted if I were to accumulate quotations 
for the mere purpose of showing that the Nazarene Gospel 
was not the original of our St. Matthew. The only wonder 
is, how St. Jerome could ever have permitted himself to 
think or say that it was. As time went on he certainly 
became cautious about asserting it, and usually quotes it 
as the Gospel written in the Hebrew language which the 
Nazarenes read ; and he sometimes adds, which is called by 
most the original of St. Matthew. * But it is still surprising 
that he should have accepted this Gospel as the original St. 
Matthew at a time when he could not have been ignorant of 
its character : for the very first time he speaks of it he tells 
that he had already translated it into Greek and Latin, and 
quotes the story of our Lord s appearance to James. How 
ever, our surprise may abate a little when we remember that 
long before Jerome s time the belief had been accepted in the 
Church, that St. Matthew s Gospel had been originally written 
in Hebrew. It was notorious that the Judaizing sects had a 
Gospel in their own language which they designated as St. 
Matthew s ; and no one ignorant of their language had any 
reason for doubting the appellation to be correct. St. Jerome 
would therefore, no doubt, embrace with eager expectation 
the opportunity of obtaining access to so valuable a help to 
the criticism of the New Testament text, and would count the 
power of copying this document as one of the most precious 
fruits of his Shemitic studies. But after he had become ac- 



* In evangelic quo utuntur Nazaraei et Ebionitae, quod nuper in 
Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque 
Matthaei authenticum (in Matt. xii. 13, written in A. D. 398). Evan- 
gelium quod Hebraeo sermone conscriptum legunt Nazaraei (in Isai. 
xi. 2, written in 410). See also in Ezeh. xviii. 7 (written in 413). * In 
evangelio juxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone sed 
Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni secun- 
dum Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthaeum quod et in 
Caesariensi habetur bibliotheca (Dial. adv. Pelag. iii., written in 416). 
Jerome s first mention of the book is in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical 
Writers, written in 392. 



X.] THE NAZARENE GOSPEL. 183 

quainted with it, and had found that instead of enabling him 
to correct a reading here and there in the Greek St. Matthew, 
it was a work so different from the Canonical Gospel that a 
new translation was necessary in order to inform a Greek 
reader of its contents, how was it that Jerome did not then 
perceive that unless he owned the two books to have been 
different from the beginning, he must either hold the Can 
onical St. Matthew to have been an unfaithful translation, or 
else the Nazarene Gospel to have been since foully corrupted ? 
In answering this question we must call to mind what was 
the great work of Jerome s life. When he became acquainted 
with the Hebrew Bible he found it in many respects to be very 
different from the Septuagint and its Latin translations, which 
were in current use all over the Christian world. He set him 
self to revise the current text, so as to bring it into conformity 
with the original Hebrew; and on account of the preference 
he gave to the latter, he met with much opposition and 
calumny from his contemporaries. Now it is reasonable to 
suppose that, notwithstanding some striking variations, there 
was a good deal of resemblance between the Nazarene Gospel 
and the Canonical Gospel of St. Matthew. The differences 
were probably not greater than Jerome had found in many 
places between the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old 
Testament. I believe, then, that Jerome, taking up the 
Nazarene Gospel with every prepossession in its favour, was 
not hindered by these differences from accepting it as the 
original text of St. Matthew, and that he gave it the pre 
ference which, in the case of the Old Testament books, he 
had given to the Hebrew over the Greek text. I do not 
know that he ever quite abandoned this view, though as 
years went on he became more cautious in expressing it. 
But though we gratefully follow St. Jerome in using an Old 
Testament text cleared of the accretions which, in Greek 
and Latin Bibles, had gathered round the original, we may 
rejoice that he could not succeed in persuading the Church 
to exchange the Greek for the Aramaic St. Matthew.* 

* Some light is thrown on Jerome s statement, that he translated the 
Nazarene Gospel into Greek, by the fact that his version of the Psalms and 
of the Prophets was, with his approval, rendered into Greek by Sophronius 
(De Viris Illustr. 134, Praef. in Pss.). 



184 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

When we have arrived at the conclusion that the Hebrew 
Gospel known to St. Jerome was not the original of St. Mat 
thew, but to all intents a fifth Gospel, we have still to consider 
what we ought to think of it. Is it to be ranked with our 
Canonical four, or with the Apocryphal Gospels of which I 
have next to speak ? I am conscious that it is difficult for us 
to divest our minds of prejudice when we try to make a purely 
literary comparison of the Hebrew and the Canonical Gospels. 
However freely we acknowledge that there was nothing in 
the nature of things to forbid our having five Gospels, yet, 
as the Church for so many centuries has only acknowledged 
four, we are not now inclined to reopen the question; and we 
can scarcely be quite impartial in our comparison of words 
we have venerated from our childhood with words which 
come to us as strange and novel. So, perhaps, I might dis 
trust my own judgment when the story of the rich man 
scratching his head impresses me, in respect of claim to 
priority over the Canonical narrative, as on a level with the 
versions of New Testament stories which good ladies some 
times publish for the use of children. It is therefore a 
satisfaction to me that, in asserting the immense superiority 
in originality and simplicity of our Greek St. Matthew over 
the Nazarene Gospel, I have the adhesion of the great 
majority of those critics who pay least regard to the au 
thority of ecclesiastical tradition. Indeed, critics of the 
sceptical school have generally adopted Schleiermacher s 
idea, that the Hebrew St. Matthew contained nothing but 
discourses ; and so they have felt no temptation to take 
under their patronage this Nazarene Gospel, which clearly 
dealt in narrative just as much as the Canonical. Hilgen- 
feld is almost the only critic of note who attributes originality 
to this Hebrew Gospel. But he owns that he is the advocate 
of a nearly abandoned cause. Volkmar, Strauss, Renan, 
Keim, Lipsius, Weizacker agree in the opinion which I ex 
press in the words of Anger quoted by Hilgenfeld : Evan- 
gelium Hebraeorum, testantibus quae supersunt reliquiis, 
cognatum cum Ev. Matthaei, iis in rebus, in quibus ab eo 
differt, nunquam certo formam principalem, plerumque 
indubitate formam derivatam praebet. Indeed it is quite 



X.] THE NAZARENE GOSPEL. 185 

intelligible that the traditions of a small sect, which was 
isolated from the Christian world, and on that account un 
controlled in its procedure, should be liable to depravation 
and corruption, from which our Gospels were secured, if by 
nothing else, by the mere fact that they so rapidly became 
the property of mutually distant Churches.* 

When we have acknowledged that this Nazarene Gospel, 
so far from being the mother, or even the sister, of one of 
our Canonical four, can only claim to be a granddaughter or 
grandniece, it does not follow that it stands on no higher 
level than the Apocryphal Gospels. It is at least favourably 
distingnished from them by not being open to the charge 
which I brought against the rest (p. 119), that they are silent 
about our Lord s public life, concerning which it is not in 
credible that true traditions might be in circulation ; while 
they speak copiously on matters about which the narrators 
were not likely to have had means of real knowledge. We 
may disregard tales of the latter kind as idle chatter, and yet 
think ourselves bound to give a hearing to stories concerning 
our Lord s public life which circulated at no great distance 
from Him in time or place. But I own that, after giving them 
a hearing, I have not felt disposed to attribute to them any 
high value. The most favourable verdict I have in any case 
been able to pass is, that I will not venture to say that some 
of them may not have had a foundation in truth. For ex 
ample, the saying Be ye good money-changers, or another 
quoted by Jerome, * Be ye never glad but when you see your 
brother in charity/ may, for all I know, have been derived 
from some actual sayings of our Lord. 

Before I quit the subject of this Hebrew Gospel, I ought to 
mention that the earliest trace of its existence is that Ignatius 
(ad Symrn. 3), in arguing against a Docetic conception of our 
Lord s body, says, And when, after His resurrection, He 
came to Peter and his company, He said, " Take, handle me, 

* So Renan, v. 104 : Notre Matthieu s est conserve intact depuis sa re 
daction definitive, dans les dernieres annees du i er siecle, tandis que 1 Evan- 
gile hebreu, vu 1 absence d une orthodoxie, jalouse gardienne des textes, 
dans les Eglises judai santes de Syrie, a etc remanie de siecle en siecle, si 
bien qu a la fin il n etait pas fort superieur a un Evangile apocryphe. 



1 86 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 



and see that I am not a spirit without body " 
doxo/taro!/). We might suppose that this was a free quotation 
of Luke xxiv. 39 ; but we find from Jerome that the words 
incorporale daemonium were found in his Nazarene Gos 
pel, to which accordingly he refers this quotation.* It would 
be quite natural that Ignatius, being a native of Syria, should 
use an Aramaic Gospel. On the other hand, it is to be re 
marked that Eusebius, who quotes this phrase from Ignatius 
(H. E. iii. 36), does not know where he got it; and yet Euse 
bius, at least when he wrote the Theophaneia, knew the 
Hebrew Gospel. Again, Origen in the preface to his Ilepl 
Ap^wv (Delarue, i. 47) says that the saying is derived from 
the apocryphal book Doctrina Petri. It is best to acknow 
ledge that our means of information do not enable us to 
speak positively as to the filiation of these different docu 
ments. In any case we know that Hegesippus, in the second 
century, used the Hebrew Gospel (Euseb. H. E. iv. 22).f 

I return to the question as to the original language of 
St. Matthew, respecting which the evidence takes a new 
complexion from what we have learned as to the Nazarene 
Gospel. We might have lightly regarded the assertion that 
Matthew s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, if it were 
made only by men who had never seen the book, or who did 
not understand the language, and were therefore incompetent 
to judge whether the Aramaic book which was in use among 
certain Jewish sectaries could justly claim priority over the 
Greek Gospel. But the question seemed decided by the 
testimony of St. Jerome, who had himself examined the 
Aramaic book. But now Jerome, when cross-examined,. 
passes over as a witness to the opposite side, convincing us 
of the comparative lateness of the only Aramaic Gospel that 



* De Viris Illustr. 16 ; in Isai. Lib. 18, Praef. 

t On the New Testament quotations of Ignatius, see Zahn, Ignatius 
von Antiochien, p. 595, et seqq.; and Lightfoot s Index, Ignatius, ii. p. 
1107. The Fragments of the Hebrew Gospel have been often collected. 
The most recent collections are by Westcott, Introduction to the Study of 
the Gospels, 452, etseqq. ; Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews; 
Hilgenfeld, Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum, the section 
treating of the Gospel according to the Hebrews having been lately 
published in a second" edition, 1884. 



X.] THE NAZARENE GOSPEL. 187 

any of the witnesses had seen. We have therefore to fall back 
on the earlier witnesses, and we have now to consider what 
their evidence is worth, especially when we bear in mind that 
if their opinion was influenced by belief in the pretensions 
made for the Hebrew Gospel of their own day, they were 
mistaken in that belief. If, for example, we think the it is 
said of Eusebius sufficient evidence to induce us to believe 
that Pantaenus was shown in India a Gospel in Hebrew 
letters, we may still reasonably doubt whether this was a 
copy of the original St. Matthew left there by St. Bartholomew, 
or simply a copy of the Nazarene Gospel. As for our earliest 
witness, Papias, I do not attach overwhelming weight to his 
easy reception of the statement that Matthew s Gospel was 
originally Hebrew. He knew that Palestine was bilingual, 
so that the thing would appear to him probable ; and it 
supplied a key to difficulties he may have met with in 
harmonizing the Gospels ; but it is very unlikely that he 
himself either saw the Gospel, or could read it if he did see 
it. If we had not better evidence, I doubt if we could 
attribute much value to the opinion of a bishop of Phrygia as 
to the extent to which Palestine had been bilingual fifty years 
before ; for this is a point on which distance of place is a 
great bar to accurate knowledge. I could ask questions as to 
the language or dialect spoken in different parts of the Con 
tinent that I dare say most of you would beg to be excused 
from answering. I doubt whether many educated Frenchmen 
would have confidence in saying whether a Welsh Member of 
Parliament would address his constituents in Welsh, or an 
Irish one in Irish. 

Actually, however, I believe that Greek was as generally 
spoken in Palestine in our Lord s time as English now is in 
the West of Ireland. Greek was the language of the law 
courts and of business. Accordingly, a knowledge of Greek 
could only be dispensed with by those who were too high or 
too low to be concerned in mercantile matters. I think, 
however, that Josephus has been misunderstood when he has 
been supposed to say (Ant. xx. 12) that those of high rank 
did not know Greek. What he says is, that a knowledge of 
foreign languages was an accomplishment in which they took 



1 88 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

no pride, it being one possessed by the lower class of freemen, 
and even by slaves. Those only were regarded as wise who 
were accurately acquainted with the law, and were able to 
interpret the Holy Scriptures. In the Acts, you will re 
member that the chief captain, taking Paul for a leader of 
sicarii, is surprised that he can speak Greek. On the other 
hand, when Paul addresses the people from the Temple steps, 
they expect him to speak Greek, but are gratified, and become 
attentive, on being addressed in their own language. Peter s 
discourse on the day of Pentecost, and his address to Cor 
nelius, must, from the nature of the case, have been delivered 
in Greek ; and it is not unreasonable to think the same of 
some other speeches recorded in the early chapters of the 
Acts. Dr. Roberts, in his interesting book, Discussions on 
the Gospels, contends that our Lord Himself commonly spoke 
Greek, and he at least makes it probable that He did so 
sometimes.* He appeals to what we are told (Mark iii. 7) 
of a great multitude having followed our Lord from Idumea 
and from beyond Jordan, and they about Tyre and Sidon, 
the presumption being that if they followed Him they could 
understand His teaching ; and people from the regions just 
named would not be likely to do this unless He spoke Greek. 
He draws another proof from St. John s report of our Lord s 
conversation with Pilate, in which we are not told that the 
services of an interpreter were employed. Greek seems to 
have been more prevalent in Galilee, which is called Galilee 
of the Gentiles, than in Jerusalem. St. Matthew, as a 
collector of taxes, could hardly have dispensed with a know 
ledge of Greek. We know that the two Jewish Apostles, 
Peter, the Apostle of the Circumcision, and James, the head 
of the Jerusalem Church, have left Epistles in Greek. And, 
what is remarkable, the letter of that specially Jewish Apostle, 
St. James, is perhaps the best Greek in the New Testament. 
The conclusion, then, which I draw from these facts is, 
that there is not the least difficulty in believing that Matthew 
might have written a Gospel in Greek, even on the supposition 



* On the other side of the question deserves to be studied an essay by 
Neubauer, Studio. Biblica, 1885. 



X.] GREEK ORIGINAL MORE PROBABLE. 189 

that he intended it only for the use of the Christians in Pales 
tine ; and the first Gospel contains internal evidence that it 
was meant to have a wider circulation. On the other hand,. 
the proof I have given from Josephus (p. 141) of the literary 
use of the Aramaic language in his time makes it equally easy 
to accept evidence of the existence of an apostolic Hebrew 
Gospel, if only decisive evidence for its existence were forth 
coming. But it does not appear that any of the witnesses 
had themselves seen such a Gospel, and there is no evidence 
of the existence of any Greek text but the one which was 
universally regarded as authoritative. Cureton imagined that 
he could gain evidence for the Hebrew original of St. Matthew 
from the Syriac version which he published, and which he con 
tended had not been made from Greek, but from the original 
Aramaic. However, on that point he has failed to convince 
scholars.* I cannot help thinking that if there had existed 
in use among Hebrew-speaking Christians what was known 
to be the real original Gospel written by St. Matthew, 
such a corrupt version of it as that circulated among the 
Nazarenes could not have gained acceptance ; and that the 
origin of the latter Gospel is more easily explained if we 
suppose that it was in Greek the facts of the Gospel history 
had been authoritatively published, and if we regard the 
Nazarene Gospel as an attempt made by one not very scrupu 
lous about accuracy to present these facts to those who spoke 
Aramaic. For these reasons, and on account of the signs of 
originality already mentioned, which are presented by the 
Greek Gospel, I am disposed to pronounce in favour of the 
Greek original of St. Matthew. 

But it has been objected, The great majority of the early 
witnesses who tell us that Matthew wrote a Gospel tell us 
also that he wrote it in Hebrew. If you do not accept their 
testimony on the latter point, why accept it on the former ? 
And then what reason is there for supposing that our present 



* See his Preface, p. vi., and an interesting section on the Hebrew 
Gospel, pp. Ixxiv., &c. Renan says (v. 98) : C est bien a tort qu on a 
suppose que la version syriaque de Saint Matthieu publiee par Cureton a 
etc faite sur Poriginal arameen de Saint Matthieu. L idee qu elle serait 
cet original meme est tout a fait chimerique. 



I QO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. [x. 

Greek Gospel comes from St. Matthew at all ? Well, I do 
not think that the two things stand on the same level of testi 
mony. In the case of Papias, for example, it seems to me 
plain that the Gospel of which he speaks bore the title of St. 
Matthew, and was accepted as such by the Christian world of 
the time. The statement that it had been written in Hebrew 
rests on a private tradition, for all we know, first made public 
by Papias himself: and Papias has been generally condemned 
as over credulous with respect to some of the traditions which 
he accepted. If the Greek Gospel had been, as some suppose, 
only based on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, but was actually 
the work of one of the second generation, I do not know why 
the name of the real author should have been suppressed ; for 
the second and third Gospels bear the names of those who 
were supposed to be their real authors, and not those of the 
Apostles on whose authority they were believed to rest. So 
that, if Matthew did not write the first Gospel, I do not think 
the name of Matthew would have been necessary to gain it 
acceptance in the Church. In any case, the fact of this 
acceptance by the Church may suffice for our faith; for 
though I believe the first Gospel to have been written by an 
Apostle, and the second and third not, I make no difference 
in my reception of them, nor do I find that any such differ 
ence was ever made by Christians. From the earliest times 
of which we have knowledge all were alike received as 
indisputably authentic records of the deeds and words of 
Christ. 



XI. 



APOCRYPHAL AND HERETICAL GOSPELS. 



OOME fifty years ago or more, a Mr. Hone,* who was at 
*^ that time an opponent of orthodoxy, if not of Chris 
tianity (though I understand he afterwards regretted the line 
he had taken), published what he called the Apocryphal New 
Testament, which had considerable sale at the time, and 
which may still be picked up on stalls or at auctions. The 
object of the publication clearly was to disparage the pre 
eminent authority which we ascribe to the books of our New 
Testament, by making it appear that those which we honour 
had been picked out of a number of books with tolerably 
equal claims to our acceptance, the selection having been 
made by persons in whom we have no reason to feel much 
confidence. The work professes to be an answer to the 
question, After the writings contained in the New Testament 
were selected from the numerous Gospels and Epistles then 
in existence, what became of the books that were rejected by 
the compilers ? The epoch of the compilation is apparently 
assumed to be that of the Council of Nicaea. The writer, at 
least, quotes a mediaeval story, that the selection of Canonical 
books was then made by miracle, the right books having 
jumped up on the table, and the wrong ones remained under 
it; and it would seem as if, though rejecting the miracle, 
he received the fact that the Council settled the Canon. He 



* The same who gained a victory over the Government of the day by an 
acquittal on a charge of blasphemous libel, tried before Lord Ellenborough 
in 1817. 



192 THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. [xi. 

proceeds to quote some remarks from Jortin on the violence 
of the proceedings at the Council, and we are given to 
understand that if the selection was not made then, it was 
made by people not more entitled to confidence. He then 
gives a selection of Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Epistles, 
taken from works of orthodox writers, but divided by himself 
into verses (and, where that had not been done before, into 
chapters), obviously with the intention of giving to these 
strange Gospels, Epistles and Acts, as nearly as possible the 
same appearance to the eye of the English reader as that 
presented by the old ones with which he was familiar. 

I need not tell you that the Council of Nicaea did not 
meddle with the subject of the Canon, and so we need not 
trouble ourselves to discuss the proofs that the members of 
that venerable Synod were frail and fallible men like our 
selves. The fact is that, as I have already told you, authority 
did not meddle with the question of the Canon until that 
question had pretty well settled itself ; and, instead of this 
abstention weakening the authority of our sacred books, the 
result has been that the great majority have far higher autho 
rity than if their claims rested on the decision of any Council, 
however venerable. They rest on the spontaneous consent of 
the whole Christian world, Churches the most remote agree 
ing independently to do honour to the same books. Some of 
the books which Mr. Hone printed as left out by the com 
pilers of our Canon were not in existence at the time when 
that Canon established itself; and the best of the others is 
separated, in the judgment of any sober man, by a very wide 
interval from those which we account Canonical. Mr. Hone s 
insinuation has, I understand, been repeated in a later edition, 
which I have not seen, in a still grosser form ; the title-page 
being The Suppressed Gospels and Epistles of the Original 
New Testament of Jesus Christ, venerated by the primitive 
Christian Churches during the first four centuries, but since, 
after violent disputations, forbidden by the bishops of the 
Nicene Council, in the reign of the Emperor Constantine. 

A work having a title not unlike Hone s was published 
a few years ago by Hilgenfeld : Novum Testamentum extra 
Canonem Receptum. But it is a work of a very different kind 



XI.] THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 193 

from Hone s catch-penny publication, having been compiled 
by a man of real learning. It includes nothing that is not 
really ancient, and the greater part of it is occupied with the 
writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, which, indeed, 
also appear in Hone s collection. I have thought it would be 
useful to give you, in this course of lectures, some account 
of those writings which at any time obtained credit in the 
Church of the same kind as was given to our Canonical 
Scriptures, though in degree infinitely below that. I speak, 
then, to-day of Apocryphal Gospels. Hilgenfeld does not 
admit into his collection any of the Apocryphal Gospels that 
have come down to us entire ; I presume, not judging them 
of sufficient antiquity to deserve a place. What he gives 
are merely the fragmentary extracts, which different Fathers 
have preserved, of the Ebionite Gospels, of which I spoke 
in the last lecture, and of one or two heretical Gospels, of 
which I shall speak to-day. 

Of Gospels which have come down to us entire, I place 
first, on many grounds, that called the Gospel of James, or 
Protevangelium, which has come down to us in more than 
fifty MSS., and has been translated into many languages both 
of East and West. The object of this Gospel is clearly 
supplementary to our Gospels, and it is intended to satisfy 
the curiosity of Christians with regard to the things which 
took place before the birth of our Lord. If we are to ascribe 
to the book any tendency beyond the simple desire to 
gratify curiosity, the doctrine which the inventor seems most 
solicitous to establish is that of the perpetual virginity of the 
Virgin Mary. 

It is this book which invented the names Joachim and 
Anne for the parents of Mary. It tells how they had been 
childless to old age ; how an angel appearing separately to 
each of them, announced to them the birth of a child ; how 
they vowed to dedicate to the Lord that which should be 
born, and how, in fulfilment of this vow, Mary was brought 
to the Temple at the age of three years. When she comes to 
the age of twelve, the priests will not take the responsibility 
of having charge of a marriageable virgin at the Temple, and 
they seek a widower to whose charge to commit her. All the 

o 



IQ4 THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. [xi. 

widowers are assembled; and in order to choose between 
them a miraculous test is employed, the idea of which is 
derived from the history of Aaron s rod that budded. They 
each give in their rod, and from Joseph s rod alone* there 
issues a dove, so that he is chosen to have the charge, much 
against his will, for we are carefully told that he had children 
already. The story of the appearance of the angel Gabriel 
and the annunciation of the Saviour s birth is told almost in 
the words of Luke, except with the addition that the angel 
appeared to Mary as she was drawing water. We find 
mention made also of the dumbness of Zacharias, and of 
the taxing under Caesar Augustus, in such a way as to leave 
no room for doubt that Luke s Gospel was used; while the 
account of Herod and the wise men, the explanation of the 
name Jesus, because he shall save his people from their 
sins, and other particulars, are so given as to make it equally 
clear that this Gospel presupposes St. Matthew s. There is 
a story that when Mary s pregnancy was discovered, both she 
and Joseph were made to clear themselves by drinking the 
water of jealousy. The birth of her child is made to take 
place, not in the stable of the inn, but in a cave by the 
roadside where the labour-pains suddenly come on her. A 
midwife is found, who expresses the greatest amazement at 
a virgin bringing forth. Salome, who, on hearing of this 
prodigy, refuses to believe unless she herself verify the fact, 
is punished by having her hand withered, until, on her repent 
ance, she is healed by touching the child. The work is 
supposed to be written by James, immediately after the death 
of Herod ; and the last things related are a miraculous rescue 
of the infant John the Baptist from the massacre of the 
children, by means of a mountain opening and hiding him 
and his mother ; and a consequent murder of Zacharias the 
priest by Herod s command, when his child could not be 
found. This story may be regarded as bearing witness to 
the presence in the Gospel used by the fabulist of the text, 
* Zacharias whom ye slew between the Temple and the altar. 

* Accordingly, a prominent feature in pictures of the Marriage of the 
Virgin, by Raphael and his predecessors, is that of the disappointed suitors 
breaking their useless rods. 



XI.] THE PROTEVANGELIUM. 195 

His blood is represented as miraculously congealing, and 
refusing to be removed till the avenger came.* 

From this sketch of the contents of the Protevangelium 
you will see that it is merely an attempt to embroider with 
legend the simpler narrative of the earlier Evangelists, and 
that it could not have come into existence if they had not 
gained a position of acknowledged credit long before. 

The Gospel which I have described can certainly lay claim 
to very high antiquity. It was undoubtedly in full circulation 
before the end of the fourth century, for it is clearly used by 
Epiphanius in his work on Heresy, written about 376-! We 
can, without quitting undisputed ground, carry the evidence 
of the use of the book back to the very beginning of this 
century; for Peter of Alexandria, who died in 311, gives an 
account of the death of Zacharias, which is clearly derived 
from this Gospel. J In the preceding century Origen (in Matt., 
torn. x. 17) speaks of the opinion that the brethren of our 
Lord were sons of Joseph by a former wife, as a tradition 
derived from the Gospel according to Peter and the book 
of James; and I see no sufficient reason for doubting that 
this was in substance the same as the still extant book which 
bears the name of James. It is true that Origen elsewhere, || 
not professing to quote the book of James, but relating a tra 
dition which had come to him, gives an account of the death 
of Zacharias different from that already mentioned. He is 
said to have been put to death, not on the occasion of the 

* This story of the blood is derived from a Jewish story of a miraculous 
bubbling of the blood of Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, which refused to be 
stilled, though Nebuzaradan slew 94,000 of the chief of the Jews in the 
hope that by the addition of their blood that of Zacharias might be quieted. 
See Whitby s commentary on Matt, xxiii. 35, or Midrasch Echo, Rabbati 
{Wiinsche s translation), p. 21. 

f Haer. Ixxix. 5 ; Ixxviii. 7 : see also Greg. Nyss. Orat. in diem Natal, 
Christi, Opp. Paris, 1638, vol. iii., 346. 

% Routh s Rell. Sac. iv. 44. 

Of this book no extracts have been preserved, and apparently it never 
had a very wide range of circulation. It dates from the second century, 
and our chief information about it is from a letter of Serapion, bishop of 
Antioch at the end of that century, who had at first permitted the use of 
it in his diocese, but withdrew his permission on closer acquaintance with 
the book, which though in the main orthodox, contained some things that 
favoured the Docetic heresy (Euseb. H. ., vi. 12 : see also iii. 3 and 25), 

|| Series Cornm. in Matt. 25. 

O 2 



iq6 THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. [xi. 

slaughter of the Innocents, but later, and because he had 
permitted Mary, notwithstanding the birth of her child, to 
stand in the place assigned to virgins in the Temple. The 
truth seems to be that more than one of those who accepted 
from the Protevangelium that the Zacharias slain between the 
Temple and the altar was the father of the Baptist, attempted 
to improve on the account there given of the cause of his 
death. A Gnostic story on the subject is told by Epiphanius 
(Haer. xxvi. 12); and another orthodox account is reported 
by Jerome in his commentary on Matthew xxiii. 35. We 
might be sure that the Protevangelium was the book of which 
Origen speaks, if we had earlier traces of its existence ; but 
the indications are uncertain. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
vii. 1 6) has the story of the midwife s attestation of Mary s 
virginity ; but it must be owned that Tertullian seems igno 
rant of this tale (De Cam. Christ. 23) : and although he 
knows a story (Scorpiace 8) of stones retaining the marks 
of the blood of Zacharias, the reference seems to be to 
the Jewish story about the son of Jehoiada, already quoted. 
Justin Martyr has also been claimed as recognizing the 
Protevangelium : both, for instance, represent our Lord s 
birth as taking place in a cave ; but this may have been a 
local tradition (see p. 71). Other coincidences have been 
pointed out by Hilgenfeld : for instance, the phrase \apav 
Xafiovcra Ma/oia/x, (Trypho 100; Protev. 12). On the whole, 
I regard the Protevangelium as a second-century composi 
tion ; and though I admit that the form now extant may 
exhibit some variations from the original text, I do not 
believe that these changes could have been considerable, 
or such as to affect the general character of the document. 
You see there is no great misstatement in describing this 
as one of the books rejected by the framers of our Canon. 
It was a book which, in point of antiquity, might have got 
into our Canon, unless, indeed, it be admitted that a book 
only making its appearance in the middle of the second 
century was far too late to have a chance of being placed 
on a level with our Gospels. 

I pass briefly over Gospels which bear the same relation 
to the Protevangelium that it bears to the Synoptic Gospels ; 



XI.] THE GOSPEL OF ST. THOMAS. 197 

and which, if that be the child of these Gospels, are only 
their grandchildren : I mean fictions which, taking the Pro- 
tevangelium as their basis, enrich with further ornaments 
and supplements the story as it was there told. Of such 
a kind is the Gospel of the pseudo-Matthew, a work not 
earlier than the fifth century. Some of the particulars, how 
ever, which it added to the story have passed into current 
ecclesiastical mythology. For instance, it tells how Mary, 
after coming out of the cave, laid her child in a manger, 
and how the ox and the ass which were there adored the 
child ; thus fulfilling the prophecy, the ox knoweth his 
owner and the ass his master s crib ; as also another pro 
phecy of Habakkuk : for in the beginning of the third 
chapter, where we translate in the midst of the years 
make known, the Septuagint has in the midst of two 
animals thou shalt be known. You must be familiar with 
the ox and the ass in stories and pictures of our Lord s 
birth. This Gospel tells also of wonders that took place 
in the flight to Egypt : how lions and leopards adored the 
child, and harmlessly bore company to the party; how a 
palm-tree at the child s command bowed down its head and 
supplied its fruit to satisfy His mother s need ; how, when 
He entered the idol temple in Egypt, the idols all fell with 
their faces to the ground, and there lay broken and shattered. 
This pseudo-Matthew contains at the end a section taken 
from the false Gospel, of which I have next to speak. 

The Gospel of St. Thomas treats of the infancy and child 
hood of our Lord. This work, in its original, does not ap 
pear to have taken its rise in the Church, but rather to have 
been manufactured in a Gnostic workshop : not, indeed, in 
any of those schools of heresy which taught that our Lord 
only became Christ at His baptism (for to such teaching the 
doctrine was directly opposed which made Him exercise 
miraculous power in His childhood), but rather in the school 
of Docetism, which denied the true humanity of our Lord : 
for in these legends all trace disappears that He was, in the 
real truth of His nature, man. We may believe that there 
was a desire to do our Lord honour in the invention of tales 
of the early exercise of His miraculous power ; but if so, the 



198 THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. [xi. 

result sadly failed to correspond to the design : for there is 
none of the Apocryphal Gospels which is so repulsive to a 
Christian reader, on account of the degrading character of 
its representations of our Lord. In its pages the holy child 
is depicted as (to use Kenan s forcible language, vi. 541), 
*un gamin omnipotent et omniscient, wielding the power of 
the Godhead with a child s waywardness and petulance. It 
tells, for example, that He was playing and making sparrows 
out of mud, that He did this on the Sabbath, and that when 
complaint was made against Him, He clapped His hands 
and the sparrows took life and flew away ; and again, that He 
threw all the clothes in a dyer s shop into a single vat of blue 
dye, and on being called to account for the mischief He had 
done, commanded the clothes to be taken out, and lo, every 
one was dyed of the colour its owner wished. We are told 
that when He was drawing water for His mother and hap 
pened to break the pitcher, He brought the water safely 
home in the skirt of His garment; and that, when His father, 
working at his carpenter s trade, found a piece of wood too 
short for the place it was meant to occupy, the child gave the 
wood a pull, when it became of the right length. We learn 
to appreciate more justly the character of the miracles related 
in the New Testament when we compare them with those 
found in this Gospel, the majority of its stories being tales of 
wonder of no higher moral worth than the prodigies of the 
Arabian Nights. But some of them are even malevolent 
miracles, such as it shocks us to read of as ascribed to our 
Blessed Lord. Boys who spill the water out of little ponds 
He had made for His play are cursed by Him, and thereon 
wither away ; another boy who knocks up against Him in the 
street is in like manner cursed, and falls down dead. The 
accusers who complain to Joseph of the child s conduct are 
struck with blindness. The parents of one of the children 
whose death He has caused are quite reasonable in their 
complaint to Joseph : Take away that Jesus of thine from 
this place, for he cannot dwell with us in this town ; or, at 
least, teach him to bless and not to curse. The child like 
wise shows Himself from the first as omniscient as He is 
omnipotent. When He is brought to a master to be taught 



XI.] THE GOSPEL OF ST. THOMAS. 1 99 

His letters, and is bid to pronounce Aleph, He refuses to go 
on to Beth until the instructor has taught Him all the mys 
teries of Aleph ; and on his failing to do this, the child not 
only shows that He knows all the letters, but teaches him 
mysteries with regard to the shape and powers of each, which 
fill the hearers with amazement. And in other stories He is 
made to show that He has no need of human instruction. 
These accounts may profitably be compared with Luke s 
statement, that Jesus increased in wisdom and knowledge; 
and with his narrative of our Lord sitting in the midst of the 
doctors, not for the purpose of teaching them, as these stories 
would have it, but hearing them, and asking them questions.* 

This Gospel, however, can claim a very early parentage. 
The work, in the shape (or rather shapes) in which we now 
have it, has, no doubt, received many alterations and develop 
ments since the time of its first manufacture.* But at the 
beginning of the third century a Gospel bearing the name of 
St. Thomas was known both to Hippolytus and to Origen ; f 
and Irenseus (i. xx.) refers to the story just mentioned, con 
cerning the attempt to teach our Lord His letters, as a tale in 
circulation among heretics. : And this Gospel in its de 
veloped form obtained wide circulation in the East. From 
such a Gospel Mahomet seems to have drawn his concep 
tions of our Saviour (Renan, vi. 515). 

In the Gospels which I have described, the public minis 
terial life of our Lord is avoided, and the inventors profess to 
give details of His life before He entered on His ministry. 
That to which I next come professes to supplement the 
Canonical Gospels at the other end. It has been current under 

* According to the Stichometry of Nicephorus (see p. 178), it contained 
1300 sticboi, which would correspond to a larger book than that we have ; 
whence we may conclude that the parts most deeply tainted with heresy 
were cut out when the book was preserved for orthodox use. For instance, 
the words quoted by Hippolytus do not appear in our present text. 

f Hippol. Ref. Haer. v. 7 ; Origen, in Luc. Horn. i. 

J A coincidence with Justin Martyr has been pointed out. Justin (Dial. 
88) states that our Lord, working as a carpenter, made &porpa Kal ^70, 
words which occur Ev. Thorn. 13. But I am inclined to think that it 
was the pseudo-Evangelist who here borrowed from Justin, the latter 
being completely silent as to miracles performed by our Lord in His child 
hood, although in the chapter cited they could hardly fail to have been 
mentioned if they had been known to the writer. 



200 THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. [xi. 

the name of the Gospel of Nicodemus ; but this name is 
modern, and criticism shows that the book is to be divided 
into two parts, of different dates and authorship. The first 
part gives a full account of the trial of our Lord, and it seems 
to be identical with what has been known under the name of 
the Acts of Pilate. Tischendorf has claimed for this part a 
very high antiquity. Justin Martyr twice refers his heathen 
readers (Apol. i. 35, 48, and probably 38), in confirmation of 
the things he tells concerning our Lord s death, to the Acts 
of Pilate, preserved in their own records. Tertullian does the 
same (Apol. 21). The best critics suppose that Justin Martyr 
did not himself know any such Acts of Pilate, but took for 
granted that he had sent his master an account of his doings, 
which would be sure to be found in the public records. But 
it is also possible that some Christian had already committed 
the pious fraud of fabricating Acts to answer this description, 
and that Justin Martyr was uncritical enough to be deceived 
by the fabrication. Tischendorf then thinks that this Gospel 
of which I speak contains the very Acts to which Justin refers ; 
and the consequences in an apologetic point of view would 
be enormous. For these Acts are quite built up out of our 
four Canonical Gospels, including even the disputed verses 
at the end of St. Mark; St. John s Gospel being the one 
principally used. If, then, these Acts are as early as the first 
half of the second century, it would follow that all our 
Gospels are far earlier. But I do not think that Tischendorf s 
contention can be sustained, and cannot venture to claim 
greater antiquity than the fourth century for the Acts in their 
present form.* The latter part of what is known as the 
Gospel of Nicodemus contains an account of the descent of 
Christ to the under world. Two of the saints who were 
raised at His resurrection relate how they had been confined 

* The statements for which the Acts of Pilate are appealed to by Justin 
and Tertullian are not to be found in the Gospel under consideration ; nor 
is its form such as would be used by the composer of what were intended 
to pass for Roman official acts. On this subject see Lipsius Die Pilatus- 
acten and article GOSPELS APOCRYPHAL in Smith s Dictionary of 
Christian Biography. I consider that a limit in both directions to the age 
of this Gospel is given by its adoption of the date March 25 as that of the 
Saviour s Passion. This is quoted by Epiphanius (Haer. 50), whence we 
may conclude that our Acts are earlier than A.D. 376 ; but the date itself, 



XI.] THE GOSPEL OF NICODEMUS. 201 

in Hades when the Conqueror appeared at its entrance ; how 
the gates of brass were broken and the prisoners released, 
Jesus taking with him to Paradise the souls of Adam, Isaiah, 
John the Baptist, and the other holy men who had died 
before Him. This story of a descent of our Lord to hell is of 
very great antiquity, and to it, no doubt, reference is made in 
that clause which in comparatively late times was added to 
the Creed. In the preaching of Thaddeus to Abgarus, of 
which I shall speak later on, part of the subject is said to 
have been how Jesus was crucified and descended into hell, 
and burst the bands which never had been broken, and rose 
again, and also raised with Himself the dead that had slept for 
ages ; and how He had descended alone, but ascended with 
a great multitude to the Father. It may suffice to have said 
so much about Apocryphal Gospels of the supplemental class, 
if I merely add that these stories, though formally rejected by 
the Church, supplied abundant materials for legend, and are 
the source of many a name still current : Dismas and Gestas, 
the two robbers who were crucified with our Lord ; Longinus, 
the soldier who pierced His side with a spear, or, according 
to some accounts, the centurion who superintended His 
crucifixion ; Veronica, in some stories the woman who had 
the issue of blood, but, according to the popular tale, the 
woman who gave Him her handkerchief to wipe His face, 
.and who received on it His true likeness. 

In passing to the subject of heretical Gospels, I may just 
mention that a few evangelic fragments have been preserved, 
the source of which cannot be specified. For example, Justin 
Martyr,* Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus, all quote, 
-as a saying of our Lord, In whatever things I find you, in 
these will I judge you; but we do not know from what docu 
ment they took the saying. The doctrine which it is intended 

I cannot doubt, was first invented by Hippolytus in the early part of the 
third century. His whole system of chronology is based on an astrono 
mical cycle, by means of which he imagined himself able to calculate the 
day of the Jewish Passover in any year ; and, according to this cycle, 
March 25 would be the day in the year 29 which Hippolytus supposed to 
be the year of the Passion. But the cycle is worthless, and March 25 
could not have been the Passover, or close to it, in that year. 

* Justin, Dial. 47 ; Clem. Alex. Quis dives, 40 ; Hippol. De Univers. 



202 THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. [XI. 

to convey is that of Ezek. xviii., viz. that in the case alike of 
the wicked man who turns from his wickedness, or of the 
righteous man who turns from his righteousness, judgment 
will pass on the man according to the state in which death 
finds him. In the appendix to Westcott s Introduction to the 
Study of the Gospels you will find a complete list of the non- 
Canonical sayings ascribed to our Lord. 

It would be easy to make a long list of the names of 
Gospels said to have been in use in different Gnostic sects ; 
but very little is known as to their contents, and that little is 
not such as to lead us to attribute to them the very slightest 
historic value. The earliest heretical Gospel of which quota 
tions are numerous is that according to the Egyptians, the 
birthplace of which is probably truly indicated by its title, 
our knowledge of it being chiefly derived from Clement of 
Alexandria. Very soon after the rise of Christianity there 
came over the Western world a great wave of ascetic teaching 
from the East. If we can venture to trace a very obscure 
history, we may name India as the place where the move 
ment originated, In that hot country very little food is 
absolutely necessary for the sustainment of life ; and there 
were some who made it their glory to use as little as possible, 
and in other ways to detach themselves from that world of 
matter whence it was believed all evil had flowed. The 
admirers and imitators of these men by degrees spread them 
selves outside the limits of their own land. At any rate,, 
whencesoever the teaching was derived, it became trouble 
some to the Christian Church in the very first years of its 
existence. Scarcely had St. Paul found himself able to relax 
his struggles against those who wanted to impose on his 
Gentile converts the yoke of circumcision and the Mosaic 
Law, when he was forced to do battle with a new set of 
opponents, whose cry was Touch not, taste not, handle not* 
(Col. ii. 21), who forbad to marry, and commanded to- 
abstain from meats (i Tim. iv. 3). Several of the Gnostic 
sects had in common the feature of Encratism ; that is to 
say, the rejection, as absolutely unlawful, of the use of 
marriage, of flesh meat, and of wine. Irenaeus (i. 28) tells 
this of Saturninus, one of the earliest of the Gnostics. Their 



XI.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE EGYPTIANS. 2O$ 

principles obtained converts among heathens as well as 
among Christians: Porphyry, for instance, the great adversary 
of Christianity, has also a treatise (De Abstinentid] against the 
use of animal food. And even the Christians who refused to 
recognize Encratism as a binding rule were persuaded to 
acknowledge it to be a more perfect way of life. Among 
ourselves, for example, vegetarianism is regarded as a harm 
less eccentricity; but in early times of Christianity, even 
those who used animal food themselves came to think of the 
vegetarian as one who lived a higher life, and approached 
more nearly to Christian perfection. But it was the Encratite 
doctrine of the absolute unlawfulness of the marriage life 
which provoked the hottest controversies. The principal 
apocryphal Acts of the Apostles proceeded from men of 
Encratite views ; and in these the type of story is of constant 
recurrence, how an Apostle persuades a young couple to 
abandon an intended project of matrimony ; or how per 
secution is stirred up against the Christian missionaries by 
husbands whose wives these preachers have persuaded to 
desert them. The refutation of Encratism is the subject of 
the third book of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria ; 
and this leads him to speak of the Gospel according to the 
Egyptians as a work in vogue in that sect, and to give some 
extracts from it. They contrast remarkably with the simplicity 
of the genuine utterances of our Lord. Salome said, "How 
long shall death prevail?" And He said, "As long as ye 
women bring forth." And she said, "Then did I well in not 
having children ?" And He said, "Eat every herb, but eat 
not that which hath bitterness." And again when Salome 
asked when the things about which she enquired should be 
known, and when His kingdom should come, He answered, 
* When ye trample under foot the garment of shame, and 
when the two become one, and the outside as the inside, and 
the male with the female neither male nor female. * 

But I must not linger over heretical writings which have 
no bearing on modern controversies. I go on to speak of a 

* Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 6 and 9 ; Ex Scr. Theodot. 67 ; Clem. Rom. 
so-called Second Epistle, 12. Notices of the Gospel according to the 
Egyptians are also found in Hippol. Ref. v. 7 ; Epiph. Haer. 62. 



204 MARCION S GOSPEL. [xi. 

document by means of which it has been attempted, though 
with now confessed ill success, to establish the posteriority of 
two of our Canonical Gospels : I mean the Gospel of Marcion. 
Marcion, who came forward as a teacher about A.D. 140, is 
usually classed with the Gnostics ; yet he deserves a place by 
himself, for he does not appear to have derived his heretical 
notions from these propagators of a medley of Christian, 
Jewish, and heathen ideas, but to have worked out his 
system for himself. As the son of a bishop, he had received 
a Christian education ; but he was perplexed by that great 
problem of the origin of evil, which has been a puzzle to so 
many. He took, as his principle to start with, the Gospel 
maxim, A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit. It 
followed then, he concluded, that the Maker of the universe 
cannot be good. But the God of the Old Testament claims 
to be the Maker of the universe. This God also threatens to 
inflict punishment : in other words, to inflict suffering to do 
evil. We must then believe in two Gods the God of the Old 
Testament, a just God, the Creator, who alone was known to 
the Jews ; and a good God, who was first revealed by Christ. 
For Christ Himself said, No man has known the Father but 
the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. Marcion 
drew out in antitheses the contradictions which he imagined 
he found between the Old Testament and the New, and be 
tween the Old Testament and itself. But how was this 
disparagement of the Old Testament to be reconciled with 
the New Testament itself ? In the first place, Marcion has 
to sacrifice all the original Apostles as unfaithful preachers 
of the truth. Paul alone is to be trusted, and even Paul 
must be expurgated. We have had examples in our modern 
* tendency critics of the Synoptic Gospels, that it is easy to 
establish that a document teaches anything you please if you 
are at liberty to cut out of it everything that contradicts your 
theory. So Marcion dealt with his Apostolicon, which con 
sisted of ten Epistles of St. Paul. He had his Gospel also, 
with which he coupled no author s name, but which can be 
proved to be St. Luke s Gospel, with every part cut out which 
directly contradicted Marcion s theory. Tertullian devotes a 
whole book to Marcion s Gospel, going regularly through it, 



xi.] MARCION S GOSPEL. 205 

and undertaking to show that the heretic can be refuted from 
his own Gospel. Epiphanius also notes at considerable length 
the differences between Marcion s Gospel and St. Luke s. And 
from these and other minor sources we can, with tolerable 
completeness, restore Marcion s Gospel. 

Now, it happens in one or two cases that readings (not 
connected with Marcion s peculiar theory) which Tertullian 
reprobates as corruptions of Marcion s are still to be found in 
some of the oldest MSS. of the Gospels, and we have reason to 
think that in these cases Tertullian was in error in thinking 
his own copy right, and Marcion wrong.* Tertullian also 
blames Marcion for entitling Paul s Epistle to the Ephesians 
as to the Laodiceans ; but it happens that in one or two of 
the oldest MSS. the words ei/ E^eo-w are absent from the 
address of that Epistle ; and many critics think that Marcion 
was right, and that this was indeed the letter which the 
Colossians were directed by Paul to procure from Laodicea. 
Finally, Marcion is blamed by Tertullian for not including in 
his Apostolicon the three Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul. But, 
as we shall find in another lecture, the sceptical school of 
the present day are of the same opinion, and gladly claim 
Marcion as a witness in their favour. So the theory suggests 
itself it was only through ignorance and prejudice that 
Tertullian and other Fathers accused Marcion of mutilating 
the Gospels : they thought because his Gospel was shorter 
than theirs that he must have mutilated the Gospel ; but the 
truth was, that he, living in the very beginning of the century 
at the end of which they lived, was in possession of the real 
original Gospel before it had been corrupted by additions. 
I have told you how it has been attempted to recover a 

* Orthodox scribes would certainly not adopt readings invented by 
Marcion, so that any corrupt readings in which MSS. agree with Marcion 
must have crept into the text before his time. Now, in the newly- 
arrived volume of his History of the N. T. Canon, Zahn maintains (p. 675) 
that Marcion can be shown to have used a text of Luke corrupted by 
assimilation to Matthew and Mark ; so that Marcion not only exhibits 
acquaintance with these Gospels, but also is proved to have lived at a 
time when the three Gospels had already circulated so long together that 
scribes had begun to be influenced in their copying of one by their 
habitual knowledge of the others. There has not been time for me to 
make an independent examination of Zahn s proofs, the full exhibition of 
which he has reserved for an Appendix not yet published. 



2o6 MARCION S GOSPEL. [xi. 

Hebrew anti-Pauline Gospel by cutting out of St. Matthew 
everything that recognizes the calling of the Gentiles. That, 
after all, is unsatisfactory work, there being no means of 
verifying that such a Gospel as is thus arrived at was ever 
current. But it seems a fine thing to recover the opposition 
Gospel a Pauline, anti-Jewish Gospel and to have the 
evidence of Marcion that this was really current at the begin 
ning of the second century. On this matter our sceptical 
opponents were left to puzzle out the matter for themselves 
with little help from the orthodox, who either took no notice 
of what seemed to them a wild theory, or else exclaimed 
against it without any detailed attempt to refute it. The 
falsity of the theory was exposed by persons very willing to 
believe in it ; indeed the death-blow to the theory was given 
by Volkmar, whose name I have had occasion to mention to 
you in connexion with some very wild speculations. He and 
others reconstructed the Marcionite Gospel from the Patristic 
testimony, and comparing it with our St. Luke, asked them 
selves, Which has the greater claim to originality ? It had to 
be borne in mind that Marcion s doctrine went far beyond 
Paul s : that while Paul contended against Jewish exclusive- 
ness, and wished to put Gentiles on the same level, it is 
certain that he was not hostile to the Jews and their religion, 
in the way that Marcion was. Well, the result of examina 
tion was, that the features that distinguished Marcion s Gos 
pel from our St. Luke were clearly not Pauline but Marcionite; 
and, on mere doctrinal grounds, these critics arrived at the 
conclusion that Marcion s Gospel was the mutilation, and 
not Luke s the amplification. Their arguments convinced 
their opponents, and the figment that Marcion s Gospel was 
the original St. Luke may now be regarded as, by the con 
sent of all competent judges, quite exploded by criticism. 
The author of Supernatural Religion, however, thought proper 
to revive this moribund theory, and this led to a new exami 
nation of it by Dr. Sanday.* He took the passages which 
Marcion owned as belonging to the original Gospel, and 
minutely examined the style and the vocabulary, comparing 

* See his Gospels in the Second Century. The chapter on Marcion had 
previously been published as an article in the Fortnightly Review. 



XL] MARCION S GOSPEL. 207 

them with the language of the passages which Marcion re 
jected; and the result was so decisive a proof of unity of 
authorship, that the author of Supernatural Religion, though 
not apt to confess defeat, has owned himself convinced, and 
has abandoned this part of his argument. But this abandon 
ment is really an abandonment of great part of his book. 
For what is the use of contending that Justin Martyr and 
others who lived still later in the second century were igno 
rant of St. Luke s Gospel, if it has to be owned that Marcion, 
who wrote quite early in the century, was acquainted with 
that Gospel, and attached to it such value that he joined it 
with the Epistles of St. Paul, making it the basis of his entire 
system ? 

Before I part with Marcion I ought to notice another use 
that has been made of his attempt to make a new Gospel. 
The attempt to place Marcion before Luke may be regarded 
as having utterly collapsed ; but it has been thought that 
ground might be gained for inferring that Marcion must have 
come before the fourth Gospel. It is said, Marcion s object 
was to get possession of a strong anti-Jewish, ultra-Pauline 
Gospel. The fact that he could do nothing better than take 
St. Luke s Gospel and modify it for his purpose by plentiful 
excisions shows, it has been said, that he knew nothing of 
St. John s Gospel, which would have exactly answered his 
purpose. But nothing can be more inconsiderate than this 
off-hand criticism. If St. John s Gospel can be called anti- 
Jewish, it is not so in the sense that Marcion is. It makes 
no opposition between the God of the Old Testament and 
that of the New ; on the contrary, it so connects the two dis 
pensations that Marcion would have found even more trouble 
necessary to adapt the fourth Gospel to his purpose than that 
which he has spent on the third. * His own received Him 
not, says St. John in the first few verses : that is to say, the 
Logos is identified with the God of the Jews, and claims that 
nation as His own people. The one verse (iv. 22) in the 
discourse with the woman of Samaria * Salvation is of the 
Jews has been an insuperable stumbling-block to all critics 
who would exaggerate the anti-Jewish tendency of this Gos 
pel. The Old Testament writers are appealed to as the best 
witnesses for Christ : Had ye believed Moses ye would have 



2o8 MARCION S GOSPEL. [xi. 

believed me, for he wrote of me (v. 46), Abraham rejoiced 
to see my day (viii. 56), These things said Esaias when 
he saw his glory and spake of him (xii. 41), Ye search the 
Scriptures and they are they which testify of me (v. 39). 
The temple which the Jews had built for the worship of their 
God, Jesus claims as his Father s house : Make not my 
Father s house a house of merchandise (ii. 16). The Old 
Testament is full of types of his work on earth : the brazen 
serpent (iii. 14), the manna in the wilderness (vi. 32), the 
Paschal Lamb (xix. 36). Great importance is attached to the 
testimony of John the Baptist, who, according to Marcion, 
like the older prophets, did not know the true Christ; and 
if there had been nothing else, the story of the miracle of 
turning water into wine would have condemned this Gospel 
in Marcion s eyes. We must also remember that to accept a 
Gospel ascribed to the Apostle John would have been at 
variance with the whole system of Marcion, who had thought 
himself warranted by Gal. ii. 14 to infer that the original 
Apostles did not walk uprightly according to the truth of 
the Gospel, and therefore could not consistently use either 
the Gospels of Matthew or John, or that which was believed 
to have been derived from Peter (see Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 3).. 
I own, then, that when I see one sceptical writer after 
another building an argument on the assumption that if 
Marcion had known the fourth Gospel he would have made 
it the text-book of his system, I cannot but ask myself, 
Which is it that these critics have never read the Gospel 
of St. John, or the authorities which describe the system of 
Marcion ? You will find that the fourth Gospel so swarms 
with recognitions of the identity of the God of the Jews with 
the Father of our Lord, and of the authority of the Old 
Testament writers as testifying to Him, that Marcion would 
have had work to do on every chapter before he could fit it 
to his purpose a task which he was under no temptation 
to undertake, since, as we shall presently show, the fourth 
Gospel was never intended to stand alone, but was written 
for those who had an independent knowledge of the facts 
of our Saviour s life : so that no modification of the fourth 
Gospel would have enabled Marcion to dispense with another 
Gospel. 



( 209 ) 



XII. 



THE JOHANNINE BOOKS, 



PART I. 

THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

I COME at length to consider the Fourth Gospel, which 
has been the subject of special assaults. In connexion 
with it I will discuss the other Johannine writings, the 
Epistles and the Apocalypse. I do not think it necessary 
to spend much time on the proofs that the First Epistle 
and the Gospel are the work of the same writer. There 
are numerous striking verbal coincidences between them, 
of which you will find a list in the introductions to the 
commentaries on the Epistle by the Bishop of Derry in 
the Speaker s Commentary, and by Professor Westcott 
in a separate volume. I give only a few examples of phrases 
common to both : That your joy may be full (tW fj x a P<* 
v/xwv y 7T7rA?7pa>/x,ei/>7, i John i. 4 ; John xvi. 20) : Walketh in 
darkness and knoweth not whither he goeth (lv rfj O-KOTLO. 
TrepiTrarct, /cat OVK olSc TTOV vTrayei, I John ii. 1 1 ; John xii. 35) ; 
* Have passed from death unto life (/ATa/2e/2?7/<a/Aev e* TOW 
Oavdrov eis T^V (t)ryv, i John iii. 14 ; John v. 24) ; ytyvcocrKo/x,v 
TOV AXyQivdv (i John v. 24; John xvii. 3). Moreover, the Epistle 
gives to our Lord the titles only begotten (iv. 9 ; John i. 14) 
and Saviour of the world (iv. 14; John iv. 42, see also iii. 17). 
And remember that this phrase, Saviour of the world, so fami 
liar to us, conveyed an idea novel and startling to the Jewish 
mind of that day. I also take notice of the mention of the 

p 



210 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xil. 

water and the blood* in the Epistle (v. 6), which we can 
scarcely fail to connect with St. John s history of the Pas 
sion. But besides these, and several other, examples of 
phrases common to both works, there is such a general 
resemblance of style, thought, and expression, that critics 
of most opposite schools have agreed in recognizing com 
mon authorship. 

I think, therefore, that it would be waste of time if I were 
to enumerate and answer the points of objection to this view 
made by Davidson and others of his school, whose work 
seems to me no more than laborious trifling. These micro 
scopic critics forget that it is quite as uncritical to be blind 
to resemblances as it is to overlook points of difference. 
And there cannot be a more false canon of criticism than 
that a man who has written one work will, when writing a 
second, introduce no ideas and make use of no modes of 
expression that are not to be found in the first. On the 
contrary, a writer may be pronounced very barren indeed 
if he exhausts all his ideas and expends all his vocabulary 
on one production. I am sure that any unprejudiced judge 
would decide that while the minute points of difference that 
have been pointed out between the Gospel and the First 
Epistle are no more than must be expected in two produc 
tions of the same writer, the general resemblance is such, 
that a man must be devoid of all faculty of critical percep 
tion who cannot discern the proofs of common authorship. 

The main reason for denying the common authorship is 
that, if it be granted, it demolishes certain theories about 
St. John s Gospel. For instance, one of the doctrines of the 
Tubingen school was, that the fourth Evangelist was so 
spiritual that he did not believe in a visible second coming 
of Christ : Instead of Christ s second coming we have the 
Spirit s mission to the disciples. Jesus comes again only in 
the Comforter. Future and present are comprehended in the 
one idea of eternal life whose possession is present. There 
is, therefore, no future judgment. This doctrine about 
St. John is rather inconveniently pressed by the passage, 
John v. 28, The hour is coming in the which all that are in the 
graves shall hear the voice of the Son of Man and shall come 



XII.] THE GOSPEL AND THE FIRST EPISTLE. 211 

forth : they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, 
and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damna 
tion. Scholten coolly disposes of this troublesome passage 
by setting it down as an interpolation. It is equally necessary 
to reject the 2ist chapter, which contains the words (v. 22), 
4 If I will that he tarry till I come. At any rate the second 
coming is the sure hope of the Apostle when he wrote the 
Epistle. It is then the last time ; the disciples are exhorted 
to live so that they may have confidence and not be ashamed 
before Him at His coming (ii. 18, 28). Yet the Epistle uses 
just the same language as the Gospel about eternal life as a 
present possession: We have passed from death unto life 
because we love the brethren. In this, and in other in 
stances which I need not detail to you, the arguments against 
the common authorship show only how ill-founded are the 
critic s theories about the doctrine of the Evangelist theories 
chiefly founded on his not having said certain things, which, 
however, when he is allowed to speak for himself a little 
more, he does say. 

