Skip to main content

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"

See other formats 


Sfv^, 


A  HISTORICAL  INTRODUCTION 


TO   THE   STUDY    OF   THK 


BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


A  HISTORICAL  INTRODUCTION 


TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE 


BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT: 


AN  EXPANSION  OF  LECTURES 


DELIVERED  IK  THE 


DIVINITY  SCHOOL  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  DUBLIN. 


BY 


GEORGE  ^SALMON,   D.D., 

REGIUS   PROFKSSOR   OF   DIVINITY. 


LONDON: 
JOHN    MURRAY,    ALBE  M  ARLE-STREET. 
'       1885. 


DUBLIN  : 

PRINTED     AT    THE    UNIVERSITY    J'HESS, 

BY  PONSONBY  AND  "WELDRICK. 


PREFACE. 


'  I  "HE  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  necessary,  partly  in  order 
to  take  notice  of  things  that  had  been  published 
since  the  delivery  of  the  lectures,  partly  in  order 
to  include  details  which  want  of  time  had  obliged 
me  to  omit,  but  which  I  was  unwilling  to  pass  un- 
noticed in  my  book.     In  this  way  I  have  been  led 


vi  Preface. 

on  to  re-write,  and  make  additions  (but  without 
making  any  change  in  the  style  or  in  the  arrange- 
ment), until  I  am  now  somewhat  dismayed  to  find 
that  the  lectures  have  swelled  to  two  or  three  times 
their  original  bulk. 

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  fre- 
quently included  under  that  title.     I  do  not  enter 
on  the  criticism  of  the  text,  nor  do  I  make  any  analy- 
sis 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  discus- 
sion has  already  been   brought  within   easy  reach 
in   Canon   Westcott's   '  History   of  the   New  Tes- 
tament Canon.'     Dr.  Charteris,  also,  in  his  '  Can- 
onicity,'    has  rendered   accessible   to   the   English 
reader  the  collection  of  ancient  testimonies  made 
by   Kirchhofer   in    his     '  Ouellensammlung.'      Ac- 


Preface.  vii 

cording-  to  the  arrangement  of  Canon  Westcott's 
book,  each  of  the  ancient  witnesses  is  treated  se- 
parately, and  under  each  name  are  placed  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  to  which  the  witness 
bears  testimony.  According  to  the  arrangement  of 
Kirchhofer  and  Charteris,  each  book  of  the  New 
Testament  is  examined  in  succession,  and  the  an- 
cient 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  sufficient  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  refuta- 
tion. 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 


viii  Preface. 

when  he  finds  them  accepted  among  his  people  as 
the  latest  results  of  scientific  inquiry. 

Although  my  work  may  be  described  as  apolo- 
getic in  the  sense  that  its  results  agree  in  the  main 
with  the  traditional  belief  of  the  Church,  I  can  hon- 
estly say  that  I  have  not  worked  in  the  spirit  of  an 
advocate  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  tempta- 
tion to  hold  obstinately  to  traditional  opinions  is 
one  to  which  those  who  are  called  apologists  are 
not  exclusively  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  of  guides  to  whom,  in  their  youth- 
ful 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  scholas- 
tic 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  supernatural.     The  former 


Preface.  ix 

have  found  great  difficulties  in  maintaining  their 
position  by  a  priori  proof  of  the  impossibility  of 
miracle ;  for  what  they  seek  to  establish  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.  Fail- 
ing 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 
documents  tendered  for  the  establishment  of  mi- 
racles 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  following  pages.  •  If  this  result  has  been  esta- 
blished, 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.  Wace,  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 
labour  on  him,  would  make  me  congratulate  myself 
that  the  publication   of  my  lectures   was   dela3^ed 


X  Preface. 

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  par- 
ticularly 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  acknow- 
ledged, pp.  405,  638,  650,  662. 

I  had  intended  to  add  a  lecture,  in  continuation 
of  Lectures  xi.,  xix.,  on  books  known  to  the  early 
Church,  but  which  did  not  obtain  admission  into 
the  Canon.  But  I  have  found  myself  unable  to 
include  another  lecture,  which  could  not  have  been 
a  short  one,  in  a  volume  which  has  grown  to  such 
a  size. 


Trinity  College,  Dublin, 
March,  1885. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. 

INTRODUCTORY,    PART    I. 

Page 

Principles  of  the  Investigation         .        .        .        .        i 

Subject  of  Lectures  defined,  pp.  i — 3.  Question  of  Inspiration 
irrelevant  here,  p.  4 ;  amount  of  external  evidence  of  authenticity 
commonly  required  in  similar  cases,  pp.  4 — 6  ;  authenticity  of  N.  T. 
books  not  to  be  denied  because  of  the  miraculous  nature  of  their 
contents,  pp.  6 — 10.  Criticism  based  on  the  rejection  of  the  super- 
natural :  Strauss,  Renan,  author  oi- Supernatural  Religion,  pp.  10, 
II.  Naturalistic  explanation  of  Gospel  miracles:  Paulus,  p.  13; 
Strauss's  theory,  p.  14. 


LECTURE  11. 

INTRODUCTORY,   PART  II. 
Baur's  Theory  of  Early  Church  History 

The  Tiibingen  (or  'Tendency')  School,  p.  16;  its  basis  in  the 
Clementine  writings,  pp.  17,  18;  St.  Paul  assailed  in  them  under 
name  of  Simon  Magus,  p,  19.  Marcion,  p.  20.  The  Paul-Simon 
theory,  p.  21.  Two  kinds  of  Ebionites,  pp.  22 — 24.  Wholesale 
rejection  of  N.  T.  books  necessary  to  Baur's  theory,  p.  25;  the 
search  for  anti-Paulinism  in  the  Gospels,  p.  26  ;  unsuccessful,  pp. 
27 — 29;  Baur  admits  but  five  N.  T.  books  as  genuine,  p.  29;  in- 
ternecine character  of  strife  in  early  Church  as  alleged  by  him,  p. 
30;  its  speedy  and  complete  reconciliation,  p.  31. 


LECTURE  III. 

INTRODUCTORY,   PART  III. 

The  Anti-Paulinism  of  the  Apocalypse     .        .        •      3' 

Alleged  anti-Paulinism  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Seven  Churches,  pp. 
32 — 34  ;  improbability  of  this  view,  pp.  34,  35.  The  calling  of  the 
Gentiles  recognized  in  the  Apocalypse,  p.  36 ;  its  alleged  anti- 
Paulme  language  paralleled  in  Paul's  own  writings,  pp.  37 — 39. 
Rapidity  of  supposed  counter  revolution  in  favour  of  Paulinism, 
p.  39- 


xii  Contents. 

LECTURE  IV. 

RECEPTION     OF    THE    GOSPELS     IN     THE     EARLY 

CHURCH.       PART  I. 

Page 
The  End  of  the  Second  Century  ;  Iren^us,  Clement, 

AND  TeRTULLIAN 4 1 

Paul's  teaching,  as  collected  from  his  unquestioned  Epistles,  and 
from  the  Acts,  p.  41 ;  assumes  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection,  p.  42  ; 
includes  miracle,  p.  43.  Facts  admitted  by  Strauss  as  to  reception 
of  Gospels,  p.  44.  Iren/EUS,  pp.  44—50 ;  links  connecting  him 
with  Apostolic  age,  p.  45  ;  estimate  of  the  Four  Gospels  in  the 
Church  of  his  age,  pp.  46 — 48 ;  his  testimony  retrospective,  pp. 
48 — 50.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  pp.  50 — 52 ;  various  texts  of  the 
Gospels,  p.  51 ;  inference  from  this  fact,  p.  52.  Tertullian,  pp. 
52 — 57.  Greek  the  language  of  the  early  Roman  Church,  pp. 
52 — 54.  Early  Latin  version  of  Scriptures,  p.  54 ;  rendering  of 
title  '  Logos,'  p.  55. 

LECTURE  V. 

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

The  Muratorian  Fragment  ;  Caius  and  Hippolytus         57 

The  Muratorian  Fragment,  pp.  57 — 64 ;  described,  pp.  57, 
58 ;  its  date  how  determined,  Hermas,  pp.  58,  59 ;  conjectures  as 
to  its  author,  pp.  60 — 63 ;  its  contents,  pp.  63,  64.  Caius  and 
Hippolytus,  pp.  64 — 71.  Caius,  p.  66;  his  estimate  of  the 
Gospels,  pp.  66,  67.  Hippolytus,  p.  67  ;  his  'Refutation  of  Here- 
sies,' pp.  68,  69  ;  his  extracts  from  heretical  writers,  p.  69 ;  use 
made  by  these  of  N.  T.  books,  p.  70 ;  especially  of  Fourth  Gos- 
pel, ib. ;  by  Valentinus,  pp.  70 — 73  ;  by  Basilides,  pp.  73,  74. 
First  mention  of  St.  John  as  author  of  this  Gospel,  p.  74 ;  it  tacitly 
claims  him  as  such,  p.  75. 


LECTURE  VI. 

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

The  Middle  of  the  Second  Century  ;  Justin  Martyr, 

Tatian 

Justin  Martyr,  pp.  76 — 97  ;  his  date,  p.  76  ;  mentions  and  cites 
'Memoirs'  of  our  Lord,  pp.  77,  78;  his  citations  vary  verbally 


Contents.  xili 

Page 
from  the  existing  Gospels,  pp.  78 — 80 ;  his  substantial  agreement 
with  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  pp.  80 — 82  ;  improbability  that  he  used 
a  gospel  now  lost,  pp.  82 — 85  ;  proofs  that  he  knew  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  pp.  85 — 94  ;  Thoma's  theory,  Dr.  Ezra  Abbott,  p.  86  ; 
Justin  derives  from  Fourth  Gospel  his  '  Logos '  doctrine,  pp. 
86 — 88  ;  not  from  Philo,  p.  88  ;  hence  also  his  Baptismal  lan- 
guage, pp.  89 — 91  ;  Strauss's  failure  to  shake  these  conclusions,  pp. 
91 — 93  ;  Dr.  Edwin  Abbott's  view  untenable,  pp.  94,  95  ;  Baur's 
inconsistency  on  this  subject,  pp.  94 — 97.  Tatian,  pp.  97 — 104  ; 
his  date  and  heresy,  pp.  97,  98;  his  knowledge  of  Fourth  Gospel, 
p.  98  ;  his  'Diatessaron,'  pp.  98 — loi ;  recent  recovery  of  commen- 
tary on  it  by  Ephraem  Syrus,  pp.  loi,  102  ;  its  ample  attestation  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  equally  with  the  others,  pp.  103,  104. 


LECTURE  VII. 

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

The   Beginning    of  the   Second    Century;    Papias, 

Apostolic  Fathers 104 

Papias,  pp.  104 — 126  ;  his  remains  scanty  and  fragmentary,  p.  104  ; 
unfair  inferences  from  his  omissions,  pp.  105 — 107  ;  his  'Exposition 
of  the  Oracles  of  the  Lord,'  p.  107  ;  his  sources  of  information,  pp. 
108,  109;  his  witness  to  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  p.  no; 
recent  doubts  of  the  identity  of  these  with  our  First  and  Second 
Gospels,  p.  Ill — 113.  Schleiermacher's  theory  of  the  'original' 
Matthew  and  Mark,  p.  114;  Renan's  theory  of  their  formation,  pp. 
114 — 118.  Meaning  of  the  word  'Logia'  in  Papias's  account  of 
Matthew,  pp.  117 — 119;  explanation  of  his  apology  for  Mark's 
method,  pp.  119 — 121  ;  probability  that  Papias  knew  Luke's  Gos- 
pel, pp.  121 — 123  ;  true  explanation  of  plan  of  Papias's  work,  pp. 
124 — 126;  probability  that  he  knew  John's  Gospel,  p.  126.  The 
Apostolic  Fathers,  pp.  127 — 130.  Clement  of  Rome,  p.  127. 
The  early  fathers  do  not  cite  the  Gospels  byname,  p.  128;  nor 
verbally,  ib.     Barnabas,  pp.  129,  130. 


LECTURE  VIIL 

THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS.   PART  I. 

Internal  Evidence  OF  their  Antiquity        .        .        -131 

Inferences  from  the  titles  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  131 — 133  ;  written 
Gospels  necessary  from  the  first,  pp.   133,   134.     Our  Lord's  dis- 


xiv  Contents. 


courses  as  reported  by  the  Synoptists,  p.  135 ;  presumption  that 
these  would  be  written  down  at  an  early  date,  pp.  134,  137  ;  this 
presumption  extends  to  the  narrative  of  his  actions,  p.  138.  These 
three  narratives  not  independent,  pp.  139 — 141  ;  the  sceptical 
criticism  is  tending  to  revert  to  the  early  date  claimed  for  them, 
pp.  141,  142  ;  no  earlier  Gospel  extant,  pp.  143,  144  ;  the  four 
took  their  place  without  authoritative  decision  of  Church,  p.  144. 
Luke's  account  explains  the  oral  common  basis  of  the  Synoptics,  p. 
145  ;  he  mentions  written  narrations  prior  to  his  own,  p.  146  ;  no 
authentic  tradition  as  to  their  publication,  p.  147.  Early  necessity 
for  authoritative  records,  pp.  148 — 150.  Gospels  once  published 
not  easily  changed,  pp.  150 — 152. 


Page 


LECTURE  IX. 

THE   SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS.      PART   11. 
Theories  as  to  their  Origin 153 

Inquiry  not  precluded  by  belief  in  Inspiration,  pp.  153,  154;  though 
difficult  not  hopeless,  p.  154.  Three  chief  hypotheses  to  account 
for  the  common  matter  of  the  Synoptists,  p.  155  ;  various  combina- 
tions of  these,  p.  156;  each  hypothesis  to  be  examined  irrespec- 
tively of  theories  of  Inspiration,  pp.  156 — 159.  Alford's  objection 
to  First  and  Second  Hypotheses,  p.  159  ;  verbal  .variations  from 
documents  in  secular  authors,  pp.  159,  160 ;  variations  in  narra- 
tives of  St.  Paul's  conversion,  p.  161.  The  Third  Hypothesis  will 
account  for  agreements  in  narrating  of  incidents,  pp.  161,  162;  but 
the  First  or  Second  is  needed  to  account  for  agi^eement  in  order 
of  narration,  pp.  164,  165  ;  absence  of  agreement  in  order  of  dis- 
courses, pp.  166,  167.  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke  independent 
of  one  another,  p.  167.  Various  forms  of  Second  hypothesis,  p. 
168;  inadmissible  modifications  of  it,  pp.  169,  170.  Modifications 
of  Third  hypothesis,  p.  170.  Hypothesis  of  Hebrew  common 
document,  pp.  170,  171;  will  account  for  verbal  variations,  pp. 
171 — 173.  Hypothesis  of  common  Greek  original  required  by  ver- 
bal coincidences,  pp.  173,  174;  and  by  common  citations  of  O.  T., 
p.  175.  Further  elaboration  of  hypothesis  of  Greek  original,  p. 
176.  Rushbrook's  '  Synopticon,'  p.  177.  Dr.  Edwin  Abbott  and 
the  'Triple  Tradition,'  pp.  177 — 179  ;  his  theory  of  the  common 
document  rests  on  an  inadmissible  assumption,  p.  179.  The 
Synoptists'  narratives  of  the  Passion,  pp.  180,  181.  The  'Triple 
Tradition'  rests  on  a  single  attestation,  pp.  181,  182;  which  pro- 
bably is  that  of  Peter,  p.  183  ;  traces  of  his  testimony  in  Mark,  pp. 
183 — 187.  Mark  represents  the  original  source  most  fully,  p.  187; 
but  is  probably  latest  in  publication,  p.  188  ;  his  last  twelve  verses, 
pp.  188 — 190. 


Contents.  xv 


Page 


Note    on    the   Concluding   Verses   of    St.    Mark's 

Gospel 190 

Early  testimony  to  their  authenticity,  pp.  190,  191.    ImprobabiUty 
involved  in  the  rejection  of  them,  191 — 193. 


LECTURE   X. 

THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE  OF  ST.  MATTHEW. 
The  Hebrew  Gospel iq4 

Existence  of  an  early  Hebrew  Gospel  probable,  pp.  194 — 196. 
Early  Patristic  evidence  that  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew,  p.  196. 
Witness  of  Papias,  Irenseus,  and  Eusebius,  p.  197  ;  of  Jerome  and 
Epiphanius,  p.  198.  Internal  counter-evidence,  pp.  199,  200.  No 
Greek  text  other  than  ours  knowii  to  the  Fathers,  pp.  200,  201. 
Hypothesis  of  a  twofold  original,  p.  202.  The  'Hebrew  Gospel,' 
p.  203  ;  not  identical  with  the  '  Ebionite  Gospel,'  pp.  203 — 207  ; 
not  the  source  of  the  Clementine  quotations,  pp.  207,  208.  Je- 
rome's 'Nazarene'  Gospel  not  the  original  of  Matthew,  pp.  209 — 
214;  Origen's  evidence  concerning  the  'Hebrew  Gospel,'  pp. 
211 — 213;  Jerome's  inconsistency,  pp.  215 — 217;  estimate  of  the 
value  and  age  of  this  Gospel,  pp.  217 — 219  ;  first  trace  of  it  found 
in  Ignatius,  p.  219;  it  was  used  by  Hegesippus,  p.  220.  Pales- 
tine was  bihngual,  pp.  221 — 223.  Greek  original  on  the  whole 
more  -probable,  pp.  223 — 225. 


.    LECTURE  XL 

Apocryphal  and  Heretical  Gospels     ....     226 

Hone's  collection  of  N.T.  Apocrypha,  pp.  226 — 228  ;  Hilgenfeld's, 
p.  229.  Apocryphal 'Gospels,  pp.229 — 239.  The  Protevan- 
geliuyn,  pp.  229 — 233;  its  antiquity,  p.  231.  The  Pseudo-Matthew, 
p.  233,  The  Gospel  of  Thomas,  pp.  234 — 237;  its  legends  of  our 
Lord's  childhood,  pp.  234 — 236  ;  its  date,  p.  236,  The  Gospel  of 
Nicodemus  and  Acts  of  Pilate,  pp.  237 — 239.  Evangelic  fragments, 
p.  239.  Heretical  Gospels,  pp.  239 — 248;  were  chiefly  Gnostic 
and  Encratite,  pp.  240,  241.  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians,  pp.  240 — 
242.  Gospel  of  Marcion,  pp.  242 — 248  ;  TertuUian's  examination 
of  it,  p.  243  ;  reconstruction  of  it,  pp.  244,  245  ;  attempt  to  make 
it  out  prior  to  Luke's,  p.  245  ;  also  to  John's,  pp.  246 — 248. 


LECTURE   XII. 

THE  JOHANNINE   BOOKS.      PART  L 
The  Fourth  Gospel 249 

Common  authorship  of  this  Gospel  and  First  Epistle,  pp.  249,  250 ; 
motive  for  questioning  this  fact,  pp.  250,  251.     Early  external  tes- 


xvi  Contejtfs. 


timony  to  the  Epistle,  pp.  251,  252.  Baur  assigns  a  late  date  to 
the  Gospel,  p.  253  ;  his  followers  tend  to  place  it  earlier,  ib. ;  Renan 
takes  an  exceptional  line,  pp.  253 — 255.  Motives  for  denying  its 
Apostolic  authorship,  p.  256.  Its  witness  to  our  Lord's  Divi- 
nity, ib. ;  to  His  self-assertion,  p.  257.  His  self-assertion  attested 
by  the  Synoptics  likewise,  pp.  258 — 260.  Christology  of  the 
Apocalypse,  pp.  260 — 264.  Apocalypse  admitted  to  be  John's, 
pp.  263,  264.     Christology  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  pp.  264,  265. 


Page 


LECTURE   XIII. 

THE  JOHANNINE  BOOKS.     PART  II. 
The  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse     .        .        .266 

Diversity  of  style  between  these  two  books,  p.  267.  Early  external 
attestation  of  Apocalypse,  pp.  267 — 272.  Millennarian  use  of  it, 
pp.  268,  269  ;  tended  to  discredit  the  book,  p.  270.  Ascription  of 
it  to  Cerinthus,  p.  270;  also  of  the  Gospel,  p.  271.  Arguments  of 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  against  the  Johannine  authorship  of  Apo- 
calypse, pp.  272 — 275  ;  examination  of  them,  pp.  276 — 287.  Its 
coincidences  of  diction  with  the  Gospel,  pp.  278 — 280;  its  points 
of  difference,  pp.  280 — 282.  Solecisms  of  the  Apocalypse,  pp. 
282 — 285.  The  Greek  of  the  Gospel,  p.  285  ;  its  superiority  over 
that  of  the  Apocalypse  accounted  for,  pp.  285,  287. 


LECTURE   XIV. 

THE  JOHANNINE  BOOKS.      PART  III. 
The  Date  of  the  Apocalypse         .        .        ...        .287 

Earlier  date  assigned  by  the  sceptical  school,  p.  288.  Theory  of 
Renan  and  his  followers,  pp.  288 — 290.  Nero  the  '  Beast,'  p.  290 ; 
its  'Number,'  p.  291.  This  theory  imputes  failure  to  the  predic- 
tions of  the  book,  p.  291 ;  is  incredible,  pp.  292,  293 ;  attempts 
to  deny  that  failure  is  imputed,  pp.  294 — 296.  Ancient  concep- 
tion of  Prophecy,  p>  296.  Modern  solutions  of  the  riddles  of  the 
book  are  but  partial,  pp.  297  —  299;  multiplicity  of  solutions, 
p.  300.  Other  objections  to  the  Neronian  solution,  p.  301.  Nero- 
nian  date  not  improbable,  p.  302. 


LECTURE   XV. 

THE  JOHANNINE  BOOKS.     PART   IV. 
The  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Quartodecimans    .        .302 

The  Quartodecimans  alleged  as  witnesses  against  Fourth  Gospel, 
p.  203.    Real  difficulty  in  its  account  of  Last  Supper,  pp.  303,  304; 


Contents.  xvii 

Page 
solutions  offered,  pp.  305,  306  ;  a  forger  would  have  avoided 
raising  this  difficulty,  pp.  306, 307.  Controversy  concerning  Easter, 
p.  308  ;  Baur's  assumption  as  to  the  Eastern  commemoration,  pp 
308,  309.  First  recorded  instance  of  Paschal  disputes,  Polycarp 
and  Anicetus.  pp.  309,  310.  Probable  usage  of  the  Apostles,  pp 
310,  311.  Second  recorded  Paschal  dispute,  Melito's  book,  pp 
312 — -314.  Third  recorded  Paschal  dispute,  Victor  and  Polycrates 
p.  314.    Quartodeciman  testimony  to  Fourth  Gospel,  pp.  314,  315 


Note  on  the  Astronomical  Aspect  of  the  Question 

Jewish  New  Moon,  p.  315.    Tableof  NewMoons,  p.  316.    Wiese 
ler's  mistake,  317. 


315 


LECTURE   XVI. 

THE  JOHANNINE   BOOKS.     PART  V. 
The  Gospel  AND  THE  Minor  Epistles    .        .        .        .317 

The  Fourth  Evangehst  was  (i)  a  Jew,  pp.  318 — 320 ;  was  (ii)  a 
Jew  of  Palestine,  pp.  321 — 323  ;  was  (iii)  of  the  first  century,  pp, 
323 — 325  ;  was  (iv)  an  eye-witness  of  the  events  he  relates,  pp. 
325 — 329  ;  and  a  disciple  of  the  Baptist,  p.  328  ;  was  John  the 
Apostle,  pp.  329,  330.  Theory  of  another  John.  '  the  Elder,'  pp. 
330,  331 ;  this  theory  fails  to  solve  the  questions  of  authorship  of 
the  Johannine  Books,  pp.  332,  333  ;  the  Minor  Epistles,  pp.  333 — 
340 ;  their  authenticity  questioned,  pp.  333,  334 ;  established 
conclusively  by  internal  evidence,  pp.  334,  335  ;  they  confirm  the 
Johannine  authorship  of  the  Gospel,  p.  336.  The  Third  Epistle, 
St.  John  and  Episcopacy,  p.  337,  '  The  Elect  Lady  '  of  the  Second 
Epistle,  p.  338.  Attempts  to  allegorize  away  parts  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  p.  339.  Importance' of  the  facts  implied  in  the  Third 
Epistle,  ii. 

LECTURE   XVIL 

THE  JOHANNINE   BOOKS,   PART  .  VI. 
The  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Synoptics        .        .        .     340 

Omissions  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  341 ;  instance  as  regards  our 
Lord's  birthplace,  pp.  342,  343  ;  absurdity  of  Renan's  view  of  ' 
this  case,  pp.  343,  344  ;  St.  John's  manner  is  to  assume  previous 
knowledge  in  his  readers,  p.  345  ;  his  '  Irony,'  pp.  346 — 349 ;  his 
knowledge  of  previous  Gospels,  pp.  349 — 362  ;  he  wrote  after 
Peter's  death,  p.  350 ;  his  last  chapter,  pp.  350,  351  ;  supplemental 
character  of  his  Gospel,  p.  352  ;  his  silence  as  to  the  Eucharist,  p. 
353  ;  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist  by  our  Lord  involves  a  claim 
of  Divinity  on  His  part,  p.  355  ;  Synoptic  account  of  institution 
confirmed  by  St.  Paul,  p.  355  ;  early  Christian  belief  concerning 
it,  lb  ;    the  Eucharist  implied  in  Fourth  Gospel,  pp.  356 — 358  ;  as 

b 


xviii  Contents. 


also  Baptism,  p.  358  ;  and  the  Ascension,  ib.  The  Fourth  Gospel 
written  with  a  purpose,  pp.  359,  360.  Its  coincidences  with  the 
Synoptics,  pp.  360—362.  It  contains  facts  omitted  by  them,  p. 
362.  A  priori  probabihty  of  our  Lord's  earlier  visits  to  Jerusalem 
recorded  in  it,  pp.  362 — 365  ;  admitted  by  Renan,  p.  365. 


Page 


LECTURE   XVIII. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 366 

Date  of  this  book  a  vital  matter,  p.  366.  External  attestation  of 
it,  pp.  366 — 368.  Internal  evidence,  p.  369.  Modern  theories  of 
its  compilation,  p.  370.  The  'we'  sections,  pp.  371 — 373;  the 
author  of  these,  p.  371.  Tradition  of  Luke's  authorship  of  Third 
Gospel  and  Acts,  p.  372.  Imagined  marks  of  spuriousness,  pp. 
373i  374-  Unity  of  authorship  of  Acts  inferred  from  its  structure 
and  contents,  pp.  375,  376;  and  from  its  diction,  p.  377.  Literary 
skill  of  the  author,  pp.  377,  378.  Motives  for  denying  its  unity, 
pp.  379 — 387.  Its  supernatural  element,  pp.  379,  380.  Its  repre- 
sentation of  Paul's  relations  with  the  Twelve,  pp.  381 — 387.  The 
Tiibingen  version  of  Paul's  history,  pp.  382,  383  ;  its  incredibility 
as  compared  with  the  account  in  Acts,  pp.  385,  386.  Absence  of 
Pauline  topics  from  speeches  ascribed  to  him  in  this  book,  pp.  386, 
387.  Supposed  artificial  parallelism  between  its  narratives  of  Peter 
and  of  Paul,  pp.  387,  388.  Frequent  occurrence  of  parallel  events 
in  history  ;  the  supposed  parallel  wants  its  climax,  p.  389.  Ab- 
rupt close  of  the  Acts,  pp.  390,  391.  The  author's  principle  of 
selection  of  incidents,  p.  391  ;  his  opportunities  of  gaining  infor- 
mation, pp.  392 — 394  ;  his  account  of  Philip  the  Deacon,  pp. 
392,  393 ;  he  possibly  used  as  materials  a  diary  of  his  own,  pp. 
394)  395-  His  reports  of  Paul's  speeches,  pp.  395 — 398.  His  little 
use  of  Paul's  Epistles,  p.  398  ;  for  example,  that  to  Philippians,  p. 
399;  Galatians,  p.  400;  i  &  2  Corinthians,  pp.  400,  401.  Re- 
ports of  Peter's  speeches  in  Acts  compared  with  his  First  Epistle, 
p.  402 .  External  confinnations  of  the  author's  accuracy,  pp.  403— 
405.  Holtzmann's  theory  that  the  author  followed  Josephus,  pp. 
405 — 407.     Discrepancies  between  the  Acts  and  Josephus,  p.  407. 


LECTURE   XIX. 

Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles         .        .        .        .    408 

No  other  Acts  but  Luke's  admitted  into  the  Canon,  p.  409.  Apo- 
cryphal Acts  mostly  of  heretical  origin,  p.  409  ;  afterwards  expur- 
gated for  orthodox  use,  p.  410.  (i)  The  Ahgar  Legend,  pp.  411  — 
414;  extant  form  of  it,  p.  413.  i^\)T\\&  Acts  of  Paid  and  Thecla, 
pp.  414 — 421  ;  Tertullian's  account  of  its  origin,  p.  414  ;  tinged 
with  Encratism,  p.  415;  its  story,  pp.  415 — 418;  still  extant,  p. 
419  ;  time  and  place  of  composition,  pp.  419 — 421.  (iii)  The  Acts 
of  St.  Thomas,  pp.  421—432  ;  Leucian  Acts,  p.  422  ;  light  thrown 


Conte7its.  xix 

Page 
by  the  Acts  of  Thomas  on  Gnostic  ideas,  p.  423  ;  narrative  of  this 
book,  pp.  424 — 431  ;  Ritual  described  in  it,  pp.  427 — 429  ;  its 
doctiine  p.  431  ;  date  and  place  of  composition,  pp.  431,  432. 
(iv)  The  Acts  of  St.  Peter,  the  Clementines,  pp.  432,  433 ;  the 
'  Circuits  of  Peter,'  and  '  Preaching  of  Peter,'  p.  433  ;  the  Simon- 
Paul  theory,  pp.  434,  435  ;  'Acts  of  Peter  and  Paul,'  pp.  436, 
437  ;  Feast  of  29th  June,  pp.  438,  439;  rival  tradition  concerning 
Peter,  439.  (v)  The  Acts  of  St.  John,  pp.  440 — 446 ;  heretical 
character  of  the  Leucian  Acts,  pp.  440 — 442  ;  second  century  tra- 
ditions concerning  John,  pp.  443 — 445  ;  later  legends,  pp.  445,  446; 
Assutnption  of  B.  V.  M.,  pp.  446 — 449. 


LECTURE   XX. 

The  Pauline  Epistles 450 

The  Sceptical  school  not  agreed  which  of  these  to  reject,  pp.  450, 
451.  Four  groups  of  them,  p.  453.  First  Group,  pp.  453 — 462  ; 
I  Thessalonians,  pp.  453 — 456;  2  Thessalo?nans,  pp.  456 — 461; 
its  prophecy  of  the  Man  of  Sin,  pp.  458 — 460  ;  external  attestation 
of  both,  p.  460 ;  precaution  against  forgery,  p.  461  ;  lost  Epistles, 
pp.  461,  462.  Second  Group,  pp.  462 — 465  ;  concluding  chap- 
ter of  Rotnans,  pp.  463,  464.  Third  Group,  pp.  465 — 488 ; 
Philippians,  pp.  465,  466 ;  Philemon,  p.  467  ;  Colossians,  pp. 
467 — 475  ;  external  attestation,  p.  467  ;  internal  evidence,  pp. 
467 — 469;  objections  grounded  on  its  diction,  pp.  469 — 471  ;  on 
its  Christology,  p.  471  ;  on  its  reference  to  Gnostic  teaching,  pp. 
472 — 475  ;  Ephesians,  pp.  475 — 478  ;  external  evidence,  pp.  475, 
476 ;  its  affinities  with  i  Peter,  pp.  476,  477  ;  its  close  likeness  to 
Colossians,  pp.  477,  478 ;  Paley's  account  of  this  fact,  p.  477 ; 
rejected  by  sceptical  critics,  p.  478 ;  question  of  priority  between 
the  two,  p.  479;  Holtzmann's  theory,  p.  481  ;  this  Epistle  contra- 
dicts modem  theories  of  early  Church  history,  pp.  481,  482  ;  Gen- 
tile Christianity  as  shown  in  it,  pp.  483 — 485  ;  ruling  topics  of 
these  two  Epistles  distinct,  pp.  485 — 486  ;  literary  excellence  and 
influence  of  Ephesians,  pp.  487,  488.  Fourth  Group,  pp.  488 — 
511  ;  Pastoral  Epistles,  rejected  yet  used  by  Renan,  p.  488;  ex- 
ternal attestation,  488 — 490;  rejection  by  early  heretics,  pp.  490, 
491  ;  objections  founded  on  (i)  their  diction,  p.  491  ;  on  (2)  the 
controversies  they  deal  with,  pp.  492,  493  ;  on  (3)  the  difficulty  of 
harmonizing  them  with  the  Acts,  pp.  493 — 501 ;  their  diction  pro- 
bably marks  them  as  St.  Paul's  latest  work,  pp.  494 — 496  ;  their 
historical  contents  suggest  like  conclusion,  pp.  496,  497  ;  they  im- 
ply Paul's  release  from  the  imprisonment  recorded  in  Acts,  pp. 
497 — 500  ;  independent  evidence  of  this  release,  p.  500  ;  objections 
to  late  date,  pp.  501 — 503 ;  internal  evidence  for  2  Timothy,  pp. 
503 — 509 ;  its  Pauline  character,  pp.  503 — 505  ;  its  details,  pp. 
505 — 509 ;  its  genuineness  carries  with  it  that  of  i  Timothy  and 
Titus,  pp.  509 — 511 ;  Kenan's  estimate  of  all  three,  p,  511. 


XX  Contents. 


LECTURE   XXI. 

Page 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 512 

Question  of  authorship  not  of  authenticity  of  Hebrews,  p.  512.  Use 
of  it  by  Clement  of  Rome,  pp.  512,  513.  Accepted  by  whole  East- 
ern Church  as  St.  Paul's,  pp.  513 — 516.  Testimony  of  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  pp.  513,  514.  View  of  Origen,  pp.  514,  515. 
Western  opinion  adverse,  pp.  516 — 518.  TertuUian  ascribed  it  to 
Barnabas,  pp.  517,  518.  Reaction  under  Jerome  and  Augustine, 
pp.  518,  519.  Evidence  of  Mss.  and  Versions,  p.  519.  Its  anony- 
mousness,  p.  520.  Its  canonicity  well  established,  ib.  Internal 
evidence  for  and  against  Pauline  authorship,  pp.  521 — 526;  indi- 
vidual passages,  pp.  521,  522;  its  doctrine  Pauline,  p.  523  ;  it 
uses  Pauline  language  and  maimerisms,  pp.  523,  524 ;  its  O.  T. 
citations,  p.  525  ;  its  Alexandrian  colouring,  pp.  525,  526  ;  its 
general  style  un-Pauline,  p.  526.  Conjectures  as  to  authorship,  p. 
527  ;  considerations  in  favour  of  ascription  to  Barnabas,  pp.  527 — 
531.  Probably  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  pp. 
531 — 535.  Written  from  Italy,  p.  535.  Lower  limit  of  date,  p. 
535  ;   upper  hmit  doubtful,  pp.  536,  537. 


LECTURE   XXII. 

The  First  Epistle  OF  St.  Peter 538 

Eusebius's  classification  of  N.  T.  Books,  pp.  538 — 540.  External 
attestations  of  1  Peter,  pp.  540,  541  ;  it  is  included  in  all  Canons 
except  the  Muratorian,  p.  542.  Internal  difficulties  alleged  against 
it,  p.  543-  It  contradicts  Baur's  view  of  early  Church  histoiy,  p. 
544.  Its  Paulinism  of  doctrine,  p.  545.  Place  of  composition 
'  Babylon,'  pp.  545 — 548.     Roman  martyrdom  of  Peter,  pp.  548 — 

550.  Addressed  to  Cliristians  dispersed  in  Pontus,  &c.,  pp.  550, 

551.  Its  coincidences  with  Romans,  p.  551  ;  with  Ephesians,  pp. 
552 — 555.  Seufert's  theory,  pp.  554,  555.  Its  coincidences  with 
Epistle  of  James,  p.  556.  Its  originality  and  individuality,  pp. 
557,  558-  

LECTURE  XXIII. 