As to the external history of the First Epistle, I merely 
mention that it is quoted by Polycarp (c. 7), by Papias 
(Euseb. in. 39), by Irenaeus, in. xvi., ;Vi and repeatedly by 
Clement of Alexandria (e. g. Strom, n. 15)! and Tertullian 
(e.g. Adv. Prax. 15; De Pudic. 19). In the Muratorian 
Fragment it is spoken of, not, in what it might seem its 
proper place, among the Epistles, but immediately in con 
nexion with the Gospel (see the passage quoted, p. 48). 
When the list of Epistles is given, only two of St. John are 
mentioned. The fact that in this document the First Epistle 
is detached from the other two and connected with the 
Gospel is ably made use of by Bishop Lightfoot (Contem 
porary Review , October, 1875, p. 835), in confirmation of a 

* The language of Irenseus suggests that he read the Second Epistle as 
if it were part of the First. In the passage here referred to, he introduces 
his quotation with the words Johannes in epistola sua, as if he knew but 
one. A little further on he quotes a passage from the Second Epistle with 
the words in praedicta epistola. He had also quoted the Second Epistle, 
I. xvi. 

t The form of quotation ey rfj peifrvi eiriffroKr, implies also an acknow 
ledgment of the Second Epistle. 

P 2 



212 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xil. 

theory of his, that the First Epistle was originally published 
with the Gospel as a kind of commendatory postcript.* 

Augustine, followed by other Latin authorities, calls this 
the Epistle to the Parthians (Quaest. Evangel, n. 39). It has 
been conjectured that this may have been a corruption of a 
Greek title wpos 7rap0eVovs. The ground is not very con 
clusive, namely, that Clement of Alexandria tells us (Hypotyp. 
p. ion, Potter s edition) that the Second Epistle of St. John 
was known under this title. Gieseler plausibly conjectures 
that in both cases a corruption took place of the title TOV 
irapOfvov, which was commonly given to John in early times, 
and which may have been added to the inscriptions of the 
Epistles. 

The fourth Gospel, as I have said, has been the subject of 
far more serious assaults than the others. If the others are 
allowed to have been published soon after the destruction of 
Jerusalem, the fourth is not assigned an earlier date than the 
latter half of the second century. Such, at least, was Baur s 
theory ; but in the critical sifting it has undergone, the date 
of the fourth Gospel has been receding further and further 
back in the second century, so that now hardly any critic 
with any pretension to fairness puts it later than the very 
beginning of that century, if not the end of the first century, 
which comes very close to the date assigned it by those who 
believe in the Johannine authorship. 

In the value he attaches to the fourth Gospel, Renan is a 
singular exception among sceptical writers. He is ready 
enough to grant the antiquity of our documents, though 
claiming for himself an intuitive sagacity which can dis 
criminate the true words and actions of Jesus from what may 
have been added by the piety of the second generation of 
Christians. To St. John s Gospel Renan attaches particular 
value. The discourses, indeed, of Jesus, recorded by St. John, 
are not to Renan s taste, and he rejects them with depreci 
ating epithets which I need not repeat ; but the account given 
of the life of Jesus he treats as preferable, in a multitude of 



* On the attestation borne by the First Epistle to the Gospel, it is- 
particularly worth while to consult Hug s Introduction, n. 245. 



XII.] THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 213 

cases, to the narrative of the Synoptic Evangelists. In par 
ticular he declares that the last month of the life of Jesus can 
only be explained by St. John, and that a multitude of traits 
unintelligible in the Synoptic Gospels assume in St. John s 
narrative consistency and probability. He is the more ready 
to attribute this Gospel to St. John because he imagines that 
he finds in it a design unduly to exalt that Apostle, and to 
show that on different occasions he was honoured by Jesus 
with the first place. His theory is, that John in his old age 
having read the evangelic narratives then in circulation, re 
marked in them several inaccuracies, and was besides annoyed 
at finding that only a secondary place in the history of Christ 
was assigned to himself ; that he then began to dictate a 
multitude of things which he knew better than the others, 
and with the intention of showing that on many occasions 
where Peter alone was spoken of in those narratives, he had 
figured with him and before him. These precious notes 
Renan supposes to have been distorted by the mistakes or 
carelessness of John s disciples. In order to reconcile his 
belief in the antiquity of the Gospels with his rejection of 
their historic authority, whenever it is convenient for him to 
do so, Renan imagines a case of a life and recollections of 
Napoleon written separately by three or four soldiers of the 
Empire thirty or forty years after the death of their chief. 
It is clear, he says, their narratives would present numerous 
errors and contradictions : one would put Wagram before 
Marengo ; another would write without hesitation that Napo 
leon turned out the government of Robespierre ; a third 
would omit expeditions of the highest importance. But one 
thing would stand out clearly in these artless notes, and that 
is, the character of the hero and the impression he made on 
those about him. And in this point of view such popular 
histories would be worth far more than a formal and official 
one. 

But in this comparison one point of essential difference 
is overlooked. Three or four soldiers of the Empire would 
be competent witnesses to such facts as lay within their range 
of observation. They would be incompetent witnesses to the 
order and design of battles, changes of ministry, plans of 



214 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xil. 

statesmanship, and other things out of their sphere. If they 
meddled with such matters in their stories we should not be 
surprised to find errors and contradictions. But to have a 
real comparison to lives of our Lord written by Apostles, we 
should imagine lives of Napoleon written by three or four of 
his marshals. In that case a statement concerning his battles 
in which all agreed would justly be regarded as of the highest 
authority. Take the account of any of our Lord s miracles, 
and especially that of the Resurrection. We ask, Is the 
narrator telling a wilful lie ? No is answered by almost all 
our antagonists. Well, then, could he be mistaken? Yes/ 
answer Strauss and his school. He lived a long time after 
the event, and only honestly repeated the stories which had 
then got into circulation about the founder of his religion. 
But if we admit, as Renan in his first edition was willing to 
do, that the Gospel is the work of an Apostle and an eye 
witness, the possibility of a mistake can no longer be asserted 
with any plausibility. I think, therefore, that Renan s re 
viewers of the sceptical school were quite right in regarding 
him as having made a most dangerous concession in admitting 
that John s Gospel has the authority of the Apostle of that 
name. The authority, I say, for Renan does not now at least 
maintain that it was actually written by John himself, but 
rather that it was the work of a disciple who bore to John 
the same relation which, according to Papias, Mark bore to 
Peter. 

It remains for us, therefore, to examine the arguments 
which are urged against the Johannine authorship. Now, 
with respect to external evidence, I have already expressed 
my belief that John s Gospel stands on quite as high a level 
of authority as any of the others. Suffice it now to say that 
if it be a forgery it has had the most wonderful success ever 
forgery had ; at once received not only by the orthodox, but 
by the most discordant heretics by Judaizing Christians, 
Gnostics, Mystics all of whom owned the necessity of re 
conciling their speculations with the sayings of this Gospel. 

Of the reasons why its apostolic origin has been dis 
believed, I will place first that which I believe to have had 
the greatest influence, and to have been the cause why other 



xii.] OUR LORD S SELF-ASSERTION. 215 

reasons have been sought for, namely, the impossibility of 
reconciling the Gospel with the denial of our Lord s Divinity. 
Critics now-a-days trust far more to their own powers of 
divination than to historical testimony. It is an assumed 
principle with them that there can be no miracle ; that Jesus 
was a man like others ; that he must have been so regarded 
by his disciples ; that the opinion that he was more than man 
could only have gradually grown up ; that, therefore, a book 
in which the doctrine of Christ s Divinity is highly developed 
bears on the face of it the marks of late date. This is a pre 
possession against which it is hard to struggle ; the forms of 
scientific inquiry may be gone through, but the sentence has 
been passed before the evidence has been looked at. What 
ever be the pretext on which the book is condemned, the real 
secret of the hostility to it is the assumption that a belief 
in our Lord s Godhead could not have existed among the 
Apostles who had companied with Him during His life, and 
that it must have grown up by degrees among the new 
generation of Christians who had not known our Lord after 
the flesh, and who merely reverenced in their ideal Christ a 
personification of all that is pure and noble in humanity. 
St. John s Gospel, if admitted as of authority, would make 
Christ from the first claim and receive a homage to which no 
mere man is entitled. There was a time when Socinians 
endeavoured to reconcile their system with the evangelical 
records, but that attempt is now abandoned as hopeless, and 
accordingly, the overthrow of at least St. John s Gospel be 
comes a necessity. 

Strauss, on whose principles the question whether Jesus 
was more than man cannot even claim discussion, argues that 
Jesus in John s Gospel claims to have a recollection of a 
divine existence reaching back to a period before the creation 
of the world. Such a recollection is inconceivable to us, 
because in accredited history no instance of it has occurred. 
If anyone should speak of having such a recollection, we 
should consider him as a fool or an impostor. But since it is 
difficult to believe that Jesus was either of these, we cannot 
allow that the words attributed to him were really spoken by 
him. Similarly Strauss is offended with the whole tone of 



2l6 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XII. 

the language of Jesus about Himself, as reported in this 
Gospel, the manner in which He insists on His divinity, puts 
His own person forward, and makes adherence to Himself 
the first duty of His disciples. The speeches of Jesus about 
himself in this Gospel, says Strauss, are an uninterrupted 
doxology only translated out of the second person into the 
first, from the form of address to another into an utterance 
about a self. When an enthusiastic disciple calls his master 
(supposed to have been raised to heaven) the light of the 
world when he says of him that he who has seen him has 
seen the Father, that he is God Himself we excuse the 
faithful worshipper such extravagances. But when he goes 
so far as the fourth Evangelist, and puts the utterances of his 
own pious enthusiasm into the mouth of Jesus, in the form of 
Jesus s utterances about himself, he does him a very perilous 
service. 

I admit it ; a very perilous service if Jesus be no more than 
man. Assuredly, in that case, we cannot admire him as a 
faultless man. We must regard him, to speak the plain truth, 
as one who, however excellent, disfigured his real merits by 
his own exaggerated pretensions, who habitually used inflated 
if not blasphemous language respecting the dignity of his 
own person : such language, in short, as naturally led to the 
consequence that he, though man, came to be worshipped as 
God. However, the question with which we are immediately 
concerned is not whether Jesus possessed superhuman power 
and authority, but whether He claimed it. The self-assertion 
of Jesus in the fourth Gospel can reasonably be made a plea 
for discrediting the authority of the writer, only if it can be 
made out that such language on our Lord s part is incon 
sistent with what is elsewhere told of Him. And this is what 
is asserted. It is said that in the Synoptic Gospels Jesus is 
only a moral reformer, anxious to give to the commands of 
the law their highest spiritual meaning, and rejecting the 
evasions by which a compliance with their letter was made to 
excuse a breach of their spirit. In the fourth Gospel, on the 
contrary, Jesus puts forward Himself. He is the Way, the 
Truth, and the Life, the only door by which man can have 
access to God. 



xii.] OUR LORD S SELF-ASSERTION. 217 

We may freely own that John s Gospel gives greater 
prominence to this class of our Lord s utterances, but we 
deny that they are at all inconsistent with what is attributed 
to Him in the Synoptic Gospels. On the contrary, the 
dignity of the Saviour s person, and the duty of adhering to 
Him, are as strongly stated in the discourses which Matthew 
puts into his mouth as in any later Gospel : Whosoever shall 
confess me before men, him will I confess also before my 
Father which is in heaven ; W T hosoever shall deny me before 
men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in 
heaven ; He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that 
receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me (x. 32, 33, 40). 
"* Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and 
I will give you rest ; Take my yoke upon you and learn of 
me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest 
for your souls; All things are delivered unto me of my 
Father, and no man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither 
knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whom 
soever the Son will reveal him (xi. 27, 28, 29). Again, His 
present glory and power is expressed in the promises : All 
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth ; Lo, I am 
with you alway, even unto the end of the world (xxviii. 18, 
20). I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your 
adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist (Luke xxi. 
15). But it is a small matter to prove that our Lord 
promised that after His departure from the world he should 
continue to be to His disciples an ever-present and powerful 
protector. What he declared concerning His second com 
ing more decisively marks Him out as one who claimed 
to stand on a different level from ordinary men. St. 
Matthew represents Him as telling that all the tribes of 
the earth shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds 
of heaven with power and great glory, and that he shall 
send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they 
shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from 
one end of heaven to the other (xxiv. 30). He goes on to 
tell (xxv. 31) how all nations shall be gathered before Him 
while He sits on the throne of His glory and pronounces 
judgment upon them ; and the judgment is to be determined 



2l8 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xil. 

according to the kindness they shall have shown to Himself. 
The Synoptic Evangelists all agree in representing Jesus as 
persisting in this claim to the end, and as finally incurring 
condemnation for blasphemy from the high-priest and the 
Jewish Council, because, in answer to a solemn adjuration, 
He professed Himself to be that Son of Man who was one 
day to come in the clouds of heaven, as Daniel had pro 
phesied (Matt, xxvii. 65 ; Mark xiv. 62 ; see also Luke xxii. 
66). Now, reflect for a moment what we should think of one 
who declared his belief that on that great day, when mankind 
shall stand before the judgment-seat of God, he should not 
stand like others, to give account of the deeds done in the 
body, but be seated on the throne of judgment, passing sen 
tence on the rest of the human race. If we could think of 
him as, after all, no more than a man like ourselves, we must 
set him down as, in the words of Strauss, either a fool or an 
impostor. We can only avoid forming such a judgment of 
Jesus by believing Him to be in real truth more than man. 
It follows that the claims which the Synoptic Gospels repre 
sent our Lord as making for Himself are so high, and, if He 
was really mere man, are so extravagant, that if we accept the 
Synoptic Gospels as truly representing the character of our 
Lord s language about Himself, we certainly have no right 
to reject St. John s account, on the score that it puts too 
exalted language about Himself into the mouth of our Lord. 
If it is objected that the ascription of such language to 
Jesus belongs to a later stage of Christian thought, and that 
they who had known their Master after the flesh could not 
have held the high views concerning His Person which this 
ascription implies, we can easily show that, in works of 
earlier date than anyone has claimed for the fourth Gospel, 
no lower view is expressed of the dignity of our Lord. I 
have already said (p. 25) that Baur acknowledged the Apo 
calypse to have been written by St. John ; and the same view 
is taken by Renan and by many other critics of the same 
school, who draw from their acknowledgment of the Johan- 
nine authorship of the Apocalypse their strongest argument 
against that of the fourth Gospel ; for they hold it to be one 
of the most certain conclusions of critical science that the 



XII.] CHRISTOLOGY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 2ig 

two books could not have had the same author. But other 
critics of the same school have been clear-sighted enough to 
perceive that the acknowledgment of the Johannine author 
ship of the Apocalypse necessitates the abandonment of the 
argument we have just been considering. For the dignity 
ascribed to our Lord in the Book of Revelation is such that 
it requires some ingenuity to make out that the Gospel attri 
butes to Him any higher. All through the Revelation Jesus 
plainly holds a position far above that of any created being. 
He is described as the beginning of the creation of God 
(iii. 14). He sits on the throne of the Father of all (iii. 21). 
He is the object of worship of every created thing which is 
in the heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, and in 
the sea, and all things that are in them (v. 13). His blood 
has been an atonement which sufficed to purchase to God 
men of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (v. 9). 
He is King of kings and Lord of lords (xix. 16). 

When I was speaking of the lofty claims which our Lord, 
as reported by the Synoptic Evangelists, made for Himself, I 
omitted to mention one illustration. Those who wished to 
do Him honour are related to have saluted Him as Son of 
David (Matt. xx. 30 ; xxi. 9) : the Jewish rulers, who saw all 
that was implied by such a title, and feared the fatal conse 
quences to their nation which would follow from an attempt 
to restore David s earthly kingdom, hoped that the Galilean 
prophet would disclaim so perilous an honour, and asked 
Him to rebuke His disciples (xxi. 15). He not only accepted 
the honours offered Him, as so plainly His due, that if His 
disciples were to hold their peace the very stones would cry 
out ; but He went on to intimate that the title Son of David 
was less than He could rightfully claim, and He pointed out 
that the Messiah was described in the Book of Psalms as 
David s Lord (xxii. 43). I am disposed to connect with this 
the words ascribed to our Lord in the Apocalypse (xxii. 16) : 
I am the root and the offspring of David. It is possible to 
give the word pia the secondary meaning, scion (having 
regard to Isa. xi. 10; Rom. xv. 12; Rev. v. 5); yet I prefer 
to give it the meaning root, which implies existence prior 
to David, because the idea of priority is unmistakeably 



220 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XII. 

expressed in other passages. There is one passage in 
particular where the antecedence to all created things of 
Him who in the Revelation is called the Word of God is 
expressed in such a way as not to fall short of an ascription 
to Him of the titles and prerogatives of the Supreme God. 
Whom but the Supreme God should we imagine to be speak 
ing when we read (i. 8): I am the Alpha and the Omega, 
saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to 
come, the Almighty ? Read on a little way (v. 17), and we 
find One who is unmistakeably our blessed Lord addressing 
the Apocalyptic seer with like words, which are again re 
peated (xxii. 13), I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first 
and the last, the beginning and the end. The fourth Gospel 
puts into the mouth of our Lord no claim of Godhead stronger 
or more express than what the glorified Saviour is represented 
as uttering in the Book of the Revelation. And this ascription 
to Him of glory not distinguished from that of the Supreme 
is a prevailing characteristic of the book. The Son of God 
sits down with His Father in His throne (iii. 21); and this 
throne is called, the throne of God and of the Lamb; (xxii. 
i, 3 ; cf. xx. 6). The doctrine of the Gospel (v. 23) that 
all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father 
is deeply stamped on the Apocalypse. 

To some critics it has seemed incredible that one who had 
known Jesus, and conversed with Him as a man like himself, 
should pay Him divine honours such as it was natural enough 
for enthusiastic disciples to render, in whose eyes the Founder 
of their religion was but an ideal Personage. On that account 
they have refused to believe that the fourth Evangelist can 
be one who had been a personal companion of our Lord. 
But here we find that the Gospel presents no more exalted 
conception of the Saviour s dignity than that which is offered 
in the Book of the Revelation, the apostolic authorship of 
which so many critics of all schools are willing to acknow 
ledge.* In confirmation of the view that the Apocalypse was 
written by a personal hearer of our Lord, I may notice that 

* See, for example, the passages cited from Baur and Zeller by Arch 
deacon Lee, in the Speaker s Commentary, p. 406. 



xii.] ST. JOHN S LOCTRINE COMPARED WITH ST. PAUL S. 221 

echoes of the Gospel records of the words of Jesus are to be 
found more frequently in this than in any other New Testa 
ment book, except perhaps the Epistle of James.* And I 
cannot help thinking that we should find still more coinci 
dences if we had a fuller record of the words of Jesus than 
that preserved in the Gospels. Thus St. James (i. 12) refers 
to our Lord s promise of a crown of life/ and Zeller hence 
drew a proof (Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift, 1863, p. 93) that the 
author of that Epistle used the Apocalypse, Rev. ii. 10 being 
the only New Testament place where such a promise is put 
into the mouth of our Lord. But it seems to me much more 
probable that we have here reminiscences by two independent 
hearers, James and John, of words actually spoken by our 
Lord, of which traces are also to be found, 2 Tim- iv. 8, 
i Pet. v. 4. * 

Again, when the prominence given to the doctrines of 
our Lord s divinity and pre-existence is made a ground for 
assigning a late date to the fourth Gospel, we must remember 
that these doctrines are taught in documents earlier than 
either Gospel or Apocalypse I mean St. Paul s Epistles. I 
refer in particular to the passage in the Epistle to the Colos- 
sians (i. 15-18), which is quite as strong as the prologue to 
St. John. Christ is there the image of the invisible God, the 
firstborn of every creature; for by him were all things created 
that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, 
whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities or 
powers ; all things were created by him and for him ; and he 
is before all things, and by him all things consist ; and he is 
the head of the body, the Church ; who is the beginning, the 
firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the 
pre-eminence. Baur very consistently refuses to believe that 
this was written by St. Paul : but most critics, even of the 
sceptical school, have owned that the evidence for the genu 
ineness of the Epistle to the Colossians is too strong to be 
resisted, especially connected as it is with the Epistle to 
Philemon, which bears an unmistakeable stamp of truth, and 
which is utterly beyond the invention of any forger. 

* For example: i. 7, Matt. xxiv. 30; ii. 7, Matt. xi. 15, &c. : ii. 23, 
Matt. xvi. 27; ii. 26, Matt. xxiv. 13; iii. 3, Matt. xxiv. 42; iii. 5, Matt. x. 32 



222 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xil. 

In this connexion I have pleasure in referring to an excel 
lent comparison of the theology of St. John with that of St. 
Paul by Mr. J. J. Murphy {Scientific Bases of Faith, p. 365), 
where he founds an argument for the truth of their doctrine 
on the coincidence of two independent witnesses. Both are 
found to express the same doctrines, but in quite different 
language ; whereas if the fourth Gospel had been indebted 
to St. Paul we should have found there some of St. Paul s 
expressions as well as his doctrine.* 

I have devoted so much time to the objection brought 
against the fourth Gospel from the character of its Chris- 
tology, because, though not really the strongest, it is, I 
believe, the most influential ; and the reason why other argu 
ments have been sought for is the fear that the reception of 
the fourth Gospel would give apostolic authority to a view 
of our Lord s person which the objectors are determined to 
reject. I consider that I have shown that this view was at 
least that accepted among Christians several years before the 
date claimed either for Gospel or Apocalypse ; and that I 
have shown also that though the fourth Gospel may give 
greater prominence than do the preceding three to those 
utterances of our Lord in which He asserts His own super 
human character, there is nothing in such utterances unlike 



* Compare the teaching of each of the Apostles on the Deity of Christ 
(John i. i, iii. 13, xx. 28 ; Rom. ix. 5, Phil. ii. 6) ; his pre-existence (John 
vi. 62, viii. 58, xvii. 5 ; Col. i. 17); his work of creation (John i. 3 ; i 
Cor. viii. 6, Col. i. 16) ; the association of his name with that of God on 
terms of equality (John v. 18, 23, xiv, 10, 23, xvii. 3, 10 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; 
Gal. i. I ; Eph. v. 5, i Thess. iii. n) ; the voluntariness of his humiliation 
(John x. 17 ; 2 Cor. viii. 9, Phil. ii. 7) ; his present power and glory (John 
iii. 35, xiv. 14 ; Rom. xiv. 9, i Cor. xv. 25, Eph. i. 20, Phil. ii. 10) ; that 
by him only access is had to the Father (John xiv. 6 ; Eph. ii. 18, I Tim. 
ii. 5) ; that by faith in him we are justified (John iii. 15, vi. 47, xi. 25, xx. 
31 ; Rom. iii. 22, v. i, Gal. ii. 16, Eph. ii. 8) ; that atonement has been 
made by him (John i. 29, vi. 51, I John i. 7, ii. 2, iii. 5 ; Rom. iii. 24, v. 
9, i Cor. v. 7, Gal. iii. 13, Eph. i. 7) ; that his life is the source of his 
people s life (John vi. 53 ; Rom. v. 10) ; that they are united with him 
(John xv. 5 : i John ii. 5, iii. 6, iv. 13 ; Rom. viii. 17, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, Gal. 
ii. 20, iii. 27) ; that our relation to him is like his relation to the Father 
(John x. 14, 15, xiv. 20, xv. 9 : i Cor. iii. 22) : on all these points you 
will find a wonderful similarity of substantial doctrine with great variety 
of expression. The two witnesses are clearly independent, and their 
teaching is the same : see also Lias s Doctrinal System of St. John. 



XII.] CHRISTOLOGY OF GOSPEL AND APOCALYPSE. 223 

what is found in every report of the language which He 
habitually used.* 

* At the very time when the first edition of these lectures was pub 
lished, the Hibbert Lectures were delivered in London, by Dr. Pfleiderer, 
Professor of Theology at Berlin, a pupil of Baur s, but who has retired 
from some of his master s extreme positions. Pfleiderer still maintains 
the anti-Paulinism of the Apocalypse, but he is in perfect agreement with 
what I had said as to the identity of the Christology of the book with that 
of Paul ; and as to the impossibility of denying the Johannine origin of the 
Gospel, on account of its Christology, without on the same ground 
denying that of the Apocalypse. I cannot forbear quoting at length: 

Like the Pauline Christology, that of the author of the Apocalypse 
hinges on the one hand on the expiatory death, and on the other on the 
celestial glory of Christ, whilst the earthly life of Jesus is referred to only 
so far that Christ is called the " Offspring of David" and the " Lion of 
Juda;" just as Paul in the Epistle to the Romans had connected Christ s 
descent from David with his Divine Sonship. As Paul denominated 
Christ the Passover slain for us, so our author likes to describe him as 
" the Lamb slain for us," and finds in his violent death a proof of his love 
for us and an expiation to purify us from the guilt of sin, a ransom to 
redeem us to God. Again, as Paul calls Christ the first fruits of them 
that slept, so in the Apocalypse we find him termed the first-born from the 
dead. As, according to Paul, Christ has been exalted to the regal dignity 
of divine dominion over all, so, according to our author, he has taken his 
seat on the throne by the side of his Father, participating therefore in his 
divine dominion and power ; he is the Lord of the churches, holds their 
stars, or guardian angels, in his hand, and is also Ruler of nations and 
King of kings, the all-wise and almighty Judge of the nations ; indeed, to 
him is due a worship similar to that of God himself. As the author of the 
Apocalypse in his apotheosis of Christ as an object of worship thus almost 
outstrips Paul, neither does he in his dogmatic definitions of Christ s 
nature at all fall behind the Apostle. Like Paul, he calls Christ the " Son 
of God" in the metaphysical sense of a god-like spiritual being, and far 
beyond the merely theocratic significance of the title. As Paul had said, 
The Lord is the Spirit, so our author identifies Christ with the Spirit, or 
celestial principle of revelation which speaks to the Churches and rules in 
them. As Paul had had a vision of Christ as the Man from heaven in 
celestial light and glory, so the author of the Apocalypse likewise beholds 
Him in a super-mundane form like unto a son of man, his face shining as 
the sun. As Paul had described the celestial Son of Man as at the same 
time the image of God, the agent of creation, the head of every man, and 
finally even God over all, so the Christ of the Apocalypse introduces 
Himself with the predicates of Divine majesty, "I am the Alpha and the 
Omega , saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the 
All-powerful ;" and He is accordingly called also " the Head of creation, * 
and " the Word of God," that is, the mediating instrument of all Divine 
revelation from the creation of the world to the final judgment. 

It appears from this that the similarity of the Christology of the Apo 
calypse to that of Paul is complete ; this Christ occupies the same exalted 
position as the Pauline Christ above the terrestrial Son of Man. Would 
such a view of Christ be conceivable in the case of a man who had lived in 
personal intercourse with Jesus ? I think we have in this another proof 
that the author of the Apocalypse was not the Apostle John. Pfleiderer, 
Hibbert Lectures, pp. 158-161. 



224 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. 

XIII. 

PART II. 

THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE APOCALYPSE. 

I COME now to discuss the objection that is most relied on,, 
and to which I have already referred, that the Apocalypse 
and the fourth Gospel are so different in style and character 
that it is impossible to believe they can have been written 
by the same person ; and that since John the Apostle wrote 
the Apocalypse he could not have written the Gospel. This 
argument is borrowed from Dionysius of Alexandria, who 
lived in the third century, and who made the converse use of 
it, namely, that as John wrote the Gospel he could not have 
written the Apocalypse. And certainly, if we had to assign 
to the Apostle but one of the two, and were only guided by 
external evidence, we should have more reason to assign him 
the Gospel. The only point of advantage for the Apocalypse 
is that Justin Martyr happens to name the Apostle John as 
its author, while he uses the Gospel without mention of the 
Evangelist s name. On the other hand, the proof of early 
acknowledgment, by heretics as well as by orthodox, is rather 
stronger for the Gospel (see p. 58) ; and the reception of the 
Gospel in the Church was unanimous, which is more than we 
can say for the Apocalypse. 

However, in either case, the external evidence is amply 
sufficient. For the Apocalypse, in addition to Justin, I could 
quote Papias and quite a long list of second-century witnesses 
to its recognition in the Church (see Westcott, N. T. Canon, 
Index, p. 587). I content myself with appealing to Irenaeus, 
whose testimony to the four Gospels has been already pro 
duced (p. 37). He is equally strong in his witness to the 
Apocalypse. A remarkable passage is one (v. 30) in which 
he discusses whether the true reading of the number of the 
Beast is 666 or 616, both readings being found in MSS. of his 
time, as they are still.* Irengeus declares that the reading 

* 616 is the reading of Codd. C, n. 



XIII.] THE APOCALYPSE. 225 

666 is that of the best and oldest copies, and is attested by 
those who had seen John face to face. We cannot but be 
struck by this mention of a traditional knowledge of the 
prophecy concurrent with the evidence of the written copies. 
The estimation in which Irenseus held the book is evidenced 
by the sense he expresses of the guilt and penalty incurred 
by those who substituted the erroneous number for the true, 
though he trusts that those may obtain pardon whose adop 
tion of the error was not wilful. The denunciation (Rev. 
xxii. 1 8, 19) had previously been clearly referred to by 
Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb. iv. 23). Irenaeus gives ex 
amples of Greek names the arithmetical value of the sum 
of whose letters amounts to 666 (evavOds, Xarecvos, retrav), but 
he does not venture to express a confident decision in favour 
of any solution ; because he looks on the Apostle as having 
designedly left the matter obscure, since if he had wished the 
name to be known at the time he would have spoken plainly. 
And whatever reasons there were for hiding the name at the 
first must still exist in the time of Irenaeus. For it was not 
long ago that the vision was seen, but almost in our own 
generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian. I shall 
presently return to speak of the statement here made as to 
the date of the book. The Muratorian Fragment twice refers 
to the Apocalypse. In speaking of Paul s Epistles the writer 
says that Paul had written letters to seven Churches, following 
the order of his predecessor John, who in the Apocalypse had 
written to seven Churches. Further on he says : We receive 
only the Revelations of John and of Peter, the latter of 
which some of us will not have read in the Church. Of 
this Apocalypse of Peter I must take another opportunity 
to speak. 

We may assume, then, that in the time of Irenaeus the 
Apocalypse was commonly received, and that on it were 
founded the expectations that generally prevailed of a per 
sonal reign of our Lord on earth for a thousand years. But 
these expectations soon assumed a very gross and carnal 
character. I will quote the tradition which Irenaeus (v. 33) 
cites from Papias, a tradition which consoles us for the loss 
we have sustained of the work in which Papias collected 

Q 



226 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIII. 

unwritten records of the Saviour s teaching, and which 
probably was one of the causes which moved Eusebius (iii. 39) 
to pronounce Papias a man of weak understanding. * The 
elders who saw John, the disciple of our Lord, remembered to 
have heard from him that our Lord taught and said : The 
days shall come in which vines shall grow, each having 10,000 
shoots, and on each shoot 10,000 branches, and on each 
branch 10,000 twigs, and on each twig 10,000 clusters, and 
on each cluster 10,000 grapes; and each grape when pressed 
shall yield 25 measures of wine ; and when any of the saints 
shall have taken hold of one of these clusters another shall 
say : I am a better cluster ; take me and bless the Lord 
through me. Likewise, also, a grain of wheat shall produce 
10,000 ears, and every ear 10,000 grains, and every grain ten 
pounds of pure white meal, and the other fruits, seeds, and 
vegetables in like manner. And all the animals using the 
food thus yielded by the earth shall be peaceful and agree 
together, and be subject to man with all subjection. . . . And 
He added: These things are credible to believers. And when 
Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked Him, How shall 
such growth be accomplished ? the Lord said : They shall 
see who come to those times. * 

This is a specimen of the kind of notions which were 
current under the name of Chiliasm ; and spiritual men were 
shocked at seeing their Christian brethren looking forward 
to a kind of Mahometan paradise, the chief enjoyment of which 
was to consist of the pleasures of sense, not excluding those 
of the grossest kind. Hence arose a strong reaction against 
Millennarian ideas, and hence also a disposition to reject the 
inspiration of the book on which the Millennarians mainly 

* Great light has been cast on the probable source of this tradition of 
Papias through the publication from theSyriac, by Ceriani (Milan, 1866), 
of a Jewish book called the Apocalypse of Baruch. It is included in 
Fritzsche s Apocryphal books of the Old Testament (Leipzig, 1871). 
Fritzsche judges the book to have been written not long after the destruc 
tion of Jerusalem by Titus. The book contains (c. 29) a description of the 
times of the Messiah, in which it is predicted that a vine shall have 1000 
shoots, each shoot 1000 clusters, each cluster 1000 grapes, and each grape 
shall yield a measure of wine. It is reasonable to think that this book 
furnished the original of the story, which, before it reached Papias, had 
been considerably improved, and had come to be referred to a saying of 
our Lord. 



XIII.] DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. 227 

relied. In the beginning of the third century Caius, of whom 
I spoke in a former lecture, ascribed the book to the heretic 
Cerinthus. The proof of this had not been complete, but 
the matter has lately been put beyond doubt. 

Dionysius of Alexandria, whose criticism on the Book of 
Revelation I am about to quote presently, begins it by saying 
that some of his predecessors had utterly rejected this book, 
criticizing every chapter, pronouncing it to be unintelligible 
and inconsistent, and declaring that the title, Revelation of 
John was doubly false. For they said that a book so obscure 
did not deserve to be called a revelation, and that the author, 
far from being an Apostle, was not even a member of the 
Church, but was Cerinthus, the founder of the Cerinthian 
heresy : whose doctrine was that the kingdom of Christ should 
be earthly. For being a carnal and sensual man, he dreamed 
that its enjoyments would consist in those grosser bodily plea 
sures which he himself coveted, and, for a decorous cover 
to these, feastings and sacrifices, and slaughters of victims 
(Euseb. H, E. vii. 25). Scholars had combined this state 
ment of Dionysius with an extract given by Eusebius (H. E. 
iii. 28), from the dialogue of Caius against the Montanists. 
In this passage, Caius rejects a book of revelations purport 
ing to have been written by a great apostle, and containing 
an account of miraculous communications made to him by 
angels. Caius ascribes the real authorship of the book to 
Cerinthus, and states that these spurious revelations taught 
that after the Resurrection the kingdom of Christ should be 
earthly ; that the flesh of the risen saints should again be 
enslaved to lusts and pleasures ; that they should inhabit 
Jerusalem, and should spend a thousand years in marriage 
festivities. 

Some critics inferred from coincidences of expression 
that Caius was the writer referred to by Dionysius ; but it was 
urged, on the other hand, that Eusebius gives no hint that 
Caius was speaking of the book which we know as the 
Revelation of St. John ; that that book does not expressly 
claim to be written by an Apostle ; that it nowhere describes 
millennial happiness as consisting in sensual gratifications ; 
and that Caius shows no consciousness that he was express- 

Q 2 



228 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. |_XIII. 

ing an opinion different from that of the Roman Church of 
his time, which, as we know from the Muratorian Fragment, 
and from Hippolytus, accepted the Book of the Apocalypse 
as Johannine. But the question has recently been set at 
rest through the bringing to light* of a work in which the 
Syriac writer Bar Salibi, whom I have already had occasion 
to mention (p. 84), quotes some of the criticisms of Caius on 
the Apocalypse, together with replies to them by Hippolytus. 
And from the specimens given by Bar Salibi it seems to me 
that the character of the work of Caius, from which he quotes, 
must have exactly answered to the description of Dionysius, 
viz. that it must have gone systematically through the book 
of the Revelation, criticizing it in detail, so that there is 
reason to conclude that Caius was the author to whom 
Dionysius referred. 

We hear of opposition to the book by no one else in the 
West ; but in the East its authority decayed. It is not in 
cluded in the Peshitto Syriac,f and Jerome tells us that the 
Greeks of his time did not receive it (Ep. 129, ad Dard.)* 
Eusebius speaks doubtfully about it, and seems divided 
between his own judgment, formed from the contents of the 
book, which inclined him to reject it, and the weight of 
external evidence in its favour, which he found it hard to set 
aside. He consequently shrinks from expressing his own 
opinion, and tries to cast on his readers the responsibility of 
forming a judgment (H. E. iii. 25, 39). Towards the end of 
the fourth century there were a few, of whom we are told by 
Epiphanius and Philaster (Haer. 60), who ascribed both Gospel 
and Apocalypse to Cerinthus. Epiphanius calls them Alogi ; 
but it is a mistake to suppose that there was a sect of heretics 
of the name. This was only a clever nickname invented by 
Epiphanius (Haer. 51, 3) for the opponents of the Logos 



* This was done by Dr. Gwynn, Hermathena, 1888. The work of 
Bar Salibi is in MS. in the British Museum, and it would seem that no 
Syriac scholar had previously read enough of it to find these interesting 
quotations from Caius. 

t Yet we find Theophilus of Antioch using the book before the end of 
the second century (Euseb. iv. 24). Ephraem Syrus cites Rev. v. 1-3, 
(Serm. Exeg. in Ps. cxl. 3. Opp. Syr. ii. 332). 



XIII.] DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. 22Q 

Gospel, the word being intended to denote the irrational 
character of their opposition. I do not know that there were 
ever enough of them to make a sect ;* and they seem un 
worthy of notice, since their objections as reported by Epipha- 
nius do not profess to have rested on any grounds of external 
testimony. Their ascribing the Gospel to Cerinthus shows 
that they believed in its antiquity, since Cerinthus was con 
temporary with St. John. This report of the evidence justifies 
me in saying that if we were compelled to abandon one or 
other, we should have far more countenance from antiquity 
for ascribing the Gospel to St. John than for attributing to 
him the Book of Revelation. At the same time I regard the 
evidence for the latter as amply sufficient, because the testi 
mony in its favour is a century or two earlier than the doubts 
which arose concerning it, and which seem to have arisen 
entirely from unwillingness to accept the doctrine of a future 
reign of our Lord on this earth. 

I wish now to state a little more fully the argument of 
Dionysius of Alexandria, because it is an interesting specimen 



* In fact I now believe that the Alogi consisted of Caius, and, as far 
as I can learn, nobody else. I have already said (p. 168) with what caution 
we are obliged to receive the statements of Epiphanius. Lipsius in the 
work quoted (note, p. 148) has endeavoured to ascertain from what authorities 
the statements in his treatise against heresies were derived, with the result 
of rinding that what may be called the basis of the work was a treatise 
against heresies composed at the beginning of the third century by 
Hippolytus, which Epiphanius, rather more than 150 years afterwards, 
enlarged by adding to the thirty-two heresies with which it dealt notices 
of some which had appeared in the meantime, and others which he con 
ceived that his own research had discovered. The work of Hippolytus is 
lost ; but we know it through independent use made of it by Philaster, a 
contemporary of Epiphanius, and through a list of heresies erroneously 
included among the works of Tertullian, which was derived from the same 
source. We know now for certain that in what Epiphanius says, in refuta 
tion of the opponents of the Apocalypse, he was drawing from Hippolytus ; 
for one objection and reply are the same as those which Dr. Gwynn has 
recovered as part of the controversy between Caius and Hippolytus. 
There is a question, however, whether Epiphanius took his section from 
the treatise against the thirty-two heresies, or from some other work of 
Hippolytus, among whose lost writings was one bearing the title, In 
defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of St. John, which, in all proba 
bility, was the book written in controversy with Caius. But in any case 
we have reason to think that Hippolytus treated his opponent s opinion as 
heresy ; for the Syriac fragments speak of him as the heretic Caius. 

There is no reason to think that Epiphanius knew anything more about 



230 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xill. 

of an early application of critical science to discriminate 
the claims of different books ascribed to the same author. 
Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria from 247 to 265, and had 
been the successor of Origen as president of the Cateche 
tical School of Alexandria. Origen had acknowledged the 
Apocalypse as the work of the Apostle John, and, by his 
favourite method of allegorical interpretation, had got over 
the difficulties which the literal acceptance of its doctrines 
might have occasioned. But the mass of simple believers 
could not be satisfied with these philosophical refinements, 
and protested against them. The argument which I am 
about to quote was offered first on what seems to me a very 
remarkable occasion. Dionysius of Alexandria is a man 
whom we know mainly by some extracts from his writings 
preserved by Eusebius ; and there is none of the early Fathers 
who impresses me more favourably as a man of earnest piety, 
good sense, moderation, and Christian charity. On the occa 
sion to which I refer he worked what I account one of the 
greatest and most authentic miracles of ecclesiastical his 
tory. His diocese being much troubled with disputes on the 

the so-called Alogi than what he learned from Hippolytus. There are two 
discrepancies between his account and that of Philaster. Epiphanius 
speaks of these heretics as ascribing both Gospel and Apocalypse to 
Cerinthus ; but we may take this as an ordinary instance of his carelessness 
in using his authorities, for there is no doubt that Philaster is right in 
naming only the Apocalypse as so ascribed. The other difference relates to 
the name Alogi, for which name Epiphanins, as I have said, takes credit 
as his own invention. Early writers on heresy had taken the opportunity 
of stigmatizing opponents by enumerating as heretics, in addition to the 
well-known sects of heretics, Valentinians, Marcionites, &c., the holders of 
various opinions from which they dissented. Thus Philaster has in his list 
of heretics those who denied all the 150 Psalms to have been written by 
David (Haer. 130) ; those who denied the Pauline authorship of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (Haer. 89) ; those who asserted the plurality of 
worlds (Haer. 115); those who held the age of the world to be uncertain 
(Haer. 112), &c. &c. But there are no anonymous heretics in Epi 
phanius. Where he finds in his authorities those who held this or that 
erroneous opinion described as heretics, he must invent a name for them 
a habit which gives the modern reader the impression that the Alogi, for 
example, were a set of people combined into a sect, for which idea 
there is no foundation. Thus when we trace back Epiphanius to his 
authorities, we find that his reason for asserting the existence of a sect of 
Alogi was that Hippolytus had enumerated among heretics those who 
reject the Gospel and Apocalypse of St. John. If we inquire whom 
Hippolytus had in view, we can answer confidently, his antagonist Caius. 



XIII.] DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. 231 

Millennarian controversy, he assembled those whom perhaps 
another bishop would have denounced as heretics ; and he 
held a three days public discussion with them : the result 
being what I have never heard of as the result of any other 
public discussion that he talked his opponents round, and 
brought all to complete agreement with himself (H. E. vii. 
24). I am, however, less surprised at this result from the 
specimen which Eusebius gives us of the manner in which 
Dionysius dealt with the authority of the leading Millen 
narian of his district, Nepos, who was then not long dead, 
and whose name had at that time the authority which that of 
Keble has now, the favour in which his sacred poetry was 
held gaining favour for a certain school of theological 
opinions. Nothing can be more conciliatory than the grace 
ful way in which Dionysius speaks of Nepos and of the ser 
vices which he had rendered the Church ; in particular by his 
composition of hymns, for which Dionysius expresses a high 
value, though he claims the liberty which he is sure Nepos 
himself, if living, would have allowed him, of testing his 
opinions by Scripture. The most formidable difficulty 

If we ask had he anyone else in view, we must say that we have no 
evidence. 

But did Cams reject the Gospel ? This is asserted by no other writer, 
and in the Syriac fragments Caius is refuted out of the Gospel, as if it were 
an authority which he recognized. It is no doubt possible that Caius, in 
his opposition to the Montanists, may have spoken disparagingly of the 
Gospel, on which they founded their hopes of the teaching of the Paraclete ; 
but it is also possible that Hippolytus, being convinced of the common 
authorship of Gospel and Apocalypse, thought himself entitled to use 
the controversial advantage of bracketing the opponents of one with the 
opponents of the other. Irenaeus informs us of the existence of heretics 
who rejected St. John s Gospel, though his language is too vague to let us 
know to what school they belonged. 

Iconsider that the work of Hippolytus, of which Epiphanius made use, must 
have said very little about the opponents of the Gospel. Where Epiphanius 
deals with the opponents of the Apocalypse, the objections and replies 
have every mark of antiquity, and were no doubt derived from Hippolytus. 
But the section on the Gospel is distinctly Epiphanius s own. He cites 
authors later than Hippolytus: Ephraem (c. 22); Porphyry (c. 8). The 
system of chronology is not that of Hippolytus, nor does he agree with 
Hippolytus as to the duration of our Lord s ministry on earth. The whole 
section gives me the impression that Epiphanius, being obliged by his title 
to answer objections to the Gospel, and rinding none specified in his autho 
rities, was reduced to manufacture objections, as well as answers, by his 
own ingenuity. _,__j 



232 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xill. 

Dionysius has to encounter in dealing with the Millennarians 
is the Apocalypse, and this he meets by a theory of his own. 
The criticism of Dionysius, and his denial that the John of the 
Apocalypse was the Apostle John, rests, you will observe, on 
no external evidence, and is opposed to the uniform tradition 
of the Church up to that time. Dionysius begins, as I have 
already told you, by speaking of the objections which some 
of his predecessors had raised against the authority of the 
book. But, for my part, he proceeds, I do not venture to 
reject the book, since many of the brethren hold it in esteem ; 
but I take it to be above my understanding to comprehend it, 
and I conceive the interpretation of each several part to be 
hidden and marvellous. For, though I do not understand, 
yet I surmise that some deeper meaning underlies the words. 
These things I do not measure and judge by my own reason 
ing ; but, giving the chief place to faith, I am of opinion that 
they are too high for me to comprehend. I believe also the 
author s name to be John, for he himself says so, but I cannot 
easily grant him to be the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, whose 
is the Gospel that is inscribed " according to John," and the 
Catholic Epistle, for I infer from the tone (5#os) of each, and 
the character of the language, and from what is called the 
Sieaya>yry of the book [general method], that he is not the 
same person. The arguments which Dionysius then pro 
ceeds to urge are, first, that the Evangelist mentions his 
name neither in the Gospel nor in the First Epistle, and in 
the other two Epistles only calls himself the Elder, while the 
author of the Apocalypse calls himself John three times in 
the first chapter and once in the last : but never calls himself 
the disciple whom Jesus loved, or the brother of James, or 
the man who had seen and heard the Lord. It is to be sup 
posed that there were many of the name of John, as, for ex 
ample, we read of John Mark in the Acts. Many who admired 
John, no doubt, gave the name to their children for the love 
they bore him, just as many of the faithful now call their 
children by the names of Peter and Paul. And it is said 
that there are two tombs at Ephesus, each bearing the name 
of John s tomb. He next argues that there is great similarity 
of style between the Gospel and Epistle, and a number of 



XIII.] DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. 233 

expressions common to both, such as life, light, the avoiding 
of darkness, with the commandment of love one towards 
another, &c., none of which are to be found in the Revela 
tion, which has not a syllable in common with the other two : 
that Paul in his Epistles mentions having been favoured with 
revelations, and that there is no corresponding mention in the 
Epistle of St. John. Lastly, he presses the argument from 
the difference of style : The Gospel and Epistle, he says, 
* are written not only without offending against the Greek 
language, but even most eloquently in point of expression, 
reasoning, and literary construction, far from containing any 
barbarous word, or solecism, or vulgarism. For the Apostle, 
it seems, possessed either word, even as God gave him both 
the word of knowledge and the word of language ; but as 
for this writer, that he saw a revelation arid received know 
ledge and prophecy, I will not gainsay ; yet I perceive his 
dialect and tongue to be not accurately Greek, nay, that he 
uses barbarous idioms, and in some cases even solecisms, 
instances whereof it needs not that I should now detail ; for 
neither have I mentioned them in ridicule let no one sup 
pose it but only as criticizing the dissimilarity of the books 
(Euseb. H. E. vii. 25). 

This passage contains all the arguments used by modern 
writers against the common authorship of Gospel and Apoca 
lypse, except one which I have already answered, namely, that 
the Apocalypse is the work of a Judaizing Christian, the 
Gospel that of one of ultra-Pauline liberality. I have shown 
that in this respect the Apocalypse is completely Pauline (see 
P- 3o). 

I do not think it necessary to spend much time on the first 
argument of Dionysius, viz. that founded on the fact that the 
author of the Apocalypse has given his name, both in the first 
and third person, while both Gospel and Epistle are anony 
mous. In such a matter it is very possible that the same man 
might act differently on different occasions, even though we 
could assign no reason for his change of conduct. But in this 
case a sufficient reason can be given. In the Old Testament 
the rule is that the historical books (with the exception, 
indeed, of the Book of Nehemiah) are all anonymous ; but 



234 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIII. 

every prophetical book, without any exception, gives the 
name of the prophet to whom the vision or prophecy was 
communicated. The whole Book of the Revelation is framed 
on the model of the Old Testament prophecies, so that it is 
a matter of course that it should begin by naming the seer 
whose visions are recorded, while it would be quite natural 
that a historical book by the same author should be anony 
mous.* Nor can more stress be laid on the remark that John 
does not in the Apocalypse call himself an Apostle, or the 
disciple whom Jesus loved. The simplicity of the language 
* I John, without further description of the writer, is, when 
well considered, rather a proof of Apostolic authority. A 
writer personating the Apostle would have taken care to 
make the Apostleship unmistakeably plain to the reader : and 
another John writing with an honest purpose would have 
distinguished himself plainly from John the Apostle. But 
this author betrays no desire to make himself prominent ; 
and the idea of any other person being mistaken for him 
does not seem to have crossed his mind. 

Very much more consideration is due to the argument 
which Dionysius founded on the difference of language be 
tween the Revelation and the other Johannine books. Thus, 
he says, we do not find in the Revelation the Johannine 
words, <o>7, <u>s, dA.rj$ia, x L P L< >> K/H O-IS, &c. It must be owned 
that, whereas the likeness between the language of the Gospel 
and of the First Epistle is such that even a careless reader 
can hardly fail to notice it, there are several of the words 
frequently occurring in the other Johannine books which are 
either rare in the Apocalypse or absent from it. But then it 
must be remembered how completely different the subjects 
treated of in the Apocalypse are from those which are dealt 
with in the other books. It is not wonderful that a writer 
should use different words when he wants to express an 
entirely new circle of ideas. On the other hand, when we 
look beyond the superficial aspects of the books, and care 
fully examine their language, we arrive at a result quite 

* The transition from the third to the first person his servant John 
(i. i), I John (i. 9, xxi. 2, xxii. 2), is exactly parallel to the usage of 
Isaiah (i. i, ii. i, vi. i, &c.), and of Daniel (i. 6, vii. i, 2, 15, &c.). 



XIII.] THE DICTION OF THE APOCALYPSE. 235 

different from that obtained by Dionysius. There is found 
to be so much affinity both of thought and diction between 
the various books which have been ascribed to John, that we 
can feel confident that all must have proceeded, if not from 
the same author, from the same school. 

I proceed to lay before you some of the proofs that, if we 
adopt the now pretty generally accepted opinion that John 
the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse, we shall find ourselves 
bound to hold that the Gospel was written either by the 
Apostle himself, or by a disciple of his who had not only 
thoroughly adopted his master s doctrine, but even much of 
his language. I have spoken already of the identity of the 
Christology of the Apocalypse with that of the Gospel, the 
doctrine of our Lord s pre-existence being taught as dis 
tinctly in the former (e.g. iii. 14) as in the latter. I have 
shown (p. 31) that the Book of the Revelation refuses to own 
the unbelieving Jews as true Jews. This, also, is in complete 
harmony with John viii. 39, which refuses to recognize as 
children of Abraham those who did not the works of Abraham. 
Let me now direct your attention to the title given to our Lord 
in the Apocalypse (xix. 13), the Word of God, which at once 
connects that book with the Gospel and the Epistle. The 
Logos doctrine of the Gospel has been considered as a mark 
of late authorship, or at least as indicating an author more 
subject to Alexandrian influences than the historical John is 
likely to have been. On that subject I have spoken already 
(p. 73). But now we find that in the Apocalypse, which is 
admitted by Renan and by a host of Rationalist writers to be 
the work of John, and to which they assign an earlier date 
than orthodox critics had claimed for any of the Johannine 
books, this very title Logos is given to the Saviour. All 
objection, therefore, against the likelihood of the Apostle 
having used this title at once disappears. A second title 
repeatedly given to our Lord in the Book of the Revelation 
is the Lamb. Nowhere else in Scripture is it used thus as a 
title of the Saviour, except in the first chapter of the Gospel 
Behold the Lamb of God. It is scarcely necessary for me 
to call your attention to the sacrificial import of this title. 
The two books elsewhere (John xi. 51, 52; Rev. v. 9) un- 



236 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. 

equivocally express the same doctrine, which can be stated 
in words which I am persuaded John had read : Ye were not 
redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from 
your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers ; 
but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without 
blemish and without spot (i Pet. i. 18, 19).^ It is plain 
what dignity must have been ascribed to the person of 
Him to whose death such far-reaching efficacy is attri 
buted. 

We have in the beginning of the Revelation (i. 7) : Every 
eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him. Now 
the piercing of our Lord is only recorded by St. John ; and in 
this passage the prophet Zechariah is quoted in a form differ 
ing from the Septuagint, but agreeing with the Gospel. We 
have repeatedly the phrase he that overcometh, which is of 
frequent occurrence in all the Johannine books : Rev. ii. 7, 1 1, 
iii. 5, xii. n, xxi. 7; John xvi. 33 ; i John ii. 13, iv. 4, v. 4. 
The remarkable word aXyOivos occurs nine times in the Gos 
pel, four times in the Epistle, ten times in the Revelation, 
and only five times in all the rest of the New Testament. 
Similar evidence may be drawn from the prevalence of the 
words /xaprvpeou and /xaprvpta in all the Johannine books. In 
the Revelation (ii. 17) Jesus promises believers the hidden 
manna; in the Gospel (referring also to the manna) the 
true bread from heaven (John vi. 32). In the Gospel (vii. 37) 
Jesus cries, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and 
drink; in the Apocalypse (xxii. 17), Let him that is athirst 
come ; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life 
freely. f The abiding of God with man is in both books pre- 

* This is one of several coincidences between Peter s Epistle and the 
Johannine books : i Pet. ii. 5, 9, Rev. i. 6 ; I Pet. v. 13, Rev. xiv. 8, 
xvii. 5 ; i Pet. i. 7, 13, Rev. i. r, iii. 18 ; i Pet. i. 23, i John iii. 9, 
John i. 13, iii. 5; i Pet. i. 22, i John iii. 3; I Pet. v. 2, John x. n, xxi. 16; 

1 Pet. iii. 18, i John iii. 7; I Pet. i. 10, John xii. 41; I Pet. v. 13, 

2 John i. These coincidences seem to me more than accidental. When 
I come to treat of Peter s Epistle I will give my reasons for preferring the 
explanation that John had read that Epistle to the supposition that the 
Epistle is post-Johannine. 

t Other coincidences are: ovoji/oiV, John i. 14, Rev. vii. 15, xii. 12, 
xiii. 6, xxi. 3 ; Lord, thou knowest, Rev. vii. 14, John xxi. 15-17- *X eiv 
fj.pos (= to partake), John xiii. 8, Rev. xx. 6; ff^drrfiv, i John iii. 12, 
Rev. v. 6, 9, 12, vi. 4, 9, xiii. 3, 8, xviii. 24; fyis, John vii. 24, xi. 44, 



XIII.] THE DICTION OF THE APOCALYPSE. 237 

sented as the issue of Christ s work (John xiv. 23 ; Rev. iii. 20, 
xxi. 3). 

I have produced instances enough to establish decisively 
that there is the closest possible affinity between the Revela 
tion and the other Johannine books. The only question on 
which there is room for controversy is whether that affinity is 
such as by itself to be a sufficient proof of identity of author 
ship. In deciding on this question attention ought of course 
to be paid to the differences that have been pointed out. For 
example, our Lord s title is the Word of God in the Reve 
lation ; simply the Word in the Gospel. Christ is the Lamb 
in both books ; but in the Gospel 6 d/xvos, in the Revelation 
TO apviov ; but the latter form may have been preferred in order 
to give more point to the opposition which in the latter book 
constantly prevails between TO apviov and TO Orjpiov. In the 
Gospel there is a manifest reason why the Baptist, pointing 
to Jesus, should use the masculine, not the neuter. So, again, 
we have in the Revelation he that overcometh, absolutely; 
but in the preceding books with an object: he that over 
cometh the world, &c. There are likewise peculiarities of 
the Gospel which are absent from the Apocalypse, such as 
the use of Iva. with the subjunctive instead of the ordinary 
construction with the infinitive, and fondness for ovv as a con 
necting-link in a narrative. It would be important to discuss 
these differences if I were contending that it is possible by 
internal evidence alone to decide between the hypothesis that 
the author of the Gospel was the same as the author of the 
Revelation, and the hypothesis that the one was a disciple 
and imitator of the other. But the question with which we 

Rev. i. 16; njpeu rbv \6yov, Rev. iii. 8, 10, xxii. 7, 9, John viii. 51-55, 
xiv. 23, 24, xv. 20, xvii. 6, I John ii. 5 ; efipaiffTi twice in the Revelation, 
five times in the Gospel. None of these expressions are found in the New 
Testament, except in the Johannine books. Christ is compared to a 
bridegroom, John iii. 29, Rev. xix. 7, xxi. 2, xxii. 17. Other examples 
will be found in Davidson, whose candour here and elsewhere in fairly 
presenting the evidence on both sides is worthy of all praise. Notwith 
standing the perversity of some of his decisions, and, what is more irri 
tating, the oracular tone of infallibility with which he enunciates his private 
opinions as if they were ascertained facts, Davidson has done great 
service to English students by collecting a mass of information which they 
will not easily find elsewhere. 



238 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIII. 

are actually concerned is different: it is whether we are bound 
to reject the very strong external evidence for identity of 
authorship, on the ground that internal evidence demonstrates 
that both works could not have had the same author. I have 
shown that no such result can be obtained under the present 
head of argument, the resemblances between the books being 
far more striking than the differences. I suppose there are 
no two works of the same author between which some points 
of difference might not be found by a minute critic, especially 
if the works were written at some distance of time from each 
other. No two books can be more alike than the First and 
Second Epistles of St. John ; eight of the thirteen verses of 
which the latter consists are to be found in the former, either 
in sense or expression. Yet Davidson is careful to show that 
a minute critic would be at no loss for proofs of diversity of 
authorship. The one has ct TIS, the other lav TL<S ; the one 
ep^o/xevov ev <rap/a, the Other eXyXvOora. ev crap/a, and SO on. 
Some years ago Dr. Stanley Leathes* applied to our English 
poets the methods of minute criticism that have been freely 
used on our sacred books. He found that of about 450 words 
in Milton s L Allegro, over 300 are not to be found in the 
longer poem // Penseroso, and over 300 do not occur in the 
still longer poem Lycidas. So likewise, of about 590 words in 
Tennyson s Lotos-eaters, there are 360 which are not found in 
the longer poem (Enone. 