The  Epistle  of  St.  James 559 

This  Epistle  classed  by  Eusebius  among  'Antilegomena,'  p.  559. 
The  '  Seven  Catholic  Epistles,'  ib. ;  evidence  of  Origen  con- 
cerning it,  p.  560;  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  pp.  560,  561;  of 
Hermas,  p.  562  ;  probably  of  Clement  of  Rome,  pp.  563,  564 ;  of 
Irenseus,  p.  564;  other  authorities,  ib.  Internal  evidence,  pp. 
^65 — 579.  James,  '  the  Lord's  Brother,'  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
p.  565  ;  probability  of  the  usual  ascription  of  the  Epistle  to  him,  pp. 
566,   567.    Written  for  Christian  Jews,  pp.   567,   568  ;  probably 


ContenU.  xxi 

Page 
residents  in  Syria,  p.  568.  The  author  a  personal  follower  of  our 
Lord,  pp.  568 — 570;  ^vrote  before  fall  of  Jerusalem,  p.  571  ;  his 
picture  of  the  Jews  confirmed  by  Josephus,  pp.  571,  572.  Other  in- 
ternal evidences  of  early  date,  pp.  573,  574  ;  its  doctrine  not  anti- 
Pauline,  pp.  574-576;  its  silence  as  to  disputes  of  Paul's  time, 
p.  577;  late  date  assigned  to  it  by  sceptical  school,  p.  578.  Purity 
of  its  Greek,  p.  579;  its  verbal  coincidences  with  Romans,  pp. 
579 — 581.  Its  substantial  agreement  with  Paul's  doctrine,  pp.  581, 
582 ;  its  teaching  closely  akin  to  O.  T.  Prophets,  p.  583 ;  but 
not  merely  Judaic,  pp.  583,  584.  Character  of  the  author  as  shown 
in  it,  p.  585  ;  its  moral  precepts,  p.  586  ;  moral  effects  of  Christian 
teaching,  pp.  587,  588. 

LECTURE  XXIV. 

The  Epistle  of  St.  Jude 589 

Historical  attestation  of  the  books  of  N.  T.  unequal,  p.  590 ;  a  few 
of  them  were  doubted  by  critics  in  fourth  centur}',  p.  591.  Cause  of 
the  scantiness  of  attestation  of  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  p.  592  ; 
of  the  two,  Jude's  has  better  external  attestation,  pp.  593,  594 ; 
especially  in  the  West,  p.  594.  Jude,  one  of  '  the  Lord's  brethren, 
p.  595  ;  tradition  concerning  his  grandsons  preserved  byHegesip- 
pus,  pp.  595,  596;  doubt  whether  he  was  of  the  Twelve,  p.  596; 
what  we  are  to  understand  by  '  Brethren  of  Our  Lord,'  pp.  596 — 598. 
Date  of  the  Epistle,  p.  598  ;  against  whom  were  its  censures 
directed  }  pp.  599,  600.  Its  use  of  Jewish  Apocrj'pha,  pp.  601 — 604 : 
the  '  Assumption  of  Moses,'  pp.  601,  602  ;  the  'Book  of  Enoch,' 
pp.  602 — 604. 

LECTURE  XXV. 

The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  ....     605 

Doubts  in  the  Church  of  the  authority  of  this  Epistle,  p.  605. 
Early  opinions  unfavourable  to  it  and  other  of  the  '  CathoUc '  Epis- 
tles, pp.  606,  607.  General  acceptance  attained  by  them  all,  pp. 
607 — 610.  Question  reopened  at  the  Reformation,  pp.  607,  608. 
Opinion  of  Epiphanius  favourable,  p.  609  ;  inconsistency  of 
Jerome,  ib. ;  and  of  Didymus,  ib.  Evidence  of  MSS.  and  Canons,  pp. 
610,611.  Opinion  of  Origen,  p.  611  ;  of  Firmihan,  ?&.  Old  Latin 
Version,  ib.  Doubtful  use  of  this  Epistle  by  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, p.  612  ;  by  Irenaeus,  pp.  612 — 614;  by  Pseudo-Clement,  p. 
615  ;  by  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  ib.  Prediction  in  this  Epistle  of 
the  destmction  of  the  world  by  fire,  pp.  615 — 617.  Apocalypse  of 
Peter,  p.  616.  Doubtful  use  of  2  Peter  by  Hennas  and  Clement  of 
Rome,  p.  617.  Its  acceptance  far  short  of  that  of  i  Peter,  p.  618. 
Grotius's  theory,  ib.  The  author  claims  to  be  Peter,  p.  619 ;  if 
not  Peter,  is  a  forger,  p.  620;  this  alternative  must  be  faced,  p. 
621.     Relation  between  2  Peter  and  Jude,  pp.  622,  623.     Differ- 


xxii  Coyitenis. 


ence  of  style  between  i  &  2  Peter,  pp.  624,  625 ;  points  of  re- 
semblance between  them,  p.  625.  Coincidences,  of  2  Peter  with 
Petrine  speeches  in  Acts,  p.  626.  Dr.  Edwin  Abbott's  attack  on 
2  Peter,  pp.  626 — 653.  Its  alleged  unworthiness  of  style,  pp. 
626 — 638;  'Baboo'  Greek,  pp.  626 — 631.  Unfairness  of  his 
treatment  of  the  Epistle,  pp.  627,  628 ;  schoolboy  English  of  his 
renderings,  ib.  Defects  in  its  Greek  are  natural,  if  it  was  written 
by  a  Palestinian  Jew,  p.  630  ;  but  cannot  affect  the  question  of  its 
genuineness,  pp.  630,  63 1 ;  its  Greek  not  to  be  tested  by  our  Lexi- 
cons, p.  632.  Absurd  misapprehension  involved  in  the  charge  of 
'  pedantry  '  against  the  author,  pp.  633,  634.  Discussion  of  sundry 
expressions  objected  to,  pp.  635 — 637  ;  '  Hapax  Legomena,'  pp. 
636,  637.  Its  alleged  borrowings  fro^n  Josephus,  pp.  638 — 649. 
Archdeacon  Farrar's  opinion,  pp.  640,  641.  Alleged  coincidences 
with  Josephus  merely  verbal,  p.  641.  Not  within  brief  compass, 
p.  642  ;  nor  in  same  sequence,  ib. ;  nor  do  they  occur  in  case  of 
unusual  words,  pp.  642,  643.  No  N.  T.  writer  keeps  within  the 
limits  of  BibUcal  language,  p.  644.  The  Greek  of  Philo,  pp.  645 — 
647.  Discussion  of  the  words  and  combinations  rehed  on  by  Dr. 
Abbott,  pp.  647 — 649.  Coincidences  with  Philo' s  writings  found 
in  I  Peter,  pp.  650,  651  ;  also  elsewhere  in  N.  T.,  p.  652.  Result 
of  examination  of  Dr.  Abbott's  criticism,  ib. 


Page 


Note  ;  on  Hermas  and  Theodotion  .        .        .        654 

The  '  Thegri '  of  Hermas  explained  by  Mr.  Rendel  Harris,  from 
Dan.  vi.  22,  p.  654.  The  two  extant  Greek  versions  of  Daniel; 
the  Chigi  Daniel,  p.  655  ;  Dr.  Hort's  inference  as  to  date  of 
Hermas,  p.  656  ;  Theodotion's  date  uncertain,  pp.  657,  658.  The 
rival  versions  in  second  century,  pp.  659 — 661.  What  version 
did  Hermas  use?  pp.  661,  662.  Traces  in  N.  T.  of  an  earlier 
version,  pp.  662 — 665  ;  also  in  Clement  Rom.,  p.  665  ;  and  in 
Baruch,  665,  666.  How  is  the  Chigi  Daniel  to  be  regarded  }  pp. 
667,  668. 


v'  " — " 

-      JUN  29  1":5     ^ 
^f     — -.   A 

I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 


Part  I. 

PRINCIPLES    OF   THE  INVESTIGATION. 

"  I  ^HE  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  Evi- 
dences. 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  pro- 
phecy 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  revela- 
tion 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 
Testament  Canon  comes  before  that  of  the  Old.  We 
must  first  determine  what  are  the  books  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  in- 
spired.     Next   after   the  question  of  the  Canon  comes 

B 


2  hitrodudory.  [i. 

that  of  Biblical  Criticism.  Supposing  it  to  be  estab- 
lished that  certain  books  were  written,  containing  an 
authoritative  record  of  Divine  revelations,  we  have  still 
to  inquire  whether  those  books  have  come  down  safely 
to  us — how  we  are  to  remove  all  the  errors  which  may- 
have  accumulated  in  the  process  of  transcription  during 
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  concerning  the  In- 
terpretation 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  not  man,  but 
God ;  that  there  may,  therefore,  often  be  a  meaning 
unknown  even  to  the  human  agent  who  was  commis- 
sioned 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  possi- 
bility of  any  such  inaccuracy,  can  we  put  any  limits  to 
our  concession  ? 

The  subjects  I  have  named — the  Canon,  the  Criti- 
cism, 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 


I.]  Principles  of  the  Investigation.  3 

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  ques- 
tion 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  investigation.  I  wish  to  examine  into  the 
evidence  for  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the 
books  of  the  Bible  in  the  same  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  ?  Quite  a  different  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  r  The  former 
is,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  a  question  of  vital  import- 
ance in  the  controversy  between  Christians  and  unbe- 
lievers ;  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  diffi- 
culty in  believing  also  that  He  endowed  with  special 
powers  those  whom  He  commissioned  to  write  the  reve- 
lation 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 

B  2 


4  hitroductory .  [i. 

inquiry  as  to  the  Inspiration  of  the  Gospels,  it  would  be 
of  the  utmost  importance  to  examine  whether  and  how 
far  this  allegation  is  true.  But  it  may  be  quite  pos- 
sible 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  experience  of 
anyone  who  has  ever  engaged  in  historical  investiga- 
tion to  have  to  reconcile  contradictions  between  his 
authorities ;  but  such  contradictions  must  reach  a  high 
point  in  number  and  amount  before  they  suggest  a  sus- 
picion that  the  opposing  statements  do  not  both  pro- 
ceed, 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  unin- 
spired 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  would  inter- 
pret any  other  book  apply  very  different  rules  in  deter- 
mining the  authorship  of  its  parts  from  what  are  used 
in  the  case  of  other  books.  If  we  were  to  apply  to  the 
remains  of  classical  literature  the  same  rigour  of  scru- 
tiny 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 


I.]]  Principles  of  the  Investigation,  5 

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  require- 
ments of  a  more  severe  critic,  who  might  demand  a 
distinct  proof  of  the  Horatian  origin  of  every  ode  of 
every  book  r  I  suppose  the  chances  are  that  you  would 
not  attempt  to  answer  these  questions,  because,  though 
you  probably  have  heard  of  the  theory  of  the  Jesuit 
Hardouin,  that  the  Odes  of  Horace  and  other  clas- 
sical 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  His- 
tory 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  cen- 
tury ;  yet  no  one  entertains  the  smallest  doubt  of  its 
genuineness.*     The   first   six   books  of  the   Annals   of 

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


6  Introductory.  [i. 

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  cen- 
tury 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  be- 
lieves that  the  traditional  doctrine  as  to  the  authorship 
is  true,  and  that  the  theory  of  later  date  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  lec- 
tures, 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  con- 
siderably 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  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  accounts  of  prodigies  which 
I  may  perhaps  think  Livy  credulous  for  believing,  yet  I 
am  not  on  that  account  in  the  slightest  degree  inclined 
to  doubt  that  Livy  was  the  author  of  the  history  which 
bears  his  name.     Still  more  does  the  remark  apply  to 


I.]  Principles  of  the  Investigation.  7 

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 
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  have  just  referred  relate  to 
events  which  were  supposed  to  have  occurred  a  long 
time  before  the  date  of  the  narrators.  When  honest 
and  intelligent  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  exception  to  the  ordinary  course  of  nature, 
to  say  that  an  account  of  a  miracle  is  not  likely  to  occur 
in  true  history,  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  criti- 
cism that  stories  embellished  with  miraculous  orna- 
ments 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  it- 
self 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  con- 
tended 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 


8  Introductory.  [i. 

been  related  by  an  eye-witness,  it  is  the  account  of  the 
voyage  and  shipwreck  of  St.  Paul.  I  recommend  to 
your  attention  the  very  interesting  monograph  of  Mr. 
Smith,  of  Jordan  Hill,  who  himself  sailed  over  the  en- 
tire 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.* 
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  criti- 
cism 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  famous  essay,  or  the  Decretal  Epistles,  pur- 

*  Davidson,  for  instance,  says  ('Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,'  ii. 
134) :  '  The  description  of  the  voyage  and  shipwreck  of  Paul  on  his  way  to 
Rome  is  minute  and  accurate,  proceeding  from  an  eye-witness.  A  few 
notices  here  and  there  betray  a  later  hand,  especially  those  which  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  Independent  Col- 
lege, published  an  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  in  three  volumes, 
1 848-5 1 .  In  this  the  main  lines  of  traditional  opinion  were  followed ;  but  his 
views  show  a  complete  alteration  in  the  new  Introduction,  in  two  volumes, 
which  he  pubUshed  in  1868.  My  quotation  is  from  the  second  edition  of  the 
ater  book,  published  in  1882. 


I.]]  Pri7iciples  of  the  Investigation.  9 

porting  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.  Por- 
phyry 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  Destruction  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  desola- 
tion. 

Now,  I  have  intimated  in  what  I  have  said  that  I 
am  ready,  within  reasonable  limits,  to  adopt  the  canons 
of  criticism  to  which  I  have  referred.  But  I  cannot 
admit  them  to  be  applicable  without  exception.  Mira- 
culous embellishments  may  be  a  ground  for  suspecting 
that  the  narrative  is  not  contemporaneous  with  the 
events  ;  but  if  it  is  asserted  that  miraculous  stories  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  Sulpicius  Severus,  is  full  of  the 
supernatural.  I  do  not  find  that  any  of  those  who  re- 
fuse to  believe  in  the  miraculous  stories  attempt  to 
justify  their  disbelief  by  maintaining  that  Sulpicius  was 


lo  Introductory.  [i. 

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  wit- 
nesses of  them  may  relate  them  in  true  histories.  In 
short,  if  miracle  and  prophecy  be  impossible,  there  is 
an  end  of  the  whole  matter.  Your  faith  is  vain,  and  our 
teaching  is  vain. 

Now,  this  principle,  namely,  the  absolute  impossi- 
bility of  miracle,  is  the  basis  of  the  investigations  of 
the  school,  some  of  whose  results  must  be  examined 
in  this  course  of  lectures.  Two  of  its  leading  writers, 
Strauss  and  Renan,  in  their  prefaces,  make  the  abso- 
lute rejection  of  the  supernatural  the  foundation  of  their 
whole  structure.  Renan*  (p.  lii.)  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  law. 
Straussf  equally,  in  his  preface  (p.xv.)  declares  it  to  be  his 
fundamental   principle   that   there  was   nothing  -super- 

*  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  his- 
tory of  the  Christian  Church.  The  last  volume,  bringing  the  history  down  to 
the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  was  published  in  1882.  The  references  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  Renan's  views  are  sufficiently  indicated  in  the  later  volumes  of 
his  series. 

t  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  contro- 
versy, and  stimulated  other  attempts  to  disprove  the  historic  credibility  of  the 
Gospel  narratives.     The  book  had  rather  fallen  into  oblivion  when,  in  1864, 


I.J  Principles  of  the  Investigation.  ii 

natural  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  Reli- 
gion/* The  extreme  captiousness  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  anyone  who  makes 
an  attempt  fairly  to  judge  of  evidence.  And  the  reason 
is,  that  the  author  starts  with  the  denial  of  the  super- 
natural 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  oppo- 
nents, 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  demon- 
strative. It  is  because,  to  their  minds,  any  solution  of 
a  difficulty  is  more  probable  than  one  which  would  con- 
cede that  a  miracle  had  really  occurred. 

Now,  it  has  become  more  and  more  plain  that,  if  it  be 

Strauss,  availing  himself  of  the  labours  of  those  who  had  written  in  the  inter- 
val, 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.' 

*  This  book,  published,  vols.  i.  and  ii.,  in  1874,  '^°^-  iii-  i^  1877,  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  \\\\}a.  learned  references,  strengthened  the  im- 
pression that  the  author  must  be  a  scholar  of  immense  reading.  The  wind- 
bag 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  Avish  here   to   remark 


1 2  Introductory.  [i. 

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  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  perfectly  unbiassed  mind  to  investi- 
gate the  history  of  our  sacred  books,  because  an  accept- 
ance 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  criticizing  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 

is,  that  what  really  made  the  book  worthless  was  not  its  want  of  scho- 
larship, but  its  want  of  candour.  An  indifferent  scholar,  if  he  were  indus- 
trious 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 
valuable  contribution  to  knowledge.  But  want  of  candour  vitiates  a  book 
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  historic  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  any  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  justi- 
fication of  his  refusal  to  admit  it. 

Lightfoot's  answers  to  '  Supernatural  Religion  '  appeared  in  the  Contem- 
porary Review,  December,  1874;  January,  February,  May,  August,  October, 
1875;  February  and  August,  1876;  May,  1877.  In  addition  to  their  tem- 
porary object  of  refutation,  these  articles  contain  so  much  of  permanent  value 
on  the  criticism  of  the  remains  of  the  second  century,  that  it  is  much  to  be 
regretted  that  they  have  not  been  republished. 

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


i.j]  Principles  of  the  Investigation.  13 

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  explanation. 
For  example,  according  to  him,  there  was  nothing  mi- 
raculous 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  producing  and  sharing  with  their  neighbours  what 
they  had  secretly  brought  each  for  himself,  and  so  all 
were  filled,  and  supposed  there  had  been  something  su- 
pernatural in  the  multiplication  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  move- 
ments conveyed  a  false  impression  to  the  spectators.  He 
so  far  believes  the  story  of  the  announcement  by  an  angel 
of  the  Saviour's  Incarnation  as  to  concede  that  the 
Virgin  Mary  truly  told  that  a  stranger  had  come  into 
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 

■  *  Paulus  ( 1 761-1851),  professor,  first  at  Jena,  afterwards  at  Heidelberg, 
published  his  '  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,'  1800  -1804,  and  his 
'Life  of  Jesus'  in  1828. 


14  Introductory.  [i. 

more  miraculous  one  than  if  we  take  the  Gospel  narra- 
tives in  their  literal  sense.  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to 
waste  words  in  exposing  these  absurdities,  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 
conceded,  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  are  not  written  by  eye-witnesses  of  the 
things  related,  but  are  legends  put  together  at  a  con- 
siderable interval  of  time  after  the  supposed  events. 
How  Jesus  of  Nazareth  succeeded  in  collecting  a  num- 
ber of  disciples,  and  in  inspiring  them  with  a  persuasion 
not  to  be  shaken  by  the  unhappy  end  of  His  life,  that  He 
was  the  promised  Messiah,  Strauss  very  imperfectly  ex- 
plains. 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  so  forth  ;  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 

*  '  Sind  die  Evangelien  wirklich  geschichtliche  Urkunden,  so  ist  das  Wun- 
der  aus  der  Lebensgeschichte  Jesu  niclit  zu  cntfernen.'' — Lehen  jfesu,  p.  17. 


I.]  Principles  of  the  Investigation.  15 

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  per- 
ceptible shifting  of  ground  from  his  original  work  pub- 
lished 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  rejec- 
tion of  the  supernatural ;  and'this  I  single  out  because 
the  investigation  in  which  I  wish  to  engage  you  pro- 
ceeds 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  Chris- 
tian 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  know- 
ledge 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  do  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  re- 
fuse to  listen  to  all  evidence  for  such  a  fact  when  it  is 
offered. 


1 6  Introductory.  [ii. 

II. 

Part  II. 

baur's  theory  of  early  church  history. 

In  his  new  Life  of  Jesus,  Strauss  has  greatly  availed 
himself  of  the  labours  ofBaur*  and  of  the  school  founded 
by  him,  called  sometimes,  from  his  place  of  residence, 
the  Tubingen  school,  or  from  the  nature  of  their  theo- 
ries, the  Tendency  school.*  It  will  be  advisable  to  give 
you,  by  way  of  preface  to  our  course,  some  short  ac- 
count 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  as  to  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  cer- 
tain speculations  are  deserving  of  regard,  which  repre- 
sent 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  books  are  not 
the  innocent,  purposeless  collection  of  legendary  tales  for 
which  the  disciples  of  Strauss  might  take  them  ;  all,  even 

*  F.  C.  Baur  (1792-1860)  published  in  the  Tiibingen  'Zeitschrift'  for 
1831  a  paper  on  the  Christ-party  in  the  Church  of  Corinth,  which  contained 
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. 


II.]      Baur^  s  Theory  of  Early  Church  History.  17 

those  which  seem  least  artful,  are  put  together  with  a 
purpose,  and  have  a  '■tendency.^  Just  as  of  Mr.  Dickens's 
novels,  one  is  intended  to  expose  the  abuses  of  the  Poor 
Law  system,  another  of  the  Court  of  Chancery,  another  of 
Ecclesiastical  Courts,  and  so  forth ;  so  each  of  the  Chris- 
tian books,  however  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  existing  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  compared  with  the  others 
which  are  to  be  discussed  in  this  course  of  lectures, 
being  not  older  than  the  very  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. I  speak  of  the  spurious  literature  attributed  to 
Clement  of  Rome,  a  favourite  character  with  the  manu- 
facturers of  apocryphal  literature  in  the  second  or  third 
century.  The  history  of  these  writings  is  so  remark- 
able, 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 

C 


1 8  Introductory.  [ii. 

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  popu- 
larity 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  sought  in  vain  among  the  schools  of  the  philosophers, 
but  there  found  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  him,  arrives  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  but  meets 
Peter,  and  is  instructed  and  converted  by  him.  Tra- 
velling 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  '  Cle- 
mentine 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  '  Recog- 
nitions' the  repulsive  features  of  Ebionitism  are  softened 
down,  so  as  to  make  the  book  not  altogether  unfit  for 
use  among  the  orthodox,  and  in  fact  the  *  Recogni- 
tions'  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 


II.]       Baur^  s  Theory  of  Early  Church  Histoiy.         19 

into  Church  tradition.  In  particular,  this  Clemen- 
tine 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  figment.  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  over  in  silence,  Peter 
figuring  as  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  as  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  declaring  that  he  was  *  to  be 
blamed.'*  Many  a  reader  might  innocently  over- 
look the  malice  of  these  expressions ;  but  when  atten- 
tion is  called  to  them,  we  can  hardly  deny  that  the 
coincidence  of  language  with  that  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  leads  to  the  surmise  that  under  the  character 
of  Simon  a  reference  to  Paul  is  cloked ;  and  that  Paul  is 
intended  by  the  enemy,  6  ^xOpog  avdpwn-og,  who  opposed 
St.  Peter  and  St.  James.     We  see  also  what  interpreta- 

*  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  '  ivavTios  avQ4(rTr\K<is  juoi,'  '  Kareyfucr/nivov  /xe  Aeyets '  {Horn, 
xvii.  19). 

C  2 


20  Introductory.  fii. 

tion  is  to  be  put  on  a  controversy  as  to  relative  supe- 
riority between  Simon  Magus,  who  claims  to  have  seen 
our  Lord  in  visiofi,  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 
clokes  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 
as  an  apostate.  This  book,  then,  may  be  regarded  as  a 
specimen  of  the  feelings  tow^ards  Paul  of  an  early  sec- 
tion 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  subsequent 
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  cloke  their 
hatred  under  disguises.  At  the  same  time  we  have,  in 
another  corner  of  the  Church,  the  Marcionites,*  who  re- 
cognize no  Apostle  but  Paul,  who  utterly  reject  the  Jewish 
religion  and  the  Old  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   developments,   but   survivals   of  a 

*  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. ]]       Baiir'' s  Theory  of  Early  Church  History.         21 

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  condemned  by  the  great  mass  of  existing  be- 
lievers, of  whose  feelings  towards  Paul  these  Clementine 
writings  are  regarded  as  a  fair  specimen ;  that  the  repre- 
sentations 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  op- 
posed to  each  other. 

Such  is  the  general  outline  of  the  theory ;  but  specu- 
lation has  particularly  run  wild  on  the  assault  on  Paul 
in  the  Clementines  under  the  mask  of  Simon  Magus. 
Sceptical  critics  jump  at  the  conclusion  that  Simon 
Magus  was  the  nickname  under  which  Paul  was  gene- 
rally 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  Paulinism, 
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  recog- 
nition 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  ima- 
gine 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  successive  schemes 


2  2  Introductory.  [ii. 

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  distinct  kinds  of  Ebionites.  One  kind  we  may  call 
Pharisaic  Ebionites,  who  may  be  regarded  as  repre- 
senting those  who  strove  to  combine  the  acknowledg- 
ment 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.*  Among  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  appeared  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  Pen- 
tateuch alone  was  used  by  them,  and  of  this  large  parts 
were  cut  out  as  interpolated.  You  will  remember  that 
Paley,  in  his  *  Evidences,'  quotes  the  apocryphal  Gos- 
pel according  to  the  Hebrews  as  ascribing  to  our  Lord 

*  On  these  two  kinds  of  Ebionites,  see  Liglitfoot'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  recog- 
nized, 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.  J        Baler's  Theory  of  Early  Church  History.        23 

the  saying,  *  Be  ye  good  money-changers.'  This  they  in- 
terpreted as  a  direction  not  to  be  deceived  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 
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  anta- 
gonists in  the  Christian  Church.  The  true  history  of 
these  people  seems  to  have  been  that,  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  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  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  in- 
stance, 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  anti- 
quity 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  im- 
proved, first  into  the  form  known  as  the  '  Recognitions,' 


24  Introductory.  [ii. 

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  afterthought.  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  re- 
ferred 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  igno- 
rant of  it. 

As  the  anti-Pauline  party  is  judged  of  by  the  Ebio- 
nites  of  the  second  century,  so  the  school  of  Marcion  is 
supposed  to  represent  the  opposing  party.  Thus  the 
Christian  society  is  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  ex- 
perience that  theological  schisms  heal  up  so  rapidly  and 
so  completely  that  in  fifty  years  no  trace  remains  of  them, 
nor  even  memory  of  their  existence.  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 
Pauline  and  anti-Pauline  parties  in  the  early  Church  by 
comparison  with  the   documentary  evidence  ;    and   the 


II.]       Baler's  Theory  of  Early  Church  History.         25 

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  interpreted  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  de- 
nied. 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,  there- 
fore, cannot  be  true  history.  Not  only  the  discourses 
•ascribed  to  Peter  in  the  Acts,  but  the  first  Epistle, 
which  the  ancient  Church  unanimously  accepted  as 
Peter's,  is  thoroughly  Pauline  in  doctrine.  We  must, 
therefore,  disregard  ancient  testimony,  and  reject  the 
Epistle.  The  earliest  uninspired  Christian  document, 
the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome,  confessedly  belongs  to 
the  conciliatory  school,  Peter  and  Paul  being  placed  in 
it  on  equal  terms  of  reverence  and  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,  *  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  rite  of  sacrifice,  and  IMarcion  that 
the  New  Testament  did  not  recognize  the  God  of 
the  Jews.  But  one  has  a  right  to  suspect  any  theo- 
rizer  if,  in  order  to  clear  the  ground  for  a  foundation 
for    his   theory,    he    has    to    begin    by   getting   rid   of 


26  Introductory.  |~ii. 

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,  notwithstanding  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  elabo- 
rating this  system.  The  first  is  a  specimen  which  is 
thought  by  those  who  have  discovered  it  to  be  an  ex- 
ceedingly good  and  striking  one.  St.  Matthew  (vii.  22, 
2-^^  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  makes  our  Lord 
speak  of  men  who  say,  '  Lord,  Lord, '  and  who  will, 
at  the  last  da}?-,  appeal  to  their  prophesying,  their  driv- 
ing out  devils,  and  their  doing  of  miracles  in  the 
name  of  Jesus,  but  who  will  be  rejected  by  Him 
as  doers  of  lawlessness  (ayojutac),  whom  He  had  never 
known.  It  may  surprise  you  to  hear  that  this  sen- 
tence 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  (xiii.  26)  is  highly  com- 
plimented for  the  skill  with  which  he  turns  this  Jewish 
anti-Pauline  saying  into  one  of  a  Pauline  anti-Jewish 
character.  He  substitutes  the  word  aStKi'ac,  '  injustice,' 
for  avo/xiag,  'lawlessness,'  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,  notwithstanding, 
shall  be  told  by  Him  to  depart  as  doers,  not  of  ayojutac, 
but  of  iniquity,  and  shall  break  forth  into  loud  weeping 
when  they  see  people  coming  from  the  east  and  west, 


II.]       Baurs  Theoiy  of  Early  Church  History.        2"] 

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.'  It  is  contended  that, 
whereas  St.  Matthew  represents  the  Apostles  as  directed 
to  speak  in  the  light  and  on  the  housetops,  St.  Luke 
turns  the  phrase  into  the  passive — the  proclamation 
shall  be  by  other  than  the  Apostles  ;  namely,  by  St, 
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  ad- 
mission of  Gentiles  ?  It  opens  (ii.  i)  with  an  account 
of  Gentile  Magi  from  the  distant  East  coming  to  wor- 
ship the  infant  Saviour.  In  the  first  chapter  which 
records  any  miracle  (viii.  5),  we  have  an  account  of  one 
performed  at  the  request  of  a  Gentile,  who  is  com- 
mended as  exhibiting  faith  not  to  be  found  in  Israel ; 
and  on  this  occasion  there  is  taught  the  doctrine  of  the 
admission  of  the  Gentiles,  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,  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 


28  Introductory  [ii. 

the  Gentile  centurion  of  St.  Matthew  is  in  St.  Luke 
made  a  kind  of  Jewish  proselyte — *He  loveth  our  na- 
tion, and  hath  built  us  a  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  w4th  a  keen  eye  for  *  ten- 
dency,' 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'  (xxvii.  19).  Pilate  himself 
washes  his  hands  before  the  multitude,  and  declares 
that  he  is  '  innocent  of  the  blood  of  that  just  person.' 
The  Jews  accept  the  awful  burden,  and  exclaim,  *  His 
blood  be  on  us,  and  on  our  children '  [tb.  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  charac- 
terized as  strongly  anti-Jewish — namely,  that  the  uncon- 
verted members  of  the  Jewish  nation  are  spoken  of  as 
'the  Jews,'  implying  that  the  Christians  were  an  entirely 
separate  community.  In  the  last  chapter  of  St.  Mat- 
thew {v.  15)  we  have,  *  This  saying  is  commonly  reported 
among  "the  Jews"  unto  this  day.'  When  it  is  at- 
tempted to  get  rid  of  these  evidences  of  anti- Jewish  ten- 
dency 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 


II.]       Bate/  s  Theory  of  Early  Church  History.        29 

Matthew  contained  just  whatever  he  likes.  But  no 
theory  can  be  said  to  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  hos- 
tility which,  according  to  Baur's  theory,  existed  between 
the  two  great  sections  of  the  early  Church ;  and,  there- 
fore, these  documents  are  condemned  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  acknowledges  only  five  of 
our  books  as  genuine  remnants  of  the  Apostolic  age — four 
Epistles  of  Paul  and  the  Apocalypse.  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  dis- 
tinguish true  from  false.  But  these  Epistles  have,  in 
Baur's  eyes,  the  further  recommendation,  that  they  are 
those  in  which  Paul  has  to  deal  with  his  Jewish  oppo- 
nents, 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.  Afterwards,  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  rela- 
tions to  the  heads  of  the  Jerusalem  Church,  exhibited 


30  Introductory.  [ii. 

in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  is  irreconcilable  with 
that  presented  by  the  Acts.  If,  indeed,  anyone  ima- 
gines that  the  Apostles  were  not  men  of  like  passions 
with  ourselves,  and  therefore  counts  it  a  thing  impos- 
sible that  one  should  feel  or  express  dissatisfaction  with 
the  conduct  of  another ;  if  he  cannot  believe  that  they 
should  be  differently  influenced  by  different  aspects  ot 
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  mis- 
take. 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  whatBaur'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  com- 
mon policy ;  but  rather  like  the  differences  which  sepa- 
rate the  leaders  of  opposite  parties,  or  even  of  hostile 
states.  The  most  Ultramontane  Roman  Catholic  could 
not  think  worse  of  Martin  Luther  than,  if  we  believe  our 
modern  guides,  the  members  of  the  Church  at  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  of  the  circumcision. 
But  the  most  wonderful  part  of  the  theory  is  the  al- 

*  '  Jamais,  en  effet,  I'Eglise  chretienne  ne  porta  dans  son  sein  une  cause 
de  schisme  aussi  profonde  que  celle  qui  I'agitait  en  ce  moment.  Luther  et  le 
scolastique  le  plus  routinier  diiferaient  moins  que  Paul  et  Jacques.' — Renan, 
'  St.  Paul,'  p.  289. 


III.]         TJie  Ariii-Paulinism  of  the  Apocalypse.  31 

leged  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  forgiving  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 
organized  conspiracy  against  him  wherever  he  taught ! 
Surely  this  is  a  theory  not  so  recommended  by  proba- 
bility 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. 


III. 
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  anticipations  of  the  future,  which 
have  been  falsified  by  the  event.     In  owning  the  book 


3  2  Introductory.  [iii. 

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  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  that  the  differ- 
ence in  style  between  this  book  and  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John  proves  that  both  could  not  have  the  same 
author.  This  argument  has  been  eagerly  adopted  by 
the  modern  school,  only  with  a  reversal  of  its  applica- 
tion. 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  ac- 
cording 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  of 
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.  q)  : — *  I  will  make  them  of 
the  synagogue  of  Satan  which  say  they  are  Jews  and 
are  not,  but  do  lie,  to  come  and  worship)  at  thy  feet.' 


III.]         The  Anti-Paulinisni  of  the  Apocalypse.  -^Z 

We  are  asked  to  believe  that  those  false  Jews,  with 
whom  St.  John  has  broken  so  entirel}''  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  at  Pergamos  those  are  con- 
demned (ii.  14,  15)  who  'hold  the  doctrine  of  Balaam,'  and 
also  those  '  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicolaitans.'  It 
had  been  conjectured  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  (f .  11).  For 
though  that  Epistle  is  one  for  which  we  cannot  produce 
as  early  testimony  as  for  the  rest,  and  is  consequently 
not  admitted  into  Baur's  meagre  collection  of  genuine 
Apostolic  Letters,  yet  the  temptation  is  great  to  gain 

D 


34  Introductory.  [iii. 

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  theflesh,  despised  dominions, 
and  spoke  evil  of  dignities'  (namely,  of  the  original  twelve 
Apostles),  and  who  *  ran  greedily  in  the  way  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  consist- 
ent with  the  character  of  the  outspoken  'son  of  Thunder' 
(either  as  that  character  is  made  known  to  us  by  Scrip- 
ture, or  in  the  traditional  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  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  intelligible  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 


III.  J        The  Anti-Paulhiism  of  the  Apocalypse.  35 

credible  that  the  tradition  should  have  completely  pe- 
rished 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  r 

It  is  worth  while  to  remark  how  singularly  obtuse 
the  Paulinist  party  were  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  as- 
saults levelled  against  their  master ;  or  at  least  at  what 
an  early  date  all  knowledge  as  to  the  true  meaning  of 
these  assaults  had  perished.  I  have  already  remarked 
how  innocently  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
tells  the  story  of  Simon  ]\Iagus,  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  con- 
demning the  eating  meat  offered  to  idols  and  fornica- 
tion, in  evident  ignorance  that  these  two  things  were 
prominent  heads  of  the  accusation  brought  against  the 
Pauline  Christians  by  their  Jewish  opponents.  Nay, 
St.  Paul  himself  is  represented  as  concurring  in  the  con- 
demnation, and  as  actively  employed  in  disseminating  it 
XV.  2^  ;  xvi.  4).  Once  more,  the  author  of  the  Second 
Epistle  of  Peter  (who,  if  he  were  not  Peter  himself,  cer- 
tainly wrote  at  an  early  date,  and  was  an  ardent  admirer 
of  Paul  (ch.  iii.  i^.  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  intended. 