I pass to the last and strongest of the arguments of Dio- 
nysius : that drawn from the solecisms of style. The Gospel 
and First Epistle are written in what, if not classical Greek, 
is smooth, unexceptionable, and free from barbarisms and 
solecisms in grammar. The Greek of the Revelation is start 
ling from the first : John to the seven Churches of Asia, grace 
to you and peace O.TTO 6 wv KOU 6 rjv KOL 6 epxo//,ei/o?, and from 
the seven spirits which are before his throne KOL aV6 
Xptorrov 6 /xaprvs 6 TTKTTOS, to him that loved US T<3 
rjjjias KOL \ovcravTL i^ua? /cat tiroiiqa-ev ^/xas j3a<TL\iav. Instances of 
false apposition such as occur in this example present them 
selves several times where a noun in a dependent case has a 

* Boyle Lectures, 1868, p. 283. 



XIII.] THE DICTION OF THE APOCALYPSE. 239 

nominative in apposition with it.* It is not worth while to 
discuss other deviations from Greek usage, several that have 
been noticed not being peculiar to the Apocalypse. 

Some well-meaning critics have set themselves to exten 
uate these irregularities, and they have at least succeeded in 
showing that some considerable deductions ought fairly to be 
made from the list. They have produced from classical writers 
examples of anacoluthon, of false apposition, of construction 
ad sensum ; and it is urged with reason that we are not to 
expect in the abrupt utterances of a rapt seer, borne from 
vision to vision/ a regard for strict grammatical regularity, 
which is frequently neglected in calmer compositions. 

At the revival of learning, many excellent men were shocked 
at the assertion of scholars, that barbarisms and solecisms were 
to be found in New Testament Greek ; and those who were 
called Purists endeavoured to clear the sacred writers from 
what they regarded as a dishonouring aspersion. They ought 
to have reflected that it would be just as reasonable to main 
tain that the sacred writers ought to have been empowered 
to write in English, as in any kind of Greek save that which 
was spoken at the time and in the place in which they lived. 
It is difficult for us now to imagine how anyone could have 
persuaded himself to think that a miracle must needs have 
been wrought to enable the sacred writers to use a language 
not their own, thus obliterating the evidence which the 
character of the style bears to the time and circumstances 
under which the books were written. 

In the case of the Apocalypse, the character of the lan 
guage corresponds very well with what might be expected 
from the author to whom it is ascribed. It gives us no reason 
to disbelieve that this author had a sufficiency of Greek for 
colloquial purposes. His anacolutha do not prove him to be 
ignorant of the ordinary rules of Greek construction. The 
very rules which he breaks in one place he observes in others. 
The use of such a phrase as d-n-o 6 &v could not possibly be the 
result of ignorance that OLTTO governs the genitive case. One 

* Thus : TT)S Kaivrjs *lepovaa\ri/J., ?) KaTafiaivovffa (iii. 12), VITO/JLOV^ rcav 
aytoiv ol r-npovvTfs ras fi>ro\ds (xiv. 12), ri>v 5/m/coj/ra, b ofyts 
(xx. 2). 



240 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIII. 

who could make such a mistake through ignorance would be 
incapable of writing the rest of the book. This example is 
rather to be paralleled by * I AM hath sent me, in the autho 
rized version of Ex. iii. 14. This very text seems to have 
suggested the 6 <m/ of St. John, while 6 rjv is a bold attempt 
to supply the want of a past participle of the substantive 
verb. As for 6 ep^o/xevo?, there may possibly be a reference 
to our Lord s second coming, but it is also quite possible 
that the form eo-o/xcvo?, which only occurs once N. T., was 
not familiar to the writer. As there may be a great difference 
between the copiousness of the vocabulary possessed by two 
persons who speak the same language (the stock of words 
that suffices to express the ideas of the rustic being wholly 
inadequate for the necessities of the literary man), so there 
may be equal difference in respect of the variety of gramma 
tical forms habitually employed. In particular there is sure 
to be such a difference between the language of the native 
and that of the foreigner. One who learns a language late 
in life finds it hard to obtain a mastery of any complicated 
system of inflexions ; and this, no doubt, is why we find that 
in the modern languages of Europe which are derived from 
the Latin the varieties of case endings have been in great 
measure obliterated. We can thus understand how it is that 
John, accustomed to Aramaic which has no case endings, 
though not ignorant of the use of the oblique cases, is glad 
to slide back into the use of the nominative. Then, again, 
of the forms known to grammarians several are but rarely 
needed for practical use ; and with want of practice the 
power of correct use is apt to be lost. When I was young, 
members of the Society of Friends affected the use of the 
second person singular, but its use elsewhere had become so 
obsolete that they were unable to employ it grammatically. 
* Thee became a nominative case, and was made to agree 
with a verb in the third person.* A foreigner who has learned 
to manipulate correctly the grammatical forms which are of 

* Tennyson also has been lately accused of bad grammar in his use of 
the second person singular by employing wert in the indicative mood 
instead of wast. In this matter, however, he is kept in countenance by 
several preceding poets. 



XIII.] SOLECISMS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 241 

frequent occurrence will be apt to find them insufficient for 
his needs when he proceeds to literary composition. John, 
for example, might be in the constant habit of employing the 
participle present, and yet not be equally familiar with the 
use of participles future. The Apocalypse, then, is exactly 
what might have been written by one whose native language 
was Aramaic, who was able to use Greek for the ordinary 
purposes of life, but who found a strain put on his knowledge 
of the language when he desired to make a literary use of it. 

But how is it then that the Greek of the Gospel should 
be so much better, if both books were written by the same 
author ? I am not sure that the Greek of the Gospel does 
display so very much wider a knowledge of grammatical 
forms. A grammarian does not find so much at which to 
take exception ; but this may be because less has been 
attempted. It is much easier to turn into another language 
such sentences as In the beginning was the Word, &c., 
than such a phrase as which is, and which was, and which is 
to come. It is on account of this more restricted range of 
grammatical forms that the Gospel of St. John has been so 
often used as the first book of a beginner learning a foreign 
language.* 

But without extenuating too much the superiority of the 
Greek of the Gospel over that of the Revelation, two ex 
planations of that difference can be given. The opinion of 
critics, orthodox as well as sceptical, now tends to reverse the 
doctrine of older writers which made the Apocalypse much 
the later book of the two, and to give it, on the contrary, ten, 
perhaps twenty, years t}f greater antiquity than the Gospel. 
Admit that St. John was no longer young when he came to 
Ephesus, and therefore that no very radical change in his 
language was to be expected ; still, living in a Greek city, 
and with crowds of Greek disciples about him to whom he 
would daily have to expound his doctrines in their own 

* Canon Westcott says in his Introduction (p. 1), which I had not read 
when I wrote the above : To speak of St. John s Gospel as " written in 
very pure Greek" is altogether misleading. It is free from solecisms, 
because it avoids all idiomatic expressions. And he gees on to remark 
that there is at most one instance of the use of the oratio aibliqua. 



242 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIII. 

language, he could not fail to acquire greater facility in its 
use, and a power of expressing his ideas such as he had not 
possessed when he had merely used the language for ordinary 
colloquial purposes. There would have been fair ground for 
suspicion, if there had been no superiority over the Greek of 
the Apocalypse, in a book written after a score of years, 
during which the author was speaking little or no Aramaic, 
and must have been habitually speaking Greek. 

The second consideration is that of possible assistance. 
I have known two letters sent to the Continent bearing 
the same signature written in the same foreign language, 
but possibly differing from each other in grammatical accu 
racy as much as the Gospel and Apocalypse ; and the expla 
nation was not that the writer was different, but only that, in 
the one case, not in the other, he had taken the precaution 
before sending his composition to get it looked over by a 
better linguist than himself. St. Paul, we know, habitually 
used the services of an amanuensis ; so also may St. John ; 
and for all we know the disciple may have been a better 
Greek scholar than his master. If a solecism were dictated 
to him he might silently correct it (as we find that in the 
later MSS. scribes have corrected several in the Apocalypse), 
or he might at least call his master s attention to it. The 
linguistic differences, therefore, between the Apocalypse and 
the Gospel could all be accounted for by the supposition that 
John wrote the former book with his own hand, and in the 
latter employed the services of an amanuensis. In short, 
when we compare the books in an English translation, we 
find the marks of common authorship predominate : it is when 
we look at them in the Greek that we are struck by a dif 
ference. May not the explanation be, that the Apostle thought 
in Aramaic, and that his thoughts were rendered into Greek 
by different hands ? 

Such explanations being available, the differences of lan 
guage that have been pointed out come very far short of 
demonstrating diversity of authorship. The conclusion, then, 
to which I consider we are led by a comparative study of the 
books is, that the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books 
clearly belong to the same school : the first is as closely re- 



XIV.] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 243 

lated to the rest as the Epistle to the Hebrews is to St. Paul s 
Epistles. If we regard the evidence from language solely, I 
do not think we are in a position either to affirm or deny that 
the same man wrote all the books. There are resemblances 
between them such as to make it very credible that it was so ; 
but at the same time there are differences which indicate that 
the Revelation must at least have been written at a different 
time or under different circumstances from the others. Some 
other topics of internal evidence will afterwards come under 
consideration. 



XIV. 

PART III. 

THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 

IT will be convenient if before proceeding further I state in 
more detail the modern theory as to the date of the Book of 
the Revelation. I have already said that modern critics, who 
agree with Dionysius in assigning the Gospel and Apocalypse 
to different authors, differ from him by claiming Apostolic 
authority for the latter, not the former. And in this case we 
have the singular instance of sceptical critics assigning to a 
New Testament book an earlier date than the orthodox had 
claimed for it. The latter, following Irenasus, had assigned 
the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian, and had regarded 
it as the last work of the Apostle John, written in extreme 
old age. Modern critics, on the other hand, are willing to 
grant the book a quarter of a century of greater antiquity. 
From the verse xvii. 10, * There are seven kings: five are 
fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come, they 
infer that the book was written after the death of five Roman 
emperors, and during the reign of the sixth. There is a 
difference in the way of counting Roman emperors, which, 
however, is made not to affect the result. If we begin the 
reckoning with Augustus, Nero is the fifth, shortly after 
whose death the book is supposed to be written. In fact this 

R 2 



244 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIV. 

fixes the date within very narrow limits, for the reign of Galba 
only lasted from May 68 to January 69. The more usual 
computation made Julius the first of Roman emperors,* and 
this is adopted by Renan ; but the date which he assigns the 
book is the same ; for his theory is, that though Nero was 
really dead at the time, he was supposed by the author of the 
book to be still living, so that the five kings then dead were 
Nero s five predecessors. 

The disappearance of Nero was so sudden, and his death 
witnessed by so few persons, that vague rumours got abroad, 
especially in Asia and Achaia, that he was not really dead. 
Tacitus tells us (Hist. ii. 8, 9) that an impostor speedily took 
advantage of this state of feeling. He is said to have been 
of servile origin, was like Nero in personal appearance, and 
had the same musical skill. Giving himself out to be the 
emperor, he got some followers about him, and established 
himself in a little local sovereignty, the centre of his power 
being Cythnos (one of the Cyclades not far from Patmos), to 
which island he had been driven by tempests when crossing 
the sea. But his power was of short duration ; for he was 
slain early in the reign of Otho, and his body was sent round 
to different cities, in order completely to dispel the delusion 
which he had excited. Some twenty years later, however, 
there was again talk of a false Nero, the pretender this time 
having presented himself in Parthia, where he obtained cre 
dence, protection, and support (Suet., Nero, 57). The belief 
that the matricide Nero had fled beyond the Euphrates is 
expressed in the Sibylline books, iv. 119, 137, and accord 
ingly the book containing the verses referred to is judged to 
be a Jewish composition of the date 80 or 90. Now the 
Apocalyptist is regarded by Renan and the other interpreters 
of the same school as having shared this belief about Nero. 
This is what is supposed to be implied in the verses xiii. 3, 
12, 14 : I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death ; 
and his deadly wound was healed ; and again, xvii. 1 1 : The 
beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the 
seven, and goeth into perdition, which is interpreted to mean 

* See the authorities quoted by Renan, U Antechrist, p. 407. 



xiv.] KENAN S THEORY AS TO THE APOCALYPSE. 245 

that Nero, one of the seven emperors, was to return and rule 
for a time as the eighth. The mention of the kings of the 
East, xvi. 12, is interpreted as containing a reference to the 
Parthians, by whose aid Nero was to be restored.* 

This is the theory which is elaborated in Kenan s fourth 
volume (L? Ante christ}. It was at once accepted by a writer 
in the Edinburgh Review (Oct., 1874), whom I imagined at the 
time (I do not know whether or not correctly) to be Dean 
Stanley ; and more recently by Archdeacon Farrar (Expositor, 
1881). Kenan s view, and it is that most popular among 
Rationalist critics, is that this work was written by the 
Apostle John at Ephesus in that crisis which agitated every 
Jewish mind, the great Jewish war with the Romans, in the 
end of the year 68 or beginning of 69, a couple of years 
before the destruction of Jerusalem. What the seer is sup 
posed to anticipate and to predict in the beginning of the 
eleventh chapter is that the siege would to a certain extent be 
successful, and the city be trodden under foot of the Gentiles 
for three years and a-half ; but that the Temple should not be 
taken, for that our Lord s second coming should rescue the 
Jews and be accompanied by the destruction of Rome. 

The beast of the Revelation is said to be Nero, and 
Renan has revelled in the accumulation of a multitude of 
offensive details, which have been faithfully transcribed by 
his English followers, with the view of showing how applicable 
the title of wild beast was to that monster. But, in my opinion, 
no one who compares the Book of Daniel with the Apocalypse 
will require any ingenious explanation of the use of the imagery 
of beasts in the latter book beyond the fact that it occurs in 
the former. It is supposed, however, that all doubt has been 
now removed through the discovery in quite recent times of 

* I note here that it is an attempt to combine inconsistent hypotheses 
when quotations are accumulated which speak of the belief that Nero had 
fled to Parthia, and when this belief is ascribed to the Apocalyptist. For 
we only hear of Parthia in connexion with Nero full twenty years after 
that emperor s death ; and naturally it would not be until after all trace of 
him had disappeared from the West that the imagination would spring up 
that he was hiding in the distant East. If, as Renan would have it, John 
wrote in the reign of Galba, and believed the impostor of Cythnos to be 
the veritable Nero redivivus, he could not albo believe Nero to be then 
lurking in Parthia. On this subject may be consulted Arnold, Die Nero- 
nische Christenverfolgung, sect. viii. 



246 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIV. 

the true explanation of the mysterious number 666.* This is 
said to be Nero Caesar written in Hebrew letters *")Dp ]1"0-t 
And what is supposed to demonstrate the correctness of this 
solution is, that it accounts equally for the numbers 666 and 
6 1 6, both of which were early found in MSS. of the Apocalypse 
(see p. 224). For the difference is explained as arising from 
a difference in the way of spelling Ne/awv with or without the 
final letter, the numerical value of which in Hebrew is 50. 

Who the false prophet was, who is described (xiii. n, xix. 
20) as working miracles and compelling men to worship the 
beast and receive his mark, these interpreters are less agreed. 
One (Volkmar) gravely maintains that the person intended 
is St. Paul, who by instructing Christians (in Rom. xiii.) to 
submit to the higher powers had made himself the prophet 
of Nero. Another suggests that it might be the historian 
Josephus. A third contends for Simon Magus. Archdeacon 
Farrar upholds the claims of the emperor Vespasian. But 
these modern expositors of the Apocalypse all agree in 
putting forward an interpretation from which it results that 
the book is in every sense of the word a false prophecy a 
prediction falsified by the event. It foretold that Nero was 
to recover his power, but in point of fact he was then dead ; 
it foretold (and apparently in ignorance of the prophecy 
which Matthew has put into the mouth of our Lord) that the 
temple should not be taken ; but actually not one stone of 
it was left upon another ; and, finally, it foretold that the 
provinces should cast off the Roman domination and destroy 
the imperial city ; for this is the interpretation given to chap. 
xvi ; . 6, 17 the ten horns, into whose heart God had put it 
for a time to give their kingdom to the beast, shall now hate 
the whore, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh, and 
burn her with fire. But, in point of fact, the wars that fol 
lowed the death of Nero had no such result. On the contrary, 
under the Flavian emperors, the dominion of Rome was 
more firmly established than ever. 

* There are rival claimants for the honour of this discovery Fritzsche, 
JBenary, Reuss, and Hitzig. See Farrar, Expositor, p. 347. 

t Thus : i = 50, 1 = 200, 1=6, 3-50, p = 100, D = 60, n = 200 ; total 
= 666. 



XIV.] THE MODERN THEORY INCREDIBLE. 247 

I confess that I am under a certain disadvantage in criticizing 
any theory which professes to give the true interpretation of 
the Apocalypse, for I have to own myself unable to give any 
better solution of my own, feeling like one of Cicero s dispu 
tants, facilius me, talibus de rebus, quid non sentirem, quam 
quid sentirem, posse dicere. However, I am bound to state 
the difficulties which prevent me from accepting the theory, 
now becoming fashionable, as furnishing the true solution. 

And it seems almost enough to appeal to the estimation in 
which the Apocalypse has been held from the first. Is it a 
credible hypothesis that any man ever gained for himself 
permanent reputation as an inspired prophet by making a 
prediction which was falsified within a year of the time when it 
was delivered ? According to this theory, St. John does not, 
like some pretenders to the gift of prophecy, make himself 
pretty safe by postponing to some tolerably distant future the 
date when his prophecy is to come to pass. He undertakes 
boldly to foretell the event of the great military operation of 
his time. For a parallel case we should imagine Victor Hugo, 
or some other French prophet, in Christmas, 1870, issuing a 
prediction that Paris should to a certain extent be taken, and 
a third part of the city burnt, but that the Germans should 
not get the mastery over the whole ; for that there would be 
an uprising of the other German nations against the Prussians, 
ending with the total destruction of the city of Berlin, to the 
great joy of Europe. We can imagine some one mad enough 
to make such a prophecy as this ; but if so, can we imagine 
that a prediction so wild and so unfortunate should make the 
reputation of the prophet, and that the book which contained 
it should live for generations as an inspired document ? In 
the case of the Apocalypse, as we are asked to understand it, 
the seer could hardly have had time to publish his predictions 
before he must have himself wished to recall or suppress 
them, their failure was so rapid. Possibly within a month after 
they were made the pretended Nero was killed and his im 
posture exposed. Then came a rapid succession of emperors, 
proving that it was a mistake to limit their number to seven, 
and, not long after, the destruction of Jerusalem, from which 
the Temple did not escape. 



H 8 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIV. 

According to this theory, too, we must suppose that the 
intention of the Apocalypse was understood at the time it was 
published. For otherwise what object could there be in the 
work ? It was intended, we are told, to inspire in Christians 
certain hopes and expectations ; and in order to have this 
effect, its general purpose, at least, must have been made 
plain. And yet the knowledge of the writer s meaning com 
pletely perished. Irenseus, separated from the book by only one 
generation, and professing to be able to report the tradition 
concerning the number of the beast handed down by men who 
had seen John face to face, is utterly ignorant of its purport. 
The solution of Nero for 666 is quite unknown to him, and 
he is so far from connecting the book with the times of Nero 
as to refer the work to the reign of Domitian.* He has not 
the least suspicion that recourse is to be had to the Hebrew 
alphabet, but treats it as a self-evident principle that Greek 
numerals are to be employed. f 

* On this subject Davidson says (Introduction, i 276), Irenaeus calls 
the emperor Domitian ; Epiphanius calls him Claudius ; the Syriac version 
of the Apocalypse, Nero, with which Theophylact agrees. Davidson 
omitted to caution his readers that all these authorities are not of equal 
value, but I find it not superfluous to add this warning. The student 
cannot too early learn to disregard writers cited as authorities, if they 
have no real knowledge of the matters in respect of which their testi 
mony is appealed to. In the present case, Irenaeus deserves to be listened 
to, for he claims, as I have said, to be able to report the testimony of 
those who had seen John face to face. We may have good reasons for 
rejecting his statement, but among good reasons cannot be reckoned the 
opposing testimony of writers whose authority in opposition to his is 
absolutely insignificant. Concerning Epiphanius I have spoken, p. 168. 
He probably got the Claudian date, which is certainly wrong, from the 
Apocryphal act?- of Leucius, which will be described in a later lecture. 
The Syriac version referred to is certainly not earlier than the sixth cen 
tury, and there is no evidence to show that the superscription which 
mentions Nero is as old as the version. Of Theophylact, it is enough to 
say that he lived at the end of the eleventh century. 

"f TOV \6yov SiSaffKovros r)/*as, OTI 6 apid/j.bs TOV bvou.a.Tos TOV Q-rjplov Karat 
T^JV TWV E\\T)i>uv tyrifyov Sia TUV ev avT< ypa/u/u.drcav [e/X(/>au/eTai, Euseb^ 
If. E. v. 8] sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex (Lat. trans., Iren. v. 30). 
I suspect that Eusebius, in abridging his extract, has slightly distorted the 
meaning. He makes Irenaeus say that reason teaches that the calculation 
must be made by Greek letters, which seems a bold assertion. But I take 
it that what Irenaeus looks on as established by the arguments he has used 
is, that the numerical value of the Greek letters in the name of the beast 
must make, not 616, but six hundreds, six tens, six units. But either 
way he takes for granted, without doubt, that the calculation must be 
made by Greek numerals. 



XIV.] IMPUTATION OF FAILURE, HOW DECLINED. 249 

The argument just used, that permanent reputation could 
not have been gained by a prophecy which signally failed, 
may seem to lose its force if it be true (as the Edinburgh 
Reviewer contends) that St. John s prophecy, as he under 
stands it, did not fail. It is perfectly certain, he writes, 
that Nero did not in fact return ; that the Roman Empire 
did not in fact break up till more than three centuries 
later ; that not a part but the whole of Jerusalem and of the 
Jewish Temple was destroyed; that the Second Advent of our 
Lord to judgment did not soon, nay, has not yet occurred. 
But in spite of all this, we venture to say that the Apocalypse 
of St. John, that Hebrew prophecy, on the whole, has never 
theless not failed ; that, properly understood, its forecasts 
have been, for every rational and religious purpose, success 
ful. And he goes on to explain that it is religious confidence 
in God which is the essential teaching of all the Hebrew 
books ; that in the Bible * all ethical speculation is reduced 
to its ultimate and most practical terminology in the word 
"faith." In details we are very likely to be entirely mis 
taken, but they who have believed will find at last that they 
were not deceived, that Christ, not Antichrist, rules the 
universe, that God and not the devil is supreme, and must in 
the end be triumphant. Mere soothsaying, we are told, was 
never in any marked degree the intention of prophecy at all. 
But when Apocalypse, which may be called the decay, the 
senility of prophecy, began to busy itself with mere world- 
empires and with the political succession of events, it cannot 
be a matter of surprise if its predictions went astray. But 
though a succession of Apocalyptic efforts to sketch out the 
future triumph of God s kingdom over the world-empires 
signally failed in time, in place, in circumstance, it more 
signally came true in the barbarian overthrow of the Roman 
Empire, and the establishment of modern Christendom. 

Substantially the same view is taken by Archdeacon Farrar. 
He censures Luther s remark that for many reasons he re 
garded the book as neither Apostolic nor prophetic. The 
Archdeacon holds it to be both, and considers that Luther s 
unwarrantable judgment proceeded from a deficient acquaint 
ance with the necessary characteristics of the Apocalyptic 



250 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIV. 

style. The Apocalyptic method differed from the prophetic, 
and appears to stand upon a lower level of predictive insight. 
But the prophecies of this book have springing and germinant 
developments. Nero did not, as was popularly supposed, 
take refuge among the Parthians, and was not restored by 
their means ; but the prophecy has received an adequate 
fulfilment in the appearance of successive Antichrists with 
Neronian characteristics, Domitian, Decius, Diocletian, and 
many a subsequent persecutor of the saints of God. 

It is not the business of this course of lectures to discuss 
the proper method of interpreting prophecy ; for the purposes 
of my argument it is enough to know what was the method of 
interpretation which prevailed at the time the Apocalypse 
was published. Now I feel myself safe in saying that the 
view is quite modern which regards prophecy as a kind of 
sacred song of which the melody only need be attended to, 
the words to which the air is set being quite unimportant. 
The ideas of the Jewish mind had been formed by the Mosaic 
direction (Deut. xviii. 22) : When a prophet speaketh in the 
name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, 
that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the 
prophet hath spoken it presumptuously. Even if this rule 
had not the sanction of Revelation, it expresses the view of 
the matter which uninstructed people are apt to take. It may 
be true that mere soothsaying is not the intention of pro 
phecy ; but still they will think that if what the prophet says 
is not sooth he is no real prophet. And it is difficult to put 
them off with evasions. A fortune-teller accused of obtaining 
money on false pretences would plead in vain that though the 
actual good things she had promised were not fulfilled, her 
customers would find her predictions true, in the sense that if 
they had faith and patience something good would somehow, 
at some time or other, turn up. I remember what success 
Dr. Gumming had as an interpreter of Apocalyptic prophecy ; 
how eagerly new books of his were welcomed, and by what 
thousands they were sold. But he did what St. John is said 
to have done, namely, venture on predictions, the truth of 
which the next following three or four years would test. 
Dr. Gumming was surely entitled to all the allowances for 



XIV.] IMPERFECT SUCCESS OF MODERN SOLUTIONS. 251 

want of accuracy in his forecasts that can be demanded for 
the author on whom he commented ; yet, when the things 
which he foretold did not come to pass, his credit fell and 
his books disappeared. And I see no reason to think that 
Christians in the first century were more indulgent critics 
<of Apocalyptic predictions. And so I still feel that the 
success obtained by the Book of the Revelation of St. John 
throws a great difficulty in the way of our receiving the 
modern explanation of its design. If the book, considered 
as a prophecy, failed as completely as Dr. Cumming s, why 
did it not fall into the same oblivion as Dr. Cumming s 
books ? 

When I lay down one of those modern essays which claim 
to give a key to the meaning of the book, on the ground of a 
plausible explanation of three or four selected texts, and then 
take up the book itself, I find such a want of correspondence 
that I can only compare the case to a claim to have solved 
a double acrostic, advanced on the score of a fair guess at 
two or three of the * lights, without any attempt being made 
to elucidate the rest. If the book was intended to assure the 
minds of Christians by informing them of the result of the 
siege of Jerusalem, or of the political movements of their 
own time, that idea is strangely cast into the background. 
It is only the opening chapters which appear to speak of 
then present events, and these are occupied not with tem 
poral matters in Judea, but with the spiritual condition of 
the Churches of Asia Minor. The theme of the whole book 
is our Lord s second coming ; it is only by laborious search 
that a verse here and there can be found, of which a political 
explanation can be offered. In order to accept the most 
successful of the explanations, a good deal of charitable 
allowance for vagueness must be made. If we are to con 
fine interpreters to the date they themselves fix, the reign of 
Galba (and a later date involves the abandonment of the key- 
text, that about the seven kings), at that time the blockade of 
Jerusalem had not been formed ; and so the description (xi. 2) 
of the capture of the city, and of the treading down of the 
outer court of the Temple by the Gentiles, must be owned to 
have been suggested by nothing which had then actually 



252 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIV. 

occurred. It is idle to suppose, as some have done, that 
xvii. 1 6 refers to the burning of the Capitol, for that only 
took place in the subsequent contests between the parties of 
Vitellius and Vespasian : idle also to find references in the 
book to the assumption by Vespasian of miraculous power at 
Alexandria, or to his forbidding corn ships to sail to Rome : 
still more idle to find references to the supposed flight of 
Nero to Parthia. Take the book anywhere, and ask the in 
terpreters to condescend to details, and point out how they 
are to be explained as referring to events in the reign of 
Galba, and they are at once at a loss. I have already re 
ferred to the discordance between interpreters of this school 
as to who is intended by the false prophet. Still less can 
they explain what is told about him. He works miracles ; 
he brings fire down from heaven ; he gives life to the image 
of the beast and makes it speak ; he causes those that refuse 
to worship the beast s image to be killed ; he causes all to 
receive the mark of the beast in their right hand or in their 
forehead ; he permits no man to buy or sell who has not this 
mark.* Who is there at the date in question who can be 
described as having done, or as being thought likely to do, 
any of these things ? Renan explains the prohibition to buy 
or sell as referring to the use of the imperial effigy on coins,, 
which a strict Jew would think it idolatrous to use. Our 
Lord s question, Whose is this image and superscription ? 
may assure us that before the reign of Nero Jews had been 
asked to use such coins, and had made no scruple. Then 
again, who are the two witnesses (ch. xi.) from whose mouth 
fire proceeds to destroy their enemies, who have power to 
withhold rain and to smite the earth with other plagues, who 
are finally to be slain, and whose bodies are to lie three days 
and a-half in the streets of Jerusalem ? I think that interpre 
ters ought to be modest in their belief that they have got the 
right interpretation of the second verse of this chapter when 

* Neither Farrar s nor Kenan s explanation of this is so natural as that we 
have here a plain prediction of boycotting; and sure enough 7ra/>/WAAos 
makes 666. But seriously, exclusion from ordinary traffic was a common 
result of the calumnies circulated against Christians (see the letter of the 
Churches of Vienne and Lyons, Euseb. v. I, a document which quotes the 
Apocalypse as Scripture). 



XIV.] THE SOLUTION NERO CAESAR. 253 

they must own that their method will not carry them a single 
verse further. On the whole, it seems to me that Dr. Gum 
ming could find quite as many coincidences to justify his 
methods of interpretation as those on which the more recent 
school relies. 

But it has been supposed that a demonstration of the 
correctness of the latter methods is afforded by the fact that 
the numerical value of the letters of Nero Caesar is 666, and 
that this is so unquestionably the right solution of the number 
of the beast, that we may regard Irenaeus s ignorance of it as 
a proof that he knew nothing about the matter. It seems to 
me, on the contrary, that a man must know very little of the 
history of the interpretations of this number if he can flatter 
himself that because he has found a word the numerical value 
of whose letters makes the required sum he is sure of having 
the true solution. Pages might be filled with a list of persons 
whose names have been proposed as solutions of the pro 
blem. Among the persons supposed to be indicated are the 
emperors Caligula, Titus, Trajan, and Julian the Apostate, 
Genseric the Vandal, Popes Benedict IX. and Paul V., Maho 
met, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Beza, Archbishop Laud, and 
Napoleon Bonaparte. There are three rules by the help of 
which I believe an ingenious man could find the required sum 
in any given name.* First, if the proper name by itself will 
not yield it, add a title ; secondly, if the sum cannot be found 
in Greek, try Hebrew, or even Latin ; thirdly, do not be too 
particular about the spelling. The use of a language different 



* I remember that I once sent to Bishop Fitz Gerald a proof that 666 
was the sum of the letters of the name of some opponent at the time, but 
was rash enough to add that I believed that no retaliation could be made 
either on his name or mine. In reply he presented me with the solution 
jinbto ">r> 5 but he added the Horatian caution : 

Tu ne quaesieris, quern mihi quern tibi 
Finem Di dederint, nee Babylonios 
Tentaris numeros. 

Young computers must be warned against an error into which some 
have fallen, viz. that of confounding the Episemon, which denotes six in 
the Greek arithmetical notation, either with the final sigma, or with the 
comparatively modern abbreviation for err, which printers now use also for 
the Episemon, thereby so misleading simple readers, that I have found in 



2 $4 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIV. 

from that to which the name properly belongs allows a good 
deal of latitude in the transliteration. For example, if Nero 
will not do, try Caesar Nero. If this will not succeed in 
Greek, try Hebrew ; and in writing Kaisar in Hebrew be sure 
to leave out the Jod, which would make the sum too much by 
ten. We cannot infer much from the fact that a key fits the 
lock if it is a lock in which almost any key will turn. Irenaeus, 
I think, drew a very sensible inference from the multiplicity 
of solutions which he was himself able to offer. He says (v. 
30) : It is safer therefore and less hazardous to await the 
event of the prophecy than to try to guess or divine the name, 
since haply the same number may be found to suit many 
names. For if the names which are found to contain the 
same number prove to be many, which of them will be borne 
by the coming one will remain a matter of inquiry. 

But it may be urged, that though we could not build much 
on the fact that the letters of Nero Caesar make 666, yet the 
correctness of this solution is assured by its also giving the 
explanation of the number 616. But not to say that it shares 
this advantage with other solutions containing a name ending 
in <ov, let us consider what is assumed when we lay stress on 
the fact that a single name gives the explanation of two 
different numbers. It is assumed that the answer to the 
riddle must have been better known than the riddle itself. 
There must have been a wide knowledge that Nero Caesar 
was intended, and that the calculation was to be made in 
Hebrew letters, whereupon calculators who spelt the name 
differently adapted the number in their copies to the sum 
which they respectively brought out. But if there had been 

a scientific article the information that the name of the numerical sign is 
Stau ! It need hardly be said that no light is cast on the number 666 by 
observing how it looks when expressed in modern cursive characters. In 
extant uncial MSS. the number is written in words at length, and Irenseus 
appears to have so read it in his own MS., though he conjectures that the 
various reading 616 originated in MSS. where the number was written in let 
ters. His words are (v. 30), Hoc autem arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse, 
ut solet fieri, quoniam et per literas numeri ponuntur, facile literam Grae- 
cam quae sexaginta emmtiat numerum, in iota Graecorum literam expansam. 
(See Heumann in Biblioth. Brem., i. p. 869 ; Godet, BibL Studies, N. T., 
p. 353, Lyttleton s Transl. ; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, Bk. iv.> 
c. xxviii. s. 5). 



xiv.] VISCHER S THEORY. 255 

such widespread knowledge of the solution as is thus assumed, 
it is incredible that it should have been so completely lost 
when Irenaeus tried to learn what was known of the matter by 
the disciples of John, and was quite sure that the calculation 
was to be made by Greek letters. I think, therefore, that 
no interpreter at the present day is justified in feeling the 
assurance, professed by some, that his solution is the only 
right one. 

Although I find myself unable to believe that Irenaeus 
could be entirely in error as to the whole object and drift of 
the Apocalypse, I do not see equal difficulty in the supposition 
that he might have been mistaken as to the date. I believe 
that it is an earlier book than the Gospel, both on account of 
the character of the Greek and for other reasons, on which 
see Westcott s Introduction (Speaker s Commentary, p. Ixxxvi). 
Nor do I think the time soon after the death of Nero an im 
probable date. I am well disposed to adopt Kenan s conjec 
ture that St. John had been in Rome and witnessed the 
Neronian persecution, and that his book was written while 
the impression made by those scenes of blood was still fresh 
(Rev. xvii. 6 ; xviii. 20, 24; vi. 9, 10). 



In what precedes, I had more than once (pp. 29, 252) had 
occasion to point out that inferences drawn from verses here 
and there in the Apocalypse fail to commend themselves, 
when the whole book is taken into consideration. Since these 
lectures were published, Vischer, a German theological stu 
dent, has found a way of meeting these difficulties, which has 
been enthusiastically adopted by his teacher Harnack. Thus, 
it is hoped to reconcile the supposed narrow Judaism of part 
of the work with the universalism of chap. vii.,and the Neronic 
date deduced from chaps, xi., xii., xiii., xvii., with the tradition 
which places the book in the reign of Domitian. The theory, 
in short, is that the book is composite, being in the main a 
purely Jewish Apocalypse written about the year 69, but 
edited, some quarter of a century later, by a Christian who 
has prefixed an introduction, added a conclusion, and made 
occasional interpolations. If we desire to know what was 



256 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIV. 

the original Apocalypse, we are taught that we have nothing 
to do but strike out of our present text every phrase or 
sentence that betrays a knowledge of Christianity. It is 
not more difficult than that. In some cases the excision of a 
single phrase will suffice. Thus, for example, The kingdom 
of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His 
Christ ; Ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets ; Which 
keep the Commandments of God, and hold the testimony 
of Jesus ; The song of Moses, and the song of the Lamb? 
In all these cases we have only to strike out the words in 
italics. The rule, indeed, that the words the Lamb must be 
struck out wherever they occur embarrasses us a little on 
their first introduction (v. 6), where the seals of the book 
are described as opened by a Lamb standing as though it 
had been slain. When these words are struck out, who is 
left to open the seals ? Vischer suggests, that v. 5 would lead 
us to think that what had stood in the original was a lion, 
not a lamb. In other cases whole verses have to be left out; 
for Christian verses will intrude themselves in the most 
improper places. For instance, the kernel of the whole 
composition is said to be chaps, xi. and xii., in which the purely 
Jewish character of the book is most unmistakeably mani 
fested. Yet in chap. xi. there is a verse (v. 8) which must 
be cancelled as mentioning the city where our Lord was 
crucified; and in chap, xii., another (v. 12), which Vischer 
likewise finds it necessary to strike out. I will not delay to 
speak of some longer passages which must be cancelled, such 
as v. 9-14, vii. 9-17, xiv. 1-5, and above all, the introduction 
consisting of three chapters. It is to be noted that, when 
these are removed, a fearful wound is made ; for the original 
Jewish Apocalypse, as Vischer prints it, begins : After these 
things I saw, and behold a door opened in heaven ; and the 
first voice which I heard, a voice as of a trumpet speak 
ing with me. It is clear that the original Apocalypse must 
have contained, if not our present introduction, some other 
introduction, and one agreeing with the present in including 
a verse like i. 10, in which mention is made of a voice like 
that of a trumpet. Vischer conjectures that the original 
introduction named as the seer one of the old prophets. 



xiv.] VISCHER S THEORY. 257 

It is difficult to encounter an antagonist who comes arrayed 
in impenetrable armour, or it would be more correct to say, 
one who runs away from every blow. It is hard to refute a 
theorist who feels himself at liberty to reject as an interpo 
lation every passage inconsistent with his theory. Mr. Chase 
has shown* that it can be demonstrated in the same way that 
the First Epistle to the Thessalonians is a purely Jewish docu 
ment with a few Christian interpolations. I dare say it would 
be possible to set the epistles of Phalaris on their legs again, 
by striking out all the passages in which Bentley pointed out 
notes of modernness ; and it would be worth the while of a 
Roman Catholic advocate to try whether, by judicious readi 
ness to surrender every assailed position, he might not be able 
to find in the Decretal Epistles, after a few excisions had been 
made, a genuine collection of early Papal letters. True, he 
would have to face the objection that the Decretal Epistles 
exhibit complete unity of style ; but Vischer has to encounter 
this same objection, for the very peculiar character of the 
Greek of the first three chapters pervades the entire book. 
So he modifies his hypothesis by the supposition that the 
original Apocalypse was in Aramaic, and that it is because 
the editor was translator as well, that we find his style im 
pressed on the whole book. But the introduction is connected 
with what follows, not only by unity of style, but by several 
cross-references. Thus, compare ii. 7, xxii. 2; ii. n, xx. 6, 
xxi. 8; ii. 16, xix. 21 ; ii. 17, xix. 12, xxii. 4; ii. 27, xix. 15, 
xii. 5; iii. 5, xx. 15; iii. 12, xxi. 10, xxii. 4; iii. 21, v. 6, 
xx. 4. Sabatier,f who points out these and other coincidences, 
though he has persuaded himself of the use of a Jewish docu 
ment in the later chapters, finds it impossible to discover any 
breach of continuity in the earlier chapters of the book. 

Vischer urges as an argument in favour of his hypothesis 
that the number of interpolations he is obliged to assume is 
extremely small ; but this fact really tells the other way. For 
the writer of the first three chapters must surely have been a 
man of considerable fertility of imagination ; and though we 

* Expositor, ill. v. 179. 

t Les origines litteraires et la composition de V Apocalypse de Saint Jean, 
extrait de la Revue de theologie et de philosophic. 



258 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIV. 

may admit it to be possible that in writing a book of prophetic 
visions he may have used ideas suggested to him by some pre 
viously published apocalypse, we cannot think it likely that 
he would have just slavishly copied that earlier book, merely 
throwing in a Christian phrase here and there. If it is said 
that, being himself a Jew by birth and training, and in habits 
of thought, he was quite satisfied with an apocalypse as Jewish 
as that which he has adapted, where is the impossibility of his 
having written it ? The difficulty is increased when we find 
that the Christian editor is not anonymous. He claims to 
be, if not the Apostle John, as the Christian Church, from 
the time of Justin Martyr downwards has supposed, at least 
a personage well known to the Churches of Asia, to whom his 
letter was addressed. He tells them of visions which he had 
seen, and which our Lord in person had charged him to 
write in a book and send it to these Churches. The pronoun 
I runs through the book, which closes by repeating the 
assertion that it was John himself who had seen these things 
and heard them. Previous critics who recognized in the 
book no divine revelation could at least think respectfully of 
the writer whose imagination had been fired in brooding over 
the great events of his time, and who sincerely believed him 
self to be commissioned to deliver a prophetic message. But 
now we are asked to think of him as a cold-blooded literary 
forger, who has got hold of the work of an earlier writer, and 
making some trivial changes in it, passes it off as his own. 
And what a terrible risk he ran ! A Christian who found a 
Jewish apocalypse ascribed to Enoch, or Ezra, or Baruch, if 
he preserved the title, could, without much danger of ex 
posure, add a few touches to improve the doctrinal teaching 
of the book. If the improved edition fell into the hands of 
one acquainted with the older form, it might not be difficult 
to persuade him that the fuller form was the genuine one. 
But it would be a very different thing if a reader detected 
that the revelations which John claimed to have seen and 
heard himself were nothing but transcripts from a work 
ascribed to one of the elder prophets. What should we 
think of anyone now who should copy verbatim the 6th of 
Isaiah, and publish it as an account of something that had 



xiv.] VISCHER S THEORY. 259 

happened to himself? Or, since such conduct is scarce con 
ceivable, what would be thought of the author of a book of 
travels, if it was discovered that whole pages had been copied 
from an earlier book of travels, and if all the adventures 
which the elder traveller had passed through were told as 
having happened to the younger. It would surely be said 
that he was an impostor who had never been in the countries 
which he described. Literary morality may not have been as 
strict in the first century as in the nineteenth ; but it never 
could have been lax enough to tolerate plagiarism of the 
kind ascribed to St. John. 

Sabatier s theory in some measure escapes this objection. 
He points out that the plan of the book is a scheme of seven 
seals, seven trumpets, seven vials ; and he considers that, as 
the opening of the seventh seal introduces the seven trumpets, 
so ought the sounding of the seventh trumpet to introduce 
the seven vials. But, in point of fact, between the sounding of 
the seventh trumpet (xi. 15) and the pouring out of the vials 
(ch. xvi.) there is a great interruption. We have interpolated 
(ch. xii.) the vision of the birth of the Messiah, the vision of 
the beast and the false prophet (ch. xiii.), and the judgment of 
the great whore (xvii., xviii.). This intrusive matter Sabatier 
regards as derived from an earlier non-Christian source ; and 
he considers that the author has made sufficient acknowledg 
ment of obligation in his account (x. 8) of a little book 
given him by an angel. Anyone who might chance to have 
been previously acquainted with the interpolated section 
would perceive that John did not give it as part of his own 
visions, but as the contents of the little book which he then 
received. 

Now, in the first place, without laying any stress on the 
special character of the Apocalypse, it would be thought 
strange criticism even of a book of the present day if it were 
inferred that, because an author had not carried out his plans 
with perfect regularity, therefore he must be stealing his 
materials from some independent source. Why, the most 
eminent writers of fiction have complained that in the act of 
composition they lose command of their pen, which seems as 
if it had a will of its own : characters meant to be subordinate 

S2 



260 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XIV. 

assume a place not intended for them ; and what had been de 
signed to be a mere episode swells into a principal part of the 
story. But it is more important to observe that the questioned 
chapters do not, as Vischer and Sabatier suppose, differ from 
the rest of the book, or betray a distinctly Judaic non-Christian 
character. Thus, for instance, we are told that the Messiah, 
bom in the izth chapter, is not Jesus Christ. I will not dwell 
on one supposed proof, which can be easily answered, viz. 
that the Apocalypse deals with the future, and therefore 
that we cannot have here a Christian reference to a past 
event. But it is said that there is not a word about the 
Crucifixion or the historic life of Jesus. The Messiah 
is bom, and then at once caught up to the throne of 
God. But it must be remembered that the chapter in the 
Apocalypse is symbolical : the scene is laid in heaven ; so 
that we could not expect to read of the Crucifixion or any 
other event of our Lord s earthly life. But the whole concep 
tion of the 1 2th chapter is essentially Christian. It tells of a 
Messiah whose triumph is delayed, and whose course begins in 
persecution. This chapter occurs in that stage of the visions 
when the seventh trumpet has sounded, when, as we are told 
(x. 7), the mystery of God is finished, according to the good 
tidings which He declared to His servants the prophets. The 
sounding of the trumpet is received with acclamation in 
heaven : The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom 
of our Lord (xi. 15). Then comes the appearance of him 
who is to rule all nations with a rod of iron (xii. 5). Surely 
if this had been a purely Jewish Apocalypse we should read 
of the Messiah coming in victory and triumph. Instead of 
that, he is only born as a child ; he is persecuted with such 
violence that the woman who has borne him must flee into 
the wilderness ; and, in order to preserve his own life, he 
must be caught up to the throne of God. It is not until 
chap. xix. 1 1 that we read of the coming of the Messiah from 
heaven; the whole description having many striking resem 
blances with the Christian expectation, as stated 2 Thess. i.y, 8, 
that the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His 
mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that 
know not God. It seems to me certain that no Jew, ignorant 



xiv.] VISCHER S THEORY. 261 

of our Lord s history, would have formed such an expectation 
of the appearance of his Messiah as is presented in chap, 
xii. 

Again, the section on the fall of Babylon is supposed to 
express only the undying animosity of the Jew against the 
Roman. There is something more : the animosity is against 
the city of Rome. We could understand a mere Jew being 
full of indignation against Roman domination, as exercised in 
his own land or in the provinces ; but in this case it is in the 
city of Rome that * is found the blood of prophets and of saints 
(xviii. 24) ; this woman is drunk with the blood of the saints 
(xvii. 6) : see also xviii. 20. I have allowed Vischer to erase the 
mention of the blood of the martyrs of Jesus in xvii. 6 ; but it 
seems to me that the whole description is unintelligible if we 
suppose anything else referred to than the slaughter of 
Christians in the Neronic persecution. Jews were not perse 
cuted for their religion by the Romans as they had been in 
the time of Antiochus Epiphanes ; certainly we know nothing 
of the kind as happening in Rome itself. I think we can 
also trace the hand of one who had personally visited Rome 
in the magnificent description (ch. xviii.) of the mercantile 
greatness of the city. We naturally think of Rome as the 
seat of empire ; but I do not think it would have occurred to 
one who had not witnessed the throng of merchants and the 
abundance of all manner of precious things which they had 
brought in, to give such a description of Rome as might seem 
suitable only to a commercial city like Tyre. 

Lastly, I do not understand how Vischer and Sabatier can 
reconcile with their system their adherence to what has now 
become the traditional rationalistic explanation of xi. 2, viz. that 
we have here a false prophecy that in the siege of Jerusalem the 
enemy should not succeed incapturingmore than the outer court 
of the Temple which they were to hold for forty-two months. 
How those within were to be provisioned for that time we are 
not told. But, according to the theory of Vischer and Sabatier, 
we have in the Book of the Revelation a work published by a 
Christian who lived long enough after the siege of Jerusalem 
to know that the capture of the city, Temple and all, had been 
complete. If he found the verse xi. 2, as is alleged, in a previous 



262 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XV. 

document he could not possibly have understood it, as do our 
modern interpreters, else he would have known the book to be 
a false prophecy, not worth the trouble he bestowed on it. He 
must, therefore, have interpreted the passage symbolically, 
and have regarded the temple that was measured as being not 
the material Temple in Jerusalem, but its prototype in heaven. 
And so likewise with the first readers of the book. If there 
had been, as Vischer imagines, a previous Apocalypse in Ara 
maic it must have been unknown to the first readers of the 
present book, otherwise our author would not have ventured to 
plagiarize from it so largely. These readers, every one of 
whom well knew that the Temple was utterly destroyed, could 
not have put the modern interpretation on this passage. What 
then can be more paradoxical than to hold that the only 
legitimate interpretation of a book is one that was not 
dreamed of, either by him who first published it, or by its 
first readers ? 



xv. 
PART IV. 

THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE QUARTODECIMANS. 

I COME now to state another objection to the antiquity of 
the fourth Gospel, which has been repeated in tones of the 
utmost triumph, as if it were unanswerable. At least it used 
to be ; but even the few years that I have been lecturing have 
been long enough to enable me to see the dying out of some 
objections that once were regarded as formidable. This argu 
ment, which I am now about to state, was not long since 
greatly relied on by the assailants of the Gospel ; but now I 
think the more candid and cautious are inclined to abandon 
it as worthless. What the argument aims at proving is, that 
the Quartodecimans, who in the second century predominated 
in the Churches of Asia Minor, did not recognize the authority 
of the fourth Gospel, or own John as its author. Now since 
according to all the evidence, Asia Minor was the birthplace 
of that Gospel, and the place where its authority was earliest 



XV.] THE QUARTODECIMANS. 263 

acknowledged, the fact of its actual reception there is so well 
established, that it is natural to think there must be some 
flaw in an argument which undertakes to show by an indirect 
process that the Asiatic Churches could not have accepted it. 
The objection is founded on a real difficulty in an apparent 
discrepancy between the fourth and the Synoptic Evangelists. 
In reading the first three Evangelists we feel no doubt that 
our Lord celebrated the feast of the passover on the night 
before He suffered. St. Matthew tells us expressly (xxvi. 17) 
that on the first day of unleavened bread our Lord sent the 
message My time is at hand, I will keep the passover at 
thy house with My disciples; that the disciples did as Jesus 
commanded, and made ready the passover, and when the 
even was come Jesus sat down with the disciples. St. Mark 
(xiv. 12) adds that this was the day when they sacrificed the 
passover. St. Luke closely agrees with St. Mark, and adds 
(xxii. 15) that our Lord said : With desire I have desired to 
eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you I 
will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the king 
dom of God. Thus, according to these three Evangelists, 
our Lord ate the passover on the evening of the first day of 
unleavened bread, and suffered the following day. St. John, 
on the other hand, tells us (xiii. i) that the supper at which 
our Lord told the disciples that one of them should betray 
Him was before the feast of the passover. When Judas 
leaves the room, the other disciples think that Jesus has 
commissioned him to buy the things that they had need of 
against the feast (xiii. 29), implying that the feast was still 
future. Next day the Jews refuse to enter the judgment-seat, 
that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover 
(xviii. 28). Thus the impression left by John s narrative is, 
that Jesus did not eat the passover, but that He suffered on 
the first day of the feast, being Himself the true passover. 
Baur s theory is that one great object of St. John s Gospel 
was to bring out this point, that Christ was the true passover ; 
and he quotes St. John s application (xix. 36) as a prophecy 
concerning Christ, of the law of the passover, neither shall 
ye break a bone thereof (Ex. xii. 46, Num. ix. 12). It has 
been doubted whether the quotation is not rather from the 



264 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XV. 

Psalms, from which John quotes so many other prophecies of 
Christ : He keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken" 
(xxxiv. 20) ; but I am not inclined to dispute the reference to 
the passover, as to which Baur only expresses the general 
opinion of orthodox interpreters. 

Now, that there is here a real difficulty I freely acknow 
ledge ; for there seems a force put on the words of John, if 
our Lord s Last Supper be made the passover supper, or else 
a force put on the words of the Synoptic Evangelists if it 
be not.* It probably requires only a fuller knowledge of 
some of the facts connected with the usages of the time to 
remove the discrepancy. The ancient authorities (the Bible, 
Josephus, and Philo) leave some points undetermined on 
which we desire information, while regulations cited from the 
Talmud are open to the doubt whether they are as ancient as 
our Lord s days. Without knowing, for example, what latitude 
the usages of that period permitted as to the time of holding 
the feast, we cannot tell whether to accept solutions which 
assume that the priests did not eat the passover at the same 
time as our Lord s disciples. Some have suggested that our 
Lord may have anticipated the time usual among the Jews, 
in order to partake of the feast with His disciples before 
He suffered ; others adopt Chrysostom s conjecture that the 
Jewish rulers postponed their passover in their occupation 
with arrangements for the capture and trial of our Lord. It 
has been pointed out that what St. John tells of the scruple of 
the Jewish rulers to enter the Praetorium does not imply (as 
some have inferred) that the Evangelist meant his readers to 
regard this incident as having taken place on the morning of 



* The view that the Last Supper was the passover is advocated, among 
recent writers, by Wieseler, Synopsis, p. 313 ; by M Clellan, Commentary, 
p. 473 ; by Edersheim, Life of Jesus the Messiah, ii. p. 479. See also 
Dean Plumptre s Excursus in Ellicott s Commentary. The opposite view 
is maintained by Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p. 201 ; and by Westcott, Intro 
duction to Gospels, p. 344 ; and in the Speaker s Commentary. This latter 
view was held by Clement of Alexandria, by Hippolytus, and by early 
Christian writers generally. Several quotations will be found in the Preface 
to the Paschal Chronicle (Bonn edit., p. 12), that from Clement being par 
ticularly interesting. But as on this point the earliest fathers had no more 
means of real information than ourselves, the opinion of a father has no- 
higher authority than that of an eminent critic of our own day. 



XV.] THE QUARTODECIMANS. 265 

the day on which the passover was afterwards to be eaten. 
The passover would not be eaten till the evening ; but before 
that time the defilement contracted by entering the heathen 
house could have been removed. Consequently it is urged 
that what the Jewish rulers proposed to eat must have been 
something to be partaken of immediately : either the pass- 
over proper, their regular celebration of which at an earlier 
hour that night had been interrupted, but of which they 
regarded themselves still in time to partake in the early 
morning on their return home from their interview with 
Pilate ; or else the Chagigah, a free-will offering made on 
the morning following the passover, but to which, accord 
ing to competent authorities, the name passover might be 
applied. 

However, our present business is not to harmonize the 
Gospels, or remove their apparent inconsistencies. Such a 
work belongs to a later stage of the inquiry ; and, as I said 
before, concerns Christians alone, and is one with which those 
who stand without have nothing to do. Critics, I think, over 
rate their knowledge of the Jewish usages of the time, who 
suppose themselves in a position to assert that there is a real 
disagreement between St. John and the other Evangelists. 
But what we have now to consider is whether, even supposing 
there be such a real disagreement, this makes it impossible to 
believe in the early date of St. John s Gospel. Now, to my 
mind, the conclusion is quite the reverse this, and other 
seeming contradictions between St. John and the earlier 
Evangelists, being, as I think, inconsistent with the ascription 
of a late date to the Gospel. For let us suppose that the 
fourth Gospel was not written until after the other Gospels 
had had time to gain acceptance, and to be generally received 
among Christians as the authentic account of their Master s 
life ; and is it conceivable that a forger, wishing to pass off 
his performance as the work of an Apostle, would have set 
himself in flagrant opposition to the general belief of Chris 
tians ? John is quite silent about many most important events 
in our Lord s life : in fact, as a general rule, the things which 
he relates are the things not told in the former Gospels ; yet 
he makes no mention of preceding writings, and does not 



266 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XV. 

declare any intention of supplementing them. A forger would 
either have made a Gospel which he might hope to pass off as 
an independent complete account of the Saviour s life, or else 
he would profess to take the existing histories as his basis, 
and to supply what was wanting in them. And certainly the 
forger of a supplemental history would be cautious to dovetail 
his work properly into the accepted story. He would not 
venture, without a word of explanation, to make statements 
seemingly in direct contradiction to what the Church had 
received as the true Apostolic tradition. It seems to me, 
then, that the phenomena presented by the fourth Gospel 
can only be explained either by the hypothesis that it was 
published at so early a date that its writer was not aware of 
any necessity to take notice of other accounts of the Saviour s 
life ; or else that it was written, as the Church has always 
believed it was, by an Apostle whose own authority stood so 
high that it was unnecessary for him to trouble himself to 
consider what others had said before him. 

I believe that the latter explanation is the true one. All 
agree in placing the publication of John s Gospel so late 
that it is incredible but that other Gospels had previously 
been published, of which the writer could not be ignorant. 
No one whose own knowledge of our Lord s life was second 
hand would have ventured to dispense with a careful study of 
the traditions which rested on the authority of his immediate 
followers; but it is quite conceivable that the person least 
likely to study what had been said by others would be one 
who was conscious that he needed not to learn the facts from 
any other, but could himself testify what he had heard, what 
he had seen with his eyes, what he had looked upon, and his 
hands had handled, of the Word of Life. 

I have now to explain how this discrepancy, real or appa 
rent, between the Gospels, has been connected with the 
Easter controversies of the second century. There is still 
a good deal of uncertainty as to the exact point at issue in 
these disputes ; but this much in general you are aware of, 
that the Churches of Asia Minor, where the Apostle John, 
according to the most trustworthy tradition, spent the last 
years of his life, celebrated their paschal solemnities on the 



XV.] HISTORY OF EARLY PASCHAL DISPUTES. 267 

day of the Jewish Passover, the fourteenth day of the first 
month,* and that they cited the Apostle John as the author 
of this custom. The Churches of the West, and indeed of 
the rest of Christendom generally, held their paschal feast on 
the following Sunday, and continued their preliminary fast 
up to that Sunday, and after their Quartodeciman brethren 
had broken it off. There can be no doubt that the Western 
paschal feast was intended to commemorate the Resurrection 
of our Lord. In the Christian Church the weekly Resurrec 
tion feast was instituted before the annual feast ; and it is 
plain that those who made their paschal feast coincide with 
their weekly celebration of the Resurrection did so in order 
to celebrate with peculiar joy that Lord s day which in the 
time of year most nearly approached to the time of His 
rising from the dead. 

But what was the Eastern feast on the fourteenth day of 
the month intended to commemorate ? The Tubingen school 
make answer, the Last Supper of the Lord. And then their 
argument proceeds thus : The Asiatics commemorated the 
Last Supper on the fourteenth day of the month : they there 
fore adopted the reckoning of the Synoptic Gospels, accord 
ing to which the Last Supper was held on the fourteenth, 
and the Passion took place on the following day.f And since 
the Churches of Asia cited John as the author of their cus 
tom, they must, if they knew the fourth Gospel, have rejected 
its claims to proceed from John the Apostle, since it appa 
rently makes the fourteenth the day not of the Supper, but of 
the Passion. The whole argument, you will perceive, rests 
on the assumption that the Asiatic paschal feast was intended 
to commemorate the Last Supper ; but where is the proof of 
that assumption ? There is absolutely none. 

* According to Exod. xii. 6, the passover was to be killed on the I4th day 
* between the evenings. Since the Jewish day, at least for ecclesiastical 
purposes, began with the evening, some have understood from this that 
the passover was to be killed on the beginning of the Jewish I4th day, or, 
as we should count it, on the evening of the I3th. But the best authori 
ties are agreed that the passover was killed on the afternoon of the I4th, 
and eaten the following night. (Joseph., Bell. Jud. vi. 9, 3.) In the 
passage cited Josephus speaks of the lamb as killed between the ninth 
and eleventh hours. 

t That is, as we count days ; but if the day is supposed to commence with 
the evening, the Last Supper and the Passion took place on the same day. 