I  shall  have  occasion  to  say  something  hereafter  as  to 
the  use  of  tradition  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture, 
and  the  present  instance  serves  very  well  to  illustrate 

D  2 


35  Introductory.  [in. 

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  in- 
stead 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  tra- 
dition had  preserved  correctly  the  interpretation  put 
on  these  documents  by  those  to  whom  they  were  first 
addressed,  and  to  inquire  dispassionately  whether  that 
interpretation  were  the  right  one.  But  an  interpreta- 
tion 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 — 
'  Other  sheep  I  have  which  are  not  of  this  fold.'  We 
read,  indeed,  in  the  Apocalypse  of  a  sealing  of  12,000 
out  of  each  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  (vii.  4-8) ;  but  imme- 
diately after  the  account  of  the  bringing  in  of  this  large 
but  still  finite  number  of  Jews  there  follows  :  '  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 


III.]         The  Anti-Paulinism  of  the  Apocalypse.  37 

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,  which  is 
the  mother  of  us  all '  (Gal.  iv.  26.)  For  the  literal 
Jerusalem  the  Apocalypse  has  no  more  complimen-} 
tary  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  reference  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  strenu- 
ously the  notion  that  the  Jew  was  to  possess  exclusive 
privileges  in  Christ's  kingdom,  and  that  circumcision 
was  to  be  the  condition  of  admission  to  it,  still  re- 
tained, as  was  natural  in  a  Jew  by  birth,  his  attach- 
ment to  the  name  of  Jew  and  the  name  of  circum-i 
cision.  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  theyi 
were  the  true  Jews — theirs  the  only  true  circumcision.  In 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (ii.  1 1)  he  speaks  of  his  Gen- 
tile followers  as  those  '  who  were  called  uncircumcision 
by  that  which  is  called  the  circumcision  in  the  flesh,  made 
with  hands.'  He  tells  these  Gentiles  (Col.  ii.  11)  'ye  are 
circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands, 
in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  cir-' 
cumcision  of  Christ.'  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians, 
when  about  to  give  to  the  Jews  the  name  of  the  cir- 
cumcision, he  checks  himself,  and   calls   them    instead 


38  Introductory.  [iii. 

the  '  concision ' ;  '  for  we,'  he  sa3'^s,  *  are  the  circum- 
cision, which  worship  God  in  the  spirit,  and  rejoice  in 
Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  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.  13.)  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 
outwardly,  neither  is  that  circumcision  which  is  outward 
in  the  flesh :  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly,  and 
circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  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  and  of  circumcision  cling  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  can- 
not 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  adver- 
saries 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.  (Eus. 
H.  E.  iv.  15.) 

As  little  need  it  be  supposed  that  in  those  '  who 
say  that  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not,'  we  must  re- 
cognize St.  Paul.  Here  again  we  have  an  exact  par- 
allel in  St.  Paul's  Epistles  :  *  Such  are  false  apostles, 
deceitful    workers,    transforming    themselves    into   the 


III.]         The  Anti-Paulinism  of  the  Apocalypse.  39 

apostles  of  Christ'  (2  Cor,  xi.  13).  And  if  any  proof  were 
needed  of  the  falsity  of  the  assertion  that  the  Ephe- 
sian  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  Renan's 
hypothesis,  the  Church  of  Ephesus  had  at  the  commence- 
ment been  beguiled  into  accepting  Paul's  pretensions, 
and  therefore  would  be  bound  to  look  back  with  some 
shame  and  regret  on  its  early  simplicity.  Is  there  any 
trace  of  this  in  the  Apocalyptic  Epistles  ?  Nay  ;  the. 
first  state  of  the  Church  is  recalled  as  its  palmy  days.  1 
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  survivor,  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  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 
received  date  of  Clement's  Roman  Epistle — Paul  is  uni-  ^ 
versally  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 
necessary  in   refuting   an   utterly   baseless  hypothesis; 


40  Introductory.  [iii. 

but  my  excuse  is,  that  this  hypothesis  is  treated  as 
authentic  history  in  almost  all  modern  works  in  Eng- 
land, 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. 

T  F  I  were  lecturing  on  Christian  Evidences,  I  should 
-*-  commence  my  examination  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  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  autobiographical  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's.  We  have  thus  the  fullest 
information  what  Paul  believed  and  taught,  and  to 
what  sourcgs  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  dis- 


42     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [iv. 

cussing  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  others  who 
claimed  to  be  original  witnesses  of  the  Resurrection. 
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  confirmed  their  testimony 
by  their  sufferings,  then,  full  of  miracles  as  our  Gospels 
are,  it  has  been  found  practically  impossible  to  refuse 
belief  to  them.  But  if  the  Gospels  were  written  a  hun- 
dred 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 
miraculous  story  outweighs  second-hand  testimony  sepa- 
rated from  the  original  witnesses  by  so  long  an  interval. 
Of  the  two,  however,  it  is  a  more  vital  matter  with  unbe- 
lievers 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 


IV.]  The  End  of  the  Second  Century.  43 


greater  part  of  the  wonderful  works  of  the  Saviour's 
life,  the  great  miracle  of  the  Resurrection  remains  un- 
touched. 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,  according  to  the  Scriptures ;  that  he 
was  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day,  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures ;  and  that  he  was  seen  of 
Cephas,  then  of  the  twelve  ;  after  that  he  was  seen  of 
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  doc- 
trine, 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  confes- 
sion, already  quoted,  that  if  the  Gospels  be  recognized 
as  historical  sources,  miracle  cannot  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  undisputed  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 


44     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,   [iv. 

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,  Cle- 
ment in  Alexandria,  and  Tertullian  in  Carthage.  There 
were,  indeed,  current  other  Gospels,  used  not  only  by 
heretical  parties,  but  sometimes  appealed  to  by  ortho- 
dox 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,'  §  lo, 
p.  47).  I  will  speak  a  little  about  each  of  these  wit- 
nesses— 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  regarded  as  of  superior 
authority,  that  doubt  had  been  removed  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  180.*  But  Irenaeus  not  only  represents  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Galilean  Church ;  he  had  been  himself 
brought  up  in  Asia  Minor,  from  which  country  Gaul 
had,   as  we  have   every  reason   to  believe,  derived   its 

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


IV.]  Irenccus.  45 

Christianity  as  well  as  its  early  civilization.  There  re- 
mains (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 
guote  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  Testa- 
ment were  written,  and  who  must  have  mixed  with  men 
contemporary  with  St.  John.  His  presbyter  and  succes- 
sor, Irenaeus,  w^as  united  by  other  links  to  the  times 
of  the  Apostles.  He  tells  us  how  well  he  remembered 
Polycarp,*  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  to  St.  John,  and  to  others  who 
had  seen  our  Lord  ;  how  he  used  to  repeat  from  memory 
their  discourses  which  he  had  heard  from  them  concern- 
ing our  Lord,  His  miracles  and  His  mode  of  teaching ; 
and  how,  being  instructed  himself  by  those  who  were 
eye-witnesses  of  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 

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


46    Receptmi  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [iv. 


'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  Irenseus  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  interest^ 
ing  as  preserving  an  account  of  a  New  Testament 
various  reading  not  to  be  found  in  any  of  our  existing 
Greek  manuscripts.  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.  i8j.  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  (ill.  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  guard- 
ing 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  inspiration,  of  the  Gospels. 

I  dare  say  you  have  also  heard  of  his  reasons  why 
there  are  exactly  four  Gospels,  neither  more  nor  less.  He 
argues  (ill.  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 

*  Potuerat  dicere  Matthaeus,  'Jesu  vero  generatio  sic  erat';  sed  praevidens 
Spiiitus  Sanctus  depravatores  et  praemuniens  contra  fraudulentiam  eonim, 
per  Matthaeum  ait  '  Ciiristi  autem  generatio  sic  erat.' 


IV.]  IrencBtis.  47 

be  four  Gospels.  Again,  the  Gospel  is  the  divine 
breath,  or  wind  of  life,  for  men  ;  there  are  four  chief 
winds  ;  therefore,  four  Gospels.  He  builds  another  argu- 
ment 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,  signifying  His 
priestly  office ;  the  third  like  a  man,  denoting  His  In- 
carnation ;  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  de- 
scent 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  appor- 
tionment 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. 

But  Irenseus  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  oversha- 
dowing 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  de- 
siring to  seem  to  have  found  out  more  than  the  truth,  or 
rejecting  part  of  God's  dispensation.  The  main  point  in 
this  quotation  is,   that  Irenseus    considers  the   fourfold 


48    Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,   [iv. 

character  of  the  Gospels  to  have  been  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  Irenseus  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  tes- 
timony 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  re- 
cords 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,  accord- 
ing to  the  hypothesis,  his  master  Polycarp  had  never 
told  him  a  word  ?     For   Polycarp,  who,   as  I  said  just 

*  '  Diese  seltsame  Beweisfiihrung  ist  zwar  niclit  so  zu  verstehen,  als  waren 
die  angegebenen  Umstande  dei-  Grund  gewescn,  warum  Ireniius  nicht  melir 
und  nicht  weniger  Evangelien  annahm  ;  vielmehr  hatten  sich  diese  vier  eben 
damals  in  den  Kreisen  der  nach  Glaubenseinheit  strebenden  katholischen 
Kirche  in  vorziiglichen  Credit  gesetzt,  und  dieses  gegebene  Verhaltniss  suchte 
sich  Irenaus  ini  Geiste  seiner  Zeit  zurechtzulegen  '  (§  10,  p.  48). 


IV 


,]  Irenccits.  49 


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  con- 
vince Irenseus  that  it  was  an  audacious  imposture.  And 
again,  it  is  impossible  that  Polycarp  could  have  ac- 
cepted as  genuine  a  work  of  which  he  had  never  heard 
his  master,  John,  speak.  There  are,  in  short,  three 
links  in  the  chain — St.  John,  Polycarp,  IrenaBus  ;  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  conclu- 
sions 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  ima- 
gines 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  Irenseus,  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 

E 


50     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Chureh.  [iv. 

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  con- 
clude that  the  time  of  their  appearance  was  beyond  then 
living  memory.  Well,  then,  what  we  have  thus  learned 
from  Irenseus  is  of  important  use  when  we  come  pre- 
sently 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  Irenaeus,  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  verdict  of  another  large  portion  of  the  Christian 
world.  Clement*  of  Alexandria  lived  in  what  was  per- 
haps 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  person- 
ally connected  with  disciples  of  the  Apostles.  And 
Clement  travelled  and  learned  from  other  instructors 
of  various  nations,  whose  names  he  does  not  tell  us,  but 
only  their  nationalities,  an  Ionian,  a  Syrian,  an  Egyp- 
tian, an  Assyrian,  a  Hebrew  in  Palestine.  'These 
men,'  as  he  says,  '  preserving  the  true  tradition  of  the 
blessed  teaching  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 

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


IV.]  Clement  of  Alexandria.  5 1 

us  those  seeds  of  truth  which  were  derived  from  their 
ancestors  and  the  Apostles'  [Strom,  i.  1 1).  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  ]\Iat- 
thew's  and  Luke's.  That,  like  Irenaeus,  he  recognized 
as  authoritative  four  Gospels,  neither  more  nor  less, 
may  be  inferred  from  the  manner  in  which  he  deals 
with  a  saying  ascribed  to  our  Lord  [Strom,  iii.  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.'*  Besides  this  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  the  Egyptians,  he  was  acquainted  with  other 
apocryphal  writings  —  a  Gospel  according  to  the  He- 
brews, Traditions  of  Matthias,  and  others  ;  but  the 
passage  I  have  just  cited  is  evidence  enough  that,  in 
his  estimation,  no  other  account  of  the  Saviour's  deeds 
or  words  stood  on  the  level  of  the  four  Gospels. 

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  cen- 
tury witnesses  on  opposite  sides.     And  the  general  type 

*  Some  have  doubted  whether  Clement  had  himself  seen  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Egyptians.  He  had  said  a  little  before  that  'he  thought'  {olti.a.t)  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. 

E  2 


52     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [iv. 

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,  Tertul- 
lian,*  who  also  lived  at  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
represents  a  different  section  of  the  Church — the  Latin- 
speaking  section ;  and  Tertullian,  though  himself  a 
Greek  scholar,  habitually  used  a  Latin  version  made 
before  his  time.  Nothing  need  be  said  as  to  Tertul- 
lian's  use  of  the  Gospels,  about  which  there  is  as  little 
question  as  about  my  own  use  of  them;  but  a  few  remarks 
may  be  made  as  to  this  version.  The  first  Latin  trans- 
lation does  not  appear  to  have  been  made,  as  one  might 
have  expected,  for  the  use  of  the  Roman  Christians. 
Rome  under  the  Emperors  was  in  great  measure,  as 
Juvenal  called  it,  a  Greek  city,  and  Greek  was  its  second 
language.  As  far  as  we  can  learn,  the  great  bulk  of  the 
early  Christians  in  Rome  were  not  native  Romans,  but 
belonged  to  that  large  foreign  element  in  the  population 
of  the  city,  which  habitually  spoke  Greek.  What  we 
know  of  London  enables  us  easily  to  realise  the  foreign 
element  in  Rome.  It  is  said  that  there  are  in  London 
more  Irishmen  than  in  Dublin,  more  Frenchmen  than 
in  any  French  city  except  Paris,  and  similarly  for  other 
nationalities.  Rome,  as  the  world's  metropolis,  had 
even  greater  attractions  for  strangers  than  London  ;  and 

*  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  he  continued  his  literary  activity  some  thirty  years 
longer. 


IV.]  The  Latin  Version.  53 

the  population,  besides,  included  a  large  proportion  of 
slaves,  all  necessarily  foreigners.  It  would,  therefore,  not 
in  the  least  surprise  me  if  it  turned  out  that  in  the  time  of 
Nero  there  were  more  Jews  in  Rome  than  in  Jerusalem  ; 
these  Jewish  residents  in  foreign  parts  being  known  to 
their  brethren  at  home  as  Hellenists,  from  their  habitual 
use  of  the  Greek  language.  It  was,  no  doubt,  to  this  Jew- 
ish colony  in  Rome  that  the  Gospel  first  found  admission, 
working  its  way  by  a  process  of  slow  diffusion,  first  to 
other  foreign  settlers  in  Rome,  then  to  Greek-speaking 
Romans,  whether  Jewish  proselytes  or  friends  of  Judaism, 
last  of  all  to  the  Latin-speaking  population.  It  was  to 
speakers  of  Greek  that  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
was  addressed.  Ancient  tradition  describes  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Mark  as  composed  for  the  use  of  Roman  Chris- 
tians (Clem.  Alex.,  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  14);  and  this  har- 
monizes with  the  occurrence  of  Latin  words  in  this  Gos- 
pel :  KoS/jai'rrjc,  xii.  42  ;  K£vruptwv,  XV.  39,  44,  where  in  the 
parallel  passages  Matth.  and  Luke  have  l/caroi/rapx'JC  J 
(77r£KOi;Xartu/>,  vi.  27;  ivMvov  iroieXv,  for  satisfacere^'&N.  15; 
though  one  dare  not  lay  too  great  stress  on  this  topic, 
for  some  Latin  words  forced  themselves  into  use  all  over 
the  empire,  and  are  to  be  found  in  other  New  Testament 
books,  and  in  early  Christian  writings  not  composed  at 
Rome.  In  any  case,  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome,  in 
the  name  of  his  Church,  was  written  in  Greek ;  so  was 
also  another  early  Roman  production,  the  '  Shepherd  of 
Hermas.'  In  the  long  list  of  salutations  at  the  end  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  only  four  Latin  names  occur. 
In  the  list  of  Roman  bishops  of  the  first  two  centuries 
only  two  Latin  names  occur,  until  about  the  year  1 90  we 
come  to  Victor,  after  which  Greek  and  Latin  names 
alternate  for  a  while.  Of  the  inscriptions  in  the  Roman 
catacombs  belonging  to  the  second  and  third  centuries 


54  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,     [iv. 

half  are  Greek,  and,  what  is  curious,  some  of  the  Latin 
ones  are  in  Greek  characters,  which  suggests  that  the 
stonecutters  who  made  them  were  more  familiar  with 
working  in  Greek.  It  has  been  conjectured  with  good 
reason  that  Greek  was  at  first  the  liturgical  language  of 
the  Church  of  Rome.  Many  Greek  words  continued 
long  in  Roman  liturgical  use,  and  the  words  Kyrie  Elei- 
son,  Christe  Eleison^  remain  down  to  our  own  time. 

But  meanwhile  Christianity  rapidly  spread  in  Africa, 
where  Greek  was  not  a  current  dialect.  Latin  was  the 
language  of  the  African  Church,  and  we  have  certain  evi- 
dence that  they  had  a  Latin  translation  of  the  Scriptures. 
In  fact  the  Christian  custom  of  making  the  reading  of 
the  Bible  a  part  of  the  public  worship  made  translations 
a  thing  of  necessity  wherever  the  original  language  was 
not  understood ;  for  I  need  not  say  that  public  worship 
in  an  unknown  tongue  was  then  unheard  of.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  early  Latin  version  has  been  held  to  bear 
unmistakeable  traces  of  its  African  origin,  as  appears 
from  comparing  it  with  the  productions  of  African  writ- 
ers. I  would  hardly  venture  to  insist  very  strongly  on  this 
argument,  because  I  believe  that  what  is  called  African 
Latin  did  not  materially  differ  from  the  type  of  the  lan- 
guage used  by  the  less  highly  cultured  in  Italy.  I  have 
therefore  dwelt  at  greater  length  on  the  proofs  that 
Rome  was  that  part  of  the  West  which  could  longest 
afford  to  do  without  a  Latin  translation ;  whence  we 
have  less  hesitation  in  accepting  the  indications  pre- 
sented by  style,  that  the  early  Latin  translation  was 
first  made  for  the  use  of  those  flourishing  towns  in 
Northern  Africa  which  kept  up  too  active  an  intercourse 
with  Rome  to  be  long  strangers  to  Christianity,  but 
where  there  was  no  such  mixture  of  Greek-speaking 
people  as  in  Rome  itself. 


IV.  J  Tertullian.  55 

We   have   abundant    evidence   from  Tertullian  that 
there  was  in  his  time  a  Latin  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment current  in  Africa,  for  he  more  than  once  finds  fault 
with  its  renderings,  one  of  them  being  that  of  the  first 
verse  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  in  which  the  word  *  Logos ' 
was  translated  by  Sermo,  which  thus  became  its  African 
equivalent.     Tertullian  would  have   preferred    *  Ratio  ' 
[adv.  Praxeam  5).    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  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  eternity  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  unanimously  interpret 
the  description  of  Wisdom  in  the  8th  of  Proverbs,  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   re- 
ceived by  the  Arians  as  well  as  the  orthodox. 

Now  this  fact,  that  Tertullian  had  in  use  a  version 
the  renderings  of  which  he  criticized,  throws  back  the 
range  of  Tertullian's  testimony.  We  must  allow  some 
considerable  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 


56   Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,    [iv. 

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  estab- 
lished rank.  That  is  to  say,  at  the  time  when  it  is 
doubted  if  our  Gospels  were  born,  we  find  their  children 
full  grown. 

I  believe,  then,  that  if  anyone  fairly  weighs  all 
that  is  involved  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  Tes- 
tament 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  further  evi- 
dence, 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  Tes- 
tament Scriptures.  There  is  an  advantage  then  in  com- 
mencing 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  author- 
ship 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 

*  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. 


v.]  Muratorian  Fragment.  57 

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  intervening  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  con- 
siderably earlier  date,  which  will  be  the  subject  of  future 
Lectures. 


V. 

Part    II. 

MURATORIAN  FRAGAIENT— C AIUS  —HIPPO  LYTUS . 

It  would  take  more  time  than  I  can  ask  you  to  give, 
if  I  were  to  bring  before  you  all  the  second  century  tes- 
timonies to  the  Gospels ;  and  I  had  intended  to  go  back 
at  once  from  the  three  witnesses  whose  testimony  is  ad- 
mitted by  Strauss,  to  Justin  Martyr,  who  lived  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century ;  but  I  see  that  to  do  this 
would  oblige  me  to  omit  some  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  manu- 
script now,  as  then,  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan, 
but  which  had  originally  belonged  to  the  great  Irish 
monastery  of  Bobbio.  This  manuscript  is  a  collection 
of  extracts  from  various  authors,  made  about  the  eighth 


58     Reception  0/  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,    [v. 

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  desi- 
rous 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  contain- 
ing the  earliest  extant  attempt  to  give  anything  like  a 
formal  list  of  New  Testament  books,  that  I  must  not 
grudge  the  time  necessary  for  laying  before  you  the  in- 
ternal evidence  which  approximately  fixes  the  date  of 
the  composition  of  the  work  from  which  the  extract  was 
taken.  In  reading  Paley's  'Evidences'  last  year  you 
must  have  become  familiar  at  least  with  the  name  of 
the  *  Shepherd  of  Hermas.'  This  work  is  quoted  as  in- 
spired 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  men- 
tioned in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ;  and  this,  though, 
as  I  say,  a  comparatively  late  conjecture,  has  been 
accepted  by  some  as  if  it  were  tradition.  The  Mura- 
torian  fragment  gives  a  different  account  of  the  author- 
ship, and  one  which  has  all  the  air  of  being  tradition, 
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  meaning  can  be  clearly  made  out,  he  lays  down 


v.]  Muratorian  Fragment,  59 

that  this  book  may  be  read,  but  not  be  publicly  used, 
with  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  whose  number  is  com- 
plete, 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 
could  a  writer  fairly  describe  this  period  as  '  nuperrime 
temporibus  nostris'  ?  It  is  urged  that  we  cannot  well 
make  this  interval  much  more  than  twenty  years.  I 
have  been  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  definition  of  the 
dogma  of  Papal  Infallibility  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  1854  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  as- 
signed, especially  as  internal  evidence  limits  us  to 
Rome  or  Italy  as  the  place  of  composition.  This  con- 
sideration sets  aside  a  very  improbable  guess  of  the 
late  Baron  Bunsen — Hegesippus,  commonly  called,  but 
probably  incorrectly,  the  earliest  ecclesiastical  historian. 

*  Pastorem  vero  nuperrime  temporibus  nostris  in  urbe  Roma  Hermas  con- 
scripsit,  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  iinem  temporum 
potest. 


6o     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Clmrch.    [v. 

The  extracts  from  his  work  which  have  been  preserved 
by  Eusebius,  and  by  which  alone  he  is  now  known, 
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.  Hegesippus  lived  about  the  right  time,  but 
he  had  no  connexion  with  Italy ;  and  besides,  since 
Eusebiustells  us  that  in  the  passages  he  cites  from  earlier 
writers  he  had  particularly  in  view  to  illustrate  the  tes- 
timony 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  dialogu.e  against  the  Montanists.  The  dialogue  has 
been  lost,  but  Eusebius  [H.  E.  vi.  20)  tells  us  that,  in  re- 
buking the  rashness  and  impudence  of  the  Montanists 
in  composing  new  Scriptures,  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  r  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 


v.]  Muratorian  Fragment.  6i 

writer  is  only  known  to  us  by  a  single  fragment,  we 
have  no  means  of  judging  of  his  habitual  carefulness  in 
the  use  of  language,  and  so  we  are  not  safe  in  con- 
sidering ourselves  bound  to  put  the  strictest  interpre- 
tation 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  imagined  them  to  be  contem- 
porary with  St.  Augustine.  Although,  as  I  said  just 
now,  I  should  not  dream,  in  ordinary  conversation,  of 
describing  an  event  of  the  year  1854  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  recently  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  hun- 
dred 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  ener- 
getic 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 


62     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,    [v. 

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 
combated  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  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  fragment  is  of  the  same 
age  as  the  dialogue  of  Caius  ;  and,  then,  I  do  not  think 
I  can  fairly  refuse  to  accept  Muratori's  hypothesis, 
although  I  had  at  one  time  been  rather  inclined  to 
ascribe  the  fragment  to  Caius's  contemporary  Hippo- 
lytus,  on  the  ground  that  the  whole  tone  of  the  frag- 
ment is  rather  didactic  than  controversial — rather  the 
lesson  of  a  master  to  disciples  than  of  a  disputant 
with  opponents.  Bishop  Lightfoot,t  in  1868,  published 
an  ingenious  theory  that  Caius  and  Hippolytus  were 
the  same  person  under  different  names ;  but,  though 
he  persuaded  me  for  awhile,  I  have  come  back,  on 
more  careful  study,  to  the  old  opinion,  that  they  were 
different  persons,  but  contemporary. 

I  have  frankly  told  you  my  own  opinion,  but  you 
must  remem-ber  this  is  only  my  individual  notion,  and 
that  the  received  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  mis- 
takenly, I  believe  to  be  true  obliges  me  both  to  be 
guilty  of  the  immodesty  of  setting  myself  in  opposition 
to  the  received  opinion  of  scholars,  and  also  to  forego 

*  See  Smith's  '  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,'  Arts.    Muratorian 
Fragment  and  Montanism. 
t  'Journal  of  Philology,'  i.  98. 


v.]  Muratorian  Fragment,  63 

the  controversial  advantage  that  arises  from  accepting 
the  date  commonly  ascribed  to  the  fragment.  Accord- 
ing 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  Hippo- 
lytus*  are  said  to  have  been  disciples  of  Irenseus),  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  evi- 
dently are  the  end  of  a  description  of  St.  Mark's 
Gospel,  for  it  proceeds  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  him- 
self seen  our  Lord  in  the  flesh,  mention  being  made  that 
he  commenced  his  history  from  the  nativity  of  John  the 
Baptist.  The  fourth  Gospel  it  states  to  have  been  writ- 
ten 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  re- 
vealed 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  sepa- 
rate books  be  diversified,  it  makes  no  difference  to  the 

*  These  wiiters  were  both  leading  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the 
first  quarter  of  the  third  centuiy.  It  is  lilcely  that  each  may  have  commenced 
his  hterary  activity  before  the  end  of  the  second. 


64     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,    [v. 

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  humi- 
lity, 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 
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  dis- 
ciples of  Irenseus,  Caius  and  Hippolytus,  I  have  a  few 
words  more  to  say  about  each.     In  point  of  antiquity 

*  The  following  is  WestcoU's  restoration  of  the  text  of  this  part  of  the 
fragment,  'New  Testament  Canon,'  p.  527,  where  also  will  be  found  a 
transcript  of  the  text  as  it  now  stands.  I  have  given  references  to  other 
sources  of  information  in  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  jui-is  studiosum  secundum  adsum- 
sisset,  nomine  suo  ex  opinione  conscripsit.  Dominum  tamen  nee  ipse  vidit  in 
came,  et  idem  prout  assequi  potuit,  ita  et  a  nativitate  Johannis  incepit  dicere. 
Quarti  evangeliorum  Johannes  ex  discipulis.  Cohortantibus  condiscipulis  et 
episcopis  suis  dixit,  conjejunate  raihi  hodie  triduum  et  quid  cuique  fuerit 
revelatum  alterutrum  nobis  enarremus.  Eadem  nocte  revelatum  Andrese  ex 
apostolis,  ut  recognoscentibus  cunctis  Johannes  suo  nomine  cuncta  descri- 
beret.  Et  ideo  licet  varia  singulis  Evangeliorum  libris  principia  doceantur, 
nihn  tamen  differt  credentium  fidei,  cum  uno  ac  principal!  Spiritu  declarata 
sint  in  omnibus  omnia  de  nativitate,  de  passione,  de  resurrectione,  de  conver- 
satione  cum  discipulis  suis  ac  de  gemino  ejus  advento,  primum  in  humilitate 
despectus,  quod  fuit,  secundum  potestate  regali  prseclarum,  quod  futurum  est. 
Quid  ergo  mirum  si  Johannes  tam  constanter  singula  etiam  in  epistulis  suis 
proferat  dicens  in  semetipsum,  "  Quae  vidimus  oculis  nostris  et  auribus  audi- 
vimus,  et  manus  nostrse  palpaverunt,  hsec  scripsimus."  Sic  enim  non  solum 
visorem,  sed  et  auditorem,  sed  et  scriptorem  omnium  mirabihum  domini  per 
ordinem  profitetur.' 


v.]  Cains.  65 

they  may  be  regarded  as  on  a  level  with  Clement  and 
TertuUian,  though  but  younger  contemporaries  of  Ire- 
naeus.  And  I  may  say  in  passing,  in  connexion  with 
what  I  said  as  to  the  long  continuance  of  a  large  Greek 
element  in  the  Roman  Church,  that  although  Caius  and 
Hippolytus  both  held  ofiice  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  Irenseus,  I  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  re- 
garded not  as  due  to  the  accidental  caprice  of  the  human 
writer,  but  as  directed  and  overruled  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  Masoretic 
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  transcribe  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 

F 


66     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,    [v. 

compare  what  thou  hast  transcribed,  and  correct  it  ac- 
cording to  this  copy  whence  thou  hast  transcribed  it;  and 
that  thou  transcribe  this  oath  in  like  manner,  and  place 
it  in  thy  copy'  (Euseb.,  H.  E.  v.  20).  We  may  safely 
assume  that  Irenseus  would  be  solicitous  that  fully  as 
much  care  and  reverence  should  be  used  in  perpetuating 
the  text  of  the  Gospels,  which  he  venerated  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  call- 
ing themselves  Christians,  was  amongst  the  earliest  to 
hold  our  Blessed  Lord  to  have  been  mere  man.  In- 
ternal evidence  shows  the  work  to  belong  to  the  begin- 
ning 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  ascrip- 
tion to  Caius.  The  writer  pronounces  the  doctrine  of 
our  Lord's  simple  humanity  to  be  in  contradiction  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  Testa- 
ment. 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  tampered  with  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
of  having  published  what  they  called  *  corrected '  copies, 
but  which,  in  his  judgment,  were  simply  ruined.      He 


v.]  Cams.  67 

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 
believe  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  de- 
moniac V  We  have  not  the  means  of  judging  whether 
the  anger  of  Caius  was  justly  roused  by  perversions  of 
the  sacred  text,  wilfully  made  in  order  to  remove  its 
testimony  to  our  Lord's  Divinity,  or  whether  he  was 
but  the  blind  champion  of  a  Textus  Receptus  against 
more  learned  critical  revisers.  The  important  point 
for  us  to  observe  is  how  strongly  the  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture Inspiration  was  held  at  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century  ;  and  you  will  see  how  well  justified  I  am  in 
thinking  it  needless,  in  our  investigations  about  the 
Gospels,  to  go  below  the  age  of  Irenseus,  the  tradition 
which  he  handed  on  to  his  disciples  being  identical  with 
that  which  the  Church  has  held  ever  since. 

It  might  seem,  then,  needless  to  say  anything  about 
Hippolytus,  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  senti- 
ments 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 
transmitted  to  us   correctly  as  when  it  comes  through 

F  2 


68     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Chureh.     [v. 

different  independent  channels.  For  example,  to  touch 
by  anticipation  on  a  subject  on  which  I  shall  have  to 
speak  at  more  length  hereafter,  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  pro- 
bably 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  Catho- 
lics, 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 
the  simple  reason,  that  it  is  very  unlikely  that  anything 
subsequently  introduced  in  one  of  mutually  hostile 
communities  would  be  adopted  by  the  other.  Simi- 
larly, 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  here- 
tical 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 


v.]  Hippolytus.  69 

brought  from  Mount  Athos  to  Paris,  and  published 
for  the  first  time  in  1851.  The  title  is  the  '  Refuta- 
tion of  all  Heresies.'  The  method  of  refutation  which 
Hippolytus  principally  employed  is  one  which  was 
probably  not  very  convincing  to  the  heretics,  but  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.  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  writ- 
ings 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  citations 
when  the  heretics  quoted  are  only  known  to  us  by  the 
extracts  given  by  Hippolytus  ;  for  then  it  is  open  to 
any  objector  to  say,  Oh  !  perhaps  these  writers  were  con- 
temporary with  Hippolytus  himself,  or  very  little  older. 
Who  can  assure  us  that  the  heretical  documents  dragged 
to  light  by  Hippolytus  had  been  in  circulation  for  a 
dozen  years  before  he  exposed  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,  both  these  Schools  of  heretics  are 
mentioned  by  Justin  Martyr,  so  that  they  clearly  belong 
to  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  and  chrono- 
logically come  before  Justin  Martyr,  of  whom  I  had 
proposed   next    to   speak.     Now   in  the  extracts  given 


70     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,    [v. 

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 — tha.t  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  Hippo- 
lytus is,  Can  you  be  sure  that  the  Valentinian  and 
Basilidian  works  from  which  Hippolytus  quotes  were 
really  written  by  the  heresiarchs  themselves  ?  Is  it  not 
possible  that,  when  he  professes  to  describe  the  opinions 
of  Valentinus  or  Basilides,  he  is  drawing  his  informa- 
tion from  the  work  of  some  disciple  of  each  of  these 
sects  who  lived  nearer  his  own  time,  the  ^jjai  with 
which  Hippolytus  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  controversial  spirit  I  might 
describe  it  as  a  quite  gratuitous  assumption,  and  a  mere 
evasion  to  escape  a  difficulty,  to  imagine  that  Hippo- 
lytus can  mean  anything  but  what  he  says,  or  to  sup- 
pose 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  argu- 


y.']  TJie  Valentinians.  7 1 

ment  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  imputed  to  him,  I  cannot  say  that  I 
do.  On  the  contrary,  I  should  say  that  he  would  be 
likely  to  consider  that  he  was  fulfilling  all  the  require- 
ments of  honesty  in  describing  the  opinions  of  Valen- 
tinus  from  a  Valentinian  book,  without  troubling  himself 
with  minute  inquiries  whether  Valentinus  himself  were 
the  writer.  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  Hip- 
polytus, there  was  no  controversy  between  the  Valenti- 
nians and  the  orthodox  as  to  their  New  Testament  Canon, 
and  in  particular  that  the  Gospel  of  John  was  alike  vene- 
rated 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  Valentinus  uses  as  technical 
words,  ixo\>oyivi\q^  ^tot],  aXr]diia,  X"P'^»  TrA/'/pw/xa,  Xoyog, 
<pu)g.  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 
borrowed  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  docu- 
ment to  be  accepted  as  authoritative  by  us  Protestants, 
stuffing  it  with  Roman  Catholic  technical  words — Tran- 
substantiation.  Purgatory,  and  such  like.  Putting  in 
such  words  would  clearly  show  any  Protestant  that  the 


72    Reception  of  tlie  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,     [v. 

document  emanated  from  a  hostile  body ;  and  so,  in  like 
manner,  if  the  theory  of  Valentinus  had  been  promul- 
gated before  the  publication  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  the 
vocabulary  of  the  prologue  to  that  Gospel  would  have 
excluded  it  from  Catholic  use.  There  is  abundance  of 
other  evidence  that  Catholics  and  Valentinians  were 
agreed  as  to  the  reverence  paid  to  this  Gospel.  Ter- 
tullian  contrasts  the  methods  of  dealing  with  the  New 
Testament  pursued  by  Marcion,  of  whom  I  shall  speak 
a  little  later,  and  by  Valentinus,  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  videtur'  [De 
PrcBscrip.  38);  that  is  to  say,  he  did  not  reject  the  Gos- 
pels accepted  by  the  Catholic  Church,  but  he  strove  by 
artificial  interpretation  to  make  them  teach  his  peculiar 
doctrines.  How  true  this  statement  is  we  have  extant 
evidence.  The  earliest  commentary  on  a  New  Testa- 
ment book  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge  is  by  a 
heretic — that  by  the  Valentinian  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  commentary  on 
at  least  four  or  five  chapters  of  St.  John.  And  this  charac- 
teristic prevails  throughout,  that  the  strongest  believer 
in  verbal  inspiration  at  the  present  day  could  not  dwell 
with  m'ore  minuteness  on  the  language  of  St.  John,  or 
draw  more  mysteries  from  what  might  seem  the  acci- 
dental 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 


v.]  The  Valcntinians.  73 

twice  [Strom.  IV.  9  ;  Eclog.  ex  Scrip.  Proph.  25).  Scep- 
tical writers  make  Heracleon  as  little  earlier  than  Cle- 
ment 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  authority,  and  I  think  we  may  say  the  in- 
spiration, 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  re- 
ceived it ;  if  by  a  Catholic,  the  Valentinians  would  not 
have  received  it.  If  it  had  been  of  unknown  parent- 
age, it  is  incredible  that  both  communities  should  have 
accepted  it  as  Apostolic. 