268 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XV. 

And now, perhaps, you may be inclined to dismiss the 
whole argument ; for if one is at liberty to assume things 
without proof, it is shorter work to assume at once the thing 
you wish to establish, instead of professing to prove it by an 
argument, the premisses of which you take for granted with 
out proof. However, as I have entered on the subject, I had 
better lay before you all that is known as to the details of 
these early Easter controversies. You will see that our 
information is so scanty that if we try to define particulars 
we are reduced to guessing. But it will appear, I think, 
that the Tubingen guess is a very bad one. In fact, what 
can be less probable than that the Asiatic Churches should 
make the Last Supper their one great object of annual com 
memoration, leaving the Crucifixion and the Resurrection 
uncelebrated ? 

There are three periods in the second century in which we 
hear of these paschal disputes. The earliest notice of the 
controversy is in the account given by Irenseus (Euseb. v. 24) 
of the visit of Polycarp to Anicetus, Bishop of Rome ;* on 
which occasion we are told that neither could Anicetus pre 
vail on Polycarp not to observe [the i4th Nisan] (/x/>) T^peiv), 
inasmuch as he had always observed it with John the Apostle 
of our Lord, and the other Apostles with whom he had asso 
ciated ; nor could Polycarp prevail on Anicetus to observe 
(Trjpcw), for he said that he ought to follow the example of 
the presbyters before him. Here we see that the Eastern 
custom was f to observe the day: the Western, not to ob 
serve it. The language of Irenzeus is so vague, that it even 
leaves it an open question whether the Roman bishops before 
Soter had any Easter celebration at all, for he speaks of the 
difference between Anicetus and Polycarp as more funda- 



* This visit probably took place about the Easter of A.D. 154; for a 
later date would not fall within the life of Polycarp, nor an earlier within 
the episcopate of Anicetus. There is no evidence that Polycarp visited 
Rome in order to confer on the question of Easter celebration ; and pro 
bably the diversity of practice between East and West was only revealed 
through the occurrence of the festival during the time of Polycarp s visit. 
It is likely that the object of that visit was in order that the Gnostic pre 
tence to have derived their peculiar doctrines by secret Apostolic tradition 
might be refuted by the testimony of an actual survivor from the Apostolic 
generation. (See Iren. iii. 3.) 



XV.] HISTORY OF EARLY PASCHAL DISPUTES. 269 

mental than that involved in the Easter disputes of his own 
times. At any rate, we are not told in what way the Easterns 
observed the day, nor in commemoration of what. No argu 
ment seems to have been used on either side but the tradition 
of the respective Churches. It does not appear that any 
question of doctrine was involved : and Polycarp and Ani- 
cetus parted on the terms of agreeing to differ, Anicetus 
even in token of respect yielding to Polycarp the office of 
consecrating the Eucharist in his Church. 

It seems to me likely that Polycarp was right in thinking 
that the most ancient Christian paschal celebrations did 
coincide in time with the Jewish. We know that the days 
of the week on which our Lord suffered and rose from the 
dead were ever kept in memory by the Church, and were 
celebrated from the earliest times ; but there is no trust 
worthy tradition as to the days of the year on which these 
events occurred. Our complicated rules for finding Easter 
serve to attest that among nations whose calendar was 
governed by the solar year, the annual celebration of our 
Lord s death and resurrection did not begin until so long 
after the events that the day of the year on which they 
occurred was not certainly known. We know, however, from 
the Acts, that Christians of Jewish birth continued to ob 
serve the customs of their nation, including, doubtless, the 
passover. And not merely the Judaizing Christians, but 
Paul himself. For in addition to what we elsewhere read of 
his compliance with Jewish institutions, we have plain indi 
cations of his keeping this feast at Philippi, when St. Luke 
tells us (Acts xx. 6) that they sailed away from Philippi after 
the days of unleavened bread, St. Paul s wish at the time 
being to keep the next great Jewish feast, that of Pentecost, 
at Jerusalem. He says, also, in the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians (xvi. 8): I will tarry at Ephesus until Pente 
cost. But we cannot doubt, either, that when the Apostles 
kept the passover feast they would give it a Christian aspect. 
The very first recurrence of that season could not but bring 
vividly before their minds all the great events which the 
preceding passover had witnessed. Now this is quite inde 
pendent of any theory as to the day of the month on which 



270 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [_XV. 

our Lord suffered. If we suppose that He suffered on the 
fifteenth, then the Apostles celebration of the passover feast 
would, doubtless, especially remind them of the last occasion 
on which the Lord had eaten the same feast with them ; if we 
suppose that He suffered on the fourteenth, their passover 
feast would equally call to memory the death of Him who 
was the true Passover. To myself it seems certain, that 
since the great difference between East and West was that 
the East only celebrated one day, the West a whole week, 
commemorating the Crucifixion and Resurrection on differ 
ent days the Eastern paschal feast must have included a 
recollection of all the events of this great season. We find 
very early traces that the feast was preceded by a fast ; and 
it is scarcely credible that, as the Tubingen theory demands, 
Christians would have fasted up to the day before their anni 
versary of the Crucifixion, and then changed their mourning 
into joy on that which had been at first a day of mourning 
and sorrow. 

Wherever Jewish Christians formed a large part of a Church, 
the time of their paschal feast would naturally coincide with 
that of the Jews, though the mode of celebration might be 
different. The Christians would, no doubt, make their com 
memoration of the Lord s death in that rite by which He 
Himself instructed them to show it forth. But they probably 
agreed with the Jews in the use of unleavened bread at this 
season ; for I would understand .Paul as giving a spiritual 
interpretation to an already existing custom, when he says 
(i Cor. v. 7), Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us : there 
fore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with 
the leaven of malice and wickedness ; but with the unleavened 
bread of sincerity and truth. While the time of celebration 
where Jews were numerous naturally coincided with that of 
the Jewish passover, it no less naturally was independent of 
it where Jews were few. Afterwards, when the hostility be 
tween Jews and Christians became more intense, it was made 
a point to celebrate on a different day from the Jews ; and 
to this seems to be owing the rule, which we still observe, 
that if the full moon falls on a Sunday, Easter is not till the 
Sunday after. 



XV.] QUARTODECIMAN USE OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 271 

The second time at which we hear of paschal disputes is 
about the year 170, when we are told that there was much 
disputing on this subject at Laodicea; and that the celebrated 
Melito of Sardis wrote a book on this subject. The occasion 
of it appears to have been that a leading Christian named 
Sagaris suffered martyrdom at Laodicea on the i4th Nisan ; 
and that when in the following year great numbers of Chris 
tians came together thither from different cities in order to 
celebrate the anniversary of his death, the diversity of their 
Easter usages arrested attention and excited controversy. 
Eusebius, who tells us so much (iv. 26), has not preserved 
enough of Melito s writings to inform us of the particulars of 
the dispute ; but we know otherwise that Melito was a Quar- 
todeciman as being one of the leading bishops of Asia Minor. 
There are, however, two short fragments purporting to come 
from another celebrated contemporary bishop of the same 
district, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, these fragments having 
been preserved by an anonymous writer of the sixth century.* 
In these Apollinaris argues that our Lord suffered on the 
i4th. He evidently used St. John s Gospel, for he refers to 
the water and blood which came from our Lord s side. It is 
much disputed whether, as the Tubingen school assert, Apol 
linaris was one of a minority in Asia Minor who had been 
converted to the Western custom, and who wrote in oppo 
sition to Melito ; or whether he and Melito were on the same 
side both Quartodecimans, and only contending with those 
who set on wrong grounds the celebration of the i4th day. 
For our purpose it is immaterial to decide the question. At 
this stage of the controversy the arguments did not rest 
merely on traditional custom, but Scripture was appealed to. 
And Apollinaris argues from St. John s Gospel that the i4th 
was the day on which our Lord suffered, and accuses those 
who held the opposite theory of so interpreting the Gospels 
as to set them at variance with each other. It is evident that 
at this time the authority of St. John s Gospel was recognized 
by the Quartodecimans ; of which we have a further proof in 
the fact that Melito counted our Lord s ministry as lasting 

* Paschal Chron. (Bonn edit.), p. 12 ; Routh, Rell. Sac. i. 160. 



272 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XV. 

for three years,* a deduction which cannot be made from the 
Synoptic Gospels without the help of John s. 

The third stage of the dispute was at the end of the century, 
when Victor of Rome excommunicated the Asiatic Churches 
for retaining their ancient customs. In excuse for Victor it 
must be said that trouble had been caused him by a presbyter 
of his own Church, Blastus, who wanted to introduce the 
Quartodeciman practice at Rome. A man might be very 
tolerant of the usages of a foreign Church as long as they 
were kept at a distance, but might think himself bound to put 
them down when they were schismatically introduced into his 
own Church.f Victor was boldly resisted by Polycrates, in a 
letter, of which a most interesting fragment is preserved by 
Eusebius (v. 24). In this Polycrates appeals in defence of the 
Asiatic custom to John, who leaned on the Lord s breast at 
supper. I need not remind you that this description of John 
is derived from the fourth Gospel. Thus, it seems to me 
that the appeal which has been made to the Quartodeciman 
controversy, instead of being unfavourable to the authority 
of the fourth Gospel, really establishes its great antiquity. 
The only two Quartodeciman champions of whom we know 
anything, Melito and Polycrates, both owned the authority of 
that Gospel. To these I am inclined to add Apollinaris ; but 
if the Tubingen school are right in saying that he was not one 
of the Quartodecimans, and that he used St. John s Gospel in 
arguing against them, at least he does so without any sus 
picion that its authority would be questioned by his opponents. 
In fact, if it could be shown that the fourth Gospel was at 
variance with Quartodeciman celebration, the fact of its re 
ception by the leading men of that party would prove that the 
authority of that Gospel must have been well established 



* This appears from a passage preserved by Anastasius Sinaita : see 
Routh, Rell. Sac. i. 121. 

f The Catholics generally looked on the Quartodecimans as quarrelsome 
people who schismatically refused to conform to the custom of the rest of 
the Christian world. Thus Hippolytus (Ref. viii. 18) describes them as 
<f>L\6vt.Koi rr)v (pixriv, iSicarai T^V "yvSxfiv, yuax^wre/jot rbv rpSirov ; and 
Athanasius, quoted in the Paschal Chronicle (p. 9, Bonn edit.), as q>i\ovei- 
KOVVTCS, <f)vp6vTes eavTo is riT7]/j.aTa, irpo(pd(Ti IJLZV rov ff 
epyc? 5e rrjs iSias epiSos X<*-P tv 



XV.] ASTRONOMICAL CALCULATIONS. 273 

before the Quartodeciman disputes arose, else those against 
whom it was used in controversy would surely have questioned 
its authority, had there been any ground for suspicion. 

I have said that it is more than doubtful whether it was at 
all essential to the Quartodeciman system to count the i5th 
as the day of the Saviour s Passion ; but in any case it is 
absurd to suppose that those who so computed denied the 
authority of the fourth Gospel. This very point is disputed 
by harmonists to this day: some decide for the i4th, some 
for the 1 5th ; and yet we know that the one party and the 
other alike admit John s Gospel and Matthew s as of equal 
authority. 



NOTE. 

Astronomical calculations have been used to determine the day of 
the Jewish month on which our Lord suffered. We may assume it as 
certain that He suffered on a Friday. I am aware that Canon Westcott 
(Gospels, p. 345) offers arguments in support of the view that the day was 
Thursday ; but the point is one on which it does not seem to me possible 
that Christian tradition should go wrong. If this day was the I5th Nisan, 
so also must the ist of Nisan have been Friday. In that case, therefore, 
the year must have been one in which the passover month began on a 
Friday. On the other hand, if it was on the I4th He suffered, the I5th, 
and consequently the ist of the month, must have been Saturday. Now 
among the Jews, the evening when the new moon was first visible in the 
heavens would be the commencement of a new month. Astronomical 
tables enable us to determine for any month the time of conjunction: 
that is to say, the moment when absolutely nothing but the dark side of 
the moon was turned towards the earth. At that moment, of course, it 
would be invisible, and it would not be until about thirty hours afterwards 
that the crescent of the young moon might be seen after sunset. 

I had computed the new moons for the possible years of the Passion, 
using simple rules given by De Morgan in his Book of Almanacs, when 
I found that the table had been already given in Wieseler s Synopsis 
(p. 407, Cambridge ed.) from a calculation made by a German astronomer, 
Wurm ; and I have since found that the same computation had been 
made for Mr. M Clellan by Professor Adams (see M Clellan s Commen 
tary, N.T., p. 493). The year A.D. 29 is that which Hippolytus sup 
posed to be that of the Passion ; and this date was adopted by many 
subsequent fathers. I have already mentioned (p. 201) that Hippolytus 
used an erroneous table of full moons, which led him to fix the date of 
the Passion as March 25th. But that was so many days after the actual 

T 



274 ASTRONOMICAL CALCULATIONS. [XV. 

occurrence of the full moon, that it is inconceivable the passover could 
have been kept on that day ; and, from the considerations that have been 
just explained, it can be inferred that the Passion did not take place on any 
day in that year. The astronomical new moon took place about eight in 
the evening of Saturday, April 2nd. On Sunday night the moon would 
be too young to be visible ; but on Monday night it would be forty- six 
hours old, when it could not fail to be seen, so that that evening would be 
pretty sure to be the first of the month. The month could not possibly 
begin either on Friday or Saturday. But in the year 30 the conjunction 
took place at eight in the evening of Wednesday, March 22nd, and we 
infer in the same way that the month began on Friday the 24th. This, 
therefore, is a possible year of the Passion. Proceeding in like manner,, 
we find that the month began in 31 on a Tuesday, and in 32 on a Monday. 
In 33, however, the conjunction took place at one on the afternoon of 
Thursday, March igth. At six o clock next evening the moon would be 
29 hours old, and probably would be visible ; but it is possible it might 
not have been observed till Saturday evening. Similar arguments lead us^ 
to reject the year 28, but admit 27 as a possible year, in which case the day 
would be Friday. The following table exhibits the date of new moon and 
the probable first day of the passover month for the years A.D. 27-36 : 

A.D. Time of true New Moon. Moon first visible. 

27. March 26, 8 P.M., .. .. Friday, March 28. 

28. March 15, 2 A.M., . . . . Tuesday, March 16. 

29. April 2, 8 P.M., . . . . . . Monday, April 4. 

30. March 22, 8 P.M. . . . . Friday, March 24. 

31. March 12, i A.M., .. .. Tuesday, March 13. 

32. March 29, u P.M., . . . . Monday, March 31. 

( Friday, March 20, or 
33- March 19, i P.M., . . . . ( Saturday> March 2I> 

I March 9, 9 A.M., or . . . . Wednesday, March 10. 
April 7, i P.M., (Thursday, April 8, or 

\ Friday, April 9. 

35. March 28, 6 A.M., . . . . Tuesday, March 29. 

36. March 16, 6 P.M., .. .. Sunday, March 1 8. 

The year 30 is that which Wieseler looks on as the probable year of the 
Passion ; and since in that year the passover month began on a Friday, he 
concludes that our Lord suffered on the I5th Nisan, as the Synoptic 
Gospels would lead us to suppose. But everything turns on the question, 
How did the Jewish days commence ? Caspari (Chronological and Geo 
graphical Introduction to Life of Christ, Edinb., 1876, pp. 17, 196) has 
pointed out that if the Jewish days began with the evening, the conclusion 
is just the opposite of what Wieseler supposed. For the appearance of the 
moon on Friday evening was on that supposition the beginning, not the 
end, of the first day of the month, which would include Saturday. The 
1 5th Nisan, therefore, was also a Saturday, and the day of the Passion 



XVI.] THE FOURTH EVANGELIST A JEW. 275 

(assuming it to have been a Friday) must have fallen on the I4th, which 
was ;th April. On the other hand, it is urged that Josephus, in the 
passage cited (Note, p. 267), speaks of the lamb as killed between the 
9th and nth hours, from which language it is inferred that though, for 
religious purposes, the day began with the evening, yet in ordinary Jewish 
language the day was counted as beginning in the morning. 



XVI. 

PART V. 

THE GOSPEL AND THE MINOR EPISTLES. 

THE result at which I arrived (p. 243), from a comparison 
of the diction of the Gospel and the Apocalypse, left it an 
open question whether the former were written by the author 
of the latter, or by a disciple of his. To-day I propose to 
make a further examination of the contents of the Gospel, 
with the view of obtaining, if possible, a more definite 
conclusion.* 

I. The author of the fourth Gospel was a Jew. 

(i) I remark, in the first place, the familiarity with the Old 
Testament which he exhibits. Quotations from it occur as 
frequently as in what has been regarded as the Jewish Gos 
pel, St. Matthew s ; and in two or three cases they are made 
directly from the Hebrew, not the Septuagint. These cases 
are, the passage from the 4ist Psalm (xiii. 18), He that 
eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me, 
and that (xix. 37) from Zechariah xii. 10, They shall look 
on him whom they pierced. The prophecy also (Isaiah vi. 
9, 10) which is so often referred to in the New Testament, 
and which is quoted by St. Matthew (xiii. 14) nearly in the 
words of the Septuagint, appears in quite a different render 
ing in St. John (xii. 40). 

* In this lecture I chiefly reproduce the arguments of Dr. Sanday 
(Fourth Gospel, ch. 19), with the additions made to them by Professor 
Westcott in the Introduction to his Commentary on St. John s Gospel. 
I also make use of an appendix added by Renan to the I3th edition of his 
Vie de Jesus, in which he justifies the preference he had expressed (see 
p. 212) for the narrative as given in the fourth Gospel. 

T 2 



276 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVI. 

(2) Next I note his acquaintance with the Jewish feasts. 
It is remarkable that this Evangelist (said to be anti-Jewish) 
has alone recorded our Lord s attendance at these feasts, and 
has used them as land-marks to divide the history. It is in 
this way we learn, what we should not have found from the 
Synoptic Gospels, that our Lord s public ministry lasted 
more than one year. Three passovers are directly men 
tioned (ii. 13, 23; vi. 4; xiii. i, xviii. 28); besides another 
feast, named generally a feast of the Jews (v. i), with 
respect to which commentators are divided whether or not 
it was a passover. The feast of Tabernacles is spoken of 
with a note that the last was the great day of the feast 
(vii. 37), and this verse contains what seems a plain allu 
sion to the rite, practised at this feast, of pouring forth 
water from the pool of Siloam. Mention is likewise made 
of that feast of the later Jews, instituted without any express 
divine command, which commemorated the dedication of the 
Temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes (x. 22). 

(3) In connexion with the preceding, I note the acquaint 
ance shown with Jewish customs and habits of thought. There 
are, for instance, repeated references to the customs in con 
nexion with purification : the waterpots after the manner of 
the purifying of the Jews (ii. 5); the question about purifying 
between John s disciples and the Jews (iii. 25); the coming 
up of Jews to Jerusalem, previous to the passover, in order 
to purify themselves (xi. 55) ; the fear of our Lord s accusers 
to defile themselves, previous to the passover, by entering the 
heathen Praetorium (xviii. 28) ; and the Jewish scruple against 
allowing the bodies to remain on the cross on the Sabbath 
day (xix. 31). We learn, moreover, from St. John (what other 
testimony confirms) that baptism was not a rite newly insti 
tuted by John the Baptist, but one known to the Jews before ; 
for the question is not put to the Baptist (i. 25), What is this 
new thing that thou doest ? but he is asked why he baptized, 
seeing that he claimed for himself no official position, neither 
to be the Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet. Then, again, 
the Evangelist, in his well-known narrative (ch. iv.), shows 
his knowledge of the state of feeling between the Jews and 
Samaritans (see also viii. 48) ; he is familiar with current 



XVI.] THE FOURTH EVANGELIST A JEW. 277 

Rabbinical and popular notions, as, for instance, concerning 
the connexion between sin and bodily suffering, in the ques 
tion (ix. 2), Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he 
was born blind ? ; as to the importance attached to the reli 
gious schools (vii. 15); the disparagement of the dispersion 
(vii. 35); and with the Rabbinical rule against holding con 
verse with a woman (iv. 27). I have already had occasion to 
notice one passage which has been a terrible stumbling-block 
in the way of those who would ascribe the book to a Gnosti- 
cizing Gentile of the second century. In the very passage 
where the claims of spiritual religion, apart from any dis 
tinction of place and race, are most strongly set forth, the 
prerogatives of the Jew are asserted as strongly as they are 
by St. Paul himself when he has to answer the question, 
What advantage then hath the Jew ? This Gospel puts 
into our Lord s mouth the words (iv. 22), Ye worship ye 
know not what : we know what we worship ; for salvation is 
of the Jews. If these words be invention, assuredly they are 
not a Gentile or a Gnostic invention (see also p. 208). 

I do not present the argument from the language, because 
to enter into details would make it necessary to discuss what 
phrases can positively be asserted to be Hebraisms ; but the 
whole colouring of the diction, and still more of the thoughts, 
is essentially Hebrew.* 

The best argument f that can be used in opposition to 
those I have produced is that founded on the constant use 
of the phrase the Jews, which seems to imply that the 
writer was not a Jew. But the use of the phrase presents 
no difficulty when we remember the late date of the Gos 
pel, and that it was written in a Greek city where the Jews 
were in all probability the bitterest adversaries of the Chris 
tian Church. I need only refer to the hard things said of 

* For proofs, see Sanday, p. 289 ; Westcott, pp. vii., li. 

t The description of Caiaphas as high-priest that year (xi. 49, 51 ; 
xviii. 13) does not oblige us to suppose the writer to be so ignorant of Jewish 
affairs as to imagine the high-priesthood to be an annual office. All that 
the words assert is, that in that year when one man died for the people, 
Caiaphas was the high-priest. The repeated changes made by the govern 
ment in the high-priesthood at this time are mentioned by Josephus (Antt. 
xviii. 2, 2). 



278 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVI. 

the Jews many years before by St. Paul (i Thess. ii. 14-16), 
who more than any other gloried in being able to call himself 
a Jew (see p. 30).* 

II. The writer was a Jew of Palestine. 
We may infer this from his minute acquaintance with the 
topography of the Holy Land. Thus he knows the small 
town Cana of Galilee (ii. i, u ; iv. 46; xxi. 2), a place not 
noticed by any earlier writer : Bethsaida, the native place of 
Philip, Peter, and Andrew (i. 44) ; Bethany beyond Jordan 
(i. 28), for this seems to be the true reading instead of Beth- 
abara, of the common text ; he knows the exact distance from 
Jerusalem of the better known Bethany (xi. 18) ; he knows 
the city Ephraim near the wilderness (xi. 54); .2Enonf near 
to Salim, where John baptized (iii. 23) ; Sychar the city of 
Samaria, where Jacob s well was, of which the Evangelist 
tells that the well is deep (iv. 1 1 ), as indeed it is, more than 
a hundred feet ; he knows the whole aspect of the place ; the 
mountain where the Samaritans worshipped, that is to say, 
Mount Gerizim, which rises to a sheer height of eight hun 
dred feet above the village, and where the remains of a temple 
are still visible ; and he knows the rich corn-fields at the base 
of the mountain (v. 35)4 

There is the same familiarity with the topography of Jeru 
salem. He speaks of Bethesda, the pool near the sheep gate, 
having five porches ; of the treasury at the Temple ; of 
Solomon s porch ; of the pool Siloam, which name he cor 
rectly derives as the sending forth of waters ; of the brook 

* In John vii. i, ot lovSouoi seems to mean the inhabitants of Judaea as 
opposed to the Galileans, a use of the word natural enough in a Galilean 
writer. The word will bear this meaning in most of the passages where it 
occurs in this Gospel, of course setting those aside where the word would 
in any case be used in a book intended for Gentile readers, as, for instance, 
where customs or feasts of the Jews are spoken of. But vi. 41, 52, will 
not admit this interpretation, since it is not said that the objectors were 
visitors from Judaaa. 

f On this Renan remarks, Vie de Jesus, p. 492, On ignore, il est vrai, 
oil etait Salim ; mais A-ivw est un trait de lumiere. C est le mot ^Enawan, 
pluriel Chaldeen de Ain ou Jn, "fontaine." Comment voulez-vous que 
des sectaires hellenistes d Ephese eussent devine cela ? Us n eussent 
nomme aucune localite, ou ils en eussent nomme une tres-connue, ou ils 
eussent forge un mot impossible sous le rapport de 1 etymologie semitique. 

J See Stanley s Sinai and Palestine, ch. v., ii., p. 240, 2nd edit. 



XVI.] THE FOURTH EVANGELIST A PALESTINIAN. 279 

Kedron ; of the place that is called the Pavement, but in the 
Hebrew Gabbatha ; of the place of the skull, called in Hebrew 
Golgotha. I would also notice the graphic description of the 
aspect of the Temple on the occasion of its cleansing by our 
Lord ; the animals for sacrifice, sheep, oxen, and doves, 
crowding its courts ; and the money-changers, who are 
described as sitting, the sellers of the animals naturally 
standing. 

Now even a single topographical reference may give a 
revelation of the writer s nationality. I remember, at the 
beginning of the Crimean war, when we knew nothing here of 
the authorship of the brilliant war correspondence which 
began to appear in the Times, how a comparison, in one of 
the early letters, of some scenery to that of the Dargle, 
suggested to us the inference, This writer must be an Irish 
man. If a novel appeared in which the scene was laid in 
Ireland, and mention freely made of small Irish localities, 
and of different Dublin public buildings, we should feel little 
doubt that the writer was either an Irishman, or one who had 
spent some time in Ireland ; and yet I need not say how much 
easier it is now, than in the days when the Gospel was written, 
for a writer to get up from books the details which would add 
verisimilitude to his narrative. 

The work of a native of Palestine may also be recognized 
in the knowledge of local jealousies which the writer exhibits. 
One outside a country thinks little of the distinctions between 
different provinces. But here we seem to have a picture 
drawn by a Galilean who had smarted under the haughty 
contempt with which the inhabitants of Jerusalem regarded 
his province : Can there any good thing come out of Naza 
reth ? (i. 46). Shall Christ come out of Galilee ? (vii. 41). 
* Search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet (vii. 
52). Note also the scorn of the rulers and the Pharisees for 
the opinion of the vulgar : This people who knoweth not 
the law are cursed (vii. 49). 

Further, the writer is as familiar with the history of the 
Temple as with its external aspect. One of the data used at 
present in calculating the chronology of our Saviour s ministry 
is the remark recorded by St. John (ii. 20), Forty and six 



280 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVI. 

years was this Temple in building. Counting the commence 
ment of the forty-six years from the time recorded byjosephus, 
we obtain a date for our Lord s ministry in close agreement 
with what we are led to by other considerations. But is it 
credible either that a forger in the second century, when the 
science of chronology was unknown, could have had the 
information rightly to state the interval between the begin 
ning of the Temple building and our Lord s ministry, or, 
that if he had made a random guess, he could have hit the 
truth so accurately ? 

III. I come next to the question, It having been thus 
proved that the writer was a Jew, was he a Jew of the first or 
of the second century ? And this question is not difficult to 
answer, for the subjects which engage interest, and which 
excite controversy, differ from age to age. Even in the 
lifetime of one man they change. Compare Paul s earlier 
Epistles with his later, compare the Epistles to the Romans 
and Galatians with those to Timothy and Titus, and you will 
find that the controversy about justification with or without 
the works of the law, which is the main subject of the earlier 
Epistles, is hardly alluded to in the later. This is one of 
the tests by which was exposed the forgery of the Decretal 
Epistles ascribed to the early Popes, that the controversies 
and topics with which these letters deal are not those of the 
centuries when the alleged writers lived, but those of the 
ninth century, when the letters were really written. Now, 
test the fourth Gospel in this way, and you will find that the 
controversies with which it deals, and the feelings which it 
assumes, are those of the first century not the second. The 
Messianic idea that pervades the Gospel is not that which 
prevailed after the Gnostic heresies arose, but that which 
existed before Jerusalem was destroyed, when the Jews still 
expected the Messiah to be a deliverer who should establish 
a temporal sovereignty and make the Jews the rulers of the 
surrounding nations. This Evangelist tells us, what we do 
not learn from the Synoptic Gospels, that the impression 
produced by the miracle of feeding the multitude was such 
that they were about to come by force to make our Lord a 
king, evidently believing that they had now found him who 



XVI.] THE GOSPEL A WORK OF THE FIRST CENTURY. 281 

would lead them against the Romans, and victoriously restore 
.the kingdom to Israel. And we are told that our Lord was 
obliged to withdraw Himself from their importunity to a 
mountain alone. It was because He refused to proclaim a 
kingdom of this world that the Jews found it hard to own 
as their Messiah one who, though He could preach and heal, 
yet seemed unable to bring them the deliverance or the glory 
which they desired. St. John represents the prudent Jewish 
rulers as resolved to put down the prophesying of Jesus, 
because they feared that the political consequences of His 
assertion of His kingdom would be an unsuccessful revolt 
against foreign rule, the result of which would be that the 
Romans would come and take away their place and nation 
(xi. 48). And St. John brings out with great clearness the 
fact that it was as a pretender to temporal sovereignty that 
Jesus was accused before Pilate, who, though personally in 
clined to dismiss the complaint, was withheld from doing so 
through fear of exciting the jealousy of his own emperor by 
his remissness, if in such a matter as this he showed himself 
* not Caesar s friend (xix. 12). Remember that the state of 
Jewish feeling which I have described was quelled by the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and judge whether it is probable 
that a writer of the next century would have been able to 
throw himself into the midst of these hopes and feelings, and 
to reproduce them as if they were part of the atmosphere 
which he had himself breathed.* 

Then, again, the topics introduced are those which were 
discussed in our Lord s time, and not a hundred years after 
wards. For example, what Gnostic of the second century 
would have cared to discuss a breach of the Sabbath, and to 
inquire when the duty of Sabbath observance (admitted to 
be the general rule) was overborne by a higher obligation ? 

* The argument in this paragraph, which had been forcibly urged by 
Sanday (p. 291) has been parried by the remark that in Barcochba s rebel 
lion, in the reign of Hadrian, there was a revival of Jewish nationalist and 
anti-Roman feeling. But the argument at least obliges us to choose be 
tween the accepted date of the Gospel and a date later than A.D. 135, when 
Barcochba s rebellion was put down. And even leaving out of sight the 
use made of the Gospel by Justin Martyr, I cannot reconcile so late a date- 
with the other indications mentioned above. 



282 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVI. 

See, again, how familiar the writer is with the expectations 
which before our Lord s coming the Jews had formed of what 
their Messiah was to be. He was not to be from Galilee : 
Shall Christ come out of Galilee ? Hath not the Scripture 
said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the 
town of Bethlehem, where David was ? (vii. 42) ; { We have 
heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever (xii. 34) ; 
We know this man whence he is, but when Christ cometh no 
man knoweth whence he is (vii. 27) ; When Christ cometh, 
will he do more miracles than these which this man hath 
done ? (vii. 31). 

On the other hand, the writer shows no knowledge of the 
controversies raised by the Gnostic heresies which broke 
out early in the second century. The problem that most 
occupied the minds of the Gnostic speculators was how 
to account for the origin of evil, and the solution they 
generally agreed in offering was that evil was inherent in 
matter. It followed that the creation of matter could not 
have been the work of the good God ; and since the God of 
the Jews claimed the work of creation as his own, that he 
must be a being different from, and, according to many 
systems, hostile to, the Supreme God. Thus the authority 
of the Old Testament was rejected. Further, those who 
held these views found it impossible to believe that the 
Saviour could have assumed a material body, and so they 
were led to maintain that in His earthly life He was only 
in appearance like other men. Again, they could not believe 
that the existence of matter would be prolonged beyond the 
present life, and so they rejected the doctrine of the resur 
rection of the body. And as they conceived that perfection 
was to be attained through release from the dominion of 
matter, they inculcated an ascetic mode of life, abstinence 
from animal food and from wine, as well as from marriage, 
through which the material life is perpetuated. Now it is 
not merely that the fourth Evangelist gives no countenance 
to any of these theories, but he shows no sign that he had 
ever heard of them. He is an unsuspicious monotheist, and 
the theory of two independent principles is one that it as 
little occurs to him to refute as to hold. He is an equally 



XVI. J THE GOSPEL A WORK OF THE FIRST CENTURY. 283 

unsuspicious believer in the Divine authority of the Old Tes 
tament. I have given some proofs of this (p. 207), but what 
is chiefly important to observe is, that while the Evangelist 
feels the controversy with Judaism pressing, the controversy 
with Gnosticism does not exist for him. He is solicitous to 
maintain that Jesus was He of whom .Moses in the law, 
and the prophets did write; and he seems to have no idea 
that our Lord s claims could have been set on any other 
foundation. No question as to the lawfulness of marriage 
is raised; but Jesus is represented as gracing a wedding feast 
with his presence. Controversies as to the use of animal 
food and as to the ascetic life, though known to St. Paul 
(Rom. xiv. 2 ; i Cor. vii. ; i Tim. iv. 3), do not appear to 
have been raised in the circle for which the fourth Evan 
gelist wrote. The resurrection of the body is plainly taught 
(v. 28); for the future life is not represented as resulting 
from the continuance of the soul, though separated from the 
body ; but they that are in the grave shall hear the voice 
of the Son of Man, and shall come forth. Yet he is so little 
solicitous to maintain the doctrine controversially, that, as I 
have already mentioned (p. 210), there have been those who 
have imagined that he has no other idea of eternal life than of 
that the possession of which is present. Jesus is represented 
as having a body subject to the accidents of weariness and 
thirst, and which even after His resurrection His disciples 
might handle (John xx. 27 ; i John i. i). Yet in the Gospel the 
Evangelist shows little anxiety to combat a Docetic theory 
-of our Lord s person, and tells without scruple some things 
which might seem to favour such a theory, as, for example, 
the appearance of our Lord to His disciples when the doors 
were shut. But it would seem that when the Epistle was 
written Docetism had become formidable enough to need 
express condemnation ; and then the denial that Jesus Christ 
was come in the flesh was pronounced to emanate from the 
spirit of antichrist (i John iv. 3 ; 2 John 7). In sum, then, 
the fourth Evangelist proves himself not to be a second 
century writer, by his utter want of interest in the contro 
versies which stirred the Christian Church early in the 
second century. 



284 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVI. 

IV. I regard it, then, as proved that the writer of the 
fourth Gospel was a Jew, not very distant in time from the 
events which he relates. Is there, then, any reason why we 
should refuse credence to the claim, which he himself makes 
four times, to have been an eyewitness of our Saviour s life ? 
(i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24 ; i John i. i). There is nothing against 
admitting this claim, but everything in favour of it. It is 
quite remarkable how frequently the Evangelist throws him 
self into the position of the original disciples, and repeats 
their reflections or comments ; these being such as, though 
appropriate at the time, would not be likely to have occurred 
to one who was not himself a disciple. There are three 
instances in the very second chapter. The effect of trie- 
miracle of the turning the water into wine is said to have 
been that His disciples believed on Him (v. u). Again, 
His disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of 
Thine house hath eaten me up (v. 17). Again, when there 
fore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered 
that he had said this unto them, and they believed the Scrip 
ture and the word which Jesus had said (v. 22). Why is 
this prominence given to the reflections of the disciples ? 
Is it likely that a forger of the second century, who wished 
to exhibit the glory of the Logos, would say, what sounds SO 
like a truism, that His disciples believed on Him ? If they 
had not, they would not have been disciples. It would surely 
have been more to the point to tell the effect upon the 
guests : and a forger would hardly have failed to do this. 
But all is explained when we suppose that a disciple is 
speaking, and recording how that favourable impression 
produced by the testimony of the Baptist, which had dis 
posed him to join the company of Jesus, was changed by 
this miracle into actual faith. I leave other instances of the 
same kind to be traced out by yourselves, only taking notice 
now of one of them : how we are told that the disciples who 
took part in the triumphal entry of Palm Sunday understood 
not at the time what they had been doing, but, after Jesus 
was glorified, remembered that these things were written of 
Him, and that they had done these things unto Him (xii. 1 6).* 

* It harmonizes curiously with this remark that Mark (xi. i) and Luke 



XVI.] THE EVANGELIST A DISCIPLE OF THE BAPTIST. 285 

I think we may also conclude that the writer had been a 
disciple of the Baptist as well as of our Lord. This appears 
from the fulness of the opening chapter, which deals with 
the Baptist s ministry, and which is best explained if we 
suppose the Evangelist to be the unnamed disciple who, 
together with Andrew, heard the testimony, Behold the 
Lamb of God. And if the Evangelist had heard the story 
from another he would scarcely have added the minute detail 
that it was the tenth hour of the day when the conversation 
with Jesus took place. We trace the work of a disciple of 
the Baptist in more than one subsequent allusion to that 
testimony, and, above all, in one remarkable periphrasis, 
which is undoubtedly what no forger would have imagined, 
* Jesus went away beyond Jordan into the place where John 
at first baptized, and there He abode; and many resorted unto 
Him and said, John did no miracle, but all things that John 
spake of this man were true (x. 41). To describe the place 
of Jesus sojourn as the place where John at first baptized, 
and to record the impressions of those who had been affected 
by the Baptist s teaching, and were hesitating whether or 
not they should attach themselves to Jesus, would not natu 
rally occur to anyone who had not himself moved in the same 
circle. Indeed, the prominence given to the Baptist in the 
fourth Gospel is in itself a proof how near the writer was to 
the events which he records. A modern reader seldom 
realizes the importance of the work done by the Baptist in 
preparing the way of Jesus. Yet the Synoptic Gospels tell of 
the reputation and influence gained by John (Matt. xiv. 5, 
Mark vi. 20, Luke xx. 6; cp. Acts xviii. 25, xix. 3). They 
tell also that there was such a connexion between John and 
his successor, that any who acknowledged the divine mission 
of the Baptist would be bound in consistency to own the 
authority of Jesus (Matt. xxi. 25, Mark xi. 31, Luke xx. 5). 
The fourth Gospel explains fully what the connexion was, 
by telling that it was among the disciples of the Baptist that 

(xix. 29) relate our Lord s triumphal entry without noting that it was a 
fulfilment of prophecy ; whence we may probably infer, that if these two 
Evangelists used an earlier document, it too contained no reference to the 
prophet Zechariah. It is Matthew who first appeals to the prophecy 
(xxi. 4). 



286 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVI. 

Jesus first gained followers, who joined Him in consequence 
of the testimony borne to Him by John. This testimony is 
again referred to as furnishing part of the credentials of Jesus 
( v - 3 2 > 33)- But we have no reason to think that in the 
second century John occupied such a place in the minds of 
men as would lead a forger to lay such stress on his authority. 
Other notes of autoptic testimony are the minute particulars 
of time, and place, and persons, that are mentioned ; that such 
a discourse took place in Solomon s porch (x. 23); such 
another in the treasury (viii. 20) ; another, as I mentioned a 
moment ago, at the tenth hour; another (that with the woman 
of Samaria) at the sixth (iv. 6) ; that such another miracle was 
performed at the seventh hour (iv. 52); that this or that re 
mark was made, not by the disciples generally, but by Philip 
(vi. 7, xiv. 8), or Andrew (vi. 9), or Thomas (xi. 16, xiv. 5), or 
Judas, not Iscariot (xiv. 22). The name of the servant whose 
ear Peter cut off is given (xviii. 10). In two different places 
the native town of Peter and Andrew is mentioned as Beth- 
saida (i. 44., xii. 21) : the Synoptic Gospels would rather have 
led us to conjecture Capernaum. 

There is one passage in particular which by its graphic 
character forcibly impresses me with the conviction that I 
read the testimony of an eyewitness: I mean the account 
(xx. 3) of the conduct of Peter and an unnamed disciple (who 
is unmistakeably the Evangelist himself), when Mary Magda 
lene came running to tell them that the body of our Lord had 
been removed from the sepulchre ; how the younger was fore 
most in the race, but contented himself with looking into the 
sepulchre ; how Peter, with characteristic boldness, went in,, 
and how the other disciple then followed the example set him. 
If any but an eyewitness devised all these details, so minute 
and so natural, we must credit him with a literary skill such 
as we nowhere else find employed in the manufacture of Apo 
cryphal Gospels. But there remains to be mentioned a touch 
so subtle, that I find it impossible to ascribe it to a forger s 
invention. Not a word is said as to the effect of what he had 
seen on the mind of Peter ; but we are told that the other 
disciple went in, and saw, and believed : for as yet they had 
not known the Scripture, that Christ must rise again from the 



XVI.] JOHN THE ELDER. 287 

dead. Is it not plain that the writer is relating his own 
experience, and recalling how it was that the idea of the 
Resurrection opened on his mind as a reality ? And lastly, 
note that we have here the work of no reckless forger. To 
such an one it would cost nothing to record that he and Peter 
had then seen our Lord. But no ; the disciples are merely 
said to have returned to their own home. It is Mary Mag 
dalene who remains behind and first enjoys the sight of the 
risen Saviour. 

V. If it has been proved that the author of the fourth 
Gospel was an eyewitness, little time need be spent on the 
proof that he was the Apostle John ; for few would care to 
dispute this, if forced to concede that the Evangelist actually 
witnessed what he related. To accept him as an eyewitness 
implies an admission that the things he tells are not mere 
inventions : and some of these things could only have been 
known to one of the inner circle of disciples who surrounded 
our Lord. The Evangelist tells what these disciples said to 
one another (iv. 33, xi. 16, xvi. 17, xx. 25, xxi. 3, 7) ; what 
they thought (ii. u, 17, 23, iv. 27, xiii. 22, 29); what places 
they were accustomed to resort to (xi. 54, xviii. 2, xx. 19). 
The epilogue to the Gospel (xxi. 24) identifies its author with 
him whom it describes as the disciple whom Jesus loved; 
and even if there had not been this explicit declaration, the 
way in which that disciple is introduced (xiii. 23, xix. 26, 
xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20, and probably xviii. 15) irresistibly conveys 
the impression that the Evangelist wished his readers to 
understand that he himself was that disciple. The disciple 
whom Jesus loved must surely have been one of those three 
(Peter, James, and John), who in the Synoptic Gospels are 
represented as honoured by our Lord s special intimacy ; and 
in this Gospel that disciple is expressly distinguished from 
Peter (xiii. 24 ; xx. 2 ; xxi. 7, 20), while we know that James 
was dead long before the fourth Gospel was written (Acts 
xii. 2). 

There is, however, one writer whose claims to the compo 
sition of the Gospel must be carefully considered, namely, one 
of the most shadowy personages in ecclesiastical history, John 
the Elder. A whole school of critics speak of him with as 



288 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVI. 

assured confidence as if he were a person concerning whose 
acts we had as much information as concerning those of Julius 
Caesar; but in truth his very existence seems to have been 
first discovered by Eusebius, and it is still a disputed matter 
whether the discovery be a real one. I have already quoted 
(p. 91) the passage of Papias s preface, from which Eusebius 
drew his inference. In naming the elders/ whose traditions 
he had made it his business to collect, having mentioned 
Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas and James, John and Mat 
thew, Papias adds immediately afterwards the names of 
Aristion and John the Elder. Eusebius inferred from the 
double mention of the name that two Johns are spoken of: 
the first, who is coupled with Matthew, being clearly the 
Evangelist ; the second, who is described as the * elder, and 
whose name is placed after that of Aristion, being a different 
person. Eusebius had learned from Dionysius of Alexandria 
(see p. 232) to recognize the possibility that there might have 
been more Johns than one ; yet it must be observed that 
Dionysius himself had failed to notice that Papias had given 
any countenance to his suggestion. Irenaeus also (see p. 92) 
seems to be ignorant of this second John, who is equally 
unrecognized by the great majority of later ecclesiastical 
writers. 

It would be important if we could exactly know what Papias 
meant by calling the second John the elder. It can scarcely 
mean only that he held the office of presbyter in the Church ; 
for then Papias would not have used the definite article as he 
does, not only here in the preface, but afterwards, when he 
cites a saying of this John with the formula, This also the 
elder said (p. 92). But Papias had used the phrase the 
elders, as we might use the phrase the fathers, in speaking 
of the venerated heads of the Church in a former generation. 
And since he gives this title to John, and withholds it from 
Aristion, it does not appear that we can lay any stress on the 
remark of Eusebius, that he places Aristion s name first. 
Further, this very title elders is given by Papias to Andrew, 
Peter, and the rest whom he first enumerates, and therefore he 
cannot be supposed, in giving this title the second time to 
John, to intend to place him in a different category from those 



XVI.] JOHN THE ELDER. 289 

in his first list. The only fact, then, which remains for us to 
build on is, that Papias in his preface names John twice over; 
but whether this is a mere slovenliness of composition, or 
whether he really means to speak of two Johns, is a matter on 
which it seems to me rash to speak positively, on such scanty 
knowledge as we have of Papias s work. It may be assumed 
that none of the subsequent passages in that work where John 
is mentioned speaks decisively on the present question, else 
Eusebius would have quoted it. 

But though we cannot accept the existence of the second 
John as a proved fact, we may at least receive it as an admis 
sible hypothesis, and may examine whether it enables us to 
give a better account of the Johannine writings. Judging 
merely by the diction, we could easily believe that the author 
of the Apocalypse was different from the author of the other 
books ; so that if we reject the notion of Eusebius, that John 
the Elder, not John the Apostle, was the author of the former, 
we must still inquire whether we can invert the relation : Did 
John the Apostle write the Apocalypse, and John the Elder 
the Gospel ? But. here we are inconveniently pressed by the 
results we have just obtained, namely, that he who wrote the 
Gospel must have been an eyewitness and a close companion 
of our Lord. If this were not the Apostle, there must have 
been in our Lord s company one of whom the Synoptic Evan 
gelists have told us nothing, and he no ordinary disciple, but 
the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who at the Last Supper 
reclined on the bosom of our Lord. Further, the name of this 
disciple was John, and here we have the additional difficulty 
that (as remarked, p. 63) the fourth Gospel gives no inti 
mation of the intercourse of our Lord with any John but the 
Baptist. We can easily acquiesce in the suggestion that the 
Evangelist thought it needless to name himself: but if there 
was in our Lord s company a second John holding one of the 
highest places among His disciples, is it possible that the 
Evangelist could pass over him also in silence ? 

It follows, then, irresistibly, that if the writer of the fourth 
Gospel was not John the Apostle, he at least wished to be 
taken for him, and desired that his readers should think of 
no one else. Let us see, then, how the hypothesis works, 

u 



2QO THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVI. 

that the Gospel was written by a disciple of John, who 
wished to sink his own personality, and to present the tra 
ditions he had gathered from his master s teaching, together 
with some modifications of his own, in such a form that they 
might be taken for the work of John himself. But this hypo 
thesis will not bear to be burdened with the addition that the 
recording disciple was John the Elder ; for his is a person 
ality which refuses to be suppressed. If this were John the 
Elder, whose traditions Papias set himself to collect, he 
must have been a notable person in the Church of Asia, and 
we can hardly help identifying him with the John who is said 
to have lived to the reign of Trajan, and to have been the 
teacher of Polycarp and other early Asiatic bishops.* At all 
events, we cannot help identifying him with the author of the 
Second and Third Epistles, who designates himself as the 
elder. These Epistles are recognized by Irenaeus and by 
Clement of Alexandria (see p. 211). Their brevity and the 
comparative unimportance of their matter caused them to be 
looked on with some suspicion. Origen tells of some who 
did not regard them as genuinef (Euseb. vi. 25); and they 
are not included in the Peshitto Syriac.J Jerome was dis 
posed to ascribe them not to John the Apostle but John the 
Elder (De Viris Illust. 9). Other proofs may be given of re- 



* Ecclesiastical tradition speaks so constantly only of one John in Asia, 
that Scholten, Keim, and others have rid themselves of the double John 
by denying that the Apostle John was ever in Asia ; but the arguments 
they offer in support of their paradox are so weak that I have not thought 
it worth while to discuss them. 

f Origen s immediate object apparently would lead him to present the 
least favourable view of disputed books. He is deprecating the multipli 
cation of books, and with that object remarking how small is the number 
of books of Scripture. Compared with all the Churches from Jerusalem 
round about unto Illyricum, to which Paul fully preached the Gospel 
(Rom. xv. 19), how small is the number of Churches to which he wrote 
Epistles, and these but short ones ! Peter has left only one undisputed 
Epistle : there may be a second, but that is controverted. John owns 
(xxi. 25) how many of the deeds of Christ he has of necessity left unrecorded ; 
and (Rev. x. 4) that in his Apocalypse he had not been permitted to write 
all that he had heard. He has left also a very short Epistle. There may 
be likewise a second and a third, for the genuineness is not universally 
acknowledged ; but in any case they do not make up 100 0-Tt xot in all. 
(Origen, In Joann. v., Prsef. 1-4, pp. 94-96, Philocal. ch. 5). 

J Ephraem Syrus quotes 3 John 4. (De Tim. Dei Opp. Gr. I. 76 F.) 



XVI.] THE THIRD EPISTLE. 29 1 

luctance, on the part of those who recognized them, to set 
them on a level with the First Epistle. 

I believe that these hesitations arose from the fact that 
these Epistles were not included in the public reading of the 
early Church a thing intelligible enough from the private 
nature of their contents. The antiquity of the letters is un 
doubted, and they are evidently precious relics of a vene 
rated teacher carefully preserved by the Asiatic Church ; but 
to those who were ignorant of their history they appeared to 
stand on a different level from the documents sanctioned by 
the public use of the Church. If the external evidence leaves 
any room for doubt about the two minor letters, internal evi 
dence removes it ; for the hypothesis of forgery will not stand 
examination. A forger would surely inscribe his composition 
with some well-known name ; he would never have referred 
the authorship to so enigmatical a personage as the elder. 
But, above all, the contents of the Third Epistle exclude the 
supposition of forgery, for which indeed no conceivable 
motive is apparent. The writer represents (v. u) that he 
had sent a letter to a Church, but that his messengers, in 
stead of being received with the hospitality which was the 
invariable rule* of the Christian societies, were absolutely 
rejected. The man who claimed to take the leading part 
in the government of the Church not only failed to receive 
them himself, but, under pain of excommunication, forbade 
anyone else to do so. This is clearly a case not of in- 
hospitality, but of breach of communion. The bearers of 
* the elder s letter are treated precisely as he himself had 
directed that heretical teachers should be treated. If there 



* See Rom. xii. 13; Heb. xiii. 2; i Peter iv. 9 ; I Tim.iii. 2, v. 10; 
Tit. i. 8 ; and compare Acts xvi. 15, xvii. 5, xxi. 8, 16, Rom. xvi. 23. We 
learn from the newly- discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles that it 
was found necessary in the early Church to make regulations in order to 
prevent the readiness of Christians to entertain strangers from being traded 
on by idle persons, who tried to make the pretence of preaching the 
Gospel a means of living without working. Let every Apostle who comes 
to you be received as the Lord. But he shall only stay a single day, but 
if need be another day also. But if he stays three days he is a false pro 
phet. Let the Apostle when he leaves you take nothing but bread enough 
to last till he reaches his quarters for the night. But if he asks for money 
he is a false prophet (ch. xi.). 

U 2 



2Q2 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVI. 

come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive 
him not into your house, neither bid him God speed : for 
he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds 
(2 John 10, n). We may well believe (since we know the 
fact from the Epistle to the Corinthians) that schisms and 
dissensions existed even in Apostolic times ; but this was a 
state of things a forger was not likely to invent or even to 
recognize. It is certain, then, that these two letters are no 
forgeries, but genuine relics of some great Church ruler, pre 
served after the circumstances which had drawn them forth 
were forgotten. And if ever the argument from identity of 
style and matter can be relied on, it is certain also that 
tradition has rightly handed down the belief that the writer 
was no other than the author of the First Epistle and the 
Gospel. 

If this identity be established, it follows at once that that 
author is no unknown person who hides his personality under 
the cover of a great name. He comes forward in his own 
person, claiming great authority, sending his legates to an 
old established Church, and treating resistance to his claims 
on the part of the rulers of such Churches as idle prating 
(<Avapetv), which he is confident that by his presence he will 
at once put down. And, according to all appearance, his 
anticipations prove correct, and his rule over the Churches 
of Asia is completely acquiesced in. When such a man pub 
lishes a Gospel containing a clearly implied claim on the part 
of the writer to be the disciple whom Jesus loved, I cannot 
suppose the claim to be made on behalf of someone else, 
but must regard it as exhibiting the grounds of the authority 
which the writer himself exercised. And no account of the 
matter seems satisfactory but the traditional one, that the 
writer was the Apostle John. 

To the historical inquirer, then, the minor Epistles of St. 
John, being not impersonal like the First Epistle, have an 
importance quite out of proportion to their length. And 
though the light they cast on the writer s surroundings be 
but that of a lightning flash, enabling us to get a momentary 
sight of a position of which we have no knowledge as regards 
its antecedents or consequents, yet enough is revealed in that 



XVI.] -THE THIRD EPISTLE. 293 

short glimpse to assure us of the rank the writer occupied, 
and of the struggles which were at first necessary to establish 
his authority. Everything harmonizes with the traditional 
account that John came late in life to Asia Minor, where 
he must have found Churches of Paul s founding long estab 
lished. There is nothing incredible in the statement that 
leading persons in such Churches at first resisted the autho 
rity, not of John himself, but of emissaries sent by him. 
The authority which these emissaries claimed may have 
seemed an intrusion on the legitimate rule possessed by the 
actual governors of the Church. It is remarkable that John 
appears to have found the form of government by a single 
man already in existence ; for Diotrephes singly is spoken of 
as excommunicating those who disobeyed his prohibitions. 
Bishop Lightfoot is disposed (Philippians, pp. 202, 206, 
7th ed.) to attribute a principal share in the establishment 
of episcopacy to the action of John in Asia Minor. But if 
the view here taken is right, John did not bring in that form 
of government, but found it there ; whether it was that Paul 
had originally so constituted the Churches ; or that, in the 
natural growth of things, the method of government by a 
single man, which in political matters was the rule of the 
Roman Empire, proved to be also the most congenial to the 
people in ecclesiastical matters. It is impossible for us to say 
whether the rejection of John s legates was actuated solely 
by jealousy of foreign intrusion, or whether there may not 
also have been doctrinal differences. Diotrephes may have 
been tainted by that Docetic heresy against which the Apostle 
so earnestly struggled (i John iv. 3, 2 John 7). 

Some have identified the hospitable Caius of the third 
Epistle with Paul s host at Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23);* but no 
argument can be built on the recurrence of so very common 
a name. This third Epistle professes to have had a com 
panion letter : I wrote somewhat to the Church, says the 
writer (v. 9); Zypaij/d ri, which seems to imply some short 
composition. I believe that we have that letter still in the 

* Pseud. Athanas., Synops. Sac. Script., cb. 76 (Athan. t. ii. p. 202, 
Ed. Bened.) 



294 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVI. 

companion Epistle which has actually reached us. By those 
who understand the inscription as denoting an individual it 
has been variously translated : whether as in our version, * to 
the elect Lady, or to the elect Kyria, or to the lady 
Electa. I do not delay to discuss these renderings, because 
I believe that it is a Church, not an individual, which is de 
scribed (v. i) as known and loved by all who know the truth, 
of which it is told that some of her children walk in the truth 
(v. 4), to which the precept of mutual love is addressed (v. 5), 
and which possessed an elect sister in the city whence the 
letter was written (v. 13). We are not called on to explain 
why this mode of addressing a Church should have been 
adopted ; but we can account for it if we accept Kenan s 
conjecture (see p. 255) that Peter on his last visit to Rome 
had been accompanied by John, who, after Peter s martyr 
dom, escaped to Asia Minor. Certain it is that these two 
Apostles appear to have had very close relations with each 
other (Acts iii. i, viii. 14, John xiii. 24, xviii. 15, xx. 2, xxi. 7); 
that the Evangelist shows himself acquainted with Peter s 
martyrdom (xxi. 19); while the Apocalypse exhibit marks of 
the impression made on the writer by the cruelties of the 
Neronian persecution. If, as I believe, Peter s Epistle was 
written from Rome, and if John was with Peter when he 
wrote it, it would be natural that the words of that letter 
should stamp themselves on his memory ; and I have noted 
(see p. 236) some coincidences between Peter s Epistle and 
the Johannine writings. It would then be only a reproduc 
tion of the phrase fj ev Ba/5vXwvt crweKAeKT^ (i Peter v. 13), 
if John applies the title e/cXe/cTry to the two sister Churches 
of Asia Minor ; while again his description of himself as the 
elder would be suggested by 6 crv/xTrpeo-^vrepos (i Peter v. i). 

What I have said about the Second Epistle is in a great 
measure conjectural ; but I wish you to observe that the un 
certainty which attaches to all conjectures does not affect the 
inferences which I have drawn from the Third Epistle, and 
which I count as of great importance. At the present day 
Baur has more faithful disciples in Holland than in Germany. 
A typical representation of the form which Baur s theories 
take among his disciples of the present day is to be found in 



XVI.] THE THIRD EPISTLE. 295 

a book called the Bible for Young People, of which the 
New Testament part is written by a Dr. Hooykaas, and of 
which an English translation was published a few years ago. 
In this book the disciple whom Jesus loved is volatilized 
away.* We are taught that the last chapter of the fourth 
Gospel is intended only to give a symbolical revelation of 
certain passages of old Church history. If it is said that the 
disciple whom Jesus loved is to remain when Peter passes 
away, this only means that the authority of Peter, whose 
supremacy over the Apostolic communities is not disputed, 
was only to last during his life, whereas the disciple who 
read into the soul of Jesus will retain his influence till the 
perfecting of the kingdom of God. Who is meant by this 
disciple is not clear. The author is greatly tempted to think 
of Paul, but can find nothing to countenance this conjecture; 
so he has to be satisfied with setting him down as an ideal 
personage. In the presence of such attempts to turn the 
Gospel narrative into allegory, we have cause for gratitude 
that the short letter to Caius has been preserved to us. It 
matters little that we are ignorant of the circumstances that 
drew it forth, and that Diotrephes and Demetrius are to us 
little more than names. But we see clearly that the letter 
contains solid facts which cannot be allegorized, and that 
the writer is no abstraction, but a man busy with active work 
and engaged in real contests, one who claimed the superin 
tendence of distant Churches, and who vigorously asserted 
his authority against those who refused obedience. I have 
looked for other solutions, but can acquiesce in none, save 
that he is the Apostle John. 

* The notion that the disciple whom Jesus loved is not to be identified 
with the Apostle John, but is only an ideal personage, originated, as far as 
I know, with another Dutch divine, Scholten. See Der Apostel Johannes 
in Kleinasien (Berlin, 1872), p. no. 



296 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. 



XVII. 

PART VI. 

THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS. 

THERE is one class of objections to the Johannine author 
ship of the fourth Gospel which I might decline to discuss, 
as being outside the limits I have assigned myself in this 
course of lectures : I mean objections founded on real or 
apparent contradictions between the fourth and the Synoptic 
Gospels. For this is an argument which the objectors, on 
their own principles, have no right to urge. They do not 
believe that the writers of New Testament books were aided 
by any supernatural assistance, and therefore they have no 
right to demand from them more minute exactness of detail 
than other writers exhibit under similar circumstances. Now, 
we feel lively interest when a veteran statesman or soldier 
gives us his recollections of stirring events in which in his 
younger days he had taken part. But when such recollec 
tions are published, and compared with records made at an 
earlier date, it is the commonest experience in the world to 
find discrepancies, and these sometimes in particulars by no 
means unimportant. Yet we simply conclude that on these 
points the old man s memory may have played him false, and 
are not tempted to doubt the genuineness of the book which 
purports to be his memoirs. If, then, we have found reason 
to believe that the fourth Gospel contains an aged Apostle s 
recollections of the life of the Master whom he had loved, we 
should have no reason to give up that belief, even if we were 
unable to refute the allegation that these recollections are in 
some points at variance with earlier records. It would be 
possible to grant that the later account in some points needed 
correction, while yet we might believe the picture it presents 
of the life and work of our Lord to be, on the whole, one of 
the highest interest and value. But, though for the sole pur 
pose of an inquiry as to the authorship of the fourth Gospel,. 



XVII.] THE OMISSIONS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 297 

we might set aside as irrelevant a great deal of what has been 
said as to contradictions between this Gospel and its prede 
cessors ; yet so many of these alleged contradictions melt 
away on examination, that I think it well to give some little 
discussion to a subject important from other points of view. 

A very important question to be settled in using the fourth 
Gospel is, What verdict are we to think the Evangelist means 
to pass on those things which are related in the Synoptic 
Gospels, but omitted in his ? It is notorious that the things 
recorded in this Gospel are, for the most part, different from 
those related by the other Evangelists, so that it may be 
regarded as exceptional when St. John goes over ground 
which they have traversed. Among the things omitted by 
St. John are some of the most important events of our Lord s 
life. Thus, the institution of the rite of the Lord s Supper 
finds no place in his account of the night before the Passion, 
nor does he mention the Agony in the Garden. Now Renan, 
and a host of Rationalist critics with him, in using St. John s 
Gospel, go on the principle that he is to be understood as 
bearing testimony against whatever he does not relate ; that 
we are to assume that he either had never heard of the things 
which he passes over in silence, or else means to imply that 
they never occurred. There is no better instance on which 
to test Renan s principle than that to which he confidently 
applies it in the opening sentence of his Life of Jesus, l Jesus 
was born at Nazareth, a little town of Galilee. When we 
inquire on what authority Renan has ventured on this cor 
rection of the traditional account of our Lord s birthplace, we 
find his main reliance is on the fact that John knows nothing 
of the journey to Bethlehem; that for him Jesus is simply of 
Nazareth or of Galilee, on two occasions when it would have 
been of the highest importance to make mention of the birth 
at Bethlehem. * Now, if you have not read your Bible with 
care it may surprise you to learn that it is quite true (as De 
Wette before Renan had pointed out) that not only does St. 
John s Gospel contain no assertion of the birth at Bethlehem 
or of the descent from David, but it reports more than one 

* Vie de Jesus, p. 22. 



298 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVII. 

uncontradicted assertion of the opposite. In the first chapter 
(vv. 45, 46) Philip tells Nathanael, We have found him, of 
whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of 
Nazareth, the son of Joseph, to which Nathanael answers, 
Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth ? an objec 
tion to which Philip makes no direct reply. Again, in the 
7th chapter (vv. 41, 42) we are told of the difficulty which the 
birth of Jesus put in the way of His reception : * Others said, 
This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of 
Galilee ? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of 
the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where 
David was ? No answer is given to these difficulties ; nor, 
again, are we told that Nicodemus had any reply to make 
when his brother members of the Sanhedrim exclaimed, on his 
taking our Lord s part, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and 
look : for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet (vii. 52). Thus 
St. John tells us expressly that there were current objections 
to the acknowledgment of our Lord s claims, which ran thus : 
Jesus is not of David s seed, as it was foretold the Messiah 
should be. Jesus was born at Nazareth, but the prophet fore 
told that the Messiah should be bom at Bethlehem ; there 
fore Jesus is not the Messiah of whom the prophets spoke. 
And the Evangelist does not give the slightest hint how these 
difficulties are to be got over. 

There are two ways of explaining his silence : one is that 
he did not know what answer to give to these objections ; 
the other, that he knew his readers did not require any answer 
to be given. If it were not that the first is the explanation 
adopted by Renan, I should have thought it too absurd to 
need serious refutation. It is certain that the Evangelist 
believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and also that he believed 
in the Old Testament. How is it possible that he could take 
pleasure in bringing out the fact that the Jews held that there 
was a contradiction between acknowledging the Messiahship 
of Jesus, and acknowledging the truth of the Old Testament 
prophecies, unless he had in his own mind some way of re 
conciling this alleged contradiction ? And since critics of all 
schools hold that John s Gospel was written at so late a date 
that the Synoptic accounts of our Lord s birth at Bethlehem, 



XVII.] ST. JOHN WRITES FOR INSTRUCTED READERS. 299 

of the seed of David, must then have been many years in 
circulation, and have had time to become the general belief 
of Christians, it is ridiculous to think that John had any way 
of answering the Jewish objection different from that which 
must have occurred to all his readers. 

We can well believe that John would not have cared to 
repeat the objection if he knew no answer to it ; but it is easy 
to understand why, knowing the answer, he did not trouble 
himself to state it formally. When we repeat the story of a 
blunder committed by ignorant persons, we do not think it 
necessary to demonstrate their error if we are addressing 
persons who understand the subject. For example, a very 
worthy man, some fifty years ago, declaiming against the 
necessity of human learning in an ambassador of Christ, 
-exclaimed, Greek, indeed ! I should like to know if St. Paul 
knew Greek. In repeating such a story to educated persons, 
we leave it to speak for itself. We do not think it necessary 
to expand into formal argument the statement that St. Paul 
did know Greek, and that the fact that he wrote Epistles in 
that language is one of the reasons why it is desirable that 
persons should learn it whose duty it will be to expound these 
Epistles. Every disputant is pleased to find his opponent 
relying on an argument which he is sure he can in a moment 
demolish. And so every Christian reader of St. John s Gospel 
has read with a certain satisfaction and triumph how the 
Jews would have been willing to acknowledge the Messiah- 
ship of Jesus, only for this, that it was necessary the Messiah 
should be born at Bethlehem, and be of the seed of David. 
We are all ready with the answer, Why, so Jesus was. And 
now we are asked to believe that the Evangelist did not 
sympathize with his readers in this matter; that he wrote in 
perplexity what they read in triumph. A critic who can so 
interpret the Gospel commands admiration for his ingenuity 
in contriving to go wrong on a point which scarcely any 
previous reader had been able to misunderstand. 

I should not have cared to spend so many words on this 
matter, if it were not that the study of this example calls 
attention to some peculiarities of the Evangelist s style, and 
also throws some light on the question whether the fourth 



300 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. 

Evangelist had seen the preceding Gospels. I ask you, then,, 
in the first place, to observe that no writer is more in the 
habit than St. John of trusting to the previous knowledge of 
his readers : and it is not strange that he should ; for at the 
late period when he wrote, he was not addressing men to 
whom Christianity was a novelty, but men to whom the facts 
of the history were already known. In the very first chapter 
(v. 40) he describes Andrew as Simon Peter s brother, taking 
for granted that Simon Peter* was known. A reference to the 
Baptist (iii. 24) is accompanied by the parenthetical remark, 
* for John was not yet cast into prison, evidently intended for 
men who knew that John s career had been thus cut short, 
but who needed the explanation that the events which the 
Evangelist is relating occurred while the Baptist was still in 
activity. He does not directly tell of the appointment of the 
twelve Apostles, but he assumes it as known (vi. 70), * Have 
not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ? * His 
narrative does not inform us that Joseph was the reputed 
father of our Lord, but this appears incidentally when the 
Jews ask, Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father 
and mother we know? (vi. 42 : see also i. 45). The Baptism 
of our Lord is not expressly mentioned, but is implied in 
the account the Baptist gives of his having seen the Spirit 
descending on him (i. 32). The Ascension is not related, but 
it is thrice referred to (iii. 13, vi. 62, xx. 17). As a general 
rule this Evangelist prefers to leave unspoken what he can 
trust his readers to supply. He does not claim to be the un 
named disciple who heard the testimony of John the Baptist 
(i. 40), nor to be the unnamed disciple through whose interest 
Peter was admitted to the high-priest s palace (xviii. 16) ; yet 
there can be little doubt that in both cases the impression 
received by most readers is that which the writer intended 
to convey. I have already (p. 63) noted the most striking 
example of this writer s ignorance, that he knows nothing 
of the Apostle John ; yet few dispute that if he were not that 
Apostle himself, he was one who desired to pass for him. 

* It may be mentioned that John (i. 43) gives Peter the name Cephas, 
which is not found in the Synoptic Gospels, but is recognized by St. Paul 
(i Cor. i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5 ; Gal. ii. 9). 



XVII.] THE IRONY OF ST. JOHN. 301 

This Evangelist repeatedly brings the knowledge which he 
assumes to be shared with him by his readers into contrast 
with the ignorance of the actors in the events he relates. 
Hobbes explained laughter as arising from a sudden conceit 
of our own superiority to someone else ; and though it may be 
doubted whether this gives a sufficient account of all our 
mirthful emotions, it is certain that it is by exciting this con 
ceit of superiority that literary artists have produced some 
of their most telling effects. Even a child is pleased when 
he can boast to his fellows that he knows something which 
they do not ; and this is a kind of pleasure through which, 
when they can give it to their spectators, dramatic authors 
have found the surest way to win applause. No scenes are 
more effective than when the character on the stage is repre 
sented as ignorant of something known to the spectators, and 
in his ignorance using expressions which have a reference the 
speaker does not dream of. The staple of most comedies is 
that someone on the stage is deceived, or is under a misap 
prehension, while the spectators are in the secret ; and their 
pleasure is all the greater the more convinced the deceived 
person is that he knows everything. Thus the duped father 
in Terence believes that he is the only wise man of the 
family 

Primus sentio mala nostra ; primus rescisco omnia, 
Primus porro obnuntio : 

but the slave presently puts the feelings of the spectators into 
words 

Rideo mine ; se primum ait scire, is solus nescit omnia. 

The effect of tragedy is equally heightened when a personage 
is represented as ignorant of his real position. In the CEdipus 
Rex* of Sophocles much of the tragic effect is derived from 
the king s unconsciousness that he is himself the object of 

* Much of what is said here I have said elsewhere in a Paper contained 
in a volume of sermons now out of print, called The Irony of St. John ; 
the title of which, as well as its use of the word irony, were borrowed 
from Bishop Thirlwall s celebrated Essay on The Irony of Sophocles 
(Philological Museum, ii. 483). 



302 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVII. 

the wrath of heaven ; while, as the spectators hear him de 
nounce the author of the city s calamities, they are thrilled 
by the knowledge that it is on himself he is imprecating 
vengeance. 

Touches of the same kind are as effective in historical 
narrative as in the drama. Every reader remembers the effect 
of Isaac s question, when bearing the fuel for Abraham s 
sacrifice : My father, behold the fire and the wood, but where 
is the lamb for the burnt offering ? In one touch the con 
trast is brought out between the boy s ignorance and the 
father s and the reader s knowledge that he is himself the 
destined victim. If the ending of the story were not happy, 
nothing could have a more tragic effect than this simple 
question. To the same principle is due the effectiveness of 
another Scripture story, Nathan s parable, by which David s 
indignation against tyrannical injustice is raised to the 
highest point before he knows that he is himself the culprit 
on whom he pronounces sentence. 

Now passages of the character I have described occur to 
an unusual amount in St. John s Gospel. I believe that in 
that Gospel can be found as many cases as in all the rest of 
the New Testament where the characters are introduced as 
speaking under misapprehensions which the reader knows 
how to correct. Sometimes the Evangelist himself tells how 
their mistakes are to be corrected, as where the Jews say 
(ii. 20), * Forty and six years was this temple in building, 
and wilt Thou rear it up in three days ? the Evangelist adds 
but He spake of the temple of His body. But in the 
majority of cases no explanation is given. A few verses 
before one of the passages relied on by Renan, the Jews ask 
(vii. 35, 36), Whither will He go that we shall not find Him ? 
Will He go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles and teach 
the Gentiles ? What manner of saying is this that He said, 
Ye shall seek Me, and shall not find Me: and where I am, 
thither ye cannot come ? But no explanation is given of the 
true answer to this question. Nicodemus asks (iii. 4), How 
can a man be born when he is old ? Can he enter the second 
time into his mother s womb and be born? Yet the meaning 
of the answer made him would be unintelligible to one not 



XVII.] ST. JOHN KNEW OF PREVIOUS GOSPELS. 305 

already impregnated with Christian ideas. The woman of 
Samaria misunderstands our Lord s saying when she says 
(iv. 15), Sir, give me this water that I thirst not, neither 
come hither to draw; yet the Evangelist passes on without 
remark. And so, in like manner, when the Jews ask, 
How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? (vi. 52). But 
the most striking examples of the introduction of characters 
speaking truths of which they have themselves no conscious 
ness, are that of Caiaphas (xi. 50), declaring that it was 
1 expedient that one man should die for the people; and 
that of Pilate (xix. 21), insisting, in spite of the chief priests* 
remonstrance, in inscribing on the title on the cross, not 
that our Lord said He was the King of the Jews, but that He 
was the King of the Jews. 

I have given proof more than sufficient to show that no 
writer is more in the habit than St. John of trusting to his 
reader s previous knowledge, and that no one understands 
better the rhetorical effect of leaving an absurdity without 
formal refutation, when his readers can be trusted to perceive 
it for themselves. For the secret of an orator s success is if 
he can contrive that his hearers minds shall not be passive, 
but shall be working with him, and even running before 
him to the conclusions which he wishes them to draw. It is 
to me amazing that Renan, who professes to value this Gospel 
so highly, should never have discovered this characteristic of 
its style, but should treat the book as if he had to do with 
an author like Euclid, who is careful to guard matter-of-fact 
readers from misapprehension by appending quod est absur- 
dum to the conclusions which he does not wish them to 
believe. It would not have been worth while to make so 
much comment on Kenan s want of literary tact in misunder 
standing St. John s statements about our Lord s birthplace, if 
this had been an isolated piece of stupidity ; but full discus 
sion was necessary, because if Renan is wrong in this case it 
is because he proceeds by a faulty method, which misleads 
him equally whenever he has to deal with incidents omitted 
by St. John. 

From the facts that have been stated I draw the further 
inference that, at the time when St. John wrote, he knew 



THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVII. 

that other Gospels had been written. The thing is in itself 
likely. We may gather from the last chapter that it, at least, 
was not written until after the death of Peter. It is true that 
this last chapter has been imagined to be the work of another 
hand, but I know no good reason for thinking so. It is not 
a good reason that the Gospel has seemed to come to an end 
in the preceding chapter ; for there is nothing strange in an 
author s adding a postscript to his work, whether before 
publication or in a second edition.* There is no external 
evidence of any kind to induce us to separate the authorship 
of the last chapter from that of the rest, and there is com 
plete identity of style. It is not only those who have been 
nicknamed apologists who defend the genuineness of this 
chapter. Hilgenfeld, for instance (Einleitung, p. 719), notices 
the mention of the Sea of Tiberias, Thomas called Didymus, 
Nathanael of Cana of Galilee, and the disciple whom Jesus 
loved ; and I would add that the reference in v. 20 to the pre 
ceding history is quite in St. John s manner (see vii. 50, xi. 2, 
xviii. 14, xix. 39). Hilgenfeld also points out the resem 
blance of the phrases d>s OLTTO Trrjx&v Sia/cocrtW, V. 8, with a>s 
OLTTO crraScW Se/axTreVre (xi. 18); of the bread and fish (6\}/dpiov 
Kal aproi/), v. 9, with the same words (vi. 1 1), the word 6\j/dpiov 
being, in the N. T., peculiar to St. John; and the 6 /xaprvpwv 
Trept TOVTWV, v. 24, with i. 34, xix. 35. And I think there is a 
wonderful trait of genuineness in the words (v. 22), If I will 
that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? The great 
age of the Apostle had seemed to justify the interpretation 
which some disciples had put on these words, viz. that that 
disciple should not die. The Evangelist evidently accepts 
it as a possibility that this may be the true interpretation of 
them, but he contents himself with recording what the words 
of Jesus actually were, and pointing out that they do not 
necessarily bear this meaning. I do not believe that a forger 
of the next century could have given such a picture of the 
old age of the beloved disciple, looking and longing for the 
reappearance of his Master, thinking it possible that he might 



* Quite similar phenomena present themselves in the conclusion of the 
Epistle to the Romans. 



XVII.] ST. JOHN KNEW OF PREVIOUS GOSPELS. 305 

live to see it, yet correcting the belief of his too eager fol 
lowers that he had any guaranteed promise that he should. 
Now, if this 2ist chapter be an integral part* of the Gos 
pel, John must have written after the death of Peter ; but at 
that late period other Gospels had been written, and John 
did not live so completely out of the Christian world as not 
to be likely to have seen them. But what to my mind proves 
decisively that he had is the fact that he can venture to state 
most formidable objections to the Messiahship of Jesus with 
out giving a word of refutation. If Christians were then 
dependent on traditional rumour for the belief that Jesus was 
born at Bethlehem, that He was of the seed of David, that 
Joseph was not his real father, I cannot believe that John 
would have refrained from giving his attestation to the truth 
of these beliefs, or have left his readers without his assurance 
that the answer they might be expected to give to the Jewish 
objectors was the right one. The fact, then, that John felt 

* It has been attempted to separate the last two verses from the rest, and 
to ascribe them to John s disciples. But with regard to * We know that 
his testimony is true (v. 24), Renan owns that very nearly the same words 
occur again in 3 John 12 (where, however, oTSos seems the true reading) ; 
and he might have added that they have a close parallel in John xix. 35. 
oV8a/j.i> is a favourite Johannine word, occurring five times in the six verses 
I John v. 15-20. 

Renan states ( Vie de Jesus, p. 535) that v. 25 is wanting in the Sinaitic 
MS. ; but this is a slip of memory. What Renan had in his mind was that 
Tischendorf had expressed his opinion that this verse was in a different 
hand from the rest. He thought that the scribe, whom he calls A, who 
wrote the rest of the Gospel, had stopped at the end of v. 24, and that 
v. 25, with the subscription, was added by the corrector, whom he calls D, 
and who, he believes, was also one of the transcribers of this and of the 
Vatican MS. If this were so, it would be probable that v. 25 had been 
wanting in the archetype of the Sinaitic, and had been added by the 
corrector from a different source. 

But Tregelles did not share Tischendorfs opinion as to there being a 
difference of handwriting ; and Dr. Gwynn has noted that the same indica 
tions, whence Tischendorf infers (see p. 160) that the scribe D wrote the 
conclusion of St. Mark, prove that he did not write the conclusion of St. 
John. Contrary to the practice of that scribe, the name Icadvvijs is written 
in the subscription here with two j/ s ; and the final arabesque, as Tischen 
dorf calls it, or ornament drawn with a pen between the last line and the 
subscription, is exactly of the same pattern as that found in the other books 
written by the scribe A, and is quite different from the four written by the 
scribe D, viz. Tobit and Judith, St. Mark and I Thess. (the last leaf in 
each of these two N. T. books, having been cancelled and rewritten by D). 
There is, therefore, no ground to imagine that -v. 25 is in any way dis 
credited by the testimony of the Sinaitic MS. 

X 



306 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVII. 

himself called on to give no answer to the objection that 
Christ must, according to the prophets, be of the seed of 
David, and of the town of Bethlehem, appears to me to be a 
proof that he knew that his readers had in their hands at 
least one of the Gospels which contain the genealogy tracing 
our Lord s descent from David, and which relate the birth at 
Bethlehem. 

I draw the same inference from the supplemental character 
of St. John s Gospel. As I think that mere accident will not 
account for the likeness to each other of the Synoptic Gos 
pels, so also do I think that mere accident will not account 
for the unlikeness of St. John s to the others. If he had 
written an account of our Saviour s life without any know 
ledge that other accounts had been written, it is incredible 
that he could have so successfully avoided telling what is 
related in these other accounts. It is exceptional if we find 
in St. John anything that had been recorded by his prede 
cessors ; and when we do, there is usually some obvious 
reason for its insertion. Thus the miracle of feeding the 
five thousand is used by St. John to introduce a discourse 
peculiar to his Gospel. The true explanation, I am per 
suaded, is that which has commonly been given, viz. that 
this Evangelist, knowing what accounts Christians already 
had in their hands, wrote his Gospel with the intention of 
supplementing these previous accounts. When he omits 
what his predecessors had related, he is not to be supposed 
to discredit them, or to wish to contradict them; but it is part 
of his plan not to bear testimony to what had been sufficiently 
attested already. 

That St. John s silence is neither the silence of ignorance 
nor of disparagement becomes still plainer when we examine 
each instance severally. Thus he does not relate the institu 
tion of the Eucharistic Feast ; and Renan takes this omission 
as a proof that our Lord did not then institute the rite, a 
conclusion in which Strauss on other grounds agrees. And 
certainly for anyone who does not acknowledge our Lord s 
Divinity, it is an important thing to overthrow, if possible, 
the Synoptic account of this part of the history. For see 
what is involved in the acceptance of this account. That 



XVII.] EVIDENTIAL IMPORTANCE OF THE EUCHARIST. 307 

Jesus should on this night have spoken of his approaching 
death Strauss believes to be possible enough. He thinks 
that he must have seen what feeble support followers, who 
understood him but imperfectly, were capable of giving 
against relentless foes. His idea is that when Jesus, as 
master of the household, broke the bread, and poured out the 
wine, for distribution among his disciples, the thought may 
have involuntarily presented itself to him that even so would 
his body soon be broken, even so his blood soon be poured 
forth, and that he may have expressed some such gloomy 
forebodings to his disciples. But if we grant, what Strauss 
admits to be possible, that Jesus, looking on his death as a 
sacrifice, may have regarded his blood as the consecration of 
a new covenant between God and mankind, and that in order 
to give a living centre to the community which he desired to 
found, he may have commanded the perpetual repetition of 
this distribution of bread and wine, we are led to views of 
our Saviour which can hardly fall short of those held by the 
Church. At the moment when our Lord sees that death can be 
no longer escaped, and that the career which he had planned 
has ended in failure, he calmly looks forward to the forma 
tion of a new society which shall own him as its founder. 
He foresees that the flock of timorous followers, whose dis 
persion on the next day he ventures to predict, will recover 
the shock of their disappointment and unite again. As for 
the shameful death, the thoughts of which oppress him, 
instead of anticipating that his followers will put it from 
their thoughts, and blush to remember their credulity when 
they accepted as their Saviour one unable to save himself, 
he commands his disciples to keep that death in perpetual 
memory. Notwithstanding the apparent failure of his course, 
he conceives himself to be a unique person in the world s 
history ; and, in Strauss s words, he regards his death as the 
seal of a new covenant between God and mankind. Further, 
he makes it an ordinance of perpetual obligation to his fol 
lowers that they shall seek the most intimate union with his 
body and blood, and holds out to them this closeness of 
perpetual union with himself as the source of all spiritual 
life. He intimates that the rite then being enacted was 

x 2 



308 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVII. 

comparable with the first setting apart of the Jewish nation 
to be God s peculiar people ; and as Moses had then sprinkled 
the people with blood, saying, Behold the blood of the 
covenant which the Lord hath made with you (Ex. xxiv. 8), 
so now he calls his own the blood of the new covenant. 
This legislation for a future Church was made at a moment 
when his most attached disciples could not be trusted to 
remain with him for an hour, and when he had himself pre 
dicted their desertion and denial. Surely, in the establish 
ment of the Christian Church, with its perpetual Eucharistic 
celebrations, we have the fulfilment of a prophecy, such as 
no human forecast could have dreamed of at the time the 
prophecy was uttered. 

The case I have been considering must be added to the 
proofs given above (p. 217) that the Synoptic Gospels repre 
sent our Lord as using, concerning His own claims, no less 
lofty language than does St. John s. For what mere man 
has dared to set such a value on his own life as to speak of it 
as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, the source of all good 
to mankind ? If with respect to the institution of the Eucha 
rist St. John is to be regarded as contradicting the account 
of the Synoptics, we must inquire which account is the more 
credible ; and then we have to consider that the Synoptic 
account is not only the earlier, but is confirmed by the per 
petual practice of the Church. The very first time we read 
of Christian communities after the day of Pentecost we are 
told of their breaking of bread (Acts ii. 42, 46) ; and if we 
want more information about the rite, we obtain it from a 
document earlier than either the Synoptic Gospels or the 
Acts, namely, St. Paul s First Epistle to the Corinthians, in 
which, having spoken of eating the Lord s Supper (xi. 20), 
he goes on to give an account of the institution of the rite, 
in strict agreement with that in St. Luke s Gospel. How 
great value Christians, from the earliest times, attached to 
the eating Christ s flesh and drinking His blood, appears 
from words which I cite without scruple, since the progress 
of criticism has tended to dispel the doubts once entertained 
about the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles, I wish for 
the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which 



XVII.] THE EUCHARIST RECOGNIZED BY ST. JOHN. 309 

is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and as drink I 
desire His blood, which is love incorruptible (Ignat. Ep. ad 
Rom. 7). 

But now comes the most singular part of the discussion. 
So far is it from being the case that such language must be 
regarded as at variance with a Gospel which tells nothing of 
the institution of the Eucharist, that these words of Ignatius, 
or, if you will, of pseudo-Ignatius, have been generally ac 
cepted as evidence that the writer was acquainted with St. 
John s Gospel. When St. John wrote, Eucharistic celebra 
tions were prevailing widely, if not universally, over the 
Christian world ; and many years before, St. Paul had told 
how our Lord had commended the rite with the words, This 
is My body, this is My blood. Renan would have us be 
lieve that St. John intended by his silence to negative that 
account, yet no writer has done so much to strengthen the 
belief which we are told he desired to oppose. In fact one 
of the arguments which sceptical writers have used to induce 
us to assign a late date to the fourth Gospel is the resem 
blance of the language of the sixth chapter to the Eucharistic 
language of the writers of the second century. They say that 
in the Synoptic Gospels the Eucharist is but a memorial, or 
that at most there is a reference to some atoning efficacy 
attached to the Passion of Christ. In Justin Martyr, on the 
other hand, the Eucharist is a means by which spiritual 
nourishment is mystically conveyed to the soul. He speaks 
of these elements as no longer common bread and wine, and 
he teaches that as the Divine Logos became flesh and blood 
for our salvation, so our flesh and blood, by partaking of this 
heavenly nourishment, enter into communion with a higher 
spiritual nature (ApoL i. 66). This is evidently the same 
doctrine as that taught (John vi. 55), My flesh is meat in 
deed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My 
flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me and I in him. 
And in Lecture vi. I have taken pains to show that Justin 
derived his doctrine from St. John. 

I own I do not think it possible satisfactorily to explain 
John vi. if we exclude all reference to the Eucharist. If both 
the Evangelist knew and his readers knew that our Lord had 



310 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVII. 

on another occasion said, Take, eat, this is My body ; drink 
this, this is My blood, they could hardly help being reminded 
of these expressions by that discourse about eating His flesh 
and drinking His blood. On this point St. John s Gospel 
throws light on the Synoptic account. It softens the apparent 
harshness and abruptness of these words at the Last Supper, 
when we learn that this language about eating His flesh and 
drinking His blood was not then used by our Lord for the 
first time. We are told that in a discourse delivered at the 
Passover season of the preceding year (John vi. 4), our Lord 
had prepared the minds of His disciples to receive the idea 
of communion with Him by eating His flesh and drinking 
His blood. His language, then, at the Last Supper, instead 
of causing perplexity to the disciples, would remind them of 
the discourse spoken at the preceding Passover season, and 
would remove the perplexity caused by His previous dark 
sayings. The words, * Take, eat, this is My body, would 
then mean to them, Hereby can you do that which perplexed 
you when I spoke of it before. 

In any case there can be no doubt of the fact that the 
discourse recorded in John vi. has had the effect of greatly 
increasing the value attached by Christians to the Eucharistic 
rite, and it cannot plausibly be maintained that this effect 
was one which the narrator neither foresaw nor intended ; 
that he was ignorant of this ordinance or wished to disparage 
it. And if the result of the previous investigation has been 
to establish that this Evangelist habitually relies on the pre 
vious knowledge of his readers, we cannot doubt that in this 
as in other cases he speaks words ^>wvavra crweTotcrtv ; and 
that he gives no formal account of the institution of the 
Eucharist, only because he knew that his readers had other 
accounts of it in their hands. 

Very nearly the same things may be said about St. John s 
omission of our Lord s command to His disciples to go and 
baptize all nations. If by his silence he intended to dis 
parage the rite of baptism, it is a strange accident that it is 
words of his which caused Christians to entertain an even 
exaggerated sense of the absolute necessity of that rite, and 
which suggested the name dvayei/vr/o-is, by which in the middle 



XVII.] CAREFUL COMPOSITION OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 311 

of the second century baptism was generally known (Justin 
Martyr, ApoL i. 61, with an express reference to our Lord s 
words to Nicodemus). 

And so likewise as to the Ascension. Although John does 
not formally relate it, he not only refers to it in two texts 
already quoted, What and if ye shall see the Son of Man 
ascend up where He was before ? J (vi. 62) ; Touch Me not, 
for I am not yet ascended to My Father (xx. 17); but he 
assumes the fact, not in a single verse, but throughout the 
Gospel. The Evangelist is never weary of teaching that 
Jesus is a heavenly person, not an earthly; His true home 
heaven, not earth. The doctrine of the pre-existence of 
Christ is made to smooth away all difficulties in admitting 
the fact of the Ascension. No man hath ascended up to 
heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son 
of Man which is in heaven. If, then, St. John, who so 
frequently declares that Jesus had been in heaven before 
He came to earth, does not bear formal testimony to the 
fact that Jesus returned to heaven after He left earth, it 
can only be that he was aware that this was already well 
known to his readers by the attestation of others.* 

I think it needless to multiply proofs that St. John did not 
write for men to whom the story of our Lord s life was un 
known ; but that, on the contrary, he constantly assumes his 
readers knowledge of the leading facts. Instead of taking 
it as our rule of interpretation that he contradicts whatever 
he does not report, we should be much nearer the truth if 
we held that he confirms what he does not contradict. And 
the more we study this Gospel, the more weight, we find, 
deserves to be attached to the Evangelist s even indirect 
indications of opinion. The Synoptic Gospels may fairly 
be described as artless narratives of such deeds and words 
of Jesus as had most fastened themselves on His disciples 
recollection ; but the fourth Gospel is avowedly written with 
a purpose, namely, that ye might believe that Jesus is the 

* Renan remarks (iv. 408) that the story of our Lord s ascension was 
known to the writer of the Apocalypse ; for that on this story is based the 
account of the resurrection, followed by an ascension, of the two witnesses, 
xi. 12. 



312 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVII. 

Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have 
life through His name (xx. 31). The Gospel bears the 
marks of having being written after controversy concerning 
our Lord s Person had arisen. The writer seems like one 
who has encountered objections, and who therefore antici 
pates difficulties by explanations. For example, he meets 
the difficulty, If Jesus walked on the sea because there was 
no boat in which he could follow His disciples, how was it 
that the multitude was able subsequently to follow Him? 
(vi. 23). He meets the more formidable difficulty, How 
could Jesus be divine if He was deceived in His judgment 
of one whom He had chosen to be an Apostle ? (ii. 24, 
vi. 71, xiii. u.) All this gives the more weight to those 
passages in the Gospel which assert or imply the doctrine 
of the Godhead of our Lord. We know that we are not 
wresting chance expressions to a use different from that 
which the writer intended; but that these utterances are 
the deliberate expression of the Evangelist s firm convic 
tion. 

If we find reason to think that St. John knew of previous 
Gospels, it is difficult to believe that these were other than 
those we have now, which all own were written before his. 
There are several coincidences between St. John s Gospel 
and the Synoptics, but perhaps hardly sufficient of them 
selves to prove his obligation to them. He refers (iv. 44) 
to words of our Lord which he had not himself recorded, 
For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honour 
in his own country (see Matt. xiii. 57). In the story of the 
miracle of feeding the five thousand, which is common to all 
four Gospels, there are coincidences which, however, may 
be explained as arising from independent familiarity with the 
facts. The mountain unto which our Lord ascended to pray 
is, as in the other Gospels, the mountain TO 0/309. In Mat 
thew and Mark a distinction is carefully made between the 
two miracles of feeding the multitude, the baskets taken up 
being in the former case Kofavoi, in the latter o-Trvpi Seg a 
distinction, by the way, scarcely to be accounted for if we 
assume that the common element of those Gospels was only 
Aramaic. St. John agrees with the earlier Gospels in the 



xvii.] ST. JOHN S COINCIDENCES WITH THE SYNOPTICS. 3 1 3 

use of the word KO<II/OI. St. John preserves a feature that 
distinguishes Mark from Matthew, the 200 pennyworth of 
bread which the disciples exclaim would be needed to supply 
the people. Some minute critics have accused John of love 
of exaggeration because he says (vi. 7) that Mark s 200 
pennyworth (vi. 37) would not be enough. It is odd that 
there is another coincidence between John and Mark in 
which the difference is the other way. The ointment with 
which our Lord was anointed might, according to John 
(xii. 5) have been sold for 300 pence ; according to Mark 
(xiv. 5) for more than 300 pence. The most striking coin 
cidence between these two Evangelists is in the words by 
which this ointment is described, /xvpov vdpSov TTIO-TIKT}?, the 
last a word which puzzled even Greek commentators. If 
the conclusion of St. Mark s Gospel be genuine, there is a 
further coincidence in the relation of the appearance to 
Mary Magdalene. John agrees with Luke in naming one 
of the Apostles Judas, not Iscariot, who is otherwise 
named in Matthew and Mark. We could not build much 
on the mere fact that Mary and Martha are named by 
both ; still less on the name Lazarus, which in Luke occurs 
in a different connexion ; but the description (xii. 2) of 
Martha as serving, and the part ascribed to the two sisters 
in ch. xi. are in close harmony with St. Luke s account. 
Again, both Evangelists speak of Satan entering into Judas 
(Luke xxii. 3, John xiii. 27); and of the Holy Spirit as sent 
by Jesus (Luke xxiv. 49, John xvi. 7). There appears to be 
a reference to an incident more fully recorded by John, in 
Luke xxiv. 12, but there is uncertainty as to the reading. 

An interesting question is, Where could John have read 
the story of our Lord s Ascension ? If I have been right in 
contending that John would not have omitted to state for 
mally where our Lord had been born unless he knew that 
this had been done already, it seems also that he would not 
have omitted to tell of the Ascension unless he had known 
it to have been previously related. But if this be so, we 
have only the choice of three suppositions, and the accept 
ance of any of them leads to interesting consequences. 
Either (i) John read Mark xvi. 19, and then it would 



3H THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [XVII. 

follow that words, which have been questioned because they 
were not in some of the copies seen by Eusebius, were in 
the copies used by St. John ; or (2) he read the words 
av<f)epTo ets TOV ovpcwov in Luke xxiv. 51, and this is also 
opposed to the decision of modern critics ; or (3) John was 
acquainted with the Acts of the Apostles, and read the 
account of the Ascension in the first chapter. 

I have spoken of the things omitted by John and told by 
the Synoptics. I had intended to speak of the things told 
by John and omitted by the Synoptics ; but I have not left 
myself time to speak of more than one. I refer to the fact, 
of which notice has often been taken, that the Synoptics 
relate no visit of our Lord to Jerusalem during His public 
ministry save that which ended in His death ; while the 
scene of almost all the discourses recorded by John is laid 
at Jerusalem, and he relates visits of our Lord on the occa 
sion of more Jewish feasts than one. In fact it is by the 
help of St. John s Gospel, and by the feasts there mentioned, 
that the duration of our Lord s ministry is calculated. If we 
had none but the Synoptic Gospels we might acquiesce in 
the notion taken up by some of the early fathers from the 
phrase, the acceptable year of the Lord, that His ministry 
lasted but one year. 

It used to be one of the stock objections to St. John that 
he is here opposed to the more credible account given by 
the Synoptics. But the tide has now turned, and Renan has 
pronounced that on this question there is a signal triumph 
for the fourth Gospel. In the first place, it would be ex 
tremely improbable that our Lord should have failed to do 
what every devout Jew made a point of doing attend the 
Jerusalem feasts. We know that our Lord s parents com 
plied with this ordinance, and brought Himself up to Jeru 
salem, when He was only twelve years of age. We know that 
our Lord s Apostles scrupulously attended the feasts. After 
the Passover at which He suffered, they still came up to the 
following Pentecost. Even St. Paul, who was not considered 
sufficiently national, made it a point to attend the feasts ; 
and we are told how on one occasion he resisted the pres 
sing entreaties of Gentile converts to make a longer stay 



xvii.] OUR LORD S VISITS TO JERUSALEM. 315 

with them, because he was anxious to attend a feast at 
Jerusalem (Acts xviii. 20: see also xx. 16). What, then, 
can we suppose to have been the conduct of Jesus Himself, 
who more than once declared that He came not to destroy 
the law but to fulfil it ? Further, if our Lord made His ap 
pearance in Jerusalem for the first time at His last Passover, 
it seems incredible that the Jerusalem priests and rulers 
should have conceived so sudden a jealousy of their visitor, 
should instantly come to the conclusion that His existence 
was incompatible with the safety of the nation, should at 
once concert measures for His destruction, should imme 
diately succeed in finding one of His followers accessible 
to bribery, and carry all their schemes into execution within 
a space less than a week. All becomes plain and intelligible, 
if we accept John s account that Jesus and the Jewish rulers 
had been on more than one previous occasion in collision, 
so that he was well known to these rulers, who had resolved 
on His death before His last visit to the city. St. John like 
wise gives a reason why on this last visit a crisis was brought 
about. According to him, it was the miracle of the raising 
of Lazarus which on the one hand made the Jews feel that it 
was necessary to take some decisive step in contravention of 
the claims of Jesus ; and on the other hand roused the hopes 
of His adherents to such a pitch that they went out to meet 
Him, and led Him in triumphal procession into the city. 
Matthew harmonizes with this account, although He does 
not state distinctly, as John does, that the procession which 
escorted Jesus was made up of Galilean Jews who had come 
up to the feast. For Matthew (xxi. 10, u) represents the 
multitude as crying, This is Jesus the Prophet of Nazareth, 
of Galilee ; while the inhabitants of Jerusalem are moved, 
saying, Who is this ? There seems to be no ground for the 
common illustration of popular fickleness in the change of 
the cries from * Hosanna to Crucify Him/ It would seem 
to be multitudes of Galileans who cried Hosanna; of the 
native citizens who shouted Crucify Him. 

But to proceed with my argument, that the first visit of our 
Lord and His Apostles to Jerusalem was not that Passover at 
which He suffered. What is decisive is the fact, that when 



316 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xVII. 

we turn to the Acts of the Apostles we find the headquarters 
of the disciples and the centre of the Apostolic mission at once 
established in Jerusalem : which would be highly improbable 
if they had arrived there for the first time only a few days 
before the Crucifixion. Thus, if there was a real contradiction 
between St. John and the Synoptic Gospels (and contradiction 
there is none, for his account is plainly only supplementary 
to theirs ; but if contradiction there were) we must, on all 
grounds of historic probability, accept John s account as the 
true one. But when we examine the Synoptic Gospels a little 
more closely, we find several traces of a Judaean ministry. I 
will not lay stress on the last verse of the 4th of Luke, though, 
according to the chief modern critics, we ought to read, 
1 preached in the Synagogues of Judaea, not Galilee. This is 
the reading of Codd. tf, B, and c, three of the most ancient 
extant MSS. But I may remark, in the first place, that, accord 
ing to the Synoptic Gospels, Judas the traitor was (as the 
name by which he is commonly known indicates) a native of 
Kerioth in Judaea (Josh. xv. 25) ; that Joseph of Arimathea, 
a city of the Jews (Luke xxiii. 51), or Ramathaim, was a 
disciple ; that the account of the borrowing of the ass at 
Bethphage implies that our Lord was already known there ; 
as does also the demand of the room at Jerusalem in which to 
eat the Passover. The supper given at Bethany, in the house 
of Simon the leper, was clearly given by friends, not by 
strangers. But most decisive of all are these words, recorded 
both by St. Matthew and St. Luke : O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 
how often would I have gathered thy children together, which 
plainly implies previous warnings and visitations. The result 
is, that on this point, on which a former school of rationalist 
critics had pronounced John s Gospel not historically trust 
worthy, because opposed to the Synoptics, he turns out not 
to be opposed to them, and to state nothing but what, on 
grounds of historic probability, we must pronounce to be true. 
We have here, then, as Renan has said, a signal triumph for 
the fourth Gospel. 



( 3 7 ) 



XVIII. 

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 



I COME now to speak of the book of the Acts of the 
Apostles.* It is, as I said (p. 34), a very vital matter 
with unbelievers to bring this book down to a late date. For 
if it must be conceded that this work was written by a com 
panion of St. Paul, it will follow that the still earlier book, 
the Gospel, which confessedly! has the same authorship, 
must have been written by one in immediate contact with 
eye-witnesses, and must be regarded as thoroughly historical. 
I need not spend much time in discussing the external 
evidence. At the end of the second century, the earliest time 
of which we have copious Christian remains, the evidence of 
Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, shows the 
authority of the Acts as well established as that of the Gos 
pels. J The Muratorian Fragment treats of this book next 
after the Gospels. There is an undisputed reference to the 
Acts in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, A.D. 
177 (Euseb. v. i) ; and since it has been proved (see p. 206) 

* This is the title of the book in Clement of Alexandria, in Tertullian, 
in the Muratorian Fragment, and in Cod. B. The title Acts in the 
Sinaitic MS., a title used also by Origen, must be regarded only as an 
abridgment. The full title is given in the subscription in the Sinaitic. 

t This is a fact which no critic ventures to impugn (Davidson, ii. 146). 
On ne s arretera pas a prouver cette proposition, laquelle n a jamais ete 
serieusement contestee (Renan, Les Apotres, p. x.). 

J Iren. iii. 14, 15; Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 12, Hypotyp. i. in i Pet. 
(p. 1007, Potter s edition) : see Euseb. vi. 14 ; Tert. adv. Marcion, v. i, 2, 
De Jejun. x. 

$ See p. 49. Notwithstanding the corruption of the passage which 
speaks of the Acts, the general drift is plain, viz. that the writer means to 
say, however erroneously, that it was Luke s plan only to relate things at 
which he had himself been present ; and that we are thus to account for 
the silence of the Acts as to Peter s martyrdom, and as to Paul s journey 
to Spain. 



318 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

that Marcion, in the early part of the century, found the third 
Gospel holding an established rank, we cannot doubt that the 
Acts had obtained currency at the same period. There are 
several coincidences with the Acts in other second-century 
writers ; but about these I do not care to wrangle with critics 
who regard evidence that comes short of demonstration as no 
evidence at all. When, for example, Clement of Rome (ch. 2) 
praises the Corinthians for being fonder of giving than re 
ceiving,* we cannot prove that he had in his mind our Lord s 
saying (Acts xx. 35), It is more blessed to give than to 
receive ; and when Ignatius (ad Smyrn. 3), tells how our Lord, 
after the Resurrection, ate and drank with the disciples 
(crwe^ayev K<U awciricv), we cannot demonstrate that he knew 
the (rw<j)dyo[j.v KOL o-weTTiofjLtv of Acts x. 41, or that in calling 
heretical teachers wolves (ad Philad. 2), he was thinking of 
Acts xx. 29. Let us allow that Hermas may have been ignorant 
of Acts iv. 12, when he says, that there is none other through 
whom we can be saved than through the great and glorious 
name (Vis. iv. 2) ; and that it may be pure accident that Poly- 
carp chanced upon words so like those of Acts ii. 24, when he 
says (ad Philipp. i.), Whom God raised up, having loosed 
the pains of Hades. Eusebius tells (iv. 29) that Dionysius 
of Corinth relates that Dionysius the Areopagite, who was con 
verted to the faith by Paul the Apostle, according to the 
account given in the Acts, was the first bishop of Athens ; and 
as we have not got the letters of Dionysius, we cannot confute 
anyone who may be pleased to say that the reference to the 
Acts was only made by Eusebius, and that it was through some 
other source Dionysius found that there had been an Areo 
pagite of his own name. In like manner, let us admit the 
possibility that Papias, who mentions Justus, surnamed Bar- 
sabas,f may have derived his knowledge of him from some 



tii56vTes % \a/u.ftdvoi>Ts. Lightfoot gives a proof of Clement s 
knowledge of the Acts more difficult to evade, namely, that (ch. 18), in 
quoting Psalm Ixxxix. 20, he introduces three distinct phrases, not found 
in the Psalm itself, but only in Paul s quotation of it, Acts xiii. 22. 

t Uairias fv r<$ Sevrtpcp \6yif \eyei tin ladwr)s 6 QeoAJyos Kal laaw/Joy 
avrov virb lovSaiwv avrjpedrjffai . Tlairias 6 elprj/nevos iffrSprjcrev &s 
airb rwv dvyarepuv &i\iirirov 6n Bapffafias 6 Kal lovffrot 
inrb rtav airiffTuJV ibv e xiSfijs TTI&V ev oj/o/iart rov Xptffrov 
Kal #AAa Qa.vjj.aTa Kal nahiara rb Kara TT]V 



XVIII.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 319 

source different from the Acts ; and I frankly own that anyone 
may refuse to accept the opinion, which I hold myself, that 
Papias, who used St. Matthew s Gospel, would have adopted 
the account which that Gospel gives of the death of Judas 
Iscariot, if he did not read a different story in some document 



Mavaifiov r-^v e<c veicpobv avaffraffav irepl rwv virb rov Xpiffrov e/c 
avaffravTcov 6n eoos ASpiavov ea>/. This note has been lately 
printed by De Boor, in Harnack s Texte und Untersuchungen (Band V, 
Heft 2, p. i/o), from an anonymous note found by him in Codex Baroc- 
cianus, 142. The substance of what is here stated about Justus Barsabas 
had been given by Eusebius (iii. 39) ; but there are here two or three 
additional details, which have all the appearance of being derived from 
independent knowledge of Papias. The note is conjectured to have been 
extracted from the Ecclesiastical History of Philip of Side, published 
about A. D. 427. The statement that some of those raised by Christ lived 
to the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-137) would be important as fixing a 
limit in one direction to the date of Papias, if we could be sure that this 
statement really comes from Papias. But it is almost certain that there 
has been confusion ; for Eusebius, from whom almost everything else in 
these extracts is derived, gives this statement (iv. 3) on the authority, not 
of Papias, but of Quadratus ; and he could hardly have failed to mention 
Papias if he had known that a like statement had been made by him. 
Still more doubt attaches to the statement that John had been killed by 
the Jews. This account of the death of John is quite inconsistent with all 
other known traditions on the subject; and it may be pronounced in 
credible that it could have been really given by Papias. For it is incon 
ceivable that such a statement, by so ancient a writer, should not have the 
slightest influence on Church tradition ; that neither Eusebius nor anyone 
else should have taken notice of it ; that it should be first heard of in the 
fifth century, and then the knowledge of it almost lost till our own genera 
tion. The ascription of this statement to Papias had hitherto rested on 
the authority of Georgius Hamartolus (circ. A. D. 842) ; or, to speak more 
cautiously, on the authority of a single transcriber of his Chronicle (Cois- 
linianus, 305) ; this note, not found in any other manuscript of the 
Chronicle, having been brought to light by Nolte (Tubingen Quartal- 
schrift, 1862, p. 466). The passage has been discussed by Lightfoot 
(Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 211), who sufficiently shows the 
violent improbability that Papias could have made the statement attributed 
to him. De Boor now considers that the discovery of the fragment printed 
above has placed it beyond all doubt that Papias really handed down that 
John was slain by the Jews. But, in truth, the only thing placed beyond 
doubt is, that Georgius, or his transcriber, did not invent the statement, 
but copied it from an older author. But the reasons for rejecting the 
ascription to Papias remain in full force, even if that ascription has the 
authority of Philip of Side. Lightfoot has given a probable account of 
the origin of the blunder, by whomsoever made. It is likely enough that 
Papias whose work we have some reason to think consisted of notes on 
the Gospels in commenting on Matt. xx. 23, noted, as fulfilling our Lord s 
words, the facts that John had suffered banishment to Patmos, and James 
been slain by the Jews : see Origen s Commentary on the same passage 
(in Matth., torn. xvi. 6), where this explanation is given how both sons of 
Zebedee could be said to have drunk of our Lord s cup. The statement 
then that we are discussing, which attributes to both James and John what 



320 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

to which he attributed equal authority.* It is true that, if we 
accept the traditional account of the authorship of the Acts, 
the coincidences I have mentioned, and several others, are at 
once accounted for; but if anyone chooses to say that they are 
all accidental, though I think his assertion very improbable, I 
do not care to dispute the matter with him. 

In fact, it is much more important for a critic, who opposes 
the received authorship of the Acts, to impugn these early 
quotations than it is for us to maintain them. If Clement of 
Rome, before the end of the first century, read the book, 
there can be no reasonable ground for doubt that the work 
is as early as the Church has always held it to be; but if 
Clement makes no quotation from it, no inference can be 
drawn from his silence about a book to which his subject in 
no way called on him to refer. But, in point of fact, our 
reception of the Acts scarcely at all depends on these proofs 
of the early use of the book. It is an important point, no 
doubt, to establish that the book we have now was received 
without hesitation by the Christian Church as far back as we 
can trace its history ; yet if this work were a new find, 
recently disinterred from some Eastern library, we still might 
be confident that we have here some genuine remains of the 
Apostolic age. In fact, the internal evidence of the latter 
chapters of the Acts proves irresistibly that these contain 
matter which must have proceeded from an eye-witness. 
In saying this, I say no more than our adversaries acknow 
ledge. Davidson says (ii. 136) of the so-called we* sections 
of the Acts, that is to say, the sections in which the writer 
uses the first person plural, that they are characterized by 
a circumstantiality of detail, a vividness of description, an 
exact knowledge of localities, an acquaintance with the 
phrases and habits of seamen, which betray one who was 
personally present. 

Papias, as I believe, only said of James, may have assumed its form either 
through the dropping out of a line by a transcriber, or through the 
inaccuracy of a memoriter citation. 

* Apollinarius of Laodicea, through whom we obtain our knowledge of 
this matter, reconciles the accounts in Matthew and in the Acts by stating, 
as on Papias s authority, that Judas did not die when he hanged himself, 
but that his body afterwards so swelled, that in passing through a place 
wide enough for a cart to go through, he was so crushed that all his 
bowels were emptied out (Routh, Rell. Sac,, i. 9). 



XVIII.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 321 

If you know nothing of the history of the controversy, 
you will perhaps imagine that such a concession as I have 
quoted, and which is no more than is readily made by all 
critics of the same school, amounts to a recognition of the 
antiquity of the book of the Acts. But this is not the only 
case where theorists of the sceptical school will make a 
forced concession, and hope to save the main part of their 
hypothesis from destruction. These hypotheses are like 
some living beings of low organization, which it is hard to 
kill, because when you lay hold of one of them, the creature 
will leave half its body in your hands, and walk off without 
suffering any apparent inconvenience. When we encounter 
a theory impugning the authority of one of our New Testa 
ment books, if we point out passages in the book containing 
marks of genuineness which cannot plausibly be contested, 
then so much of the theory will be abandoned as disputes 
the genuineness of these particular passages ; but it is still 
hoped to maintain the spuriousness of the rest.* If it is 
pointed out that the passages acknowledged as genuine are 
indissolubly connected with some of those alleged to be 
spurious, the theory will then be modified again, just so far 
as is necessary to meet this new difficulty. In the present 
case the marks of genuineness in the we sections are too 
strong to be denied. It is therefore found unavoidable to 
own that this part of the book of the Acts is a real relic of 
the Apostolic age; but the Tubingen theory is that some 
compiler who lived in the second century happened to get 
possession of memoranda really made by a travelling com 
panion of St. Paul, whose name we don t know, and that the 
compiler incorporated these in a narrative, in the main un- 
authentic, and intended to disguise the early history of the 
Christian Church. Thus, Hooykaas (see p. 295) says (v. 33), 
As to the later fortunes of St. Paul, the writer of Acts had 
access to some very good authorities, the best of all being 
the itinerary or journal of travels composed by one of the 
Apostle s companions. Portions of this work he took up 



* In particular, this is the history of the criticism of the 2nd Epistle to 
Timothy. 



322 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

almost unaltered into his own. In this itinerary, then, we 
possess the records of an eye-witness. This is of incal 
culable value. 

The almost unaltered of this extract are words that all 
critics of the same school would not adopt. The evidence 
of identity of language and style is so strong as to convince 
even prejudiced critics that the we sections, as they stand 
now, bear marks of the same hand as that to which we owe 
the rest of the book ; while also these sections contain rela 
tions of miracles which the same critics are unwilling to 
believe were told by a contemporary. So the theory which 
simply separated the authorship of the we sections from 
that of the rest is owned to be inadequate ; and it is now 
usually presented with the addition that the second-century 
compiler, when incorporating these sections in his book, 
revised and retouched them, and made to them some addi 
tions of his own. 

Who was the original writer of the memoranda, rationalist 
critics are not agreed. The claims of Timothy have been 
strongly urged, notwithstanding that, to name no other ob 
jection, Timothy is expressly distinguished from the writer 
who uses the first person plural (ch. xx. 4, 5). Silas has had 
his advocates, but the favourite seems to be Titus ; and, 
accordingly, Hooykaas always refers to the author of the 
memoranda as Titus (?) Why St. Luke, with or without a 
note of interrogation, might not have been left in possession 
of the authorship of the memoranda, even if he were deprived 
of that of the rest of the book, is not, at first sight, easy to 
explain : for even with critics of this school it ought not to 
be thought a disadvantage to an hypothesis that it should 
have some amount of historical attestation. Paul s Epistles 
(Col. iv. 14 ; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. u) show that he had a 
companion of the name of Luke. If it were conceded that 
he was the author of the we sections, at least in their 
original form, it would seem to explain why the whole book 
should be attributed to him. 

But here is a circumstance of which it is well worth while 
to take notice. The name of Luke is not found in connexion 
with the Acts in any extant uncial MS. ; and we cannot but 



XVIII.] THE WE SECTIONS. 323 

think that the ascription would have been preserved, had it 
been found in earlier MSS. On the other hand, the name of 
Luke is invariably inscribed to the third Gospel. We cannot, 
then, reasonably suppose the history of the ascription to be 
that the name of Luke was originally attached only to the 
latter part of the Acts; that it then passed to the whole book; 
and being accepted, on the faith of their MSS., by Christians 
of the second century, was afterwards extended to the Gospel 
which they perceived to be of the same authorship. The true 
history seerns to be just the reverse. It would appear to be 
from the Gospel that the name of Luke passed to the Acts ; 
and then a verification of that ascription is afforded by the 
fact that we find from the Epistles that Paul had a com 
panion named Luke. In any case, I cannot account for the 
reluctance of rationalist critics to own Luke as the author of 
what they regard as the original portions of the Acts, except 
through a feeling on their part that the name of Luke is 
indissolubly connected with the third Gospel. 

It is time that I should formally remind you what those 
* we sections of which I have been speaking are. They 
begin Acts xvi. 9. Luke appears to have joined Paul at 
Troas, and to have accompanied him to Philippi. There he 
seems to have been left behind; for when Paul leaves Philippi 
the use of the pronoun we ceases, and is not resumed until 
Paul returns to Philippi, some six or seven years after. Then 
(ch. xx. 5) the we begins again, and continues till the 
arrival in Jerusalem (xxi. 18). It begins again in chap. 27 
with Paul s voyage, and continues till his arrival in Rome, 
xxviii. 1 6. I may add that in Codex D, which in the Acts is 
full of untrustworthy additions to the text, the tradition that 
Luke was of Antioch is attested by a * we in Acts xi. 28, the 
prophecy of Agabus being described as having taken place 
when we were gathered together. I only mention this 
reading, but not as having any title to your acceptance. 
Some have excluded from the we sections the part contain 
ing Paul s address at Miletus ; but unreasonably. For, though 
in the latter part of the 2oth chapter the narrator has had no 
occasion to speak in the first person, he claims in the first 
verse of the next chapter to have been one of the party who 

Y 2 



324 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

had to tear themselves away from the sorrowing embraces of 
their Ephesian friends. 

I may mention here that some thoughtless objectors * have 
taken for a note of spuriousness in this narrative what is really 
a proof of genuineness. Paul, it is said, is represented 
(xx. 17) as in such a hurry to get to Jerusalem that he will not 
visit Ephesus, yet afterwards he spends a week at Tyre (xxi. 4), 
and many days at Caesarea (v. 10). But it is quite natural 
that Paul should calculate his time differently before crossing 
the sea and afterwards. Even in times much later than St. 
Paul s, travellers in those seas have not been able to count on 
expedition. The author of Eothen says that when he read 
the Odyssey he had thought ten years rather a long time for 
the hero to spend on his voyage home from Troy, but that 
since he had had personal experience of navigation in these 
parts, he had come to the opinion that Ulysses had a fair 
average passage. It appears (xx. 16) that Paul at the begin 
ning of his voyage was by no means sure of being able to 
reach Jerusalem at the time he wished. Actually, he only 
succeeded in obtaining a passage in a ship which went no 
further than Patara. He could not foresee what delay he 
might encounter there ; but after he had caught a ship for 
Tyre, and made a prosperous voyage thither, he could calcu 
late his time differently ; and, notwithstanding his week s delay 
at Tyre, might feel that he had several days at his disposal at 
Caesarea before he needed to begin his land journey to Jeru 
salem. There are other frivolous objections, all proceeding 
on the assumption that Paul owned a yacht, or chartered a 
ship of his own, whereas I suppose the probability is, that he 
had to accommodate himself to the movements of the ships 
in which he found passage. Thus, why did not Paul go him 
self to Ephesus instead of sending a messenger to fetch his 
friends from that city ? I daresay because he did not choose 
to run the risk that the ship might sail without him if he went 
away from Miletus. Why did not Paul send his message 
from Trogyllium, which was nearer, rather than from Miletus ? 
I suppose because he knew that the ship would not make a 

* See Hooykaas, vi. 332. 



XVIII.] THE WE* SECTIONS. 325 

sufficiently long delay at Trogyllium, and that it would at 
Miletus. At the same time it may be remarked that MSS. are 
not unanimous as to the ship having touched at Trogyllium 
at all. But, in short, I think the best rationalist critics show 
their wisdom in abandoning all direct assaults on the we 7 
sections as futile, and in restricting their efforts to the sepa 
ration of these from the rest of the book. 