What  has  been  said  about  Valentinus  may  be  re- 
peated about  Basilides.  Hippolytus  produces  an  ex- 
tract 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  a  writing  of  Basilides.* 
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  Basi- 
lidians  and  orthodox  agreed  in  their  reverence  for  St. 
John's  Gospel ;  and  it  follows  then,  by  the  same  argu- 

*  Westcott  ('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). 


74     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  tJic  Early  CJiurch.     [v. 

ment  which  I  have  used  already,  that  St.  John's  Gospel 
must  have  gained  its  authority  before  Basilides  sepa- 
rated 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  testimony  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  [ad  Autol.  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  Gos- 
pel proves  also  its  authorship.  In  other  words,  it  is 
plain  from  the  work  itself  that  whoever  composed  it 
intended  it  to  be  received  as  emanating  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  fore- 
runner of  our  Lord,  always  give  him  the  title  of  the 
Baptist,  so  as  to  prevent  confusion  between  the  two 
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. 


VI.]  The  Middle  of  the  SecoJid  Coitiiry.  75 

This  fact  is  worth  attention  in  connexion  with  what  we 
shall  have  hereafter  to  say  on  the  omissions  of  the 
Gospel,  and  on  the  question  whether  John  is  to  be  sup- 
posed 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  genuineness  as  that,  whereas 
almost  everyone  in  the  Church  had  felt  the  necessity 
of  distinguishing  by  some  special  name  John  the  fore- 
runner 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  r      Is   it    because 


76     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vi. 

of  any  opposing  evidence,  external  or  internal  r  Post- 
poning for  a  moment  the  question  of  internal  evi- 
dence, opposing  external  evidence  there  is  none.  All 
that  can  be  said  is,  the  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  un- 
reasonable 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  contro- 
versy 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  contested. 

The  Apology  of  Justin  Martyr  was  written  about 
A.D.  150.  That  is  the  date  Justin  himself  gives  [Apbl. 
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  posi- 
tive assertion   about   the    matter ;    but  in    placing    the 

*  Journal  nf  Classical  and  Sacred  Philology,  iii.  155.     1S56. 


VI.]  Jii still  Martyr.  77 

Apology  in  150,  about  the  middle  of  the  reign  of  Anto- 
ninus, 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  discus- 
sions and  of  a  good  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  quota- 
tions from  our  Gospels  ;  and  the  objections  to  accept- 
ing this  conclusion  made  by  those  who  professed  to 
have  gone  closely  into  the  matter  have  been  dissipated 
by  still  closer  examination.  In  his  references  to  the 
events  of  our  Lord's  life,  Justin  goes  over  all  the  ground 
covered  by  our  Evangelists,  and  almost  completely 
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  addressing  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  wor- 
ship 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  '  barbarians.'  And  so  now  he  tells  his 
heathen  readers  that  he  is  quoting  from  *  memoirs '  of  our 
Lord  which  are  called  '  Gospels,'  and  which  were  com- 
posed 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. 


78     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,   [vi. 

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  pro- 
phets 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  testi- 
mony of  Irenseus.  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 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  We  never  hear  of  any  re- 
volution 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  Irenseus,  some 
twenty  or  thirty  years  later. 

The  only  plausible  ground  on  which  this  has  been 
contested  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  consecutive  chapters  to 
cjuoting  his  precepts.  No  other  idea  than  that  Justin 
w^as  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 


VI.]  Just  in  Martyr.  79 

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,  'Be  ye  kind  and  mer- 
ciful, 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  king- 
dom 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  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 


8o    Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,   [vi. 

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  Irenaeus,  that  it  was  in  the  nature 
of  things  impossible  there  should  be  more  than  four 
Gospels.  We  want  to  know  what  was  the  story  concern- 
ing Jesus  of  Nazareth,  in  attestation  of  which  the  first 
preachers  of  Christianity  were  content  to  suffer  hard- 
ships, and  if  need  be  to  give  their  lives  ;  and  to  give 
us  that  information  the  Gospel  used  by  Justin,  whatever 
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  different  Gospel  from  ours,  and  that 
the  Church,  A.D.  170,  for  some  unaccountable  reason, 
thought  proper  to  bury  its  ancient  text-book  in  obli- 
vion, and  set  up  our  four  Gospels  in  its  room.  But  what 
would  scepticism  have  g"ained,  when  it  is  also  proved  that 
this  lost  Gospel  must  have  been  as  like  to  our  present 
Gospels  as  the  Gosjoels  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  subject  above  all  others  on  which  the  apocryphal 
Gospels  afterwards  ran  wild,  and  you  will  see  that 
Justin  follows  throughout  the  narrative  of  our  exist- 
ing Evangelists.  He  does  not  appear  to  have  known 
anything  more  than  they  knew,  and  he  tells,  with- 
out  doubt,  what   they   have    related.      I    give    a   sum- 

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


VI.]  ytistin  Martyr,  8i- 

mary   in  Westcott's   words    (*  New   Testament   Canon,' 
p.  loi)  : — *  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  reve- 
lation  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  Jeremiah  was  fulfilled, 
who    spoke   of  Rachel  weeping  for  her  children — that 
Jesus  grew  after   the  common    manner   of  men,  work- 
ing 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  substantially  the  same 
story  as  that  related  in  the  Gospels  we  have,  and  that, 

G 


82     Reception  of  the  Gospe/s  in  the  Early  Church.  \yi, 

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  prseter  neces- 
sitatem,'  and  the  question  is,  Are  we  put  under  a  neces- 
sity of  postulating  the  existence  of  a  Gospel  which  has 
disappeared,  by  reason  of  verbal  differences  forbidding 
us  to  find  in  our  present  Gospels  the  source  of  Justin's 
quotations  ?  An  answer  to  this  question  has  been  pro- 
vided by  a  study  of  Justin's  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament,  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  inaccurately,  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  forget  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 

*  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  Centuiy,'  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  Fitzgerald  an  apposite  quo- 
tation from  the  preface  to  Pearce's  '  Longinus' : — Neque  enim  aut  Longino 
aut  aliis  priorum  saeculorum  scriptoribus  videtur  usitatum  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  consisleret)  exhibuit ;  nee  aliter  ab  aliis 
scriptoribus  factum  video.  Si  enim  sensum  auctoris  et  praecipua  citatae  sen- 
tentiae  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. 


VI.]  Justin  Martyr.  83 

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  neces- 
sary 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  information.  I  will  give  for  each  of  the  Gospels 
one  specimen  of  a  multitude  of  proofs.  In  relating  the 
murder  of  the  innocents  at  Bethlehem,  he  quotes  Jere- 
miah'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  diffi- 
cult to  identify  anonymous  citations  with  his  Gospel. 
Yet,  Justin's  quotations  from  the  Gospels  are  so  numer- 
ous, 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, 

G  2 


84  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,     [vi. 

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  vSt.  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  Alexan- 
drian 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  diffe- 
rently—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  quotations.  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- 
many as  by  Lightfoot  or  Westcott  in  England.  Justin's 
variations,  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  manuscript;  and  lastly,  a 

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


VI.]  Justin  Martyr.  85 

few  more  suggest  the  possibility  that,  in  addition  to  our 
Gospels,  Justin  may  have  used  an  extra-Canonical  Gos- 
pel. 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  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  ac- 
cepted as  the  scene  of  our  Lord's  birth.  Justin's  addi- 
tions 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  acquainted.  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  men- 
tioned by  Justin  which  we  can  clearly  prove  to  be  taken 
from  St.  John,  while  the  discourses  of  that  Gospel  pre- 
sent little  that  is  suitable  for  quotation  in  discussion  with 
unbelievers.  Yet  there  are  coincidences  enough  to  estab- 
lish satisfactorily  Justin's  acquaintance  with  the  fourth 


86     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vi. 

Gospel,  there  being  scarcely  a  chapter  of  it  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  cannot  see  it  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, either  a  poor  critic  or  an  uncandid  controver- 
sialist. 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 
Fatherf ;  that  He  was  GodJ  ;  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. 

I  have  by  no  means  enumerated  all  the  coincidences 
between  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 

*  See  an  Article  by  Thoma  in  Hilgenfeld's  '  Zeitschrift  fiir  wissenschaftl. 
Theologie '  for  1875.  Thoma  does  not  discuss  Justin's  knowledge  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  regarding  this  as  having  passed  out  of  the  region  of  contro- 
versy ;  but  he  takes  St.  John,  chapter  by  chapter,  exhibiting  for  each  the  trace 
it  has  left  in  Justin's  works  :  the  result  being  to  sliow  that  Justin  is  com- 
pletely 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  pubhc  worship.  For  this  he  has  no  proof  but  the  very  pre- 
carious 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,  Professor  in  Harvard  University,  a  Unitarian,  and  one  of  the 
most  learned  of  living  American  theologians,  deals  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 


VI.]  Justin  Martyr.  87 

reason  for  rejecting  the  simple  account  of  this  agree- 
ment, 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  Justin  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  birth-place  of 
the  fourth  Gospel.  When  we  have  to  speak  of  the 
agreement  between  Justin  and  the  Synoptic  Evange- 
lists as  to  the  incidents  of  our  Saviour's  life  on  earth, 
it  is  now  felt  to  be  a  gratuitous  and  unreasonable  as- 
sumption 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 

proofs  from  the  Apocalypse,  though  he  confessedly  accepted  it  as  an  inspired 
prophecy ;  and  Dr.  Abbot  adds  some  instances  from  modern  writers  of  sur- 
prising neglect  to  use  an  argument  or  recognize  a  fact  which  we  should  have 
confidently  expected  them  to  use  or  recognize. 

t  6  Se  vibs  eKelvov,  6  /j.6vos  \ey6/j.evos  Kvplws  vlSs,  6  \6yos  nph  rail'  Troirifid- 
Twv  Ka\  avvcav  koL  yevvdifjuvos,  Hre  ttjv  apxh^  Si'  avrov  iravra  eKTiae  Kal  iK6(r/xri<re 
— Apol.  ii.  6. 

apxh"  ""pb  iravTMV  ruiv  Krifffidraiv  6  Oebs  yeyewqKe  hvva/xiv  riva  e|  eaurov 
\oyiK^v,  T^ris  Kol  S6^a  Kvpiou  virh  tov  irvevfiaTos  rod  ayiov  KaKe7Tai,  irore  Se 
vlhs,  TTore  Se  <ro<pia,  irore  5e  &yyeKos,  irore  5e  Qehs,  Trore  5e  Kvpios  Kal  \6yos. — 
Dial.  6l. 

irph  ■Ko.vTwv  Twv  iT0L7)iJ,d.Twv  (Tvvfiv  T<S  waTpi. — Dial.  62. 

X  avrhs  i)v  ovTos  6  Oehs  anh  tov  iraTphs  ra>v  '6\wv  yfvvrjdeis. — Dial.  61  ;  see 
also  Apol.  i.  63 ;    Dial.  56,  58,  126,  128. 

§  &ffTe  \6yci>  deov  .  .  .  yeyivrjadai  rhv  irdvra  K6(Tfj.ov. — Apol.  i.  59;  see 
also  c.  64,  and  Apol.  ii.  6. 

II  fiovoydfiis  ?iv  rf  naTpl  twv  oXwv. — Dial.  105. 


88     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Chiwch.   [vi. 

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  Johannine,*  nor  does  John  represent 
our  Lord  as  ever  calling  himself  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  frequently  of 
the  Divine  Word,  though  there  has  been  much  contro- 
versy 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  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  acknowledging  and 
accepting  all  that  was  true  in  the  Philonian  speculations 
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  Philonian  but  the  Johannine  doctrine  of  the 
Logos,  the  doctrine  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  doc- 

*  It  is  not  certain  whether  Heb.  iv.  r2  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. 


VI.]  Justin  _]\lartyr.  8g 

trine  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.  6i) :  '  They  are  brought 
by  us  where  there  is  water,  and  are  regenerated  in  the 
same  manner  that  we  ourselves  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 

*  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  Unita- 
rian, Dr.  James  Drummond,  Professor  in  Manchester  New  College,  London, 
in  a  Paper  published  by  him  in  the  Theological  Review,  April,  1877.  In  con- 
nexion with  this  may  be  read  a  Lecture  on  Philo,  published  by  him  in  the 
same  year.  Dr.  Drummond  conclusively  establishes  the  dependence  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  propo- 
sitions, and  questions  which  it  suggests,  and  does  not  answer,  are  dogmati- 
cally 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,  who  certainly  was  not  influenced  by 
Justin  in  adopting  it.  He  held  that,  in  the  phrase  eKadiaev  iirl  ^-q/xaTos,  the 
verb  eKddiffev  was  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  ^laavpovres  avrhu  eKaditrav  sir!  ^ii/naros  Kal  elirov. 
Kpivov  fifi7v.  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. 


go    Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,   [vi. 

also  said,  "  Except  ye  be  born  again  ye  shall  not  enter 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Now  that  it  is  impossible 
for  those  who  have  been  once  born  to  enter  into  their 
mothers'  wombs  is  manifest  to  all.'  I  am  sure  it  is 
equally  manifest  to  all  that  there  is  here  striking  coin- 
cidence 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  ver- 
bal agreements  of  which  this  is  a  specimen.  His  doc- 
trine is  in  perfect  harmony  with  St.  John,  and  we  are 
puzzled  to  say  from  what  other  source  he  could  have  de- 
rived 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,  everything  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  improba- 
bility that  both  hypotheses  shall  be  true.  In  the  pre- 
sent 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 

*  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  shows  that  Justm  has  the  company  of  several  subse- 
quent Fathers  in  every  one  of  his  variations  from  St.  John.  He  gives  refer- 
ences 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. 


VI.]  Justin  Martyr.  91 

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  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  re- 
coiled on  himself.  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  ac- 
quaintance 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  Gospel.  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. 

*  Not  so,  however,  in  the  parallel  passage  [Recog.  vi.  9). 


92     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,   [vi. 

While  this  dispute  was  going  on,  a  manuscript  was 
discovered,  containing  a  complete*  copy  of  the  Clemen- 
tine Homilies — for  the  manuscripts  previously  known 
were  defective,  and  only  contained  eighteen  of  the  nine- 
teen Homilies — and  lo,  in  the  nineteenth,  we  read,  '  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,  mustered  courage  to  make 
them  a  ground  for  denying  that  it  is  a  quotation. f 

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  diametrical  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  Apos- 

*  The  work  was  first  published  complete  by  Dressel,  in  1853. 

t  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 yor  the  received  acceptation  of  the  Gospels,  declares  here  that  it  will 
be  difficult  to  find  anyone  in  Germany  or  Switzerland  to  believe  that  the  Cle- 
mentine writer  is  independent  of  St.  John — 'In  Deutschland  und  der  Schweiz 
wird  es  kaum  jemand  glauben  dass  Clem.  Hom.  xix.  22  von  Joli.  ix.  1-3 
unabhangig  sein  sollte.'  Renan,  whose  memoiy  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  pro- 
bably is,  that  Renan  in  the  two  places  was  relying  on  different  authorities,  one 
of  whom  wrote  before,  the  other  after,  the  discovery  of  the  19th  Homily. 


VI.]  yustin  Martyr.  93 

tolic  authority.  The  conclusion  follows  that,  at  the  time 
of  the  composition  of  the  Clementines,  which  some  place 
as  early  as  the  year  160,*  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  sus- 
picion 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 
inference  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  doc- 
trine, nor  of  a  number  of  verbal  coincidences  with  John  ; 
but  must  repeat  that  the  critics  who  deny  Justin's  use  of 
the  fourth  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  explanations 
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  con- 
firmed by  other  evidence,  add  to  the  received  text  the 

*  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  i8o  by  Theophilus  of  Antioch  {ad  Autol.  i.  lo : 
cf.  Clem.  Ho?n.  x.  i6;  Recog.  v.  20). 