But in this they have great difficulties. I pass over the 
initial difficulty, which to me seems sufficiently formidable : 
How are we to account for the fact that an unknown person 
in the second century got exclusive possession of some of the 
most precious relics of the Apostolic age relics the authenti 
city of which is proved by internal evidence, and yet of which 
no one but this compiler seems ever to have heard, while the 
compiler himself vanished out of knowledge ? The rationalist 
critics would scarcely make their story more miraculous if 
they presented their legend in the form, that the we sections 
were brought to Rome by an angel from heaven, who imme 
diately after disappeared. But new difficulties arise when 
they try to tear the we sections away from the rest of the 
Acts ; for this book is not one of those low organizations 
which do not resent being pulled asunder. It is on the con 
trary a highly organized structure, showing evident marks 
that the whole proceeded from a single author. Thus refe 
rences, direct or implied, are repeatedly made from one part 
of the book to another. The speech of Paul in the latter part 
of the book (xxii. 20) refers with some verbal coincidences to 
the part he took in the martyrdom of Stephen (vii. 58, viii. i). 
In the we section (xxi. 8) where Philip is mentioned, he is 
described as one of the seven (Acts vi. 5), while his presence 
at Caesarea has been accounted for (viii. 40). Peter in his 
speech (xv. 8) refers to former words of his recorded (x. 47). 
Words are put into our Lord s mouth (i. 5) similar to words 
which in the Gospels are only attributed to John the Baptist, 
and these words are quoted as our Lord s (xi. 16).* 



* Other cross references are to be found on comparing xi. 19, viii. i ; xi. 
25, ix. 30 ; xv. 38, xiii. 13 ; xvi. 4, xv. 28 ; xviii. 5, xvii. 14 ; xxi. 29, xx. 4 ; 
xxiv. 18, xxi. 26; xxvi. 32, xxv. II. 



326 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

I will notice one coincidence more between the earlier 
chapters and the later, which I think not only proves unity 
of authorship, but also that the author lived near the events 
I mean the part which both divisions of the Acts ascribe to 
the Sadducees in the persecution of the infant Church. In 
the Gospels the chief opponents of our Lord are the Scribes 
and Pharisees. A Christian writer of the second century 
would hardly have known or cared much about the internal 
divisions among the Jews, and would naturally have followed 
the Gospels in giving greater prominence to Pharisaic hos 
tility to the Gospel. But St. Luke makes us understand that, 
after the death of our Lord, His disciples obtained among the 
Pharisees toleration or friendship, which was refused them by 
the Sadducees. The Resurrection was the main subject of 
the Christian preaching, and this at once put the Christians 
on the side of the Pharisees in their chief subject of dispute 
with the Sadducees ; while again the Pharisees found no dif 
ficulty in believing the Gospel accounts of angelic messages, 
which the Sadducees rejected as incredible. Further, the 
charge of having shed innocent blood most painfully affected 
the Sadducees, who at the time held the chief place in the 
government of the nation (Acts v. 17, 28). These considera 
tions make Luke s account highly credible, that the Jerusalem 
Church counted among its members a large proportion of 
Pharisees (xv. 5, xxi. 20). St. Paul in one of his Epistles 
(Phil. iii. 5) confirms the account of the Acts that he had him 
self been a Pharisee ; and if Luke were a companion of Paul s 
we can understand how he should have imbibed the feelings 
which led him to give such prominence to the hostility of 
the Sadducees to Christian teaching (iv. i, v. 17). In this 
representation the book is consistent all through : the * Scribes 
that were of the Pharisees part (xxiii. 9) interfere to protect 
Paul from the violence of the Sadducees, much in the same 
way as the chief Pharisaic Rabbi, Gamaliel, is represented at 
the beginning of the book (v. 30), as interfering on behalf of 
the elder Apostles. 

An independent proof of the unity of authorship is ob 
tained from a study of the language. Tables have been made 
of words, phrases, and turns of expression characterizing the 



XVIII.] UNITY OF AUTHORSHIP. 327 

Gospel ; and these are found reappearing in the Acts, and in 
all parts equally, in the latter chapters as much as in the 
earlier. It is not easy to lay before you details of the proof 
of the homogeneousness of the diction of the book, because 
no inference could be fairly drawn from only a few examples 
of recurring phrases, and it would be tedious to produce a 
great many ; but it is not necessary, since the point is acknow 
ledged, and is accounted for, as I have said, by the theory 
that the later compiler revised and retouched the sections 
which he borrowed. From these linguistic and other phe 
nomena, says Davidson (u. 145), it is clear that the writer 
of the book was not a mere compiler but an author. If he 
used materials, he did not put them together so loosely as to 
leave their language and style in the state he got them, but 
wrought up the component parts into a work having its own 
characteristics. And yet we are asked to suppose that, with 
all this revision, the compiler did his work so clumsily as to 
leave in that tell-tale we/ the sections, too, where the we 
occurs being separated from each other in the most inartificial 
manner. Here comes in the consideration that the compiler 
of the Gospel and the Acts was evidently a person of con 
siderable literary skill. The less you believe (I will not say 
in the inspiration of the writer, but) in his substantial truth 
fulness, the more you must admire his literary skill. Where 
he and the other Synoptic Evangelists differ in their language 
in relating the same story, the difference is often accounted 
for by the supposition that the third Evangelist gave the lan 
guage of his predecessors a literary revision. Take the letter 
of Claudius Lysias in the Acts. If we are not to believe that 
this was the real letter the chief captain sent, what dramatic 
skill it required to have invented it, making the chief captain, 
by a gentle distortion of the facts, give them the colouring 
which sets his own conduct in the most favourable light. 
There is the same dramatic propriety in the exordium of 
Tertullus, the hearing before Agrippa, the proceedings be 
fore Gallic ; or, to go back still earlier, in the story of Peter 
knocking at the door, and Rhoda so delighted that she runs 
off with the news without waiting to open to him. A critic 
must be destitute of the most elementary qualifications for 



328 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 

his art who does not perceive that the writer of the Acts is 
no uneducated clumsy patcher together of documents, but 
a literary artist who thoroughly understands how to tell a 
story. And yet we are asked to believe that this skilled 
artist, having got possession of memoranda of one of Paul s 
companions, shovels them into his book pell-mell, without 
even taking the trouble to hide the discontinuity of his work 
by turning the first person into the third. If we suppose 
Luke to have been the author, there is no want of literary 
skill, but only great modesty in the quiet way in which he 
distinguishes these parts of the history of which he claims to 
have been an eye-witness.* 

What, then, are the motives why such violence should be 
used to separate the we sections from the rest of the book ? 
There are two principal reasons. One of these is that which 
I explained in the first lecture. It is thought impossible 
that a book, so pervaded by miracles as the Acts, could be 
the work of one who was a contemporary with the events 
which he relates. There are those now who seem to have 
got beyond the doctrine that a miracle is impossible ; they 
seem to hold it impossible that anyone should ever have 
believed in a miracle. Whether the former doctrine be good 
philosophy or not I am not going to discuss ; but I am very 
sure that the latter doctrine leads to bad criticism. 

The history of the criticism on this very book shows how 
very unsafe it is to take this principle as a guide. By deny 
ing the contemporary authorship of all but the we sections, 

* Renan agrees in the conclusions here expressed. With regard to the 
supposition that the compiler merely retained the first person plural which 
he found in an earlier document, he says (Les Apotres. xi.) : < Cette expli 
cation est bien peu admissible. On comprendrait tout au plus une telle 
negligence dans une compilation grossiere. Mais le troisieme Evangile et 
les Actes forment un ouvrage tres-bien redige, compose avec reflexion, et 
meme avec art, ecrit d une meme main, et d apres un plan suivi. Les 
deux livres reunis font un ensemble absolument du meme style, presentant 
les memes locutions favorites et la meme fa9on de citer 1 Ecriture. Une 
faute de redaction aussi choquante que celle dont il s agit serait inexpli 
cable. On est done invinciblement porte a conclure que celui qui a ecrit 
la fin de T ouvrage en a ecrit le commencement, et que le narrateur du tout 
est celui qui dit " nous " aux passages precites. 



XVIII.] UNITY OF AUTHORSHIP. 329 

it is, no doubt, possible to remove from the book much of 
the supernatural ; but much is left behind. The author of 
these memoranda also has several miracles to tell of. I may 
remind you of all the occurrences at Philippi, the testimony 
borne to Paul and Silas by the possessed damsel, and her 
cure by them, the earthquake in the prison, and the opening 
of the prison doors.* If the story of the shipwreck is, beyond 
any other part, full of touches showing that we have the re 
port of an eye-witness, this part, too, contains the supernatural 
facts of a vision seen by Paul, and of his predictions as to 
the issue of the voyage, which are accurately fulfilled. And 
when Paul and his companions get safe to shore at Melita, 
we are told the story of the viper, and of miraculous cures 
effected by Paul on the island. So the remedy has been 
applied, of cutting out from the we sections all the super 
natural portions, and treating these as additions made by the 
later compiler-! 

It can be shown that the parts which it is proposed to cut 
out are indissolubly connected with those which are left be 
hind ; but I do not enter into the proof, because I hold that 
criticism so arbitrary does not deserve an elaborate refutation. 
And in truth it seems to me that the human intellect cannot 
be less profitably employed than in constructing a life of 
Paul, such as might have been written by a Christian of the 
first century who conceived miracle to be an impossibility. 

* The circumstances relating to the imprisonment of Paul and Silas at 
Philippi are sufficient to disprove the authorship of an eye- witness (David 
son, ii. 149). 

f This has been done, amongst others, by Overbeck in his Preface to- 
his edition of De Wette s Handbook on the Acts. Overbeck has at least 
decisively proved that the we sections, as they stand now, are so full of 
the characteristics of the author of the rest of the book, that the hypo 
thesis that those sections were borrowed from another is not tenable, un 
less we assert that the borrower interpolated them with much of his own, 
and that in these interpolations he dishonestly used the pronoun we. 
Overbeck s Preface has been translated, and included in the publications 
of the Theological Translation Fund. In the same volume is contained 
a translation of the chief work of the Tubingen school on the Acts, that 
by Zeller. 

Zeller, a pupil and fellow -labourer of Baur s, was born in 1814, and was 
Professor of Theology at Berne in 1847 ; afterwards Professor of Philo 
sophy at Heidelberg, and at Berlin, 1872. 

Franz Overbeck, born at St. Petersburg, 1837, Professor of Theology 
at Basle, 1870. 



330 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xVIII. 

A critic might as well spend his time in making a new 
edition of the play of Hamlet or Macbeth, cutting out as 
non-Shaksperian every passage which implied a belief in the 
supernatural. 

But in addition to the predominance of the miraculous in 
the Acts, every disciple of Baur has a reason for rejecting 
the book, in its irreconcilable opposition to the Tubingen 
theory of the mutual hostility of Paul and the original 
Apostles. Here we have what professes to be a history of 
Paul by one of his friends ; and the writer is absolutely no 
Paulinist in the Tubingen sense of the word. He represents 
Paul as on friendly terms with Peter and James, and these 
Apostles as anxious to remove any cause of offence or sus 
picion between the Apostle of the Gentiles and the Church 
of Jerusalem, while Paul himself is represented as most ready 
to meet their wishes in this respect. Paul is represented as 
observing Jewish ordinances, and as going up, on several 
occasions, to the Jewish feasts at Jerusalem ; while in his 
speeches, as reported by St. Luke, there is little or nothing 
said about the doctrine of justification by faith without the 
works of the law. Peter s speeches in the Acts so thoroughly 
agree in doctrine with Paul, that they might have been 
written by Paul or by one of his disciples. Finally, Peter is 
made to anticipate Paul in the work of preaching to the 
Gentiles, while Paul himself is represented as only led into 
that work by the force of circumstances. When he and 
Barnabas start on their first missionary tour, the method 
with which they commence is to preach the Gospel only in 
the synagogues of the Jews (Acts xiii. 5). But in such 
synagogues there was always present a certain number of 
Gentiles, who had revolted at the absurdities and immoralities 
of heathen religions, and who heard with interest, or who had 
even formally embraced, the monotheism and pure morality 
of Jewish teachers. Among these Gentile members of the 
congregations Paul is represented as finding his most willing 
hearers. And at Antioch in Pisidia, when the Christian 
teachers encounter such violent opposition from the Jewish 
part of the audience, that they can no longer continue their 
preaching in the synagogue, they gladly avail themselves of 



XVIII.] THE TUBINGEN VERSION OF PAUL S HISTORY. 331 

the friendly reception which the Gentiles are willing to give 
them, and continue their labours among them (Acts xiii. 46). 
But the system of beginning by preaching to the Jews is 
kept up in other cities. 

We are told by Baur s disciples that the history of Paul, 
as told by Luke, which I have just summarized, is a complete 
falsification of the true history. This true history is that 
Paul, even before his conversion, had seen clearly that to 
become an adherent of Jesus of Nazareth, who had been 
condemned by the Law, and been loaded with its curse, was 
to renounce allegiance to the Law. It involved the acceptance 
of a new way of salvation, in which Jews had no higher claim 
than Gentiles, and it thus abandoned all national privileges. 
In a word, the preaching of the Crucified drew with it the 
overthrow of the whole Jewish religion. Viewing the matter 
thus, Paul persecuted Christianity as a pestilent heresy. But 
when he came to be shaken in his conviction that the cross 
had refuted the claims of Jesus, and when he had accepted 
the Resurrection as a fact, he did not cease to see, what had 
been evident to him before, that the acceptance of a crucified 
Saviour involved a complete breach with the Law. So he 
strove to find how this new revelation was to be reconciled 
with God s old one. He knew that he could get no light from 
the Twelve, who did not see what he had discerned before his 
conversion. So he retired to Arabia, thought out the whole 
matter for himself, and the result was that he broke entirely 
with his old past, and the Jew in him had died for ever. He 
went to Damascus, and there at once began to preach to the 
heathen. When obliged to flee thence, he preached to the 
heathen elsewhere, making Antioch his head-quarters. As 
to his beginning by preaching to Jews, we are not to 
believe a word of it. The communities of Judea probably 
knew little of the substance of his preaching ; otherwise they 
would have had little reason to be satisfied with it, for Paul 
neither observed the Mosaic Law himself, nor permitted his 
converts, whether of Jewish birth or not, to do so. We are 
not to believe the author of the Acts, who would have us 
think (xxi. 24, 25) that a difference was made as to the con 
duct of Jewish and of Gentile Christians in such matters. 



33 2 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 

Now, on comparing these two accounts, we cannot help 
observing that it is the enemies of the supernatural who 
give a miraculous account of that wonderful fact the trans 
formation of Judaism which was an exclusive and national 
religion, into Christianity, which was a catholic and all- 
embracing one ; while St. Luke gives a perfectly natural 
one. According to the Tubingen account, Paul not only 
passes with startling suddenness from the persecution of the 
new religion to the adoption of it, but he adopts it in such a 
way as to incur the opposition and hatred not only of the old 
friends whom he was forsaking, but of all the previous pro 
fessors of the new faith which he was joining. We are to look 
on Paul as choosing a position of absolute isolation. We are 
taught to believe that everything implying friendly relations 
between Paul and earlier Christians is mere invention of St. 
Luke. There is no truth, it is said, in the statement that 
Barnabas had introduced Paul to the Jerusalem Churches 
(Acts ix. 27) ; that Barnabas had been commissioned by the 
Jerusalem Church to preach at Antioch ; that it was in con 
sequence of his invitation that Paul came there (xi. 22, 25) ; 
and that their earlier preaching had been confined to Hellen 
ists. Paul had from the first struck out this new line of 
preaching to heathen. He had broken completely with his- 
past, given up his Jewish observances, and was, in consequence,, 
as soon as his practices became known, hated as cordially by 
Jews who owned Jesus to be the Messiah as by those who 
rejected Him. And yet the new type of Christianity intro 
duced by this eccentric convert completely supplanted the 
old one. As soon as the new religion comes under the 
cognizance of the historical student, we find the Christian 
communities in every town constituting parts of one great 
corporation, and all these communities of the type invented 
by Paul. If we search for survivals of the original type of 
Christianity, we can find nothing making pretensions to be 
so regarded, except, in one little corner, a few Elkesaite 
heretics. 

All this is truly marvellous, while the account of the 
canonical writer is simple and natural. Luke knows what 
modern theorists are apt to forget, that this champion of the 



XVIII.] PROBABILITY OF THE STORY AS TOLD BY LUKE. 333 

Gentiles was himself, by feeling and training, a Jew of the 
strictest sort, and he does not pretend that the traces of such 
training were suddenly obliterated. Paul s own Epistles show 
him to be thoroughly a Jew, loving his nation with such 
affection as even to be able to wish himself anathema from 
Christ for their sake. The same Epistles confirm Luke s 
account, that he who resisted the making Jewish observances 
obligatory on Gentiles had no such fanatical hatred of them 
as to refuse to practise them himself. To the Jews, he 
says, I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews ; to them 
that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself 
under the law, that I might gain them that are under the 
law (i Cor. ix. 20). 

And here let me say in passing that I cannot agree with 
some orthodox interpreters who regard the part which Paul 
took by James s advice in the Nazarite s vow on his last visit 
to Jerusalem, as deceitful on his part, and as in its result a 
failure. St. Luke s representation all through is, that though 
Paul resisted the imposition of the Mosaic Law on Gentiles, 
he did not forbid the practice of its observance by Jews ; and 
it was as a practical proof of this that he exhibited himself in 
the Temple, taking part in a Jewish sacrifice. Nor do I see 
reason to regard this step as unsuccessful : it was done for the 
satisfaction of the Jewish Christians, of whom we are told 
there were many thousands, and there is no reason to suppose 
it had not the desired effect. It was unbelieving Jews from 
Asia who set on Paul, and raised the cry that he had intro 
duced uncircumcised persons into the Temple. 

I return to Luke s history of the admission of Gentiles into 
the Church. This is, that they ordinarily first became hearers 
of the word, through their having previously so inclined to 
Judaism as to frequent the Synagogue worship ; and then that 
when Gentile converts came to be made in large numbers, 
the question, Must these men be circumcised before they can 
be baptized ? came up as a practical one, and was decided by 
Paul in the negative. Now all this history is so simple and 
natural, that I venture to say that if this were Baur s account, 
and Baur s had been Luke s, Rationalist critics would raise 
a loud outcry against the reception of a story so contrary to 



334 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

historic probability. That Paul s relations with the heads of 
the Jerusalem Church were friendly, whatever might have 
been the coolness towards him of inferior members, is at 
tested by the Epistle to the Galatians, which tells that Peter 
was the object of Paul s first visit to Jerusalem after his con 
version; that he saw James on the same occasion; and that 
these Apostles with John afterwards formally gave him the 
right hand of fellowship, and divided with him the field of 
labour. The same Epistle also confirms Luke s account that 
Barnabas had been a party to the admission of Gentiles on 
equal terms to the Church ; for when afterwards, under the 
pressure of a deputation from Jerusalem, there was a tem 
porary abandonment of this principle, Paul notes with sur 
prise, as the climax of the defection, that even Barnabas 
should have been carried away. 

It is true that there is only one passage in Paul s speeches 
in the Acts where the doctrine of justification by faith without 
the deeds of the law is prominently dwelt on. I mean Acts 
xiii. 39: By him all that believe are justified from all things 
from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. 
And perhaps we may add xxvi. 18. But then it must be 
remembered that Paul is a character in real life, and not a 
character in a play. In a play it is a common device to put 
into the mouth of a character some pet phrase which he is- 
always repeating, and by which the audience learn to recog 
nize him. If the author of the Acts had not been a real 
companion of Paul, but a literary man who made Paul the 
hero of his story, our modern objectors show us how the 
work would probably have been done. The Apostle s Epistles 
show how earnestly he contended for the doctrine of justi 
fication by faith without the works of the law; and so 
phrases insisting on this doctrine would have been tagged 
on to all his speeches. But in real life a man whose career 
is not very short has many battles to fight, and the contro 
versies in which at one time he takes an earnest part often 
die out before his life-work is finished. These controversies 
with Judaizing Christians form the chief topics of four Epis 
tles all written at the same period of Paul s life, namely, to 
the Romans, to the Galatians, and the two to the Corinthians. 



XVIII.] THE PARALLEL BETWEEN PETER AND PAUL. 335 

But these topics are nearly as absent from the other Epistles* 
as they are from the speeches in the Acts. In these last, 
where he is addressing audiences of unbelievers, his subject 
naturally is the Messiahship of Jesus, and the truth of His 
Resurrection. On the whole, I conclude that we are not 
justified in tearing so homogeneous a book as the Acts in 
pieces on either of the grounds alleged : that is to say, 
neither because the book tells of miracles, nor because it 
gives an untrue representation of the life and work of Paul. 

On another ground the book has been alleged to betray 
that it is not a real history, but a story made up to serve a 
purpose. It is said that the compiler, whose object was to 
reconcile the Petrine and Pauline parties in the Church, put 
his materials together, with the view of drawing a parallel 
between Peter and Paul, and asserting their equality. If 
Peter is miraculously released by an angel from prison, when 
his life was threatened by Herod, Paul must be miraculously 
released at Philippi. If Peter strikes Ananias and Sapphira 
dead, Paul works a similar miracle on Elymas the sorcerer. 
And again, Paul s contest with Elymas is said to have been 
intended as a parallel to Peter s contest with Simon Magus. f 
Peter has worship offered him by Cornelius ; the people of 
Lystra are on the point of sacrificing to Paul, and the people 
of Melita call him a god. If sick persons are healed because 
the shadow of Peter fell on them, from the body of Paul there 
are brought to the sick handkerchiefs and aprons, and they 
recover. And, as I have already said, Paul s great work of 
preaching to the Gentiles has not only its counterpart, but 
its anticipation, in Peter s conversion of Cornelius. 

That a certain parallelism exists in the history of the Acts 
between Peter and Paul need not be denied. The only ques 
tion is whether this was a parallelism existing in fact, or one 
invented by the narrator. In all true history we have nume 
rous parallelisms. I barely allude to Plutarch s attempt to 

* Phil. iii. 9 is nearly the only instance of their introduction. 

t Paul s encounter with Elymas the sorcerer in Paphos is similar to 
Peter s with Simon Magus. The punishment inflicted upon him resembles 
Paul s own blindness at the time of conversion ; and thus the occurrence 
is fictitious (Davidson, ii. 128). This thus is beautiful. 



33^ THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

find in the life of each Roman worthy a parallel to the history 
of some Grecian great man. On the principles of criticism 
by which the Acts have been judged, the history of France 
for the first half of this century and the last years of the 
century preceding, ought to be rejected as but an attempt to 
make a parallel to the history of England one hundred and 
fifty years before. Both stories tell of a revolution, of the 
beheading of a king, of the foundation of a republic, suc 
ceeded by a military despotism, and ending with the restora 
tion of the exiled family. In both cases the restored family 
misgoverns, and the king is again dethroned ; but this time a 
republic is not founded, neither is the king put to death ; but 
he retires into exile, and is replaced by a kinsman who suc 
ceeds, on different terms, to the vacated throne. 

The attempt to account for the book of the Acts as written 
for the sake of making a parallelism between Peter and Paul, 
and to find a purpose for every narration included in the 
book, completely breaks down. It would only be a waste of 
time if I were to tell you of the far-fetched explanations that 
have been given as to the purpose why certain stories were 
introduced ; and I shall presently offer what seems to be a 
much simpler explanation of the choice of topics. But what 
I think proves decisively that the making a parallel between 
Peter and Paul was not an idea present to the author s mind, 
is the absence of the natural climax of such a parallel the 
story of the martyrdom of both the Apostles. Very early 
tradition makes both Peter and Paul close their lives by 
martyrdom at Rome the place where Rationalist critics 
generally believe the Acts to have been written. The 
stories told in tolerably ancient times in that Church which 
venerated with equal honour the memory of either Apostle, 
represented both as joined in harmonious resistance to the 
impostures of Simon Magus. And though I believe these 
stones to be more modern than the latest period to which 
anyone has ventured to assign the Acts, yet what an oppor 
tunity did that part of the story, which is certainly ancient 
that both Apostles came to Rome and died there for the 
faith (Clem. Rom. 5) offer to anyone desirous of blotting 
out the memory of all differences between the preaching of 



XVIII.] DISAPPOINTING TERMINATION OF THE ACTS. 337 

Peter and Paul, and of setting both on equal pedestals of 
honour? Just as the names of Ridley and Latimer have 
been united in the memory of the Church of England, and 
no count has been taken of their previous doctrinal differ 
ences, in the recollection of their joint testimony for their 
common faith, so have the names of Peter and Paul been 
constantly bound together by the fact that the martyrdoms 
of both have been commemorated on the same day. And 
if the object of the author of the Acts had been what has 
been supposed, it is scarcely credible that he could have 
missed so obvious an opportunity of bringing his book to 
its most worthy conclusion, by telling how the two servants 
of Christ all previous differences, if there had been any, 
reconciled and forgotten joined in witnessing a good con 
fession before the tyrant emperor, and encouraged each other 
to steadfastness in endurance to the end. 

The absence of this natural termination to the book of the 
Acts, while it is absolutely fatal to the theory on which I 
have been commenting, is indeed hard to explain on any 
theory which assigns a late date to the book. Every reader 
feels some disappointment at the story being prematurely 
broken off; and as I have already mentioned, this was one 
of the things which the author of the Muratorian Fragment 
tried to account for. We hear of Paul being brought to 
Rome, to plead his cause before the Emperor. It is un 
satisfactory merely to be given to understand that for two 
years he got no hearing. We ask, What happened after 
that ? Was the Apostle then condemned, or was he set at 
liberty ? and if so, did he carry out his once expressed in 
tention of preaching the Gospel in Spain, or did he return 
to visit the Churches which he had previously planted ? And 
are we to believe the story that he came a second time be 
fore the Roman tribunal, and closed his life by martyrdom ? 
The connexion of St. Peter, too, with the Roman Church, is 
a subject on which we should wish to have some authentic 
information. 

To my mind the simplest explanation why St. Luke has 
told us no more is, that he knew no more ; and that he knew 
no more, because at the time nothing more had happened 

z 



338 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

in other words, that the book of the Acts was written a little 
more than two years after Paul s arrival in Rome. To this 
two principal objections are made (i) that the earlier book, 
the Gospel, must have been written after the destruction of 
Jerusalem, which it distinctly predicts ; and (2) that the Acts 
itself contains (xx. 25) a prediction that Paul should not 
return to Ephesus : a prediction which, it is supposed, the 
writer would not have inserted unless he had known that 
Paul s life had ended without any return to Asia Minor. On 
the latter objection I shall have more to say when I come 
to treat of the Pastoral Epistles ; and neither objection makes 
the same impression on me as on those who believe prophecy 
to be impossible. I am aware, however, that some very good 
and orthodox critics assign the book a later date, and consider 
that the account of the Gospel message preached by Paul at the 
capital of the civilized world is a sufficient close and climax to 
the history. But unless we suppose that St. Luke projected 
a third work, which he did not live to execute, I find it hard 
to explain his silence as to the deeply interesting period of 
Church history which followed Paul s arrival at Rome, in any 
other way than by assigning a very early date to the book. 

I have already said that the explanations completely break 
down which try to find some purpose in St. Luke s selection 
of topics in the Acts ; and I need not tell you, for example, 
what far-fetched reasons have been given for the introduction 
of the Acts of the deacons, the account of the martyrdom of 
Stephen, the history of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, and 
soforth. The Muratorian Fragment explains Luke s principle 
of selection to be, that he tells of the things he had witnessed 
himself; and I believe that if you add to this, c or of which he 
had the opportunity of hearing from eyewitnesses, you will 
have the true explanation. So Luke tells in the preface to 
his Gospel how he made it his business to trace everything 
from the very first ; and the Acts show what opportunities he 
had of gaining information. If, for instance, we read the 8th 
chapter of the Acts in connexion with the 2ist, which tells of 
several days which Luke spent in Philip s house, we have 
decisive proof that the companion of Paul s travels was also 
the compiler of the early history. To account for the inser- 



XVIII.] PHILIP THE DEACON AND PHILIP THE APOSTLE. 339 

tion of the 8th chapter, I know no other way which is not 
forced in the extreme ; while nothing can be more natural 
than that a visitor of Philip s, who was making it his business 
to gather authentic records of the Apostles labours, should 
be glad to include in his collection a narrative so interesting, 
communicated to him by the very lips of a principal actor. 

The account which the Acts give of this Philip may, I 
think, be regarded as proof of the antiquity of the book. For 
the name of Philip has an important place in early ecclesias 
tical tradition. There is quite satisfactory evidence that a 
Christian teacher of this name early settled in Hierapolis, that 
he came to be known in Asia Minor as Philip the Apostle, 
and that daughters of his were believed to have the gift of 
prophecy, and were regarded with high veneration. Papias 
(Euseb. iii. 39) speaks of these daughters, and represents some 
of the traditions which he records as resting on their autho 
rity. Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iii. 6, and see Euseb. 
iii. 30) says that Philip the Apostle had daughters whom he 
gave in marriage to husbands. Polycrates of Ephesus (Euseb. 
v. 24) states that Philip, one of the Twelve, had two daughters 
who remained virgins to old age, and who died at Hierapolis; 
and a third daughter who had walked in the Holy Spirit, and 
who rested at Ephesus. If we are to lay stress on Clement s 
plural number, and to infer that Philip had more married 
daughters than one, then, since he had two who did not 
marry, we must conclude that he had at least four daughters. 
In the dialogue between Caius and Proclus, written at the 
very beginning of the third century, the Montanist interlo 
cutor Proclus speaks of four prophetesses, daughters of Philip, 
whose tomb was still at Hierapolis, and that of their father 
as well (Euseb. iii. 3 1 ). There can be little doubt that Proclus 
identified the Philip of Hierapolis with the Philip of the Acts, 
as Eusebius expressly does. Whether they were right in 
doing so is a question which cannot be confidently answered. 
The Philip of the Acts lived at Caesarea, and is described as 
one of the Seven ; the other Philip lived at Hierapolis, and 
was regarded as one of the Twelve. It is quite possible that 
two different Philips might each have four daughters ; yet the 
simplest way of explaining the facts seems to be that the 

Z2 



34<> THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

Philip of the Acts, subsequently to Luke s visit, removed 
from Palestine to Asia Minor ; * and certainly it seems more 
probable that the Hellenist Philip should so migrate than the 
Apostle, who presumably was a Hebrew. We can believe, 
then, that in process of time the veneration given Philip as 
a member of the Apostolic company caused him to be known 
as an Apostle a name which in early times had various ap 
plications, as I shall afterwards have occasion to remark 
and eventually to be popularly identified with his namesake 
of the Twelve. Of the four daughters who were unmarried 
at the time of Luke s visit, two may afterwards have married, 
and one of these may have died early, or otherwise passed out 
of sight. 

If the Philip of Hierapolis was really not an Apostle, it is 
needless to say what a stamp of antiquity the knowledge of 
this fact puts upon Luke s book. But at present I am not 
concerned with the question whether Philip the deacon after 
wards went to Hierapolis. I am merely pointing out that 
Luke s intercourse with him accounts for the insertion of 
some sections in the Acts. We are distinctly told of many 
days of such intercourse, but it is likely that there was 
a great deal more. Paul was for two years a prisoner 
at Csesarea ; and as Luke had been his companion in his 
journey to Jerusalem, and was afterwards his companion 
in his journey to Rome, it is likely that they were much 
together in the intervening time, and therefore that Luke 
at Caesarea would constantly see Philip. He would there 
hear from him of his mission to Samaria, and of the subse 
quent mission thither of Peter and John. He would also 
hear from him of the appointment of the Seven, of whom 
Philip had been one ; and no doubt he would learn much 
from the same authority of the most distinguished member 
of the Seven, Stephen, and of his glorious martyrdom. At 
Caesarea Luke may very possibly have met Cornelius ; and in 
any case he would be sure to hear there of the remarkable 
step taken in his case by Peter. 

* That this became the received opinion may be gathered from the fact 
that, in Jerome s time, they showed at Caesarea the chambers of the four 
daughters, not the tombs (Ep. 108, ad Eustochium). 



XVIII.] POSSIBLE USE OF TRAVELLING MEMORANDA. 34! 

Among the sources used by Luke, I see no objection to 
include travelling memoranda made by himself ; for though 
I quite disbelieve the myth of a journal of Paul s companion 
having fallen into the hands of an unknown person in the 
next century, such a journal might easily have been preserved 
and used by the writer ; and the exact details we meet with 
in the account of Paul s last journey to Jerusalem, and his 
voyage to Rome, have quite the air of a narrative made from 
a diary. This supposition will at least serve to answer some 
frivolous objections made to the we sections from their 
inequality of treatment. In one place it is said they give a 
mere list of names. We took Paul in at Assos, and came to 
Mitylene, and came the next day over against Chios, and the 
next day we touched at Samos, and the day after arrived at 
Miletus. Then there will be a pretty full account. Then the 
whole details of the shipwreck are given, but of the three 
months at Melita scarcely anything is told. But anyone who 
has kept travelling memoranda knows that this is exactly the 
kind of thing they are apt to be ; where nothing interesting 
occurred, only a bare register of the places where the night 
was spent ; then perhaps some record of greater length, and 
after the journey is for the time over, and the traveller settled 
down in a place, no entry made at all.* On the whole, I 
consider that a study of the choice of topics in the Acts leads 
to a conviction both of the unity of authorship, and also of 
the author s care to write only of things concerning which he 
had full means of information. 

I come next to mention another consideration from which 
the antiquity of the book of the Acts may fairly be inferred. 

* Objections made by Baur to the credibility of the story told in the last 
verses of the Acts have been repeated by his followers, but to me seem 
very unreasonable. The story is, that Paul, anxious to learn whether, on 
his trial before the emperor, his release will be opposed by the heads of the 
Jewish community at Rome, puts himself in communication with them. 
He finds that during the long interval that had elapsed since his arrest, the 
rulers at Jerusalem had let him drop out of sight. They had given no com 
mission against him, either by letter or message, to their friends at Rome. 
But though these last had heard nothing against Paul personally, they had 
heard much against his religion. He begs to be allowed to speak in its 
defence, and gets a hearing accordingly. But the result is, that though he 
makes a favourable impression on a few, the greater part go away uncon 
vinced. This story seems to me to bear the stamp of simple truth. 



34 2 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

First let me premise that we may take it as acknowledged, 
that if the compiler of the Acts was not Paul s travelling 
companion, he was at least a Paulinist, well acquainted with 
his master s manner. The vocabulary of Paul s speeches in 
the Acts has been compared with that of Paul s Epistles, the 
result being to extort the confession from an unfriendly critic 
that the author of the Acts was undoubtedly familiar with the 
Pauline diction.* It has been attempted to extenuate the 
force of this concession by an attempted proof that the 
Pauline speeches in the Acts also contain many of Luke s 
favourite words. It is owned, however, that this cannot be 
said of all the Pauline speeches. Thus, with regard to Paul s 
speech at Athens, Davidson says, It must be confessed, how 
ever, that the discourse contains many peculiar expressions, 
there being no less than twenty-six words in 19-34 which do 
not occur in Luke ; and his conclusion about this speech is, 
* We think that it is the speaker s to a considerable extent. 
It is in harmony with the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
and if it be a condensed summary of many addresses, the 
sentiments and part of the language are probably Paul s f 
(Davidson, ii. 109). 

* The following is Davidson s abstract of the results of Lekebusch s 
study of Paul s speech to the Ephesian Elders at Miletus. I copy it chiefly 
for the sake of the concluding sentence, in order to show how such evidence 
is met by a hostile critic. The list of instances given might easily be 
amended by striking out two or three of no great force, and adding others. 
8ov\eveiv T$ Kvpiy, Acts xx. 19, six times in Paul, only in Matt. vi. 24,. 
Luke xvi. 13 besides; rairfivo^poffvvT], xx. 19, five times in Paul, only in 
I Peter v. 5 besides ; viroffrf\\ca, xx. 20, Gal. ii. 12 ; rb ffv^fpov, xx. 2O r 
three times in i Cor., onlyinHeb. xii. 20 besides ; Siaitovia, xx. 24, twenty- 
two times in Paul; paprvponai, xx. 26, Gal.v. 3, Eph. iv. 17 ; KaOapbs eyri, 
xx. 26, Acts xviii. 6 ; ^efSo^uat, xx. 29, seven times in Paul, only in 2 Pet. 
ii. 4, 5 besides ; vovQeriiv, xx. 31, seven times in Paul ; eTroi/coSo^ueiV, xx. 32, 
six times in Paul, only in Jude 20 besides ; Koiriav, active, xx. 35, thirteen 
times in Paul; the hortative ypyyopc iTf, xx. 31, I Cor. xvi. 13. Thesemay 
show nothing more than a writer familiar with the Pauline diction, as the 
author of the Acts undoubtedly was (Davidson, ii. 112). 

t It must be observed that this speech does not occur in one of the we* 
sections, so that if it be a genuine specimen of Paul s preaching, the 
hypothesis that the compiler of the Acts somehow got possession of a 
journal kept by Paul s travelling companion, has to be supplemented by a 
further hypothesis that he also got possession of other genuine records of 
Paul s preaching. This speech has a character corresponding to Paul s 
education. Tarsus was the central university town for Cilicia and Cyprus, 
and was so famous that even Romans esteemed it. This country was the 



xvin.] LUKE S REPORT OF PAUL S SPEECHES. 343 

Now, with regard to the attempt to find traces of Luke s 
hand in the report of other speeches of Paul, let me remark 
that, admitting the attempt to be successful, the inference 
that follows is exactly the opposite of what is supposed. 
Let us concede that Luke had a monopoly of his favourite ex 
pressions, and that if we find one of them in a report of Paul s 
speeches, we are entitled to conclude that Paul never uttered 
that expression ; still if the speech in the main contains Paul s 
sentiments, and Paul s language, we are bound to believe that 
the other person who has left traces of his hand must be the 
person who heard and reported the speech. We can easily 
believe that the hearer of a speech, when he afterwards came 
to write it down from memory, might, while giving the sub 
stance correctly, introduce a little of his own phraseology ; 
but we may be sure that if a compiler of the next generation 
got possession of a genuine report of speeches of Paul he 
would incorporate them in his work verbatim. Thus, in my 
opinion, if it be once acknowledged that the report of Paul s 
speeches in the Acts exhibits familiarity with the Pauline 
diction, a real proof that these speeches, before being written 
down as we have them, had passed through the mind of the 
compiler of the Acts, would go to confirm the traditional 
opinion that this compiler had been a companion and hearer 
of St. Paul. I may add, in confirmation of this result, that 
Alford has remarked that the speech (Acts xxii.), which was 
spoken in Hebrew contains no Pauline expression, while it 
abounds in those peculiar to St. Luke ; on the other hand, 
the speech (Acts xvii.), which Luke does not profess to 
have heard himself, contains none of Luke s characteristic 
phrases. 

But now I come to the point at which I was desirous to 
arrive. If it is owned that the compiler of the Acts was a 
Paulinist, undoubtedly familiar with the Pauline diction, 

cradle of Stoicism. Amongst the Stoic teachers which it supplied were 
Zeno of Cyprus, Persseus of Cyprus, Chrysippus of Soli, and Aratus of 
Soli, who is quoted in the speech. Paul, therefore, had been brought up 
in a Stoic atmosphere ; and in the speech he takes the Stoic side against 
the Epicureans, in their doctrine about Providence, about the unity of 
nature of all nations (v. 26), and about Pantheism, all that is true in which 
is recognized (v. 28). 



344 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

we ask how he acquired that familiarity. If it was not from 
personal intercourse with the Apostle, it must have been from 
diligent study of his Epistles, and such study a Paulinist of 
the next generation could not fail to give. But the strange 
point is, that no satisfactory proof can be made out that the 
author of the Acts had ever seen St. Paul s Epistles. If we 
were to borrow our opponents language, we might say that 
St. Luke absolutely knew nothing of these letters. We can 
find in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in i Peter, clear 
proofs of acquaintance with Paul s letters ; but not so in the 
Acts. Can we imagine a compiler of the next century so 
subtle as to give the speeches which he puts in Paul s mouth 
a Pauline character, by employing that Apostle s vocabulary, 
and yet avoiding anything like a direct echo of any passage in 
the Epistles ? The nearest coincidence I can find is that in 
the speech at Athens, Paul says (xvii. 31), He will judge 
the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath 
ordained, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in 
that He hath raised Him from the dead. This is like what 
Paul says in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans (i. 4), 
Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the 
spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead : so like 
at least that we can easily believe both to have been utter 
ances of the same man ; yet the likeness is certainly not that 
of direct imitation. If the antiquity of the book of Acts were 
undoubted, and that of Paul s Epistles disputed, I am per 
suaded that our opponents would not admit the validity of 
a single proof we could produce of St. Luke s acquaintance 
with those Epistles, while they could make out a very strong 
case to prove his ignorance. 

For example, Philippi is a place where, as I already re 
marked, the author of the we sections spent a considerable 
time ; and its Church would, therefore, be one in which he 
would take a lively interest. Yet he shows no sign of 
acquaintance with the letter which, at a period a little later 
than that included in the history of the Acts, Paul wrote to 
the Philippian Church. In the account given in the Acts of 
the formation of that Church, Lydia is the only person men 
tioned by name. If the Epistle had been forged by anyone 



xviii.] PAUL S EPISTLES NOT USED IN THE ACTS. 345 

who had seen the Acts, that name would surely have been 
found in it ; but it is absent. On the other hand, there is not 
a word in the Acts about Epaphroditus, about the women 
Euodia and Syntyche, about the name Clement, afterwards so 
celebrated, about the gifts of money sent by the Philippian 
Church to Paul at Thessalonica (Phil. iv. 16; see also 2 Cor. 
xi. 9).* Thus the independence of the Acts and this Epistle 
is clearly marked ; but at what an early date must each 
writing have been composed, if the author of neither had 
seen the other? 

Take again the Epistle to the Galatians. The main topic 
of the assailants of the Acts is the assertion that the book 
contradicts that Epistle. I do not admit that there is any 
real contradiction, but I think also that St. Luke when he 
wrote had not seen that Epistle. There are some things 
mentioned in it, such as Paul s journey to Arabia, the rebuke 
of Paul to Peter at Antioch, the dispute concerning the cir 
cumcision of Titus, which I think St. Luke would scarcely have 
passed over in silence had he known that Epistle. Now a 
writer of the second century could neither have been ignorant 
of that Epistle himself, nor could he flatter himself that his 
readers could be so. Thus the excuse will not serve that he 
omitted these things in order to conceal from his readers that 
there ever had been any variance between Paul and the original 
Apostles. If that had been his object, he would have repeated 
the same stories with some different colouring ; but he would 
not have resorted to the ostrich-like device of being silent 
about things told in a book which he knew his readers had in 
their hands. But while I find it hard to think that the author of 
the Acts could have been acquainted with the Epistle to the 
Galatians, I see no difficulty in the supposition that he was 
ignorant of it. If Luke had not been with Paul at the time 
he wrote that letter, then unless Paul kept a copy of it, or 
unless the Galatian Church sent him back a copy of his own 

* Bishop FitzGerald used to think there was an oblique reference to the 
Macedonian gifts in awfixero r<$ Xoyy (Acts xviii. 5) ; the meaning being 
that these gifts freed Paul from the necessity of working at his trade, and 
enabled him to devote himself entirely to the preaching of the word. Canon 
Cook gives the same explanation in the Speaker s Commentary. 



THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

letter, one of Paul s immediate companions was just one of 
the last persons in the Church to be likely to see it. 

Again, it seems to me probable that Luke, when he wrote, 
had not seen the Epistles to the Corinthians. Surely if he 
had read i Cor. xv. 6, 7, his Gospel would have told some 
thing of our Lord s appearance to James and to the five 
hundred brethren at once ; and if he had read 2 Cor. xi. 24, 
25, the Acts would have given some particulars about the five 
times when in the synagogue Paul received forty stripes save 
one, of the three beatings with rods, and the three shipwrecks. 
In the case of i Cor., however, we have the strongest token 
that has been found of indebtedness on Luke s part to 
Pauline epistles, viz. the close resemblance between the 
words in which the institution of the Eucharist is recorded 
in that Epistle and in the Gospel. I am myself inclined to 
explain that resemblance by the liturgical use of the words. 
Luke would probably have often heard Paul when conducting 
divine service recite the words of Institution, and so they 
would come into his Gospel in the same form. One other 
phrase is cited, Whatsoever is set before you eat (i Cor. x. 
27), which nearly coincides with the words in the direction to 
the Seventy (Luke x. 8), * Eat such things as are set before 
you, eo-fliere TO, Trapart^e/xeva vjuv. If the coincidence is more 
than accidental, I should ascribe it to the adoption as his 
own, by St. Paul, of well-known words of our Lord. But the 
question whether Luke might have seen one or two Epistles 
of St. Paul is one which I have no interest in contesting. 
However that be decided, two facts remain. First, the Acts 
say nothing as to Paul s having written letters. Now, if the 
Acts had been compiled after these letters had obtained 
general circulation, the compiler would at least have men 
tioned, as every modern biographer of Paul does, the fact of 
their composition, even if he had nothing to tell about the 
circumstances which drew them forth. When speaking, for 
example, of Paul s residence in Corinth, he would have noted 
that thence Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church of Rome. 
Biographers of St. John, of whom I shall speak in the next 
lecture, do not fail to tell the circumstances under which he 
wrote his Gospel. But to the author of the Acts St. Paul is 



XVIII.] EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION OF LUKE S ACCURACY. 347 

known, not as a writer, but as a man of action. We conclude, 
then, that this book must have been written before the period 
when Paul s letters had passed from being the special property 
of the several Churches to which they were addressed, and had 
become the general property of Christians. Secondly, the 
Acts not only do not mention Paul s epistles, but show very 
scanty signs of acquaintance with them. It follows, then, 
that the familiarity with Paul s diction which the writer con 
fessedly exhibits, if not obtained from a study of his letters, 
must have been derived from close personal intercourse. 

The language of Peter s speeches in the Acts has also been 
compared with that of Peter s First Epistle, the result being 
to elicit several coincidences. Thus the idea that Jesus was 
delivered by the determinate counsel of God occurs three 
times in Peter s speeches (ii. 23, iv. 28, x. 42), and is found 
in the Epistle (i. 2, 20 ; ii. 4, 6). The prophecy (Ps. cxviii. 
22) of our Lord, as the stone set at nought by the builders, is 
quoted (Acts iv. ii, i Pet. ii. 6). And generally the Petrine 
speeches in the Acts agree with the Epistle in their thorough 
harmony with Paul s doctrine. But whether that is a reason 
for doubting their authenticity had better be postponed until 
I come to discuss the Epistle. 

I have thought that the most important point on which to 
dwell in the limited time at my disposal is the proof that the 
compiler of the Acts was a companion of St. Paul. If this 
were not established it would be useless to give proofs of 
Luke s accuracy in particulars, and of his exact knowledge 
of localities. It would simply be said that the compiler had 
access to some very good sources of information. I may, 
however, give you a few specimens of the argument into the 
details of which I am not able to enter. On one point, for 
instance, on which Luke s accuracy had been questioned, 
further investigation has confirmed it. Sergius Paulus is 
described (xiii. 7) as proconsul (avOvTraros) at Cyprus. Now, 
we learn from Strabo (xiv. xvii. 25) that there were two 
classes of provinces in the Roman empire, as arranged by 
Augustus : one, the ruler of which was appointed by the 
Senate ; the other, where military operations were likely 
to be necessary, the ruler of which was appointed by the 



348 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

emperor. The ruler of a senatorial province bore the title of 
Proconsul ; that of an imperial province was called Proprae 
tor (avTioT/ocmyyos). Strabo further informs us that Cyprus 
was governed by o-rpar^yot. Hence it was inferred that these 
were styled propraetors, and that Cyprus therefore was one of 
the provinces which Augustus had reserved for himself; so it 
had been set down as a mistake of Luke s that he called the 
governor proconsul. But Strabo expressly places Cyprus on 
the list of senatorial provinces; and it is certain that the 
crrpar^yoi, by whom he tells us Cyprus was governed, bore 
the title of Proconsul, and were praetors only as regards their 
previous rank. This is clearly stated by Dion Cassius, who 
further informs us (liii. 12, liv. 4) that though Cyprus had 
been at first on Augustus s list, a rectification was subse 
quently made by him, the disturbed province of Dalmatia, 
which had been assigned to the Senate, having been ex 
changed for quiet provinces in the emperor s portion ; and 
that at that time Cyprus reverted to the Senate. This is 
confirmed by coins and other remains,* showing that down 
to and after the time of Paul s visit the governor of Cyprus 
bore the title of Proconsul. It may be mentioned that Pliny, 
in his Natural History, for two books, n. and xvui., quotes 
the authority of a Sergius Paulus. The name is not so un 
common as to make an identification certain ; yet, since in 
each of the two books for which he cites the name Pliny tells 
something about the natural history of Cyprus, it is likely 
enough that the same person is meant. At several of the 
other places which Paul visited we have equal accuracy in 
the description of the magistrates. At Corinth, Gallio is 
described as avOvTraros (Acts xviii. 12). This was in the reign 
of Claudius. Under Tiberius, Achaia was imperial ; under 
Nero it was independent ; under Claudius it was senatorial, 
as represented by St. Luke (see Tacit. Ann. i. 76; Sueton., 
Claudius, 25). In Ephesus the mention of avOvTraroi (xix. 38) 



* In Cesnola s Cyprus an inscription is given (p. 425) in which the words 
EFII riATAOY [AN0]TIIATpr occur. This may have been the Sergius 
Paulus of St. Luke. I derive this reference, as well as other of the points 
noted above, from an article by Bp. Lightfoot, Contemporary Review, May, 
1878. 



XVIII.] EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION OF LUKE S ACCURACY. 349 

is equally correct. At Thessalonica, again, the magistrates 
are called politarchs (Acts xvii. 6). Now this name is found 
in connexion with Thessalonica in no ancient author ; but 
an arch which to this day spans the main street of the city 
bears the inscription that it had been raised by the seven 
politarchs.* It is a curious coincidence, but one on which 
nothing can be built, that among their names we find Gaius, 
Secundus, and Sosipater all three names occurring in Acts 
xx. 4, and that of Secundus in connexion with Thessalonica. 
St. Luke mentions also the Demos of Thessalonica, an ap 
propriate word in speaking of a free city. Srpa-nyyoi , praetors, 
seems a very grand title for the two magistrates of the little 
provincial city of Philippi (Acts xvi. 20) ; but Cicero, in one 
of his orations f a hundred years earlier, laughs at the magis 
trates of an Italian provincial town who had the impudence 
to call themselves praetors ; and no doubt what happened 
then was very likely to happen again. That Philippi was a 
Colonia (Acts xvi. 12) is confirmed by Dion Cassius (li. 4). 
The governor of Melita is neither Proconsul nor Propraetor, 
but head-man, TT/DWTOS, a title the accuracy of which is at 
tested by inscriptions (Boeckh, No. 5754). Luke s mention of 
Iconium is noteworthy (Acts xiii. 51). Just before (xiii. 13), 
he has described Perga as * of Pamphylia, Antioch as of 
Pisidia: just after (xiv. 6), Lystra and Derbe as the cities of 
Lycaonia. Iconium alone is named without geographical 
designation. Now it seems likely that Iconium was at the 
time extra- provincial; for Paul s contemporary Pliny (Nat. 
Hist. v. 25) distinguishes it from Lycaonia proper as the 
chief of fourteen cities which formed an independent 
tetrarchy.j 

Before leaving the subject of the Acts, I may mention one 



* Boeckh, Inscr. Gr. No. 1967 ; Leake s Northern Greece, in. 236. 

t De Leg. Agrar. contra Rullum, xxxiv. See also Hor. Sat. i. v. 34. 

J I owe this remark to Dr. Gwynn, who has also observed with regard 
to the titles of provincial magistrates, that the Acts of Paul and Thecla 
(see next lecture), show how easy it was for a later writer to go wrong 
in this matter. The proconsul at Antioch in these Acts ( 32) is 
clearly a mistake ; for the Syrian Antioch is meant, and Syria was not a 
Senatorial Province. The case of the proconsul at Iconium ( 16-20) 
is less clear. Iconium apparently had its own tetrarch (see above) ; 



350 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XVIII. 

of the newest attacks on it so new, indeed, that the author 
of Supernatural Religion had not discovered it when he pub 
lished his volume on the Acts in 1877; but shortly after, 
having met an article by Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift 
for 1873, he communicated an abstract of it to the Fortnightly 
Review, Oct., 1877. St. Luke had been accused of certain 
historical blunders, the evidence being that he is on certain 
points at variance with Josephus ; for, of course, it is assumed 
that, if there be a difference, Josephus is right and Luke 
wrong. But Holtzmann imagined himself to have discovered 
that Luke made use of the work of Josephus, and con 
sequently wrote later ; and therefore not till after the close of 
the first century. It is amusing to find that the main part of 
the proof is, that the names of different public characters 
mentioned by St. Luke are also mentioned by Josephus ; 
for example, Annas and Caiaphas, Gamaliel, Herod, Felix, 
Festus, &c. In the same way we can prove that the political 
tracts ascribed to Dean Swift were in reality written in the 
reign of George III. ; for they mention Queen Anne, the 
Duke of Marlborough, Harley, and St. John, showing clearly 
that the author must have read Smollett s History of England. 
The author of Supernatural Religion strengthens the proof by 
finding spread over eleven or more sections of Josephus some 
of the words which occur in three verses of St. Luke s pre 
face. But in truth a man unacquainted with the literature of 
the period is as incompetent to say whether the occurrence 
of the same words in different authors is a proof of literary 
obligation, as a negro who had never seen more than two 
white men in his life would be to say whether their likeness 
to each other was a proof of close relationship. Thus Luke 
could have found in the Septuagint the greater part of the 
words he is accused of borrowing from Josephus. Others 

possibly its Duumviri, as a Colonia (Boeckh, 3991, 3993 ; Eckhel, Doctr. 
Numm. Vet. III. 32; Marquardt, Romische Staatsverw., Band I., Zweiter 
Abschnitt B., xxx.), or if counted as of Lycaonia, it would belong, at dif 
ferent times, to Galatia (Strabo, xn. v. I ; vi. i), to Cappadocia (Ptolemy, 
v. 6), to Asia (Pliny, ut supr. [?], Boeckh, 3188). Of these, Asia alone 
was a Senatorial Province. If, however, the proconsul of Asia were 
intended, this great official would not be found within call of a plaintiff in 
a third-rate and outlying city of his province. 



XVIII.] HAD THE WRITER READ JOSEPHUS ? 351 



again (avroTrr^s for example), as Dr. Hobart has shown 
{Medical Language of St. Luke, pp. 87-90), belong to the 
vocabulary of Greek medical writers. Galen s prefaces have 
closer affinities with St. Luke s than have those of Josephus.* 
Thus we find in Galen s prefaces the complimentary epi 
thet /cparto-re, the commencement by eTreiS?} with So/cei for 
apodosis, the phrases d/cpi/3cos TrapaKoXovOfja-at, and eTTt^etpetv. 
Several of the words on which an argument has been built 
are the common property of all who use the Greek language. 
One of the words which it is assumed Luke could not have 
known unless he had learned it from Josephus is actually 
TV TTTO) ; which would raise the question, if the doubt had not 
occurred to one before, whether the objector had ever seen a 
Greek grammar. Perhaps the highest point of laughable 
absurdity is reached by Krenkel (Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift, 
1873, p. 441), who thinks that Luke would not have known 
how to describe our Lord as a TTOL<S erwv SwSe/ca if Josephus 
had not spoken of his own proficiency when he was Trats 7re/o! 
Teo-o-apeo-KaiSe /caroi/ eros. Krenkel suggests that Luke altered 
the 14 of Josephus into 12, because the latter was a sacred 
number. No doubt, if the difference had been the other way, 
it would have been found that twice seven was the sacred 
number. 

Though Luke and Josephus frequently mention the same 
people, the discrepancies between them are as remarkable as 
the coincidences. For instance, the Egyptian who in Acts 
xxi. 38 leads out 4000 Sicarii is in Bell. Jud. n. xiii. 5 at the 
head of 30,000 ; and so on. Anyone, therefore, who says that 
Luke read Josephus is bound to say also that Luke was a very 
careless person who remembered very little of what he read. 
And the best critics of the sceptical school have found them 
selves unable to execute the change of front from accusing 
Luke of contradicting Josephus to accusing him of having 
copied him. 

* Galen wrote in the latter half of the second century, but his writings 
may be taken as probable evidence of the usage of previous medical writers. 
The use of ^TrixeipeiV, as above, is found in Hippocrates some centuries 
earlier, as Dr. Hobart has pointed out. 



( 35* ) 



XIX. 



APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 



IN discussing the relation between St. Matthew s Gospel 
and the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews, I was led, in a 
former lecture, to speak of other non-canonical gospels ; and 
thus I have come to include in the plan of these lectures an 
account not only of the writings which have obtained admis 
sion into the New Testament Canon, but also of those which 
at any time seemed to have pretensions to find their way 
into it.* 

This, then, would seem to be the place to treat of Apocry 
phal Acts of the Apostles ; but though there is great abun 
dance of legendary tales of Apostolic labours and miracles, 
there is scarcely any extant document, which either on the 
ground of antiquity or of extent of acceptance, can make 
remote pretensions to canonical authority. If we were to 

* Until comparatively lately the most important collection of such 
writings was that by Fabricius (Codex Apocryph us, N.T., Hamburg, 1719). 
In 1832 a new Codex Apocryphus was commenced by Thilo, but he did 
not publish more than the first volume containing Apocryphal Gospels. 
A collection of Apocryphal Acts was published by Tischendorf in 1851, 
followed by Apocryphal Gospels in 1853, 2nd edit. 1876, and by a volume 
containing Apocryphal Revelations and some supplements to his volume 
of Acts in 1866. Syriac Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles have been made 
accessible by Professor Wm. Wright (London, 1871). A very important 
addition to our sources of information will be made in Max Bonnett s Sup- 
plementum Codicis Apocryphi, of which the first part containing the Acts 
of St. Thomas appeared in 1883. A complete account of all that is known 
on the subject will be found in Lipsius s Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten 
und Apostellegenden, 1883, a work in two large volumes. 

Lipsius, Rd. A., born 1830, Professor of Theology at Jena. Though 
differing in opinion from him on many important points, I cannot forbear to 
acknowledge the obligations students owe to his ability, learning, and in 
dustry. 



XIX.] GNOSTIC ACTS. 353 

judge by the number of New Testament books which modern 
critics have rejected as spurious, we should be led to think 
that the early Church was extremely easy in admitting the 
claims of any document which aspired to a place in the 
Canon. But actually we find cause to admire the extreme 
rigour of the scrutiny to which any such claim was sub 
jected. 

We have already seen that the two minor Epistles of St. 
John (whose common authorship with the First Epistle there 
is no good reason to doubt) did not find acceptance at once, 
or without controversy. Like hesitation was shown (and as 
I believe without any just cause) in the case of St. James s 
Epistle, of which I have still to speak. And though the story 
of the labours and sufferings of the first preachers of the 
Gospel constituted the reading which Christians found at 
once most interesting and most edifying, it does not appear 
that anyone dreamed of setting any record of Apostolic 
labours on a level with that made by St. Luke. The conse 
quence was, that this branch of Christian literature, being 
not interfered with or controlled by ecclesiastical authority, 
became liable to great variations of form. Successive re- 
lators of these stories modified them to suit their respective 
tastes or to express their doctrinal views ; so that now it is 
often a difficult and uncertain task for critical sagacity to 
recover the original form of the legends. The difficulty is 
increased by the number of the documents that demand in 
vestigation, much still remaining to be done for a complete 
examination of the Greek and Latin lives to be found in 
Western libraries, while considerable addition to the stock of 
materials may be expected from Oriental sources. 

That the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles should be sub 
jected to some alterations and recastings was indeed a neces 
sity resulting from the fact that it was in heretical circles that 
the majority took their origin. I have already (Lect. n.) 
spoken of the Clementines, which were in fact Ebionite Acts 
of Peter. There was still more active manufacture of apocry 
phal literature among the Gnostics, some of whom displayed 
great fertility of invention, and had tales to tell of wonders 
wrought by the Apostles which had as lively interest for the 

2 A 



354 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

orthodox as for the heretics. So members of the Catholic 
Church who met with these Gnostic Acts found it easy to 
believe that the facts related in them were in the main true, 
however much they might have been disfigured by heretical 
additions.* And then it was a natural step to expurgate these 
Acts, cancelling as spurious what was found distasteful to 
orthodox feelings, or giving the story some modification 
which would remove the offence. For instance, Encratism 
is a prominent feature of the Gnostic Acts. The married life 
is treated as absolutely unlawful. The Apostolic preachers are 
represented as having done a good work, when a couple 
about to unite in wedlock have been prevailed on to abandon 
the design, or when a wife has been persuaded to refuse fur 
ther intercourse with her husband. The persecution which 
the Christian preachers meet with is frequently represented as 
arising from the natural resentment of husbands at such 
teaching. When these stories are repeated by an orthodox 
narrator, the heretical character of the Encratism is removed. 
The woman who separates herself is not a wife but a concu 
bine ; or there is some impediment of close kindred ; or the 
separation is not intended to be permanent, but is only a 
temporary withdrawal for purposes of devotion, or in order 
more closely to attend to the Apostolic preaching. 

I. There is no heretical taint in the work which I take first 
to describe, and which related the preaching of Addai or 
Thaddaeus, to Abgarus, king of Edessa. I place it first be 
cause we have an assurance of the antiquity of the story in 
the fact that Eusebius accepted it as authentic, and gave an 
abstract of it, at the end of the first book of his Ecclesiastical 
History. He states that he derived his account from records 
written in Syriac, preserved in the archives of the city of Edessa. 
This city, the capital of Osrhoene, the northern province of 
Mesopotamia, was for a long period a centre of theological 

* The preface of the pseudo-Melito to his Passion of St. John, in 
words reproduced in a forged letter of Jerome to Chromatius and Helio- 
dorus, exemplifies the opinion of an orthodox reviser concerning the work 
of his heretical predecessor : Quaedam de virtutibus quidem [et miraculis], 
quse per eos Dominus fecit, vera dixit ; de doctrina vero multa mentitus 
est. Thus, by a curious reversal of modern canons of belief, the rule is, 
Believe all the miraculous part of the story, and disbelieve the rest. 



XIX.] THE ABGAR LEGEND OF EDESSA. 355 

culture for Syriac-speaking Christians. It boasted with pride 
of the early date at which it had received the Gospel ; and in 
time it was believed to have derived special privileges from the 
reception by its king of a letter from our Saviour s own hand. 
The barbarians should never be able to take the city. No 
idolater, no Jew, no heretic could live in it. With these privi 
leges, however, we are not immediately concerned, since the 
belief in them is of later origin than the story with which I 
have to do. This is that Abgar, one of several successive 
rulers of Edessa who bore this name, being afflicted with a 
sore disease, and having heard of the mighty deeds of Jesus, 
who cured sicknesses by the power of his word alone, and who 
even raised the dead, sent ambassadors to Him with a letter, 
of which Eusebius gives a translation. In this he expresses 
his belief that Jesus must be either God or the Son of God ; 
and he begs Him to have pity on him and heal his disease. 
He has heard of the plots which the Jews are contriving 
against Jesus, and offers Him refuge in his city, which though 
small is of good consideration and well sufficient for them both. 
Eusebius gives also a translation of what purports to be a 
letter from our Lord in answer. In some versions of the 
story our Lord s answer is verbal: in others the verbal answer 
is turned into a letter by the Apostle Thomas. It begins, 
Blessed art thou who hast believed in me without having 
seen me ; for it is written of me that they who have seen me 
shall not believe me, and that they who have not seen me 
shall believe and live. There seems to be here a clear use of 
John xx. 29. The nearest Old Testament passage is Is. Hi. 15, 
and the resemblance to that is not very close. The letter goes 
on to say that our Lord must finish all the things for which 
He had been sent, and afterwards be taken up to Him that 
had sent Him; but that, after He had been taken up, He 
would send one of His disciples, who should heal his disease 
and give life to him and his people. Then the story relates 
that after our Lord s Ascension, the Apostle Judas, also called 
Thomas, sent Thaddseus, one of the Seventy, who preached to 
Abgar and healed him of his disease, the king declaring that 
he had already so believed in Jesus that if it had not been for 
the power of the Romans, he would have gone with an army 

2 A 2 



356 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

to destroy the Jews who had crucified Jesus. Thaddaeus 
teaches him the cause why our Lord had been sent into 
the world, and tells him of our Lord s mighty work, and of 
the mysteries which He spoke to the world ; how He abased 
Himself and humbled His Divinity, and was crucified, and 
descended into Hades, and clove the wall of partition which 
from eternity had never been cleft, and brought up the dead. 
For He descended alone, but ascended with many to His 
Father.* Eusebius concludes his abstract by telling that 
Abgar offered Thaddaeus silver and gold ; but he refused, 
saying, How shall we who have abandoned our own property 
take that which belongs to others ? He gives the date, the 
year 340 that is of the Seleucian era, corresponding to 
the year 28 or 29 of ours. 

Either the book from which Eusebius made his extracts, or 
an amplification of it, is still extant in Syriac. It is called 
The Teaching of Addai, and was edited, with an English trans 
lation, by Dr. Phillips, in 1876. It contains, with only trifling 
variations, all that is cited by Eusebius; but it contains a 
good deal more. For example, the letter of our Lord concludes 
with a promise of inviolability to the city of Edessa. There is 
a story of which you must have heard, but about which Euse 
bius is silent, that one of Abgar s ambassadors, being the 
royal painter, took a picture of our Lord and brought it back 
with him to Edessa. There is a correspondence between 
Abgar and the Emperor Tiberius, in which Abgar urges the 
Roman emperor to punish the Jews for the murder of our 
Lord ; and Tiberius answers that he had disgraced Pilate for 
his share in the crime, but that he was prevented by troubles 
in Spain from taking immediate steps against the Jews. And 
there is a story about Protonice, the wife of the Emperor 
Claudius, almost identical with that told of Constantine s 
mother Helena, namely, that she sought for our Lord s cross, 
and, finding three, was enabled to distinguish the right one 
by applying them successively to a dead body, which was 
unaffected by the touch of the crosses of the two thieves, 

* This recognizes the story of the harrowing of hell, told in the Gospel 
of Nicodemus (see p. 201). 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. 357 

but was restored to life when touched by that of our Lord. 
It is a question whether Eusebius designedly omitted all this 
matter, or whether it was added since his time. Lipsius, who 
has made a special study of this story,* decides in favour of 
the latter supposition, a conclusion which I have no inclina 
tion to dispute. He dates the original document used by 
Eusebius A. D. 250, and the enlargement about 360. I have 
already (see p. 83) had occasion to refer to one of the proofs 
that the document is not earlier than the third century, viz. 
that it represents Addai as using the Diatessaron in the public 
service. The reading of Paul s Epistles and of the Acts of 
the Apostles is also especially mentioned (p. 44)4 

II. The work which I next consider might, on chrono 
logical grounds, have been placed first, for it has earlier 
attestation and was earlier written : the Acts of Paul and 
Thecla. In this story, as I shall presently tell, Thecla is 
related to have baptized herself, and consequently her case 
was cited against Tertullian in the controversy whether or 
not it was permissible for females to baptize. He disposes 
of the citation (De Baptismo, 17) by denying the authenticity 
of the book; and makes the interesting statement that a 
presbyter in Asia had confessed his authorship of the work, 
pleading that he had made it through love of Paul, whereupon 
he was deposed from his office. Thus we learn that the story 
of Thecla was current in the second century ; and I know no 
good reason for doubting that it was, in its main substance, 
the same as that contained in the Acts now extant. Not 
withstanding Tertullian s rejection, the story of Thecla is 
used as genuine by a whole host of fathers: Ambrose, 
Augustine, Gregory Nyssen, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, 
Chrysostom, and others. J Though Eusebius does not directly 

* Die edessenische Abgarsage, 1880. 

t Bishop Reeves tells me that no inference, as to the currency of the 
Thaddseus legend in Ireland, can be drawn from the common use of the 
name Thady : this being but the representative of a Celtic name, signifying 
poet, and also known in the form Teigue. 

J Ambrose de Virginibus II. ; August. Contra Faust, xxx. 4 ; Greg. 
Nyss. Horn. 14 in Cantic. Canticor.; Greg. Naz. Orat. xxiv. in Laud. S. 
Cypr. 10, Prcecept. ad Virgg. v. 190; Epiphan. H&r. Ixxviii. 1 6 ; Chrys. 
in Act., Horn. 25. 



358 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

mention Thecla, he shows his knowledge of her story by 
calling another Thecla -YJ Ka.0* fjpas e xAa (Mart. Pal. 3). His 
contemporary Methodius, in his Symposium, makes Thecla 
the victor in the contest of virgins. The Acts were translated 
into Latin, Syriac, and Arabic. 

These Acts of Paul and Thecla are deeply tinged with 
Encratism. This sufficiently appears from the following 
specimen of Paul s preaching : Blessed are the pure in 
heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are they who keep 
the flesh undefiled, for they shall become the temple of God. 
Blessed are the continent (ot eyKpareis), for God shall speak 
unto them. Blessed are they who renounce this world, for 
they shall be called upright. Blessed are they who have 
wives as though they had them not, for they shall inherit 
God. . . . Blessed are the bodies of the virgins, for they 
shall be well pleasing to God, and shall not lose the reward 
of their chastity/ This sermon is delivered by Paul in the 
house of his host Onesiphorus at Iconium, where the story 
opens. The virgin Thecla overhears it from the window of 
her neighbouring house, and is delighted with the Apostle s 
praises of virginity. She hangs like a spider at the window 
for three days and nights together, not leaving it either to 
eat or to drink, until her mother in despair sends for Thecla s 
affianced husband Thamyris, the chief man of the city. But 
his interference is in vain ; Thecla has no ears for anyone 
but Paul. 

Thamyris, going out, meets two of Paul s companions, 
Demas and Hermogenes, men full of hypocrisy, and asks 
them who this deceiver was who forbade marriages to take 
place. They tell him that Paul robbed young men of their 
wives, and maidens of their husbands, teaching them, Ye 
have no part in the Resurrection unless ye remain chaste 
and do not defile your flesh ; but they teach him that the 
Resurrection has already taken place, consisting in the 
generation of children, and in the obtaining the knowledge 
of the true God. 

I may remark in passing that the use of the names 
Onesiphorus, Demas, and Hermogenes, the parts ascribed 
to these characters, and the doctrine about the Resurrection 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. 359 

being past already, show clearly that the writer of these Acts 
had read the Second Epistle to Timothy with which his 
work has other verbal coincidences. These last coincidences 
might, perhaps, be explained away as arising from additions 
made by an orthodox reviser ; but a reviser would not be 
likely to alter the names of the characters. Onesiphorus is 
described as seeking for Paul (2 Tim. i. 17), and you may 
care to hear the description by which he had been taught to 
recognize the Apostle. He was a man of small stature, with 
bald head, bow-legged, of a healthy complexion (eueKTiKos), 
with eyebrows joined together, and a somewhat aquiline nose 
(/u/cpws cTTtptvos).* I have only mentioned the coincidences 
with 2 Timothy because this is a disputed book. These Acts 
are full of coincidences with the New Testament. You may 
have noticed two in the fragment of Paul s sermon which I 
quoted, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see 
God/ and they that have wives, as though they had none. 

At the instigation of the false disciples, Paul is arraigned 
before the proconsul ; but the first night of his imprisonment 
Thecla, by gifts of her personal ornaments, bribes the porter 
of her own house to let her out, and the jailer to let her in, 
and sits at Paul s feet and receives his instruction. There she 
is found ; and when Paul is brought before the tribunal she 
is sent for, too ; but when examined by the proconsul she 
makes no answer, having no eyes or ears for any but Paul. 
Though the proconsul had been willing to listen to the Chris 
tian doctrine preached by Paul, he now condemns him as a 
magician, and has him whipped out of the city. As for Thecla, 
her own mother pronounces that she ought to be burned, in 
order that other women might learn not to follow so bad an 
example ; and burned she accordingly would have been if the 
pyre had not miraculously been quenched. Escaping from 
the city, Thecla finds Paul, who with his company had been 

* On this description have been founded the representations of Paul s 
appearance given by several later writers. The following is Kenan s ver 
sion : II etait laid, de courte taille, epais et voute. Ses fortes epaules 
portaient bizarrement une tete petite et chauve. Sa face bleme etait 
comme envahie par une barbe epaisse, un nez aquilin, des yeux pendants 
des sourcils noirs qui se rejoignaient sur le front. Les Apotres, p. 170. 



360 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

fasting and praying for her deliverance. Onesiphorus was 
with him, but he had parted with all his goods ; so when, after 
six days fasting, they can hold out no longer, Paul has to sell 
his upper garment in order to buy the bread and herbs which, 
with water, constituted their fare. Thecla begs that she may 
travel with Paul whithersoever he went ; but he replies, Nay, 
for the time is evil, and thou of fair form, lest another 
temptation worse than the former come on thee and thou not 
be able to resist. * Give me, she said, the seal in Christ, 
and no temptation shall touch me. And Paul answered, 
* Thecla, be patient, and thou shalt receive the water. 

She accompanies him then to Antioch, where her beauty 
excites the passion of the Syriarch Alexander, and brings on 
her new trials. In consequence of her resistance to him, she 
is brought before the governor, and condemned to the wild 
beasts. In the meantime she obtains that the virginity for 
which she was willing to undergo so much should be preserved, 
and is committed to the charge of a lady, Tryphaena, who later 
in the story is spoken of as a queen and as a relation of the 
emperor. Tryphaena receives her to take the place of her 
deceased daughter, and Thecla requites the service by effica 
cious prayers, which transfer the soul of this dead heathen to 
the place of bliss. The lioness to whom Thecla is first ex 
posed not only licks her feet and refuses to touch her, but 
defends her against the other animals let loose on her. But 
when, after having killed some of the assailants, the faithful 
lioness herself is slain, Thecla, seeing no further escape, jumps 
into a tank where seals are kept, crying, as she does so, I am 
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the Last Day. There 
upon the sea monsters fall dead, and Thecla is surrounded 
with a cloud of fire, so that neither can the beasts touch her 
nor her nakedness be seen. I need not pursue the history. 
When Paul takes leave of her, he bids her go teach the word 
of God ; and she continues to a great age at Seleucia, living 
on herbs and water, and there enlightening many people with 
the word of God. Unless the last e^wrto-ev is to be understood 
to mean baptized, there is no mention in the Acts, as they 
stand now, ofThecla s baptizing anyone but herself. Jerome, 
however, speaks contemptuously of the Acts of Thecla, as 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. 361 

containing a story of a baptized lion (De Viris Illust. 7). 
Either this was a hallucination of memory on Jerome s part 
(which I think by no means impossible, his story being ab 
solutely without confirmation), or this incident was expurgated 
from the version of these Acts which has reached us. 

If we had not Tertullian s testimony that these Acts were 
composed by a Church presbyter, against whom he brings no 
charge of heresy, I should certainly refer them to the class of 
Gnostic Acts, with which they have many features in common. 
The exaltation of virginity seems to proceed as far as to a 
condemnation of marriage, and to a denial to married persons 
of a share in the Resurrection. The account of the Apostolic 
company abandoning their worldly goods, and living on 
bread and water, has certainly an Encratite complexion. 
There is an account of an appearance to Thecla of our Lord 
in Paul s form which much resembles what we read in con 
fessedly Gnostic Acts ; while also a favourite incident in such 
Acts is the obedience of brute animals to the word of the 
Christian preachers. I think these Acts must have possessed 
these features from the first; for I know no example of Gnostic 
recasting of Acts originally orthodox. Neither again can I 
look on these Acts as an orthodox recasting of Gnostic Acts ; 
for I find nothing in them which looks like a softening of 
something originally more heretical. I therefore accept the 
present as the original form of the Acts, and am willing to 
believe, on Tertullian s authority, that they were the work of 
a Church presbyter. But I think he must have worked on 
Gnostic lines. From the manner in which Tertullian speaks, 
I should date the composition of the Acts which he rejects 
some twenty or thirty years before his own time that is, 
about 170 or 180 and I believe that by that time Gnostic 
Acts had been published which might have served this writer 
as a model. I think that if the tendency of the work had been 
felt by the Church of the time to be quite unobjectionable, the 
author would scarcely have been deposed for his composition 
of what he could have represented as an edifying fiction not 
intended to deceive. But there is nothing surprising in the 
fact that anything of heretical aspect in the book should 
afterwards be overlooked or condoned. Some extravagance 



362 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

of statement is easily pardoned to good men struggling 
against real evils. At the present day, one point of Encra- 
tite doctrine the absolute unlawfulness of the use of wine 
is insisted on by men who find sympathy and respect from 
many who cannot be persuaded that the lawfulness of use is 
disproved by the possibility of abuse. At the end of the 
second century it was not merely that Christians saw their 
brethren in danger of being seduced by the immoralities of 
heathendom, lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, 
banquetings, and abominable idolatries ; there were those 
who laid claim to the Christian name who covered that name 
with disgrace. A later school of Gnostics drew from the 
doctrine of the essential evil of matter quite different con 
sequences from those of their ascetic predecessors. Instead 
of hoping by mortification of the body to lighten the weight 
that pressed down the soul, those men taught that it was folly 
to strive to purify what was in its nature impure beyond 
remedy. He who was truly enlightened would have know 
ledge to perceive that the soul could not be affected by the 
deeds of its grosser companion, but that he might give the 
flesh the gratification which it craved, and fear not that his 
spirit should suffer defilement. If men, fighting against these 
abominations, forgot caution and moderation, they would not 
be judged very harshly. 

The extant Acts agree very well with Tertullian s account 
that their author was a presbyter of Asia ; for it is in Asia 
Minor, and in those parts of it which adjoin Asia proper, that 
the scene of nearly the whole story is laid. Von Gutschmid 
has made interesting researches, showing that the names of 
royal personages which occur in apocryphal Acts are often 
those of real people ; and he has proved by the evidence of 
coins that there really was a Queen Tryphaena, who conceiv 
ably might have been in Antioch at the time of Paul s visit.* 
I have only to remark, in conclusion, that these Acts show no 

* Die Konigsnamen in den apokryphen Apostelgeschichten (Rhein. 
Museum, 1864, xix. 1 78). She was the divorced wife of Polemo II., king of 
Bosporus ; and Gutschmid ingeniously gives reasons for thinking that she 
was a descendant of the celebrated Cleopatra and Mark Antony, so that 
she and the Emperor Claudius had a common ancestor. 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. THOMAS. 363 

signs of acquaintance with any struggle between Paulinists 
and.anti-Paulinists, the author being evidently unconscious 
that there can be any in the Church who do not share his 
admiration for Paul. 

III. In order to let you better see the affinities of the story 
of Thecla with Gnostic Acts, I take next in order the Acts 
of St. Thomas, the remains of which are very complete, and 
their Gnostic character beyond mistake. They include, in 
deed, some hymns, copied in all simplicity by orthodox 
transcribers, who, being ignorant of Gnostic mythology, 
did not understand what was meant, but which betray their 
heretical origin at once to those who are acquainted with 
Gnostic speculations. 

Among the books read by Photius* (Bill. 114), was a 
volume purporting to be written by Leucius Charinus, and 
containing the travels f of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, 
and Paul. Photius describes the book as both foolish and 
heretical. It taught the existence of two Gods an evil one, 
the God of the Jews, having Simon Magus for his minister ; 
and a good one, whom, confounding the Divine Persons, it 
identified with Christ. It denied the reality of Christ s In 
carnation, and gave a docetic account of His life on earth, 
and in particular of His crucifixion ; it condemned marriage, 
and regarded all generation as the work of the evil principle; 
and it told several silly and childish stories. We can satis 
factorily trace these Acts back to the fourth century by means 
of references in writers of that date. At that time they were 
chiefly in use among the Manicheans ; yet there are grounds 
for looking on them as more ancient than that heresy, which 



* Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 858, had previously been 
sent by the Emperor on an embassy to Bagdad. For the information of 
his brother Tarasius, with whom he had been in the habit of reading, he 
made abstracts of the contents of the books he read during his absence, 
criticizing their style and doctrine, and sometimes giving extracts from 
them. Thus was formed his Bibliotheca, containing an account of no fewer 
than 280 different works, a book which fills us with admiration of the 
ability and learning of this indefatigable student, and to which we owe 
our knowledge of several works now no longer extant. 

t The stichometry of Nicephorus (see p. 178) contains a record of the 
number of arixoi in the travels of Peter, John, and Thomas, respectively, 
viz. 2750, 2600, 1700. 



364 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

only began towards the end of the third century. We do not 
find, indeed, the name of Leucius in any writer earlier than 
the fourth century; yet earlier writers show acquaintance with 
stories which we know to have been in the Leucian Acts ; 
whence the conclusion has been drawn, which seems to me 
a probable one, that these Acts are really a second century 
production, and that they found favour with the Manicheans 
on account of the affinity of their doctrines. 

It is mainly for the light they throw on Gnostic ideas that 
the Acts of Thomas deserve to be studied; for they are a mere 
romance, without any historic value. The name Thomas 
signifies twin/ and in these Acts the Apostle s proper name 
is given as Judas. The name Judas Thomas appears also in 
the Edessan Acts, and may have been derived from these. 
But in these Acts we are startled to find that the twin of the 
Apostle is no other than our Blessed Lord Himself, the like 
ness of the two being such as to cause one to be taken for 
the other. I have already noticed the parallel story of the 
appearance of our Lord to Thecla under the shape of Paul. 
The Acts begin by telling how the Apostles cast lots for the 
quarter of the world to which each was to preach the Gospel, 
and that India fell to the lot of Thomas. This story of a 
division of the field of labour among the Apostles by lot* is 
very ancient. It was known to Eusebius (H. E. iii. i), who, 
in the passage referred to, is quoting Origen. It is note 
worthy that Eusebius there names the districts obtained by 
the very five Apostles whose travels are said by Photius to 
have been related by Leucius. He assigns their districts 
Parthia to Thomas, Scythia to Andrew, Asia to John. Origen s 
account of the mission of the other two Apostles has the air 
of being rather taken from the Bible than from Apocryphal 
Acts, viz. Peter to the Jews dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, 
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia; St. Paul, from Jerusalem 
round about to Illyricum ; it being added that both Apostles 
ended their lives by martyrdom at Rome. In the Gnostic 
Acts the allotment of labour among the Apostles is regarded 



* I think Lipsius is right in supposing that this story was suggested by 
the casting of lots (Acts i. 23). 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. THOMAS. 365 

as having happened very soon after the Ascension ; but what 
is apparently an earlier account represents the Apostles as 
forbidden to leave Jerusalem for twelve* years. Such is the 
account of the second-century writer Apollonius (JEuseb. v. 1 8) ; 
and we learn from Clement of Alexandria (Strom, vi. 5), that 
the story was contained in the apocryphal Preaching of Peter 
and Paul. 

The Acts of Thomas relate that when India fell to the lot 
of that Apostle he refused to go, notwithstanding that our 
Lord, in a vision, encouraged him. He was weak in the 
flesh, and how should a Hebrew preach the truth to the 
Indians ? It happened that there was then in Jerusalem a 
merchant from India, charged by King Gundaphorusf to 
buy him a carpenter. Our Lord met this man, and told 
him He could sell him a slave of His, who was a very good 
workman, and He sold him Thomas accordingly. The mer 
chant finding Thomas, showed him Jesus, and asked him, 
1 Is this your master ? Yes, he is my Lord/ was the reply. 
Then I have bought you from Him. So Thomas acquiesced 
in his Lord s will. 

The first recorded incident of his travels is that, at a city 
where the ship touched, the King was making a marriage for 
his only daughter ; and everyone, rich or poor, bond or free, 
native or foreigner, was required to attend the feast. I can 
not delay to tell what took place at it, save that Thomas re 
fused to eat or to drink. But, in consequence of a miracle J 
which he performed, he was brought in by the King to bless 
the newly-married couple. When strangers had retired from 
the chamber, and the bridegroom lifted the curtain which 
separated him from his bride, he saw Thomas, as he sup 
posed, conversing with her. Then he asked in surprise, 
* How canst thou be found here ? Did I not see thee go 
out before all ? And the Lord answered, I am not Judas 
Thomas, but his brother. Thereupon He made them sit 

* The Clementine Recognitions say seven (i. 43, ix. 29). 

t Von Gutschmid finds that this is the name of a real person, and hence 
concludes that the story must be more ancient than the Manicheans, who 
would not have been likely to know this name. 

J The story of this miracle is three times referred to by St. Augustine : 
Cont. Faust, xxii. 79 ; adv. Adimant. xvii. 2 ; De Serm. Dom. intnontexx.. 



366 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

down, and called on them to remember what His brother 
had said to them. He taught them all the anxieties, troubles, 
and temptations which result from the procreation of chil 
dren, and promised them that if they kept themselves chaste 
they should partake of the true marriage, and enter the bride- 
chamber full of light and immortality. The young couple 
obey this exhortation, much to the grief of the King when 
he learns their resolution. He orders Thomas to be appre 
hended, but he had sailed away. 

When Thomas arrives in India, he is brought before the 
King, and being questioned as to his knowledge of masons 
or carpenters work professes great skill in either department. 
The King asks him if he can build him a palace. He replies 
that he can, and makes a plan which is approved of. He is 
then commissioned to build the palace, and is supplied abun 
dantly with money for the work, which, however, he says he 
cannot begin till the winter months. The King thinks this 
strange, but being convinced of his skill, acquiesces. But 
when the King goes away, Thomas, instead of building, 
employs himself in preaching the Gospel, and spends all 
the money on the poor. After a time the King sends to 
know how the work is going on. Thomas sends back word 
that the palace is finished all but the roof, for which he must 
have more money ; and this is supplied accordingly, and is 
spent by Thomas on the widows and orphans as before. At 
length the King returns to the city, and, when he makes in 
quiry about the palace, he learns that Thomas has never done 
anything but go about preaching, giving alms to the poor, 
and healing diseases. He seemed to be a magician, yet he 
never took money for his cures ; lived on bread and water, 
with salt, and had but one garment. The King, in great 
anger, sent for Thomas. Have you built me my palace ? 
Yes. Let me see it. Oh, you can t see it now, but you 
will see it when you go out of this world. Enraged at being 
thus mocked, the King committed Thomas to prison, until 
he could devise some terrible form of death for him. But 
that same night the King s brother died, and his soul was 
taken up by the angels to see all the heavenly habitations. 
They asked him in which he would like to dwell. But when 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. THOMAS. 367 

he saw the palace which Thomas had built, he desired to 
dwell in none but that. When he learned that it belonged 
to his brother, he begged and obtained that he might return 
to life in order that he might buy it from him. So as they 
were putting grave-clothes on the body, it returned to life. 
He sent for the King, whose love for him he knew, and im 
plored him to sell him the palace. But when the King learned 
the truth about it, he refused to sell the mansion he hoped to 
inhabit himself, but consoled his brother with the promise 
that Thomas, who was still alive, should build him a better 
one. The two brothers then receive instruction, and are 
baptized. We learn here some interesting details about the 
Gnostic rites, and the agreement of the ritual with that 
described by Cyril of Jerusalem shows that, though most 
of the words of the prayers put into the Apostle s mouth 
may be regarded as the invention of the heretical composer 
of the Acts, much of the ritual, and possibly even some of 
the words, simply represent the usage of the Church before 
these Encratites branched off, and which they retained after 
their separation. 

Oil has so prominent a place in this ritual, that it was 
supposed among the orthodox that the heretics, from whom 
these Acts emanated, baptized with oil, not with water.* But 
though in one case no mention is made of water baptism, it 
may be gathered from the fuller account of other baptisms 
that it was not omitted. It is, indeed, sometimes difficult to 
know, when receiving the seal is spoken of, whether the 
application of oil or of water is intended. Thus, in one place 
(19, 30, Bonnet s ed.), we have Seovrai rty cr^paytSa TOV Xovrpov, 
and immediately after (20, 9) wo. Sto. TOV e\aiov Seovrai rrjv 
o-^payiSa. But the explanation, no doubt, is that the use both 
of the oil and the water were looked on as essential to the 
rite ; and in the passage referred to an incident is represented 
as having occurred after the candidates had been sealed, but 
before they had received TO 7rio-</3ayioyx,a TTJS cr^paytSos. The 
baptismal ceremony commenced with the pouring of oil on 
the candidate s head by the Apostle, with words of benedic- 

* Turibius, Epist. ad Idacium et Ceponium. 



368 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

tion ; but throughout he is not represented as confining 
himself to a definite form of sacramental words, different 
forms being represented as used on different occasions. In 
these Acts the forms of prayer, requesting our Lord s presence 
in the consecrated oil, are much stronger than those with 
regard to the consecrated bread, e.g. (82, 6) 
TW eAa/a) Kara^ioxTOv rovTO) cis o Kal TO (Tov ayiov 
ovofj.a. (compare Cyril. Hier. Catech. xxi. 3). After oil had 
been poured on the head took place the anointing of the 
candidates : that is, as I suppose, the application of oil with 
the sign of the cross to different parts of the body. I find no 
trace that different unguent was used on the two occasions, 
though this was afterwards the practice. Thus (Const 7. App. 
vii. 22), xpicreis Trpwrov TO> eXato) ayt a>, cTrctra /SaTrnVeis vSari, 
/cat TcXevrcuov <r</oayi creis /xv pw (see also Cyril. Hier. xx. 3, 
and xxi. 3). In these authorities, and in later practice, this 
anointing comes after the baptism, and not before. In one 
place in these Acts we have the phrase dAefyas KOL xpi cra?, 
where the latter word seems to refer to the pouring of oil on 
the head, the former to the smearing of the unguent on the 
body. Cyril s usage is the reverse. Xpi eiv is the ordinary 
O. T. word for the ceremonial anointing of priests, kings, 
&c. In the case of female candidates, the Apostle himself 
only pours the oil on the head, but leaves the subsequent 
anointing to the women. 

After the anointing followed the baptism with water in 
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Apparently 
immersion was used, for the candidates were completely 
stripped, with the exception of a linen waist-cloth (Cyril, 
xx. 2). When a fountain could not be had, water was 
brought in in a trough (cr/ca^). We may gather from 
Herodotus, iv. 73, that it would be possible for the candidate 
to lie down in such a vessel.* 

After the baptism those who had been sealed received the 
Eucharist. In most places the impression is conveyed that 
no wine was used, and that it consisted of bread and water 



* Du Cange in his Glossary gives oW^T?, with the Romaic diminutive 
o-/fo0i5o7rouAo, as names for a baptismal font. 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. THOMAS. 369 

only. In one place, however, the materials brought in for 
the feast are /c/oao-iv voWos KOL aprov era ; and the word Kpao-is 
suggests a mixture of wine. After the bread was blessed, 
the sign of the cross was made on it, and it was distributed 
with some such words as, This be unto thee for the 
remission of sins; but, as already stated, there is con 
siderable variety in the words reported to have been used 
on different occasions. We read more than once of a 
supernatural voice uttering the Amen. In Justin Martyr s 
account of the Christian ritual (Apol. i. 65) I understand him 
to describe the people as joining vocally in the earlier prayers, 
which therefore must have been prescribed forms; but the 
Eucharistic thanksgiving as uttered by the president alone, 
and as it would seem, extempore, the people at the end 
expressing their assent by an Amen. St. Paul plainly refers 
to this mode of worship (i Cor. xiv. 16), and its antiquity is 
proved by its being found in the earliest heretical sects. We 
learn from an extract preserved by Irenaeus (i. x. i) that in 
the second century the heretic Marcus uses as an illustration 
the sound made when all uttered the Amen together.* It 
need not surprise us therefore to find the Amen here. 

But a tale is told showing the danger of receiving un 
worthily. A youth, who had committed a grievous sin, was 
convicted by the Eucharist/ for on his partaking of the holy 
food both his hands withered. Being called on to confess, 
he owned that he had been enamoured of a woman : but 
having been converted by the Apostle, and having learned 
from him that he could not have life if he partook of carnal 
intercourse, he had received the seal, and had endeavoured 
to prevail on the woman he loved to dwell with him in 
chastity. But, on her refusing to pledge herself to con 
tinence, he thought he had done a good work in slaying her, 
for he could not bear the thought of her being polluted 
by another. No difficulty is raised as to the forgiveness of 
post-baptismal sin. The Apostle heals the young man and 
restores the woman to life, who anticipates Dante in relating 

* A couple of centuries later St. Jerome speaks of the thunder of the 
Christian Amen : ad similitudinem caelestis tonitrui Amen reboat (Prooem. 
in Galat. Lib. 2). 

2 B 



370 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

what she had witnessed of the varieties of punishment in 
the unseen world. 

It would be tedious to go through all the stories. Suffice 
it to say that the appearance of our Lord in the form of 
Thomas is more than once repeated ; and that there are, as 
in other Gnostic Acts, tales of miracles performed on the 
brute creation. In a work of this nature we read without 
surprise that when on a journey the horses are unable to 
proceed, the wild asses of the desert obeyed the Apostle s 
summons, and picked out the four strongest of their number 
to take the place of the exhausted horses ; but it exceeds the 
bounds even of hagiological probability that at the end of 
his journey Thomas should employ one of the wild asses as 
his curate, to exorcise a demon and to preach a sermon. 
One of the tales which moved the contempt of Photius was 
another story of a speaking ass, who claimed relationship 
with Balaam s, and with the ass who bore our Lord.* 

The journey which I have mentioned results in the mar 
tyrdom of Thomas. He converts the wife of the chief 
minister of the sovereign of the country, who, in obedience 
to the Apostle s instructions,! refuses further intercourse with 
her husband. He complains to the King, but the result is 
that the King s own wife and son become converts to the 
same doctrine. Thomas has, by his miracles, gained such 
estimation among the people that the King dares not order 
his public execution, but by his command the four soldiers 
who guarded the Apostle pierce him to death with their 
spears. And this occasions a remark which is worth quoting 
as exhibiting the docetic denial of the truth that our Lord 
had a body like ours. Thomas observes that it was fitting 
that his body, which was made of four elements, should be 
pierced by four spears, but our Lord s body only by one. 

* Philaster also (H<zr. 88) notes it as a characteristic of the Gnostic 
Acts : ut pecudes et canes et bestiae loquerentur. 

f Of these instructions the following is a specimen : OVK w(pe\-fjffei <rot 
T) KOivuvia }) pvirapa T) irpbs Tbv ffbv &t>5pa yivo(j.evr) Kal y&p avrr) airocr- 
repe i curb rys Koivusvias rys aXiiQivys. The husband, therefore, is guilty of 
no misrepresentation when he complains, 6 ir\dvos e/ce?/os TOVTO SiSdffKfi, 
Iva. /TTJ ris yvvatKl irpoffOfju^ffri tSta, & T] (pvffis ciTratTeti/ ot Sev, Kal Oebs Ivo/no- 
, avrbs avarpeirei. 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. THOMAS. 371 

Notwithstanding the docetic tinge of the passage just 
quoted, very orthodox language is elsewhere used as to our 
Lord s twofold nature. He is addressed as I^o-ov 6 eTraraTravo- 
/xevos ctTTo rfjs 68oi7ropias TOV /ca/^arov a>s av#/3U>7ros KOL eirl rots 
KVfjLa(TL -TTCptTraTuV ws #eos, And again, 6 fj,ovoyevr)<s VTrdpxwv, 6 

TTpOJTOTOKOS TToXXcOV dSeX^WV, $ K 6fOV Vlj/lCTTOV, 6 ttV^/OCOTTOS 6 

KaTa</>/3ovov/*,evo9 ?<os a/art. You will have noticed the use made 
in this quotation of St. John s Gospel and of the Epistle to 
the Romans ; and in fact these Acts make copious use of the 
New Testament ; of the Gospels, including John, several 
times, the Acts, the Pauline Epistles, including the Epistle 
to the Ephesians frequently, and both Epistles to Timothy, 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, the First Epistles both of St. 
Peter and St. John, and the Apocalypse. 

There is nothing in the facts just stated which forbids us 
to believe these Acts to have been earlier than the time of 
Origen. The language used concerning our Lord s twofold 
nature resembles that employed by Melito ;* and all the New 
Testament books quoted were in full use at the end of the 
second century. For instance, I see nothing either in the 
Christology or in the New Testament Canon of these Acts 
which would make it impossible to believe that they were 
written by Tatian.f Not that I in the least believe that this 
writer was capable of inventing the ridiculous stories which 
these Acts contain ; yet we can learn from them what were 
the notions prevalent among the Encratites to whom Tatian 
joined himself. And the word Gnostic is one of such very 
wide application, being given to some whom we should 
hardly own as Christians at all, that it is interesting to 
learn how much of Catholic doctrine was held by the Gnostic 
sects which were nearest to the Church. The Encratites were 
especially formidable towards the end of the second century, 

* Otto s Apologists, Fragments vi., xiii., &c. 

t A limit to the antiquity of these Acts is placed by the fact that the 
martyrdom of Thomas was unknown to the Valentinian Heracleon, whose 
date may be roughly placed at 170. Heracleon, quoted by Clem. Alex. 
(Strom, iv. 9), arguing against the notion that the only way of confess 
ing Christ was confession before a magistrate, names Matthew, Philip, 
and Thomas, as never having had occasion to make this kind of confes 
sion. 

2 B2 



372 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

and the controversy with them occupies a whole book of the 
Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria. 

I should be disposed to conjecture Syria as the place of 
manufacture of these Acts. I have already noticed their 
agreement with the Doctrine of Addai in the use of the 
name of Judas Thomas; and the Acts of Thomas conclude 
with telling of the removal of the body of Thomas to 
Edessa.* 

I have gone into so much detail about the Acts of Thomas 
that I can say nothing about those of Andrew, which, in their 
original form, were probably of equal antiquity ; or about the 
Acts of Philip, a later production of the same school. 

IV. The Acts of St. Peter. I have already (see p. 14) told 
you of the Clementine writings, founded, as it would seem, 
on an earlier Jewish-Christian work, which related travels 
of Peter. There is evidently [much room for difference of 
opinion between critics who, guided by internal evidence 
only, attempt to separate the original portions of a work from 
subsequent accretions. To me it seems certain that the 
original Circuits of Peter terminated with the Apostle s 
arrival at Antioch, beyond which the existing forms of the 
Clementines do not proceed. Two or three allusions to a 
subsequent contest of Peter with Simon Magus at Rome I 
believe to have been inserted when the work was dressed up 
for Roman circulation. Extant Acts which tell of the contest 
at Rome are of later date, and of by no means Ebionite char 
acter, associating Peter with Paul in joint opposition to the 
magician. Those who have been trained in the Tubingen 
theory as to the predominance of the anti-Pauline party in the 
early Church piously believe that the Acts relating the adven 
tures of Peter at Rome must be an orthodox recasting of anti- 
Pauline Acts now lost, in which Paul, instead of opposing 
Simon, was himself to be recognized under that name. But of 
the existence of such Acts there is not a particle of evidence, 
nor do I know of any passages in the extant Acts which sug 
gest that they originally bore an anti-Pauline aspect. Non- 

* Rufinus tells (H. E. ii. 5), that Edessa claimed to possess the body of 
St. Thomas. 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. PETER. 373 

Ebionite Acts of Peter are as old as the second century, for 
we learn from a quotation by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
vi. 5) that the Preaching of Peter was of this character.* 

In truth, I consider that the first condition for either tracing 
rightly the genesis of the Petrine legends, or understanding 
the history of the early Church, is the rejection of the 
speculations which Baur has built on the fact that in the 
Clementine Homilies Paul is assailed under the mask of 
Simon Magus. The consequence has been that his disciples 
cannot hear Simon Magus named without thinking of Paul. 
By a false historical perspective they project the image of 
third-century heretics back upon the first ages of the Church; 
and the climax is reached by Volkmar, who makes the Simon- 
Paul myth antecedent to Luke, and finds in Acts viii. a covert 
assault upon the Apostle of the Gentiles. | I have already had 
occasion to mention (p. 19) that it is only in the Homilies, 
which exhibit the latest form of the Elkesaite legends, that 
the assault on Paul under the character of Simon is to be 
found. The Clementine Recognitions, which contain an earlier 
form of the same story, are also decidedly anti-Pauline. 
Paul figures in them as the enemy, and as persecuting the 
Church ; but as the date of the incident is before his journey 
to Damascus, there is nothing in the story that might not be 
accepted by a reader fully persuaded of the truth of Luke s 



* This book of the preaching of Peter is of very early date. It is several 
times quoted by Clement, and was also used by Heracleon(Origeniny0a. 
torn. xin. 17). The work was not Ebionite, for it condemned equally both 
false methods of worshipping God : KO.TO, rovs "E\\f]vas and Kara TOVS 
lovSaiovs (Clem. Alex, ubi supra}. It is now generally acknowledged 
(see Grabe, SpiciL I. 66, Fabricius, Cod., Ap. N. T. vol. i. 800) that the 
book contained discourses of Paul, as well as of Peter, and that it is the 
same work as that called by pseudo-Cyprian (De Rebaptismate, 17) the 
Preaching of Paul, a book which represented the two Apostles as joined 
together on friendly terms at Rome. Lactantius says (Inst. Div. iv. 21), 
quse Petrus et Paulus Romas praedicaverunt ; et ea prsedicatio in memo- 
riam scripta permansit. It seems to me likely that this work was known 
to Justin Martyr, who twice (Apol. I. 20, 44) quotes the prophecies of the 
Sibyl and of Hystaspes as to the destruction of the world by fire. Now, 
Hystaspes and the Sibyl were thus coupled in a discourse ascribed to Paul 
cited by Clement (Strom, vi. 5) in connexion with the Preaching of Peter, 
and by Lactantius (Inst. Div. vil. 15, 18). 

t Hilgenfeld has lately written his recantation of this theory {Ketzergc- 
schichte, p. 164), and now owns the historical character of Simon. 



374 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

narrative. The writer shows his hostility to Paul only by 
making no mention of his subsequent conversion or his 
preaching to the Gentiles. And none of the language which, 
in the Recognitions, is put into the mouth of Simon conveys 
any reference to Paul. Indeed, the whole story of Simon, 
which is found in both forms of the Clementines, attributes to 
him characteristics with which Paul has nothing in common. 
The magician is a Samaritan, he had been a disciple of John 
the Baptist, he has a concubine named Helena, he works 
miracles in no way resembling those ascribed to Paul, and he 
arrogates to himself divine prerogatives. 

It is plain that the use of a historical name as a nickname 
implies some previous knowledge of the character whose 
name is so employed. Whence, then, are we to suppose 
that the Clementine writers obtained their knowledge of 
Simon ? I answer : in the first instance from the Acts of the 
Apostles ; for never, do I think, was there a more complete 
va-repov TrpoVcpov than when the Clementines were used to 
explain the genesis of the Book of the Acts. The Recognitions 
in several places betray a use of the Acts. They mention, 
for instance, Paul s journey to Damascus; they know that 
Gamaliel took the Apostle s part, telling the story in the 
curious form, that Gamaliel was in truth a Christian, but had 
obtained from the Apostles a dispensation to conceal his 
faith.* From the Acts, then, I believe, that the Clementine 
writer drew his knowledge of Simon as a Samaritan, as a 
magician, and, it is important to add, as one who had been a 
disciple of Jesus. 

As for the particulars which the Clementines add to what 
is told of Simon in the Acts, I feel no doubt that they were 
derived from Justin Martyr. Justin himself states in his 
Apology that he was also the author of a work on heresies ; 
and the best authorities are agreed that this lost work of 
Justin s formed the basis of the treatise on heresy by Irenseus 

* The Doctrine of Addai I count to be later than the Clementine 
Recognitions, and to be indebted to them for some particulars. For in 
stance, it represents Christ as lodging in the house of Gamaliel, and (p. 16) 
the Apostles as bound to send to James periodically accounts of their 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. PETER. 375 

and Hippolytus. When we find the first two places in the 
list of heretics assigned to the two Samaritan heretics, Simon 
and Menander, we infer that the information was furnished 
by the Samaritan Justin, who duly records the villages where 
each was born ; and the coincidences between the account of 
Simon given by Irenaeus (i. 21) and in the Clementines, lead 
us to believe that Justin was the source of the latter as well 
as of the former. If the whole Clementine story of Simon be 
later than Justin Martyr, we evidently can attribute no great 
antiquity to the identification of the Clementine Simon with 
Paul, which must be later still.* 

The Acts of Peter and Paul, as printed by Tischendorf, 
are much later than the Clementines. Simon appears in the 
character of a magician, and performs many wonders in his 
conflict with the Apostles before Nero. Thus he offers to 
allow his head to be cut off, undertaking in three days to 
rise again. But by his magical power he deceives the eyes 
of the spectators ; and it is a ram which is made to assume 
his form and is beheaded. So, to the Emperor s amazement, 
Simon walks in at the appointed time, complaining, What a 
mess you have got here ! Why they have never wiped up the 
blood where they cut off my head. Finally Simon exhibits 
his power by undertaking to fly up to heaven from the top 
of a lofty tower. But on the Apostles adjuration, the evil 
angels who are bearing him are compelled to drop him, and 
he is taken up dead. Yet the Emperor, instead of being 
convinced, orders the execution of the two Apostles. But I 
may mention, as showing the affinity of these Acts to those 
previously described, that the cause of hostility to the Apostles 
is stated to be the number of matrons whom they had per 
suaded to leave the society of their husbands, among whom 
were the wife of the Emperor s chief minister, Agrippa, and 
Nero s own wife, Livia. You will notice how the framer 
of the story has mixed up the personages of the reigns of 

* In my article SIMON MAGUS, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
I give my reasons for thinking that there really was a Samaritan heretical 
teacher of the not uncommon name of Simon, but that Justin was mistaken 
in identifying him with the Simon of the Acts, and, under this mistake, 
imagining him to be the founder of Gnosticism. 



37^ APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

Augustus and of Nero. There were Gnostic Acts, which I 
regard as earlier than those from which I quote, and which 
contain other stories of Simon s conflict with the Apostles, 
and legends of the Apostles work at Rome, which it would 
be tedious to detail. But perhaps I ought not to pass by in 
silence the celebrated story of Domine quo vadis ? Peter 
had, by the advice of the leading members of the Church, 
resolved on withdrawing from the coming persecution ; but 
outside the city he meets the Lord coming in ; and on ask 
ing Him whither He is going, is answered, To Rome, to be 
again crucified. Thereupon Peter, understanding the rebuke, 
returns to fulfil the Lord s command. 

I have said that the Acts, as published by Tischendorf, are 
not very ancient. I will mention two proofs of this. One is 
that Hippolytus, who wrote about A.D. 235, is ignorant of 
the version of the death of Simon, which I have repeated to 
you, and which eventually became the most widely received. 
The story told by Hippolytus is, that Simon commanded 
himself to be buried, promising to rise again in three days. 
And buried he was; but buried he remained. The other proof 
is drawn from the fact that in these Acts the martyrdom of 
the two Apostles is made to take place on the 29th June, the 
day on which it has been commemorated for centuries ; for it 
came to be held that Peter and Paul, though not martyred in 
the same year, suffered on the same day.* 

We find that about the middle of the second century the 
custom had begun of making a commemoration of a martyr 
dom on the first anniversary of its occurrence, and about the 
middle of the third century of making, at least in the case of 
very distinguished martyrs, commemorations on successive 
anniversaries. For these purposes it was necessary to pre 
serve the memory of the exact day of the martyrdom. But I 
find no evidence that either custom was earlier than the date 
I have named ; and I do not believe that in the hurry and 
panic of the Neronian persecutions any record was preserved 
of the dates of the martyrdoms. But the 2Qth June does 
commemorate a real occurrence, namely, a translation of 

* Prudentius, Peristeph. 12. 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. PETER. 377 

the bodies of the two Apostles, which an authentic Kalendar 
of the Roman Church* records as having taken place on that 
day in the year 258. The earliest mention of the commemo 
ration of the two Apostles is by Caius, of whom I have already 
spoken (p. 51), and dates from the beginning of the third 
century. Apparently the Montanist antagonist of Caius, in 
claiming authority for the Asiatic Churches, had cited the 
great names of their founders, or former rulers. Caius (ap. 
Euseb. ii. 25) retorts by appealing to the authority of the 
founders of the Roman Church Peter and Paul whose 
trophies might be seen, the one on the Vatican, the* other 
on the Ostian Way, These were the places where early 
tradition, which I see no reason to reject, related that the 
Apostles respectively suffered. They were probably buried, 
each near the place of his martyrdom ; and there, in process 
of time, tombs were erected, which became centres of Chris 
tian worship. But the year 258 witnessed a terrible perse 
cution under the Emperor Valerian, in the course of which 
the bishops Sixtus perished at Rome and Cyprian at Car 
thage. The Christians were forbidden to hold meetings or 
to enter their places of sepulture. Then a hiding-place was 
found in the Catacombs, to which, on 2gth June, the two 
bodies were transferred, and there meetings could secretly 
be held. The deposition of the bodies became a subject of 
annual commemoration ; and it is this, and not the martyr 
dom, which, as I believe, the 2Qth June really commemorates. 
A document, therefore, which describes the Apostles as suf 
fering on that day, is pretty sure to be considerably later than 
the year 2584 

* See Mommsen s memoir on the Chronographer of the year 354, 
Abhandlungen der Konigl. Sachs. Gesellschaft, i. 585. 

f I am indebted for this account of what took place in 258 to Duchesne 
{Liber Pontificalis, p. civ.). In comparatively modern times a theory was 
put forward that Peter s martyrdom took place, not on the Vatican, but on 
the slope of the Janiculum, and in the year 1500 a church (S. Pietro in 
Montorio) was built to consecrate this supposed site. But Aringhi (Roma 
Sotteranea, II. 5) has given what appear to be conclusive reasons for hold 
ing fast to the old tradition, that the martyrdom took place not far from 
the place on the Vatican where from early times it was believed Peter s 
body was laid. Tradition preserved the fact that the Apostles bodies 
were removed from the original place of deposition to the Catacombs ; but 
the true explanation of the removal being lost, legend busied itself in 



37^ APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

Before quitting the subject of the Petrine Acts, I ought 
to mention that Lipsius holds that the tradition of Peter s 
preaching and martyrdom at Rome is confronted by a rival 
tradition, which makes the scene of his activity Pontus and 
the East. But my opinion is that the latter tradition was 
intended not to contradict but to supplement the earlier 
story, which told of Peter s work at Rome. I have already 
quoted a passage from Origen, which represents Peter as 
having first laboured in those countries which are named 
in the salutation with which his First Epistle begins. The 
Gnostic Acts of Andrew appear to have made that Apostle 
take part with his brother in joint work in Pontus. A history 
is given of the successful labours of Andrew among the savage 
and cannibal tribes which were believed to inhabit the shores 
of the Black Sea. The legend which made Andrew labour in 
that part of the world afterwards proved convenient. For 
when, through the favour of Constantine, Byzantium was 
made to rank above cities in which Apostles were known to 
have laboured, an attempt was made to supply the deficiency 
of the new capital in ecclesiastical associations by a claim 
that its first bishop had been appointed by St. Andrew, whose 
body it soon took pains to possess. No legend represented 
Peter as sharing his brother s fate ; and we have every reason 
to think that the same Acts which told of Peter s work in the 
East told also of his return to other labours in the West. 

V. The Acts of St. John* Of all the Gnostic Acts, those 
which related the work of John seem to me to have left the 
greatest traces on Church tradition ; and I am inclined to 
think that it is with the Acts of John that the name of 
Leucius ought specially to be connected ; for he seems to 
have been represented as an attendant on that Apostle. 

inventing another. Pope Gregory the Great (Ep. iv. 30) tells a story more 
obscurely told in verses of Pope Damasus (De Rossi, Inscr. Christ., ii. 
32 ; see also Acta Pet. et Paulz, ap. Tischendorf, Acta Apoc. p. 38), that 
certain Greeks attempted to steal the bodies, but were compelled by a 
miraculous thunderstorm and earthquake to drop them near the place where 
they were temporarily deposited in the Catacombs. How long they re 
mained there is uncertain, but it is probable that it was on Constantine s 
accession they were restored to their ancient resting-places. 

* Some additions were made to the previously edited remains of these 
Acts, in Acta Johannis, published by Zahn, 1880. 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. JOHN. 379 

Several traditions concerning John, which are mentioned 
by very early writers, agree so closely with what we know 
to have been told in the Gnostic Acts as to favour the idea 
that these Acts may have been the original source of these 
traditions. But this account cannot be given of all the 
.stories told about this Apostle. For instance, the beautiful 
story of John and the robber, which I do not repeat, because 
it has been told so often that most of you are likely to know 
it already, appears to have been derived by Clement of Alex 
andria (Quis div. salv. 42) from some different source. For 
later Christian writers, who show independent knowledge of 
other things contained in the Leucian Acts, appear to have 
known for this story no other authority than Clement. 

The Leucian Acts came under discussion at the second 
Council of Nicsea. They had been appealed to by the Icono 
clasts ; for one of their stories was, that the Apostle John 
rebuked a disciple for the cult he found him to be in the 
habit of paying to a certain picture ; on which he was informed 
that the picture was his own. John, who had never seen his 
own face, refused to own the likeness, until a mirror was 
brought him ; when he was convinced, but still said that his 
disciple had done ill. In order to discredit this authority, 
passages from these Acts were read at the Council to exhibit 
their heretical character. The docetism of the Acts comes 
out very plainly from this evidence. John is related as inform 
ing his disciples that when he tried to lay hold on our Lord 
it had sometimes happened to him to find solid substance, 
but not so at other times ; that, though he could see Him 
walking, he was never able to see that He left any footprint on 
the ground ; and that when our Lord was invited to a feast 
He used to divide the loaf that was given Him among His 
disciples, who found the portion thus handed them so satis 
fying, that they needed not to touch the loaves given by the 
host to themselves. Our Lord is related to have appeared to 
His disciples sometimes young, sometimes old ; sometimes 
small, sometimes so high as to touch the heavens with His 
head. And there is a story how John, not bearing to witness 
the Crucifixion, fled to the Mount of Olives ; and there, while 
4he mob believed they were crucifying our Lord, He conversed 



380 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

with John and showed him a wonderful vision of a cross of 
light, which I must not attempt to describe, for I should 
wander away too far if I were to try to explain how some 
leading Gnostic sects contrived, notwithstanding their doce- 
tism, to rival the orthodox in the honour they paid to the 
Cross. 

Now, one of the reasons for thinking it possible that these 
Acts may be as old as Clement of Alexandria is, that that 
father states that he read * in the traditions, that when John 
handled the body of our Lord it offered no resistance, but 
yielded place to the Apostle s hand. 

The Encratite character of these Acts is very strongly 
marked. For example, one of the Apostle s miracles is 
performed on a lady who had submitted to die rather than 
associate with her husband. And we have also the favourite 
Gnostic type of miracle, the conferring intelligence on the 
brute creation. It may amuse you to hear, by way of example, 
what the narrator describes as a pleasant incident. On their 
journey the party stopped at an uninhabited caravanserai. 
They found there but one bare couch, and having laid clothes 
on it they made the Apostle lie on it, while the rest of the 
party laid themselves down to sleep on the floor. But John- 
was troubled by a great multitude of bugs, until after having 
tossed sleepless for half the night he said to them, in the 
hearing of all: I say unto you, O ye bugs, be ye kindly 
considerate ; leave your home for this night, and go to rest 
in a place which is far from the servants of God. At this the 
disciples laughed, while the Apostle turned to sleep, and they 
conversed gently, so as not to disturb him. In the morning 
the first to awake went to the door, and there they saw a 
great multitude of bugs standing. The rest collected to view, 
and at last St. John awoke and saw likewise. Then (mindful 
rather of his grateful obligation to the bugs than of the 
comfort of the next succeeding traveller) he said : Oye bugs,, 
since ye have been kind and have observed my charge, return 
to your place. No sooner had he said this and risen from 
the couch, than the bugs all in a run (Spo/xatot) rushed from 
the door to the couch, climbed up the legs, and disappeared 
into the joinings. And John said: See how these creatures,, 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. JOHN. 381 

having heard the voice of a man, have obeyed ; but we, 
hearing the voice of God, neglect and disobey; and how 
long ? (Zahn, p. 226.) 

I will now mention some of the statements which were 
contained in the Leucian Acts, and which were known in the 
Church so early that, if we could believe it was from these 
Acts the knowledge was obtained, we might assign them 
very high antiquity: 

(1) These Acts tell (Zahn, p. 247) how John s virginity had 
been preserved by a threefold interposition of our Lord, 
breaking off the Apostle s designs each time that he at 
tempted to marry. In conformity with their Encratism, 
these Acts dwelt much on the Apostle s virginity, describing 
this as the cause of our Lord s love to him, and as the reason 
for his many privileges ; in particular, as the reason why to a 
virgin the care of the Virgin Mother was committed. In a 
third-century Gnostic work, Pisiis Sophia, the name of the 
Apostle John ordinarily has the title 6 TrapOevos appended. 
Now the opinion of John s virginity, concerning which 
the canonical Scriptures say nothing, is common to many 
of the fathers. It is as early as Tertullian (Zte Monog. 17). 
We are not entitled to say positively that this opinion 
must have been derived from the Acts of which I am speak 
ing, because a true tradition that John never married might 
easily have been preserved in the Churches of Asia Minor ; 
yet, when this is taken in connexion with other coincidences, 
it gives some probability to the view that Acts of John existed 
as early as the second century, and were the source whence 
subsequent writers drew their traditions. 

(2) The story told in the Muratorian Fragment (see p. 54) 
of John s composition of his Gospel having originated from a 
request of the bishops of Asia has great affinity with what 
Clement of Alexandria tells (Euseb. vi. 14), that John, having 
seen that the bodily things had been related in the previous 
Gospels, made a Spiritual Gospel TrporpaTrevra VTTO rwv yvcopi)u,aH , 
IIvcv/xaTt Oeo^opyOtvTa. It is not conceivable that one of these 
writers copied from the other ; but several later writers (as, 
for instance, Jerome in the preface to his Commentary on 
St. Matthew) tell the same story, agreeing, however, in some 



382 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

additional particulars, which show that they did not derive 
their knowledge from either of the authors whom I have 
named. Thus they tell that the request that John should 
write was caused by the inroads of the Ebionite heresy, 
which made it necessary that the Apostle should add some 
thing concerning the Divinity of our Lord to what his 
predecessors had said about His humanity; and they tell 
how, in answer to their prayers, the Apostle, filled with the 
Holy Ghost, burst into the prologue, In the beginning 
was the Word (see note, p. 54). Other coincidences make 
it likely that this story was found in Acts of John used by 
Clement. 

(3) Tertullian (Prascrip. 36) refers to the story of John 
having been cast into burning oil, and taken out unhurt. 
Jerome, who tells the same story in his Commentary on 
Matthew, xx. 23, there speaks of the Apostle as an athlete, 
the peculiar applicability of which term is not obvious, but 
receives its explanation from Acts which are known to have 
been derived from those of Leucius, where John is said to 
have come out of the oil, * not burned, but anointed like an 
athlete. Hence it is concluded that Jerome, who is other 
wise known to have used the Leucian Acts, found in them this 
story ; and then arises the question whether these Acts may 
not have been early enough for Tertullian to have used them 
too. On the other hand, it must be mentioned that Origen, 
when commenting on our Lord s words to the sons of Zebedee, 
and reconciling them with the fact that John did not suffer 
martyrdom, makes no mention of the story of the baptism in 
oil. A later story makes John miraculously drink a cup of 
poison with impunity.* 

On the whole, we have clear evidence that Acts or tra 
ditions about John were in circulation before the time of 
Clement and Tertullian. When we combine the docetic 
character of the traditions which reached Clement with the 
fact that the Acts of Thecla, a work known to Tertullian, had 

* This miracle is very rare in ancient hagiology. The only other case I 
remember is that Papias tells that Justus Barsabas drank poison, and, 
through the Lord s grace, received no hurt (see p. 318). I cannot but think 
that Papias told the story in illustration of Mark xvi. 18. 



XIX.] THE ACTS OF ST. JOHN. 383 

clearly an Encratite stamp, it seems to me highly probable 
that these second century Acts of John had the same charac 
ter, and that they were either those afterwards known under 
the name of Leucius, or, at least, that they contained the 
materials on which the Leucian writer worked.* 

It would be wearisome if I were to discuss all the legends 
about John. It will be enough if I mention that Leucius 
concludes by relating the Apostle s painless death. He gives 
what purports to be John s sermon and Eucharistic prayer on 
the last Sunday of his life. Then, after breaking of bread 
there is no mention of wine he commands Byrrhus (the 
name occurs in the Ignatian epistles as that of an Ephesian 
deacon) to follow him with two companions, bringing spades 
with them. They go to a friend s burying-place outside the 
city, and there dig a grave, in which the Apostle lays himself 
down, and with joyful prayer blesses his disciples, and resigns 
his soul to God.f Later versions improve the miraculous 
character of the story : in particular that of which Augus 
tine makes mention (In Johann. xxi., Tractat. 124); that the 
Apostle lay in the grave not dead but sleeping, as might be 
seen by the motions of the dust over his grave, which played 
as if stirred by the Apostle s breathing.^ Zahn has con- 



* Zahn dates the Leucian Acts of John as early as 130 ; Lipsius places 
them about 160 ; I am myself inclined to date them 10 or 20 years later. 

f This story is accepted as true by Epiphanius (Hcer. Ixxix. 5) . 

J The form in which the Gnostic stories about John were circulated 
among the orthodox is illustrated by a very ancient prologue to St. John s 
Gospel, found, with slight variations, in many MSS., in particular the Codex 
Aureus and the Codex Amiatinus. It runs as follows : Johannes Evan- 
gelista unus ex discipulis domini, qui virgo electus a domino est, quern de 
nuptiis volentem nubere revocavit dominus, cujus virginitatis in hoc duplex 
testimonium in Evangelic datur, quod et prse ceteris dilectus domini dicitur, 
et huic matrem suam de cruce commendavit ut virginem virgo servaret. 
Denique manifestans in evangelic quod erat ipse incorruptibilis, [incorrup- 
tibilis] verbi opus inchoans solus, verbum carnem factum esse, nee lumen a 
tenebris fuisse comprehensum testatur, primus signum ponens quod in 
nuptiis fecit dominus, ut ostendens quod erat ipse legentibus demonstaret, 
quod ubi dominus invitatur, deficere nuptiarum vinum debeat, ut veteribus 
immutatis nova omnia qua? a Christo instituuntur appareant. Hie evangelium 
scripsit in Asia postea quam in Pathmos insula apocalypsin scripserat, ut 
cui in principio canonis incorruptibile principium in genesi et incorruptibilis 
finis per virginem in apocalypsi redderetur, dicente Christo, ego sum A et 
n. Et hie est Johannes, qui sciens supervenisse diem recessus sui convo- 
catis discipulis suis in Epheso per multa signorum experimenta promens 



384 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

jectured that the story of two tombs of John at Ephesus may 
have arisen from the traditional veneration paid to two spots 
sacred to the memory of John : one the place within the city 
where he had been wont to preach ; the other the place 
outside the city where he was buried. 

But I must not conclude this account of legends of the 
Apostolic age without saying something about one of them, 
which, though one of the latest in birth, has been the most 
fortunate in its reception I mean the story of the Assump 
tion of the Blessed Virgin. It is, as you know, received as 
true in the Roman Catholic section of the Church. Some 
indeed have held (see Tillemont, i. 476) that the word means 
no more than the name Koi/xTycrts, under which the same feast 
is kept in the Greek Church ; and the prayers appointed for 
the feast in the Roman Church make no distinct mention of 
a corporal assumption. But this is certainly in that Church 
a matter almost universally believed. And before the meet 
ing of the Vatican Council, those entitled to speak with 
authority declared that at that Council the wish of Pius IX. 
would be carried out, and the fact of the Assumption erected 
into an article of faith, to deny which would forfeit salvation. 
The dispersion of the Council disappointed these anticipations, 
at least for the time. It were much to be desired that the 
story, if true, should receive some such infallible attestation, 
because on the ordinary grounds of historical evidence its 
pretensions are of the slenderest. Not that it had not wide 
extent of circulation, for it is handed down in Greek, Latin, 
Syriac,* Arabic, Ethiopic, and Sahidic. But none of the 
existing forms is earlier than the end of the fourth, or 
beginning of the fifth century ; and the absence of any early 

Christum, descendensin defossum sepulturae suae locum facta oratione positus 
est ad patres suos, tarn extraneus a dolore mortis quam a corruptione carnis 
invenitur alienus. Tamen post omnes evangelium scripsit et hoc virgini 
debebatur. Quorum tamen vel scripturarum tempore dispositio vel 
librorum ordinatio ideo per singula a nobis non exponitur, ut sciendi 
desiderio collocato et quserentibus fructus laboris et domino magisterii 
doctrina servetur. 

* The Greek and Latin versions are included in Tischendorf s Apocalypses 
apocrypha ; and Syriac versions have been published by Wright, Contri 
butions to the Apocryphal Literature, N. T., and Journal of Sacred 
Literature, 1865. 



XIX.] THE ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN. 385 

authoritative version of the story is evidenced by the great 
variety with which it is told, which is such as to embarrass 
me a little in what form I shall present it to you. According 
to the oldest authorities, the time is the second year after the 
Ascension, though later authorities give the Virgin a score 
more years of life. The Virgin prays the Lord for her release, 
and for the protection of her body and soul from earthly and 
spiritual enemies. Then the angel Gabriel is sent to her to 
announce her departure in three days, and gives her a palm- 
branch as a token. At her request the Apostles are all 
brought to Bethlehem to witness her departure, each being 
miraculously wafted on clouds from the quarter of the world 
whither he had gone John from Ephesus, Peter from Rome, 
Thomas from India, &c. Three or four of the Apostles who 
had already died are raised to life and brought like the rest ; 
the angel who summons them warning them that they are 
not to suppose the general resurrection has yet come, as they 
are only brought to life in order to take part in the obsequies 
of the Virgin. By the fifth century the belief was entertained 
in Ephesus that the mother of our Lord had accompanied St. 
John to Ephesus ; but the earlier story makes her die at 
Jerusalem. For the Jews having made an attack on the house 
at Bethlehem, which had become notorious by the multitude 
of the miracles wrought there, the Apostles smite the assail 
ants with blindness, and transport the couch to Jerusalem. 
Then on the third day the Lord descends from heaven with 
His angels, and takes to Himself the Virgin s soul. But the 
Jews are resolved to burn her body with fire ; and this they 
would do, but that they are smitten with blindness ; and so 
wander fruitlessly, while the Apostles bear her body to the 
Valley of Jehoshaphat, to bury her in a new tomb prepared 
by Joseph of Arimathea. Peter on the right hand bears the 
bier ; but the honour of carrying the palm-branch before her 
is yielded to the virgin John. One of the chiefs of the Jews 
having laid hold of the bier, an angel with a fiery sword cuts 
off his hands ; but, on his repentance and conversion, the 
hands are, by the Apostles intercession, joined on to his 
body again. Then, according to one account, the angels are 
heard for two days singing at the tomb ; but on the third day 

2 C 



386 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [XIX. 

the songs cease, and so the Apostles know that the body has 
been transferred to Paradise. According to another account, 
Thomas had not been with the Apostles when they took leave 
of the Virgin; but he sees her body being taken up to heaven, 
and at his prayer she drops him her girdle as a token. When 
he afterwards joins the other Apostles, and declares that she 
is not in the tomb, they suppose that it is only his habitual 
incredulity which makes him doubt their word that they had 
placed her there ; but he shows the girdle, and on opening 
the tomb they find the body is not there. 

The Greek version of this story, published by Tischendorf, 
in which the story purports to be told by the Apostle John, 
has all the marks of lateness, and is clearly not earlier than 
the fifth century. The Latin version bears a somewhat earlier 
aspect. Melito of Sardis, who, with some little disregard of 
chronology, is made a disciple of the Apostle John, is the 
narrator; and a preface states that his object is to give an 
authentic account of what Leucius had related with heretical 
additions. This suggests that the existing versions may 
possibly be an orthodox recasting of an earlier Gnostic story; 
and Lipsius holds that this is the case, but as it seems to me 
on no sufficient grounds, for I can find no evidence that the 
story had currency, even in heretical circles, so early as the 
third century. 

I have detained you a long time in the region of the 
fabulous, but the time is not altogether wasted that is spent 
on a study which gives one a keener sense of the difference 
between the legendary and the historical ; and I never feel 
so strongly that the book of the Acts of the Apostles is a 
record of real history, as when I take it up after having laid 
down the not very cunningly devised fables in which men 
have exhibited the sort of Apostolic Acts pure invention 
would furnish us with. 



xx. 

THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 



T T is a satisfaction to me to escape from the quaking sands 
* of apocryphal legends, and step on the firm ground of 
the Pauline Epistles. Of these there are four which, as you 
know, Baur does not question ; and later critics, who have 
no bigoted attachment to received opinion, find themselves 
obliged to make further acknowledgments. Hilgenfeld and 
Davidson agree in owning i Thessalonians, Philemon, and 
Philippians : Renan positively rejects none but the Pastoral 
Epistles, but has doubts besides concerning the Epistle to 
the Ephesians. But Baur is far from marking the lowest 
point of negative criticism. He found disciples who bettered 
his instruction, until it became as hard for a young Professor, 
anxious to gain a reputation for ingenuity, to make a new 
assault on a New Testament book, as it is now for an Alpine 
club man to find in Switzerland a virgin peak to climb. The 
consequence has been that in Holland, Scholten and others, 
who had been counted as leaders in the school of destructive 
criticism, have been obliged to come out in the character of 
Conservatives, striving to prove, in opposition to Loman, 
that there really did live such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, 
and that it is not true that every one of the Epistles ascribed 
to Paul is a forgery. And certainly it is not only to the 
orthodox that the doctrine that we have no genuine remains 
of Paul is inconvenient ; it must also embarrass those who 
look for arguments to prove an Epistle to be un-Pauline. I 
leave these last to fight the battle with their more advanced 
brethren. I have constantly felt some hesitation in deciding 

2 c 2 



388 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

what objections it was worth while to report to you. On the 
one hand, it is waste of energy to try to kill what, if let alone, 
will be sure to die of itself: on the other hand, there is the 
danger that you might afterwards find notions, which I had 
passed by as too contemptible for refutation, circulating 
among half-learned people as the latest results which 
4 eminent critics had arrived at in Germany. But in the 
present case, I think I am safe in deciding that it is 
practically unnecessary for me to trouble myself about the 
opinions of those who carry their scepticism to a further 
point than Baur. 

Let me say this, however, that I think young critics have 
been seduced into false tracks by the reputation which has 
been wrongly gained by the display of ingenuity in finding 
some new reason for doubting received opinions. A man is 
just as bad a critic who rejects what is genuine, as who 
accepts what is spurious. Be ye good money-changers is 
a maxim which I have already told you (p. 18) was early 
applied to this subject. But if a bank clerk would be unfit 
for his work who allowed himself easily to be imposed on by 
forged paper, he would be equally useless to his employers 
if he habitually pronounced every note that was tendered 
him to be a forgery, every sovereign to be base metal. I 
quite disbelieve that the early Christian Church was so taken 
possession of by forgers that almost all its genuine remains 
were corrupted or lost, while the spurious formed the great 
bulk of what was thought worth preserving. The suspicions 
that have been expressed seem to me to pass the bounds of 
literary sanity. There are rogues in this world, and you do 
well to guard against them ; but if you allow your mind to be 
poisoned by suspicion, and take every man for a rogue, why, 
the rogues will conspire against you, and lock you up in a 
lunatic asylum. 

In this lecture I must confine myself to discussing the 
genuineness of Epistles, and I am glad that I can assume 
your acquaintance with Paley s admirable Hora Paulines. 
How very wide a field the general subject of the life and work 
of Paul would present, if I attempted to enter it, is evidenced 
by the mass of literature which of late years has been 



XX.] THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 389 

occupied with it. A beginning was made by Conybeare 
and Howson s St. Paul ; since then we have had works on 
St. Paul by Mr. Lewin and by Archdeacon Farrar, each in 
two large volumes. Renan, approaching the subject from 
another point of view, expressly devotes one volume to St. 
Paul, and finds himself obliged to give also to that Apostle s 
work a considerable portion both of the previous and of the 
subsequent volumes of his history. Then there are very 
interesting small volumes published by the Christian Know 
ledge Society on separate parts of the Apostle s labours St. 
Paul in Greece, St. Paul in Asia/ &c. Much additional 
information is to be found in the Introductions to the 
Epistles in the Speakers Commentary, and in Bishop Ellicott s. 
But chief among recent aids to knowledge of St. Paul may 
be reckoned Bishop Lightfoot s three volumes of Com 
mentaries a work, the discontinuance of which we have 
seen with regret, perhaps not quite selfish. For it may be 
doubted whether the gain which the present generation in 
England receives from his episcopal labours compensates the 
loss which the Church at large has suffered in the inter 
ruption of the production of work which would have been 
of permanent value. Postponing the consideration of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, I deal now with the letters 
which bear Paul s name. These divide themselves into 
four groups, separated by intervals of time of somewhere 
about five years: (i) the two Epistles to the Thessalo- 
nians, (2) the four acknowledged by Baur, (3) the Epistles 
written during the Roman imprisonment, (4) the Pastoral 
Epistles. 

With regard to the Pauline Epistles generally, it may be 
remarked that the very early and general recognition which 
they obtained throws fatal obstacles in the way of the theory 
that the party which rejected Paul s apostleship had any very 
long or wide possession of the Church. It is with reserve 
that I can appeal to Peter s Second Epistle in proof of the 
authority of the Pauline letters, because the genuineness of 
that Epistle is denied ; but, whether written by Peter or not, 
it is unquestionably an early document ; and it is clear that 
at the time of its composition, a collection of Pauline letters 



39 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

had been made and was regarded as of high authority.* 
There is abundant other evidence at what a very early period 
the Pauline letters passed from being the special property of 
the Churches to which they were severally addressed, and 
were formed into a collection for the use of the Church at 
large. This was unquestionably the case at the end of the 
second century, when first Christian literature becomes 
abundant ; for we find Irenseus, Clement, and Tertullian, not 
only owning the authority of the thirteen Pauline Epistles, 
but apparently unconscious that there could be two opinions 
on the subject. We have in the Muratorian Canon (see 
p. 49) the order in which the Epistles stood towards the end 
of the second century in the collection in use in the Church 
of Rome. Going back to the first half of the second century 
we find that Marcion used a collection of ten Pauline letters, 
which formed his Apostolicon, these being the same as the 
thirteen recognized in the Western Church, with the excep 
tion of the three Pastoral Epistles. Marcion is notorious for 
his exaggerated Paulinism ; but though more than one answer 
to him is extant, there is no indication that any of his orthodox 
opponents met him by questioning that Apostle s authority, 
reverence for which was common to both parties. But we may 
be sure that the orthodox did not learn that reverence from 
Marcion, and that it was not his example which set the Catholic 
Church on forming a collection of Pauline letters. We are, 
therefore, safe in inferring that such a collection must have 
been formed before Marcion s time. It is now universally 
acknowledged that the Church s Gospel was not formed by 
enlargement of Marcion s Gospel, but, on the contrary, 
Marcion s by mutilation of the Church s Gospel ; so we may 
reasonably conclude that the Church s collection of thirteen 
letters is more ancient than Marcion s collection of only ten. 
It is natural to think that it was the existence of a collec 
tion of Pauline letters which set the example of making other 



* It is by no means clear to what particular passage in Paul s letters re 
ference is made in 2 Pet. iii. 15 ; but I cannot agree with Zahn, to whom in 
this section I am much indebted (N. T. Canon, pp. 811-839), in the im 
probable explanation that the collection of Pauline letters, known to 2 Peter, 
included one not embraced in the collection which has come down to us. 



XX.] THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 391 

collections of Christian letters. Thus we learn from Euseb. 
iv. 23, not only that there was extant a collection of the let 
ters of Dionysius of Corinth, including even some addressed 
to individuals, but further, that in the lifetime of Dionysius 
himself, his letters had thus passed into general circulation ; 
for he complains of corruptions made in the text of his letters 
by emissaries of the devil. It is more important to remark 
that Polycarp s epistle reveals that before tidings of the mar 
tyrdom of Ignatius had yet reached the East, a collection of 
Ignatius s letters had already begun to be formed, one Church 
writing to another to request copies of the letters in its pos 
session. The probable inference that the Churches which 
set about making a collection of Ignatian letters were already 
in possession of Pauline letters, is put beyond doubt by the 
contents of Polycarp s epistle. It is not merely that Polycarp 
is evidently in possession of a large collection of Pauline letters 
for he makes undoubted use of the Epistle to the Romans, of 
both to the Corinthians, of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 
both Thessalonians, and both to Timothy but he assumes 
also acquaintance on the part of his readers with the Pauline 
letters ; not only his letters to their own Church, of which he 
makes express mention, but also those to the Corinthians and 
the Thessalonians. New Testament quotations are much 
more rare in the epistles of Ignatius than in that of Polycarp; 
but there is express mention of the Pauline letters, and 
besides a very large number of coincidences of expressions 
with these letters, a few unmistakeable quotations, in par 
ticular from the Epistles to the Corinthians and Ephesians. 
Remembering, then, that Ignatius died in the reign of Trajan, 
and that Polycarp quotes the Epistles to Timothy, we are 
justified in inferring that the collection of thirteen Pauline 
letters was in general Church use before A.D. 113. Going 
back, then, to the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corin 
thians, we know for certain that at least one letter, addressed 
to a different Church, had found its way to Rome, namely, 
that to the Corinthians themselves, to which an express 
appeal is made. Finding thus that, at the date of Clement s 
letter, Pauline letters had passed out of the keeping of the 
particular Church to which they were addressed, we are 



39* THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

justified in inferring, from several coincidences of language, 
Clement s acquaintance with other Pauline letters; and it is to 
be noted that those coincidences are most distinct in the case 
of one of the most questioned of Paul s epistles that to the 
Ephesians, and quite sufficiently distinct in the case of others 
those to Timothy. Since we know, then, for certain, that 
in the year 95 the letter to their own Church was not the only 
Pauline letter in the possession of the Church of Rome, it 
becomes highly probable that they had in use the whole col 
lection of thirteen letters which we find in general use less 
than twenty years later, and many traces of the use of which 
are to be found in Clement s letter. If we ask, then, at what 
period the collection was made, nothing seems to me more 
probable than that it was when the news of Paul s death be 
came public that different Churches set themselves to collect 
and compare the letters of his which they possessed. And 
though Zahn s reasons come much short of demonstration, 
his conjecture is probable enough, that the collection was 
first made at Corinth, the epistles to which Church occupy 
the first place in the Muratorian list. 

Returning now to what has been said (p. 347), we see what 
an early date St. Luke s non-acquaintance with Pauline letters 
obliges us to put on the book of the Acts. But it is the less 
necessary to insist on this point, since both Clement and 
Polycarp, whose testimony we have used to the existence of 
a collection of Pauline letters, likewise make distinct use of 
the Acts. 

It is quite unnecessary to produce other second-century 
testimony to the authority of the Pauline letters ; and 
if, therefore, I think it worth while to give a proof of 
the reverence in which Paul s authority was held in the 
time of Justin Martyr, it is not that there is any real ne 
cessity for showing that that father was no dissentient 
from the general opinion of the Church, but because the 
piece of evidence seems to me interesting in itself, and 
has only recently been brought clearly to light.* Only two 

* I am indebted for my knowledge of it to a paper by Zahn (Zeitschrift 
f. Kirchengeschichte, viii. I., Dec. 1885). 



XX.] METHODIUS. 393 

works of Justin have come down to us with tolerable com 
pleteness, and are universally recognized as genuine, the 
Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho. The subject of the 
one being the controversy with heathenism, and the other 
that with Judaism, both works were intended to influence 
readers external to the Church ; and, accordingly, although 
in countless passages Justin s use of the New Testament 
writings is evident to one already acquainted with them, he 
never formally quotes any of them except (as already men 
tioned, p. 224) in one case, the Apocalypse. These two 
works, however, offer abundant evidence of Justin s acquaint 
ance with the writings of St. Paul, whose ideas, and even 
whose language, he repeatedly reproduces. Proofs will be 
found in Westcott s N. T. Canon, p. 168, and also in a paper 
by Thoma in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift, which I have already 
had occasion to quote for another purpose (p. 72). Indeed, 
as Justin tells us that he wrote a treatise in answer to Mar- 
cion, he could not possibly have engaged in that controversy 
without a knowledge of the Pauline writings. Thoma, how 
ever, imagines that the fact that Justin does not quote Paul 
by name implies that he did not attribute to him Apostolic 
authority. But this inference is inconsistent with the in 
fluence that Paul s writings evidently exercised over Justin s 
thoughts ; and is certainly not justified when we remember 
that it is not Justin s habit to quote any Christian writer 
by name, seeing that he wrote for persons who recognized 
Apostolic authority neither in Paul nor in anyone else. It 
is not superfluous, however, to produce another testimony. 
Methodius, who was bishop of Olympus,* in Lycia, in 
the very beginning of the fourth century, was an admirer of 
Justin, whom he quotes more than once. The quotation 
with which we are now concerned occurs in a work by 
Methodius on the Resurrection, an extract from which has 

* This is the account of the earliest writers who cite him ; later autho 
rities quote him as Bishop of Patara, also in Lycia, and Jerome stands 
alone in making him Bishop of Tyre. It is almost certain that in this 
Jerome made a mistake, of the origin of which Zahn gives an ingenious 
explanation. Zahn thinks that the idea that Methodius was Bishop of 
Patara is also a mistake, originating in the fact that the scene of one of his 
dialogues is laid in that place. 



394 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

been preserved by Photius (see p. 363). But here we have 
occasion to see the convenience of the modern device of 
inverted commas, which enables us to see at a glance how 
far a quotation is meant to extend. The want of some such 
mark left it uncertain how much belonged to Justin and what 
to Methodius. Otto, in his edition of Justin, only prints one 
sentence as Justin s : the next sentence is introduced with a 
^o-t ; but it is free to the reader to take this as a word used 
by Photius in continuing his extract from Methodius, or as 
itself part of the extract, and as used by Methodius in con 
tinuing his extract from Justin. The doubt has been set at 
rest by the recovery of the passage of Methodius through a 
source independent of Photius.* It has thus become appa 
rent that the second sentence, which contains a formal quo 
tation from Paul, belongs to Justin as well as the first ; and 
internal evidence confirms this conclusion. Both Methodius 
and Justin assert the doctrine of a literal resurrection of the 
body ; and both have to answer the objection that Paul has 
said that * flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of 
God (i Cor. xv. 50). Methodius first gives his own answer, 
namely, that what Paul here means by flesh is not literal 
flesh, but only the irrational impulse to fleshly lusts. But he 
goes on then to cite Justin s way of dealing with the same 
objection, in which quite a different answer is given. True, 
says Justin, the body does not inherit the kingdom of God ; 
it is inherited by the kingdom of God. That which lives 
inherits ; that which is mortal is inherited. If the kingdom 
of God, which is life, were inherited by the body, life would 
be swallowed up by corruption. But now life inherits that 
which had died, that so death may be swallowed up by life 
unto victory, and that the corruptible should become posses 
sed by incorruption. The complete difference of this reply 
from that which Methodius himself had given is evidence 
enough that he is here quoting the words of another. We 
could easily believe without confirmation, that a work which 
Methodius writing soon after A.D. 300 ascribed to Justin 
really belonged to him. But some confirmation is found in 

* See Pitra, Analecta Sacra, in. p. 614; IV. p. 201. 



XX.] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 395 

the fact that an earlier writer, Irenaeus, who also used Justin, 
has got hold of the same maxim et Set roA^es ctTretv, ov K\r)po- 
j>o/Aet oAXa KXrjpovofjLclraL 77 <rap (Iren. v. 9). Now what we 
are concerned with here is not the goodness of this solution 
of Justin s, but the fact that in the middle of the second 
century the authority of Paul s Epistles was owned alike 
by heretics and orthodox. Heretics thought that they had 
gained a palmary argument if they could produce a saying 
in these letters which seemed to make in their favour ; and 
the orthodox felt it to be a matter of necessity that they 
should in some way reconcile their teaching with the sentence 
so produced. 

I. The Epistles to the Thessalom ans.The foundation of the 
Church at Thessalonica is recorded, Acts xvii. It took place 
in the year 52, on Paul s second missionary journey. The 
first Epistle professes (iii. 6) to have been written on the 
return of Timothy, whom Paul had sent from Athens on a 
mission to the Thessalonian Church. This would be at 
Corinth (Acts xviii. 5) at the end of 52, or beginning of 
53. I am inclined to dismiss, as absolutely frivolous, the 
objections which Baur and his followers have made to the 
acceptance of this date. For there is one passage in the 
Epistle a passage which Baur has been so uncritical as 
to reject as un-Pauline which carries on the face of it the 
stamp of early date. I mean the paragraph (iv. 13-1 8) which 
treats of the future happiness of those Christians who had 
died before the time when the Apostle wrote. The passage 
manifestly belongs to the time when it was thought likely to 
be an exceptional thing for a Christian to die before the 
second coming of our Lord, and when those who themselves 
expected to meet their Master on His coming needed to be 
consoled lest those dear friends whom death had carried off 
should lose somewhat of the felicity destined for the rest. 
Evidently it was only at the very beginning of Christianity, 
when the second coming of our Lord was yearly expected, 
and when deaths as yet had been but few, that the destinies 
of those who departed before the Second Advent could 
trouble the minds of surviving friends, or that they could 
be supposed in danger of losing something which the mass 



THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

of Christians would enjoy. Add to this, that if the Epistle 
had been, as has been imagined, fabricated after Paul s 
death, the forger would never have attributed to the Apostle 
the words we which remain words implying a belief on 
his. part that it was possible he might live to witness our 
Lord s coming. 

Looking on these considerations as absolutely decisive, I 
care little to discuss petty objections.* It is a little in 
consistent that, critics who condemn the book of the Acts as 
unhistorical, constantly, when they come to discuss Paul s 
Epistles, make disagreement with the history in the Acts a 
ground of rejection. In the present case the Epistle corrects 
an erroneous impression which the reader of the Acts might 
easily receive I mean the impression that Paul only spent 
some three weeks in Thessalonica. The foundation of so 
flourishing a Church as the Epistle describes must have taken 
longer time ; and we learn from Phil. iv. 16 that his stay was 
long enough to allow time for his PhUippian friends twice to 
send him a gift of money. He gained at Thessalonica two 
of his most attached friends Jason, whom we find afterwards 
in Paul s company at Corinth (Rom. xvi. 21), and Aristarchus, 
who had been charged with conveying the Thessalonian con 
tributions of money to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4), and whom we 
find afterwards sharing Paul s journey to Rome and his 
imprisonment (Acts xxvii. 2, Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24). Thus 
we perceive that the preaching on three Sabbath days, which 
Luke records, only represents that part of the Apostle s work 
which was done in the Synagogue. After that he must, as 
on a previous occasion at Antioch in Pisidia, have turned to 
the Gentiles; for the Gentile element predominated in the 
Thessalonian Church (i Thess. i. 9, ii. 14). But we find 
from Luke s narrative of what occurred in several cities, that 

* One of those petty objections is worth repeating, because it turns on 
a curious coincidence, the discoverer of which, Holsten (Jahrbucher f. 
Prot. Theol. 1877) regarded it as proof demonstrative that our Epistle is 
later than the Apocalypse. In Rev. ii. 2, we read, I know thy works, 
and thy labour, and thy patience : in i Thess. i. 3, Your work of faith, 
and labour of love, and patience of hope. Here Holsten contends we have 
the work of a later Paulinist, who has married the three Johannine words, 
works, labour, and patience, to the three Pauline, faith, hope, and charity. 



XX.] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 397 

nothing was more resented by the Jews than that one of 
their own nation should, instead of acquiescing in the 
decision passed on his doctrine by the religious heads of 
their community, disdainfully separate himself from his 
countrymen, and gather round him a schismatical society of 
Gentiles. We find, in the Acts, that on account of this con 
duct, which was regarded by the Jews as little less than 
apostasy, Paul was hunted by persecution from city to city. 
Five times, you will remember, he received from the Jews the 
forty stripes save one (2 Cor. xi. 24). If Baur had borne 
these facts in mind, he would scarcely have found a stumb 
ling-block in the language in which Paul (ii. 14-16) expresses 
his indignation against the Jews who forbade him to speak 
to the Gentiles, that they might be saved. There is no 
warrant for asserting that the words the wrath is come upon 
them to the uttermost (ii. 16) must have been written after 
the destruction of Jerusalem. The wrath is the indigna 
tion of Dan. viii. 19, xi. 36 ; and ets reXos is a common Old 
Testament phrase (Josh. x. 20 ; 2 Chron. xii. 12, xxxi. i). 

Again, it ought not to be thought strange that in this 
Epistle we should only read of the opposition Paul met with 
from unbelieving Jews, and that nothing should be said of 
his controversies with Jewish Christians. The letter was 
addressed to a Church which, as far as we know, had not yet 
been visited by any Christian preacher but Paul and his 
company. One trifling discrepancy with the Acts may be 
admitted. The Acts (xvii. 14) describe Silas and Timothy as 
remaining behind at Beroea when Paul was sent to Athens. 
But it appears (i Thess. iii. 2) that Timothy had accompanied 
Paul to Athens, and had been sent back by the Apostle, in 
his anxiety to learn news of his Thessalonian converts. The 
two accounts agree in the main fact that Paul was left by 
himself at Athens, and the trifling disagreement shows that 
one account was not borrowed from the other. 

Baur notes several coincidences between this and other 
Pauline Epistles,* but strange to say he uses these to disprove 

* i. 5, i Cor. ii. 4 ; i. 6, I Cor. xi. i ; i. 8, Rom. i. 8 ; ii. 4, I Cor. ii. 4, 
Gal. i. 10, 2 Cor. i. 17; ii. 5, 2 Cor. vii. 2 ; ii. 6, 9, 2 Cor. xi. 9; ii. 7, 
i Cor. iii. 2. 



398 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

the Pauline authorship. He holds that a letter, to be 
genuine, must be Pauline, but not too Pauline. If it con 
tain phrases or thoughts for which we cannot find a parallel 
in Paul s acknowledged letters, Paul did not write it ; but if 
the flavour of Paulinism be too strong for Baur s delicate 
susceptibilities, he detects a forger who betrays himself by a 
clumsy imitation of his master. By such methods of criticism 
it would be easy to prove any document spurious. 

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. I said (p. 34) that 
I had at one time thought of treating the books of the New 
Testament in chronological order, beginning accordingly 
with St. Paul s Epistles. If I had not found other reasons 
for choosing a different course, I should have been warned 
by Davidson s example to see how much there is arbitrary 
and uncertain in the chronological arrangement. Adopting 
that plan, he began the first edition of his new Introduction 
with this Second Epistle to the Thessalonians; for he had 
accepted an idea of Grotius, which has been received with 
approval by some subsequent critics, that the letter which 
we, in conformity with universal Christian tradition, call the 
Second Epistle, came in order of time before that which we 
count the First. The arguments in support of this opinion do 
not seem to me strong enough to induce me to spend time in 
discussing them with you. In Davidson s second edition, the 
First Epistle heads the list of New Testament books; we have 
to look a long way down before we come to the Second ; for 
it is now pronounced to be not genuine, but a later book 
than the Apocalypse of St. John. On the greater part of the 
arguments used for rejecting the book, I hardly think that 
Davidson himself can place much reliance. Thus, on 
comparing the opening of the two Epistles, he pronounces 
the Second un-Pauline, because, whereas Paul in the First 
Epistle had said we give thanks, the Second Epistle says 
* we are bound to thank God always as is meet: whereas 
Paul had contented himself with speaking of his converts 
faith and love, this writer exaggerates, and says that their 
faith groweth exceedingly and their love aboundeth. There 
is a great deal more of what I count childish criticism : 
that is to say, criticism such as might proceed from a child 



XX.] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 399 

who insists that a story shall be always told him in precisely 
the same way. For instance, the commencement of ii. n 
with the words * And for this cause/ is pronounced to be 
un-Pauline. Paul, we are gravely told, would have said, 
For this cause/ without the and. When the list of un- 
Pauline phrases is exhausted, Davidson, following Baur s 
lead, goes on to condemn the Epistle for its too great 
likeness to Paul. The ideas are often borrowed or repeated 
from the First Epistle, and it is dependent on other Pauline 
Epistles.* 

I hardly think it can be any of these arguments which in 
duced Davidson to alter the opinion he expressed in his first 
edition, where he says (p. 27) The opinion of those critics 
who defend the authenticity of the First Epistle, but reject 
that of the Second, seems most improbable, and is a media 
tizing view that cannot stand. Both must go together either 
in adoption or rejection. Baur is consistent in rejecting 
them ; Hilgenfeld will have few followers in maintaining the 
Pauline origin of the one, and disputing that of the other/ 
How is it, then, that the prophet should so soon do his best 
to falsify his own prediction by becoming a follower of 
Hilgenfeld himself? 

The reason for rejecting the Epistle can scarcely have been 
drawn from any of the small cavils of which I have given you 
specimens. The stumbling-block is found in the prophecy 
of the Man of Sin (ii. 1-12). It is not necessary for me to 
entangle you in any of the controversies which spring out of 
questions of interpretation of prophecy. We are here only 
concerned with the question of authorship whether there is 
anything improbable in the supposition that such a prophecy 
should have been delivered at the date it must have been, if 
this Epistle was really written by St. Paul. Now considering 
the paucity of documents from which our knowledge is derived 
of the growth of opinion in the Apostolic age, and for half a 

* 2 Thess. iii. 8 repeats I Thess. ii. 9 ; and iii. 10, 12, expands I Thess. 
iv. n, 12 ; 2 Thess. iii. 14, follows I Cor. v. 9, ii ; compare also I Cor. 
iv. 14. The Lord of peace (iii. 16) is taken from I Cor. xiv. 33, 2 Cor. 
xiii. ii ; 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 4, iii. 13, are derived from Gal. i. 6, v. 10, 
vi. 9, respectively. The reader must decide whether he will take these 
coincidences as arguments for or against the Pauline authorship. 



400 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

century after the death of the last Apostle, I cannot sufficiently 
admire the courage of critics who, from their own sense of 
the fitness of things, assign dates for the first appearance of 
each phase of ritual or doctrine, and then condemn any docu 
ment that refuses to fall in with their theory. It is true that 
apocalyptic prediction is in our minds chiefly associated with 
the Book of the Revelation of St. John; but I know no reason 
whatever for imagining that it was only about the year 70 that 
the minds of Christians began to occupy themselves with the 
thoughts of the second coming of our Lord, and the circum 
stances that should attend it. Those who own the First Epistle 
must allow that at the time when that was written the second 
coming of our Lord had a prominent place in the Apostle s 
teaching. There are traces also that the prophecies of Daniel 
were studied in connexion with that event; and in this Chris 
tians seem to have had the sanction of their Master. Taking 
the very lowest view of the authenticity of the Gospels, it still 
seems to me unreasonable to doubt that the 24th Matthew 
and the parallel chapters of the other Gospels record in sub 
stance a real discourse of our Lord. The description (Matt, 
xxiv. 30, 31) of our Lord coming in the clouds of heaven (see 
also Matt. xxvi. 64), and sending His angels with a great 
sound of a trumpet, seems to me to have prompted both 
St. Paul s phrase, the last trumpet, in i Cor. xv. 52, and 
the description in i Thess. iv. of our Lord descending with 
the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God, when His 
people should be caught up to Him in the clouds. It is 
undeniable then that, long before the year 70, eschatological 
speculation was a subject of Christian thought. We have not 
materials to write its history, and I marvel at the assurance 
of the man who pretends that he so knows all about the pro 
gress of Christian ideas on the subject in the fifteen years 
between 54 and 69, that while he feels it to be quite credible 
that such a forecast of the end of the dispensation as is con 
tained in 2 Thess. ii. might have been written at the latter 
of these two dates, he is quite sure it could not have been 
written at the former. There would, indeed, be some foun 
dation for such an assertion, if it could be said that the view 
presented in the Second Epistle contradicts that taken in the 



XX.] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 401 

first; but this is not so. The one Epistle presents our Lord s 
second coming as possibly soon, the other as not immediate 
as needing that certain prophetic preliminary signs should 
first be fulfilled. It is quite conceivable that the teaching 
of the same man should present these two aspects. If no 
argument for late date can be founded on the passage in 
2 Thess. which I have been discussing, I know of no other 
worth attention. We do not quite know what interval of 
time separates the two Epistles. Perhaps it may be longer 
than is generally supposed. 

In respect of external attestation, no New Testament book 
stands higher than these Epistles. They are repeatedly used 
without suspicion by Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian.* 
They are included in the list of Pauline Epistles given in the 
Muratorian Fragment which I have quoted (p. 50), They 
were included in the Apostolicon of Marcion in the first half 
of the second century. There are what I count traces of their 
use by Clement of Rome (c. 38), while their employment by 
Ignatius and Polycarp is so distinct that the argument can 
only be evaded by denying the authenticity of these remains. f 
The passage about the Man of Sin is plainly referred to by 
Justin Martyr (Trypho, no). 

I must not omit to notice the token of genuineness given 
at the end of the Epistle, namely, that the salutation was 
written with the Apostle s own hand. All Paul s Epistles 
end with the salutation in an expanded or abridged form, 
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. And 
it appears that even though the rest of the Epistle was written 
by an amanuensis (as was that to the Romans by Tertius), 
the salutation was written by the Apostle s own hand. It is 
remarkable that precautions against forgery should have been 
so early found necessary. The Apostle shows also his fears 



* For example : Iren. v. 6 ; Clem. Al., Strom, iv. 12 ; Tert. De Res. 
Cam. 24. 

t Ignat. ad Polycarp. I, ad Ephes. 10; Polycarp, cc. 2, 4, n. I am 
disposed to agree with Zahn, that when Polycarp speaks of epistles to 
the Philippian Church, it is because the Epistles to the neighbouring 
Thessalonian Church were united in his collection with the Epistle to the 
Philippians. Polycarp uses 2 Thess. i. 4, as if addressed to the Philippiaiis. 

2D 



402 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

of it in cautioning the Thessalonians not to be misled by any 
Epistle as from him. It is remarkable also that this expres 
sion, In every epistle so I write (iii. 17) should be found in 
only the second of Paul s Epistles which have reached us. 
The inference seems plain that Paul must have written other 
letters that have not come down to us. And this is a con 
clusion intrinsically not improbable, and which I see no rea 
son for rejecting. For I suppose there is no greater reason 
for thinking that every letter of an inspired Apostle must 
necessarily be extant, than there is for thinking that we must 
have an account preserved of every sermon he preached. We 
know from the end of St. John s Gospel, what our own reason 
would have otherwise told us, that the portion of our Blessed 
Lord s own words and deeds which His Spirit has preserved 
to us, bears no proportion to that which has been allowed to 
remain unrecorded. In the case of Apostolic letters we can 
conceive that the earlier, before the Apostle s authority was 
fully recognized, would be less carefully preserved. If one 
whom we dearly love is removed from us by death, we trea 
sure up the relics of his writings, and often regret our own 
carelessness in having allowed papers to be destroyed which, 
because the writer was still with us, we valued lightly, but 
now would give much to recover. There is no improbability, 
then, in the loss of Apostolic letters, unless God worked a 
miracle to preserve them. We may believe that if the loss 
would have deprived us of knowledge necessary for our sal 
vation, He would have interfered miraculously; but otherwise 
we have no ground for asserting that God would supernatu- 
rally prevent the loss of any of the written words of the 
Apostles, when He has permitted the loss of so many of 
the spoken words not only of them but of our Blessed 
Lord. 

Another passage which implies a letter of Paul, not in 
cluded in our Canon, is i Cor. v. 9, I wrote to you in my 
Epistle not to keep company with fornicators, which though 
it has been interpreted to mean in the Epistle he was then 
writing, is, I think, better understood as referring to a lost 
previous letter. Colossians iv. 16, speaks of a letter from 
Laodicea. On this Laodicean letter I refer you to Lightfoot s 



XX.] THE SECOND GROUP. 403 

note* (Colossians, p. 340), merely saying here that I believe 
the letter has been rightly identified with that which we know 
as the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

II. We come now to the four Epistles whose genuineness is 
acknowledged by Baur, viz. Romans, First and Second Corin 
thians, and Galatians. There being no necessity to give formal 
proof of what is not seriously disputed, I do not trouble myself 
to lay before you the external attestation to these Epistles, but 
will only remark that, though amply sufficient, it is not at all 
superior to that which can be produced on behalf of some of 
the epistles which Baur disputes ; nay possibly, perhaps, not 
quite as strong. But what has silenced controversy is the 
note of early date stamped on these Epistles by the character 
of their contents. St. Luke has informed us (Acts xv.) that 
warm controversy arose in the Christian Church at an early 
period of its history on the question whether it was obliga 
tory on Gentile converts to Christianity to submit to the rite 
of circumcision. This question evidently would arise, as an 
urgent practical one, the first time that heathen were ad 
mitted in any numbers into the Church, and would have to 
be speedily settled one way or other ; and, in point of fact, it 
was settled so rapidly that Christian literature is almost silent 
on the subject. It is dealt with in the letters now under con 
sideration, which not only bear indisputable marks of common 
authorship, but have every appearance of having been written 
at nearly the same time. In no other New Testament book 
do we find any trace of a struggle to impose on Gentile con 
verts the obligation of circumcision, nor is there any sign of 
controversy on the subject in the documents of the sub- 



* The reader will find in Lightfoot the forged Epistle to the Laodiceans, 
which was clearly intended to pass for the Epistle referred to in the Colosr 
sians. It is only extant in Latin ; but Lightfoot gives good reasons for 
believing the original language to have been Greek. It is short, and is a mere 
cento of passages from the genuine letters, containing scarcely a single 
original word. It was in circulation in St. Jerome s time (De Viris Illust. 
5), and had previously been mentioned by Theodore of Mopsuestia (in 
Coloss.iv. 16, i. 314, Swete). It is doubtful whether it is this Epistle 
which is referred to in the Muratorian Fragment (see p. 50) ; for we should 
not otherwise take this forgery to be so early. Marcion had in his Canon 
an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but this was only what we know as the 
Epistle to the Ephesians (Tert. adr. Marc, v. 17). 

2 D 2 



404 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

Apostolic age, such as the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement 
and the Shepherd of Hermas. Nay, the pseudo-Clementine 
Homilies, though intensely Jewish in their character, and 
bitterly opposed to Paul, make no attempt to re-open this 
question ; and the principle for which Paul contended is 
acquiesced in, namely, that uncircumcised men might be 
members of the Christian Church. There can, therefore, 
be no doubt as to the early date of letters which exhibit 
this long-buried controversy as the burning question of the 
day. 

A second note of early date is what these letters dis 
close as to the resistance made at the time of their composi 
tion to the acknowledgment of Paul s Apostolic authority. 
With the multiplication of Churches, claiming Paul as their 
founder, his Apostleship soon ceased to be disputed within 
the pale of the Christian Church ; nay, from a very early 
period he came to be habitually spoken of as the Apostle, a 
title which he no doubt owed to the fact that his letters soon 
ceased to be the exclusive property of the several Churches to 
which they were addressed, and became the manual of Apos 
tolic instruction used in the public reading of widely-separated 
Churches. But it appears that the party which insisted on 
the necessity of circumcision set aside Paul s opposition by 
disparaging his authority as inferior to that of the original 
Twelve. Consequently in two of the Epistles now under 
consideration the assertion and establishment of Paul s claims 
to Apostolic authority have a prominent place. It is, therefore, 
a note of high antiquity that it should have been necessary, 
when these letters were written, to give elaborate proof of 
what very soon no one within the pale of the Church dreamed 
of doubting. 

St. Luke informs us (Acts xv.) that it was after Paul s first 
missionary journey in which the door of faith had been 
opened to the Gentiles, that controversy was first raised at 
Antioch by visitors from Jerusalem, who insisted on the cir 
cumcision of the new converts. We are told that, in conse 
quence of these disputes, Barnabas and Paul went up to 
Jerusalem, where an arrangement was made as to the obli 
gations of Gentile Christians, on terms satisfactory to Paul. 



XX.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 405 

We are told, then, that Paul made, in company with Silas, a 
second missionary journey, in which he made known the terms 
of this arrangement to the Churches previously formed, and, 
no doubt, gave corresponding instruction to the new Churches 
which he founded. Among these new Churches were those of 
Macedonia ; and it is a confirmation of St. Luke s account 
of the success of Paul s visit to Jerusalem in the suppression 
of disputes for a time, that in the Epistles to the Thessalonians 
Paul complains of no adversaries but the unbelieving Jews, 
and finds it necessary to give no warning against Jewish 
Christians, who strove to impose the yoke of circumcision 
on the Gentiles. There is a striking difference of tone 
when we take up the Epistle to the Galatians, which has 
every mark of having been written under a tumult of fresh 
feelings of surprise, grief, and indignation, roused by the 
tidings that converts, whom he had had every reason to be 
lieve to be warmly attached to him (iv. 15), had given a 
credulous hearing to men who disparaged his authority, and 
had been induced by them to believe, in opposition to what 
St. Paul had taught them, that they could not be saved 
unless they submitted to circumcision, and other Mosaic 
ordinances. 

Accordingly, the Epistle begins by an assertion of his Apos- 
tleship. It is known that the name Apostle was given by 
the Jews to the envoys despatched by the rulers of their race 
on any foreign mission, especially to those charged with col 
lecting the Temple tribute. We learn from the Teaching 
of the Twelve Apostles (see Lect. xxvi.) that in the Jewish 
Christian Churches the same name continued to be given to 
missionaries sent forth from the mother Church. We may, 
therefore, reasonably conjecture that the name Apostle 
was claimed by the visitors from Judea, who, as formerly at 
Antioch, inculcated on the Gentile Churches the necessity 
of circumcision. We can thus understand the emphasis with 
which Paul declares at the outset that he was an Apostle, but 
not as being, like them, an emissary sent by men ; nay, further, 
that the Divine commission which he claimed to have received 
had not been given him through the instrumentality of men, 
but directly by our Lord Himself. He proceeds, by a narra- 



406 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

tive of his own history, to vindicate his claim to speak with 
authority independent of the other Apostles, showing at the 
same time that his teaching had their full sanction. 

Passing, then, from the personal question, he argues that the 
Gentiles, by submission to the law of Moses, would surrender 
their claim to an inheritance of earlier date than Moses, 
namely, the covenant of promise made by God with Abraham, 
400 years before Moses. The promise was given to Abraham 
because of his faith He believed God, and it was counted 
to him for righteousness and it was made to Abraham and 
his seed. That seed was Christ, and they are to be counted 
the true seed of Abraham who are Christ s, and who have the 
faith of Abraham. As for those Israelites after the flesh, who 
were under bondage to the Mosaic Law, they might be 
children of Abraham, but not heirs of the promises to 
Abraham. Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, 
the other by a free woman ; the one born after the flesh, the 
other through the promise. As then, so now, he that was 
born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the 
Spirit. But what saiththe Scripture? Cast out the bondmaid 
and her son; for the son of the bondmaid shall not be heir 
with the son of the freewoman. 

But, though the heirs of promise must not now be under 
bondage to the law, there had been a time when they had 
been rightfully under subjection to it. The heir, as long as 
he is a child, is under subjection to tutors and governors 
appointed by the father. The law had a temporary use in 
training and preparing for Christ those who had for a time 
been placed in subjection to it. It made men conscious of 
sin, and pronounced a curse on disobedience, from which 
itself was powerless to deliver. Thus, the impossibility of 
obtaining justification by the law being made evident, it 
became clear that it is only by faith that the just can live 
faith in Christ, who has redeemed us from the curse of the 
law, being made a curse for us. So under the tutorship of 
the law, men were taught to seek salvation through faith 
through the promise to Christ; a promise not limited to 
one nation, for God said to Abraham, In thee shall all 
nations of the earth be blessed. It matters not whether a 



XX.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 407 

man be Jew or Greek, bond or free ; if he be Christ s he is 
Abraham s seed, and heir of his promise. 

An abstract has here been given of so much of the 
argument of the Epistle to the Galatians as is necessary 
for comparison with the Epistle to the Romans, which of 
all Paul s letters has the closest affinity with the Epistle 
under consideration. 

To speak, first of the points of likeness, we find (Rom. iv. 3) 
the same Old Testament passage quoted, Abraham believed 
God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness (Gal. 
iii. 6), and, it may, he added, with a formula of citation used 
also in Galatians (iv. 30), * What saith the Scripture ? And 
the same argument is founded on it. The promise was 
made to Abraham not through the law, not as earned by any 
works, but through the righteousness of faith : it was ante 
cedent to the law ; nay, antecedent to the institution of the 
rite of circumcision ; the promise, therefore belongs to those 
who have like faith to that which Abraham had before he was 
circumcised. Thus, in fulfilment of the promise that Abra 
ham should be father of many nations, his children are not 
limited to the Jewish nation. Nay, those who are merely his 
descendants after the flesh, are not his true children. Neither 
because they are Abraham s seed, are they all children; but, 
" in Isaac shall thy seed be called." That is, it is not the 
children of the flesh that are children of God : but the 
"children of the promise" are counted for the seed (Rom. 
ix. 7, 8). This is the same argument as that which leads 
up (Gal. iv. 28) to the statement, We brethren, as Isaac 
was, are children of the promise. 

Again in the Epistle to the Romans, as well as in that to 
the Galatians, the Apostle has to deal with the difficulty, 
how is he to reconcile his admission that the Mosaic Law 
came from God, with his teaching that it is not binding on 
Christians ? And in Rom. vii. he expounds a doctrine as to the 
temporary uses served by the Mosaic Law identical with 
that in the Epistle to the Galatians; so that the former 
exposition has been employed to clear up ambiguity in the 
latter (see Gal. iii. 19). 

Beside the general agreement in the arguments by which 
in both Epistles the same thesis is maintained, viz., that * by 



408 



THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 



[xx. 



the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Gal. ii. 16 ; 
Rom. iii. 20), there are considerable verbal agreements, so 
numerous as not only to leave no doubt that both letters had 
the same author, but also to suggest that the composition of 
the two could not be separated by any long interval of time. 
Thus the words of the thesis just quoted are taken from Psalm 
cxliii. 2, but modified in both places in the same way, viz., 
by the introduction of the phrase, the works of the law, and 
by the alteration of no man living into no flesh. The 
yth of Romans just referred to speaks (15-23) of the conflict 
in a man between the law in his members and the law in 
his mind, the result of which is that his conduct is constantly 
different from that which his will approves. There is a 
quite parallel passage (Gal. v. 17), and in both places the 
remedy for the misery of this conflict is shown to be to 
walk by the Spirit. A few examples of parallel passages 
may be added : 

Rom. viii. 14-17 : For as many 
as are led by the Spirit of God, they 
are the sons of God. For ye have 
not received the Spirit of bondage 
again to fear ; but ye have received 
the Spirit of adoption, whereby we 
cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirit, 
that we are children of God : and 
if children, then heirs ; heirs of 
God, and joint-heirs with Christ. 

Rom. vi. 6-8 : Our old man is 



Gal. iv. 5-7 : That we might re 
ceive the adoption of sons. And 
because ye are sons, God hath sent 
forth the Spirit of his Son into 
your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 
Wherefore thou art no more a ser 
vant, but a son ; and if a son, then 
an heir of God through Christ. 



crucified with him. . . . Now if we 
be dead with Christ, we believe that 
we shall also live with him. 

Rom. xiii. 9 : [The law] is briefly 
comprehended in this saying, namely, 
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
thyself. . . . Love is the fulfilling 
of the law. 

Rom. xv. 15 : Grace was given me 
of God that I should be a minister 
of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles. 

Rom. xi. 13 : Inasmuch as I am 
an apostle of Gentiles. 



Gal. ii. 20 : I am crucified with 
Christ : nevertheless I live : yet not 
I, but Christ liveth in me. 

Gal. v. 14: All the law is ful 
filled in one word, namely : Thou 
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 



Gal. ii. 7 : I had been entrusted 
with the Gospel of the uncircum- 
cision as Peter with the Gospel of 
the circumcision; forhethat wrought 
for Peter unto the apostleship of the 
circumcision, wrought for me also 
with the Gentiles. 



XX.] THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 409 

This list, which might be considerably extended, is enough 
to put beyond controversy the close affinity of the two 
Epistles. But there is a striking difference. We do not find 
in the Epistle to the Romans any of those autobiographical 
details with which the Epistle to the Galatians opens. The 
writer seems to feel himself under no necessity to vindicate 
his Apostleship, or his right to speak with as much authority 
as the original Twelve. Paul s claim to be an Apostle is 
made in the opening salutation, and repeated (xi. 13), but it 
is not treated as likely to be contested, or as needing proof. 
Further, the Epistle to the Romans is a calm exposition of 
Christian doctrine, without any trace of the personal feelings 
which exhibit themselves so strongly in the Epistle to the 
Galatians. No doubt this difference is to a certain extent 
accounted for by the fact that Paul in writing to the Church 
of Rome, a place that he had not yet visited, was addressing 
comparative strangers ; while, in writing to the Galatians, he 
could not but be deeply moved by grief and indignation, that 
converts who had once shown the strongest personal attach 
ment to him should now appear to be abandoning his teaching. 
This consideration sufficiently accounts for the difference of 
tone between the two letters, but not for the absence of any 
indication that the writer expected his claim to Apostleship 
to be contested ; and, therefore, the most natural inference is, 
that the Epistle to the Romans was written later than the 
Epistle to the Galatians, and at a time when Paul s authority 
had ceased to be disputed. 

This inference is confirmed when we include in our exami 
nation the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. This Epistle 
exhibits Paul as then opposed by men who disparaged his 
Apostolic authority, as much hurt by the ingratitude of some 
of his converts, and as anxious in his mind as to the reception 
he should meet with when he should arrive. The Epistle to 
the Romans, written after his arrival in Corinth, shows that 
the attempt to dispute his Apostleship had entirely collapsed, 
and that he could write in complete tranquillity of mind. 
There is strong likeness less, however, in verbal expression 
than in general tone of feeling between the manner in which 
disparagement of Paul s authority is dealt with in 2 Cor. and 



410 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [XX. 

in Galatians.* But though the personal question is dealt 
with in 2 Cor., we do not find there the argumentation 
against the necessity of circumcision which occupies so much 
of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. This favours 
Lightfoot s view, that the tidings which elicited the Epistle 
to the Galatians reached Paul later than the composition of 
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The First Epistle 
to the Corinthians is not without coincidences with that to 
the Galatians,f though fewer in number, as is natural, if 
Lightfoot s arrangement of the order of the Epistles is right. 
It does not need explanation, that circumcision should, in the 
last passages which I quote in the note, be treated as a thing 
indifferent, but that the insisting on circumcision as necessary 
to salvation should be treated (Gal. v. 2) as subversive of the 
Gospel of Christ. 

The generally received chronology of Paul s life assigns the 
second missionary journey in which the Apostle went through 
the Phrygian and Galatian country to the years 51 and 52, 
and the third journey in which he visited the same districts 
again to the year 54. Then succeed three years at Ephesus, 
shortly before leaving which place, in 57, he writes the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians. From Ephesus he travels through 
Macedonia, and arrives at Corinth, before leaving which 
place, in 58, he writes his Epistle to the Romans. 

Before quitting this subject I must say something as to the 
ambiguity of the name * Galatia. It may be a geographical 
term, denoting the district lying north of Phrygia and Cappa- 
docia, which derived its name from the Gallic tribes which 
found a settlement there, and which was divided into three 
cantons, whose principal cities were : Pessinus, at the lower 
or south-western extremity, where it borders on Phrygia ; 
Ancyra, in the centre ; and Tavium, in