94     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,   [.vi. 

words  Koi  iCTjuiv — 'Behold  what  manner  of  love  the 
Father  hath  bestowed  on  us,  that  we  should  be  called  the 
sons  of  God  ;  and  stick  ive  are.^  This  reading  is  accord- 
ingly adopted  by  all  recent  critical  editors.  Now,  Justin 
has  [Dial.  123)  koi  deov  riKva  aXnOiva  KuXovfxeOa  koi  ectjuei'.* 
Renan'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  accept- 
ance : — 'Nobody  doubts  that,  towards  the  year  150,  the 
fourth  Gospel  existed,  and  was  ascribed  to  John.  Formal 
citations  by  St.  Justin  [Apol.  I.   32,  61  ;  Dial.  88),  by 

*  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  {Mode?-n  Revieiv,  1882,  pp. 
559,  716).  Dr.  Abbott  adopts  Thoma's  theory,  only  in  a  less  probable  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  Evan- 
gelist. 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  diihcult  it  rriight  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.  Drumraond  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  mc  clear  that,  if  Justin  knew  the 
fourth  Gospel,  he  used  it,  and  that  copiously  ;  if  he  used  it,  he  valued  it,  for 


VI.]]  Justin  Alartyr.  95 

Athenagoras  [Legat.  40),  by  Tatian  [Adv.  Grace.  5,  7  ; 
cf.  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  29  ;  Theodoret,  Haer.  Fab.  i.  20),  by 
Theophilus  of  Antioch  [ad  Autol.  ii.  22),  by  Irenseus  (il. 
xxii.  5  ;  III.  1  ;  cf.  Euseb.  H.  E.  V.  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  Valen- 
tinus  (Iren.  I.  iii.  6;  III.  xi.  7  ;  Hippol.  Philosoph.  VI.  ii. 
29,  &c.),  in    Montanism    (Iren.    III.   xi.   q),    and   in   the 

his  whole  theological  system  is  founded  on  it.  If  he  adopted  the  fourth 
Evangelist  as  his  theological  instructor,  he  must  have  admitted  the  claims 
which  that  Evangelist  implicitly  makes  for  himself,  and  which  were  acknow- 
ledged 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  connected  vdth  Justin  and  with  the  fourth 
Gospel.  Finally,  when  called  on  to  explain  how  this  Gospel,  in  such  fa- 
vour 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  thauma- 
turgic  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  heahng  of  the  man  bom  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  ten- 
dencies 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  competent  judge 
what  arguments  a  writer  of  that  date  would  have  been  likely  to  use. 


96     Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vi. 

Quartodeciman  dispute  (Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  24),  is  not  less 
decisive.  The  school  of  John  is  those  whose  influence 
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,  40J,  and  by  Irenaeus  (ill. 
xvi.  5,  8 ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  8).' 

During  the  interval,  however,  between  the  publica- 
tion 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  authori- 
ties.! He  assures  his  readers,  as  a  positive  fact  (vi.  73), 
that  neither  Papias  nor  Justin,  nor  the  Pseudo-Clemen- 
tines, 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.  2}^,  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 

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

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


VI.]  Tatian.  97 

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  presently  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  '  Dia- 
tessaron'  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  does 
not  know  the  fourth  Gospel,  should  know  the  Epistle 
falsely  ascribed  to  John.'  After  some  lame  attempts  at 
explanation,  he  exclaims,  '  One  can  never  touch  the 
question  of  the  writings  ascribed  to  John  without  falling 
into  contradictions  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  converted  by  Justin ;  and  in  Tatian's 
apologetic  work,  the  '  Address  to  the  Greeks,'  Justin  is 
spoken  of  with  high  admiration.  On  the  other  hand, 
after  Justin's  death,  Tatian  joined  himself  to  one  of 
those  ascetic  sects  who  condemned  both  marriage  and 
the  use  of  wine  and  flesh  meat  as  absolutely  unlawful  to 
a  Christian.*     And  he  is  said  to  have  held  some  other 

*  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. 

H 


98     Reception  0/  the  Gospels  Ui  the  Early  Church,   [vi. 

heretical  opinions  besides.  Irenaeus  has  a  chapter  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  com- 
monly thought  that  this  was  Tatian.  Thus  we  see  that 
Tatian  comes  midway  between  Justin  Martyr  and  the 
age  of  Iren^us  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  dis- 
tinct confirmation  to  the  conclusion  we  already  arrived 
at  as  to  the  derivation  of  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  combination  of  the  Gospels, 
and  that  he  called  it  '  Diatessaron,'*  which,  being  a  re- 

*  The  following  note  on  the  musical  term  Sir  rea-a-dpcov  has  been  given  me 
by  my  friend  Professor  Mahaffy  : — 

'  Among  the  old  Greeks  only  the  octave  (5ia  iraffwv),  the  fifth  (Sm  TreVre), 
and  the  fourth  (5ia  Tefrtrapo)^)  were  recognized  as  concords  {avfx(pa>voi  K^Qoyyoi), 
-whereas  the  rest  of  the  intervals  are  called  discords  (Sta^wj/ot).  This  defini- 
tion of  concord,  excluding  thirds,  which  are  now  accepted  as  the  simplest  and 
easiest  case,  arises  from  Pythagoras'  discovery  that  if,  of  two  equal  strings, 


VI.]  Tatian.  99 

cogTiized  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. 
These  efforts  have,  in  my  judgment,  so  utterly  failed, 
that,  as  I  cannot  in  these  lectures  go  minutely  into 
every  point,  I  think  it  would  be  time  wasted  to  discuss 
them. 

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

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  maybe  added  that,  even  now,  most  of  the  major  thirds  we  hear  are  less 
than  two  whole  tones  apart.  This  intei-val,  when  strictly  produced,  sounds 
like  a  sharp  third,  and  is  disagreeable.  The  difficulty  is  avoided  by  the  tem- 
perament in  our  tuning.' 

From  this  explanation  it  is  seen  to  be  improper  to  treat  the  phrase  '  Dia- 
tessaron'  as  one  merely  denoting  harmony,  and  not  implying  any  particular 
number  of  Gospels.  We  see  also  that,  since  the  phrase  denotes,  not  a  har- 
mony 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. 

*  Phillips,  '  Doctrine  of  Addai,'  p.  34. 

H  2 


\oo  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,   [vi. 

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  in- 
volve 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  genea- 
logies 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  Carpianuvi)  prefatory  to  his  own 
improved  way  of  harmonizing  the  Gospels — the  Euse- 
bian  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  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  seep- 


VI.]  Tatian.  lOi 

tical  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  at- 
tempts 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  recovery 
of  the  very  work  of  Ephraem  Syrus  which  Bar-Salibi  de- 
scribed. 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 
*  Diatessaron'  would  lead  us  to  suppose,  Zahn*  has 
lately  taken  a  good  deal  of  pains  to  maintain  that 
the  original  language  was  Syriac,  but  I  do  not  think 
he  has  as  yet  made  many  converts  to  that  opinion.  I 
have  not  myself  studied  the  question  in  any  way  that 
would  qualify  me  to  form  a  judgment  of  my  own 
on  the  subject.  Suffice  it  to  say  that,  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  century,  and  was  actually  pub- 
lished in  that  language  by  the  Mechitarist  Fathers, 
at  Venice,  so  long  ago  as  1836.  But  in  the  ob- 
scurity 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  at- 
tracted much  attention.!     That  this  work  is  Ephraem's 

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

t  It  seems  to  have  been  first  used  in  America  by  Dr.  Abbot,  in  his 
'Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,'   1880.     Through  Dr.  Abbot  it  became 


I02  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  CJinrch.  [vi. 

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  necessary  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  com- 
mented on ;  and  we  have  important  helps  in  the  work 
of  reconstruction.  Of  these  I  will  only  mention  a  har- 
mony published  by  Victor  of  Capua  in  the  sixth  cen- 
tury, and  which  he  imagined  must  be  the  work  of 
Tatian.  Comparison  with  the  now  recovered  commen- 
tary of  Ephraem  shows  that  the  harmony  presented  by 
both  is  really  in  substance  the  same  work,  though  the 
Latin  harmony  restores  the  genealogies,  and  corrects 
some  other  omissions,  which  no  doubt  had  interfered 
with  the  orthodox  acceptance  of  Tatian's  work. 

We  find,  then,  that  the  harmony  on  which  Ephraem 

known  to  Harnack  in  Germany,  who  gave  an  account  of  it  in  the  Zeitschrift 
fin-  Kirchengeschichte,  i88i.  The  first  detailed  account  of  it  in  England  was 
given  by  Dr.  Wace  in  articles  in  The  Expositor,  1882. 


VI.]  Tatian.  103 

comments  deals  with  the  four  Gospels  on  an  equal  footing. 
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 
chapter  of  St.  John,  as  to  the  genuineness  of  which 
some  very  unreasonable  doubts  have,  in  modern  times, 
been  entertained.  There  only  remains,  then,  the  ques- 
tion, Have  we  any  reasonable  ground  for  doubting  the 
statement  of  Bar-Salibi  that  the  harmony  on  which 
Ephraem  commented  was  by  Tatian  ?  and  I  can  see 
none.  The  only  alternative*  seems  to  be  that  this 
should  be  the  harmony  of  Ammonius  the  Alexandrian, 
which  I  mentioned  just  now ;  but,  not  to  say  that  the 
work  of  an  Eastern,  as  Tatian  was,  was  far  more  likely 
to  be  current  in  Syria  than  that  of  an  Alexandrian,  the 
harmony  commented  on  by  Ephraem  shows  not  the 
slightest  trace  of  having  had  Matthew's  narrative  as 
the  basis,  which  is  the  feature  specified  by  Eusebius  as 
the  characteristic  of  the  harmony  of  Ammonius. f     If, 

*  Jerome  {Ep.  12  r  ad  Algas.  i.  860)  speaks  of  Theophilus  of  Antioch  as 
the  author  of  a  harmony.  As  we  do  not  hear  of  this  elsewhere,  it  is  commonly 
supposed  that  Jerome  made  a  mistake  in  ascribing  to  Theophilus  the  work  of 
Tatian.  Since  Theophilus,  who  died  in  i8i,  was  as  early  as  Tatian,  the  proof 
of  the  antiquity  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  not  affected  whether  this  harmony  be 
ascribed  to  a  heretical  or  an  orthodox  writer.  But  we  may  be  sure  that  the 
work  of  a  heretic  would  not  have  been  so  successful  in  obtaining  acceptance 
in  the  Church  if  there  had  been  a  rival  work  of  the  same  kind  by  a  Church 
writer  of  reputation. 

t  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'  respon- 
sible for  this  reading,  a  plausible  explanation  was  given,  that  the  currency  of 


I04  Reception  of  the  Gospels  m  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 


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  GOSPELS  AT  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  SECOND 
CENTURY— PAPIAS — APOSTOLIC  FATHERS. 

We  have  seen  now  that  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  our  four  Gospels  had  obtained  their  pre-emi- 
nence, 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  in  which  the  argu- 
mentum  ex  silentlo  has  been  urged  by  sceptical  critics 
in  the  case  of  writers  of  whom  we  have  scarcely  any 
extant  remains.      The    author   of  *  Supernatural   Reli- 

Tatian's  harmony,  in  which  the  words  of  different  EvangeHsts  had  been  mixed 
together,  had,  in  this  instance,  led  to  a  transference  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.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  conclusion,  '  so  much  the  worse  for  the  text,'  is  more  than  we  have  a  right 
to  draw. 


VII.]         The  Beginning  of  the  Second  Century.         105 

gion,'  for  instance,  argues :  The  Gospels  of  St.  Luke 
and  St.  John  cannot  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  r  Because  they  never  mention 
them.  But  how  do  you  know  that  they  never  mention 
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  Euse- 
bius ;  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,t  Bishop  Lightfoot  most  satisfactorily  shows 
that  this  was  his  practice,  by  examining  the  report  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.  R.  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 

*  The  words  in  which  Eusebius  states  his  design  (iii.  3)  are  :  v-Ko<T7]n-(ivaffda.i 
Tivis  Twu  Kara  xP^vovs  iKKXrjtnacTTiKwu  crvyypa<p€cev  oiroiais  /ce'xpTjJ'Tai  rcav  avri- 
\€yofj.fvajv,  Tiva  t€  irepl  twv  ivSiad'f)KciJV  Kal  dfj.oKoyov/x(yuiv  ypapcov,  Kal  bffa 
irepl  Twv  fi^  TotovTuiv,  avTois  eXp-qTai :  that  is  to  say,  he  undertakes  to  mention 
instances  of  the  use  of  any  of  the  disputed  writings,  together  with  any  state- 
ments that  he  found  concerning  the  composition  of  any  of  tlie  writings,  whether 
canonical  or  not. 

f  Contemporary  Review,  January,  1875. 


io6  Reception  0/  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 

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,  as  I  have  already  said,  Theophilus  is  the 
earliest  writer  now  extant  who  mentions  John  by 
name  as  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  Why  so  ? 
Plainly  because  the  Revelation  was  still  matter  of  con- 
troversy, and  there  was  no  dispute  in  the  time  of  Euse- 
bius  about  the  fourth  Gospel.  Other  instances  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  Scriptures;  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  Apoca- 
lypse, 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  Hermas,'  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,  however.  Ire- 


Yii.]  Papias.  107 

naeus  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 
reason  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,  there- 
fore, 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  A071WV  KVQiaKUiv  i^{]yt}(TiQ,  an  Exposition*  of  the 
oracles  of  the  Lord,  of  which  Eusebius  and  Irenseus 
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.  Euse- 
bius {H.  E.  iii.  36),  according  to  some  manuscripts  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  defi- 
cient in  manuscript  authority ;  and  elsewhere  [H.  E.  iii. 
39),  commenting  on  some  millenarian  traditions  of  his, 
he  remarks  that  Papias,  who  was  '  a  man  of  very  narrow 
understanding  {(T<p6cpa  rr/xiKpog  rbv  vovv),  as  his  writings 
prove,'  must  have  got  these  opinions  from  a  misunder- 
standing 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  knowledge  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  so  what  Eusebius  says  in  disparagement  of 

*  Or  '  expositions';  for  readings  vary  between  tlie  singular  and  the  plural. 


io8  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 

Papias  in  one  place  does  not  forbid  us  to  believe  that 
he  may  have  given  him  some  measure  of  commenda- 
tion 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.*  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 
martyrdom  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.f 

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  pres- 
byter] John,  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  say;  for  I  did 
not  expect    to   derive   so   much  benefit  from   the  con- 

*  Contemporary  Review,  Kvig.,  1875.     '  Colossians,' p.  48. 
t  On  this  account  it  seems  to  me  that  a.d.  125  or  130  is  as  late  as  we  can 
/■    place  his  work. 


VII.]  Papias.  I09M 

tents  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,  besides  John 
the  Apostle,  there  was  another  later  John,  from  whom 
Papias    derived    his    information  ;    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  con- 
cluded 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  dif- 
ferent from  the  Apostle  might  have  been  its  author.     It 
must,  however,    be   borne  in   mind   that  the   fact   that 
Papias  twice  mentions  the  name  John  does  not  make 
it  absolutely  certain   that   he    meant   to    speak   of  two 
Johns  ;   and  there  is  no  other  independent  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  gene- 
rally adopted  by  later  ecclesiastical  writers. 

In  order  that  we  may  have  before  us  all  the  facts 

*  I  do  not  transcribe  the  Greek  of  Eusebius,  as  I  expect  the  student  to 
read  carefully  the  whole  chapter  (in.  39).  He  will  find  the  other  fragments 
of  Papias  in  Routh's  Rel,  Sac,  i.  8,  or  in  Gebhardt  and  Harnack's  'Apos- 
tolic Fathers,'  i.  ii.  87. 


I  lo  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 

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  (Ip/irjvEurjyg)  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  sub- 
sequently, 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,  f  So  Mark  com- 
mitted 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  [to.  \6yia)  in 
Hebrew,  and  each  one  interpreted  them  as  he  could.' 
Eusebius  gives  no  quotation  from  Papias  concerning 
St.  Luke's  or  St.  John's  Gospels,  He  mentions,  how- 
ever, that  Papias  quotes  John's  first  Epistle ;  and  since 
that  Epistle  and  the  Gospel  have  evident  marks  of  com- 
mon 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  Gos- 
pels of  Matthew  and  Mark.     Principally  on  his  autho- 

*  Eusebius  states  that  Papias  quoted  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter ;  and 
Lightfoot  plausibly  conjectures  that  it  may  have  been  in  the  place  here 
referred  to  that  Papias  quoted  i  Pet.  v.  13. 

t  Or  oracles  :  the  reading  varies  between  \6yooi'  and  \oyiwv. 


VII.]  Papias.  1 1 1 

rity  the  belief  was  founded  that  Matthew's  Gospel  was 
originally  written  in  Hebrew,  and  that  INIark'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  descriptions  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  mentioned ;  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 
compliment  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  school- 
boys 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 

*  The  dependence  of  Mark's  Gospel  upon  Peter  is  also  asserted  by  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria  (Eus.  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.  83,  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  me- 
moirs 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. 


1 1 2  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 

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 
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  pre- 
vious existence.  Again,  we  must  allow  a  book  several 
years  to  gain  credit  and  authority,  before  we  can  con- 
ceive its  obtaining  admission  into  Church  use.  If  our 
present  Matthew  and  Mark  supplanted  a  previous  Mat- 
thew 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  for- 
gotten, 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 
speculations  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  alto- 
gether too  short  to  leave  room  for  such  a  process.  The 
mention  by  Papias  of  Matthew  and  Mark  by  name   is 


VII.]  Papii 


tas. 


113 


evidence  enough  that  in  his  time  these  Gospels  had 
already  taken  their  definite  form  ;  for  it  is  inconceivable 
that  if  anyone  in  the  second  century  had  presumed  to 
remodel  a  Gospel  which  bore  the  name,  and  was  be- 
lieved 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  pre- 
sent Gospels  his  words  indicate,  they  fly  off  to  imagine 
some  other  Matthew  and  Mark,  to  which  his  words  shall 
be  more  applicable. 

Once  more,  I  may  take  a  hint  from  our  opponents, 
and,  with  better  reason  than  they,  build  an  argument 
on  the  silence  of  Eusebius.  Pie  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  calling  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  pas- 
sage suggesting  a  possible  use  of  a  different  source. 

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  IMatthew  and  Mark 
as  we  have  them  now,  but  that  Papias's  description 
would  lead  us  to  think  of  them  as  very  different.  Mat- 
thew's Gospel  was,  according  to  him,  a  Hebrew  work, 
containing  an   account  only  of  our  Lord's  discourses  ; 

I 


1 1 4  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 

for  so  Schleiermacher*  would  have  us  translate  ra  Aoym, 
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  \piaTov 
i)  Xexf^^vra  t]  irpaxOevTa.  Again,  Mark's  Gospel,  which  in 
its  present  state  has  the  same  claims  to  orderly  arrange- 
ment as  Matthew's,  was,  according  to  Papias,  not  written 
in  order.  The  conclusion,  then,  which  has  been  drawn 
from  these  premises  is  that  Papias's  testimony  does 
not  relate  to  our  present  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark, 
but  to  certain  unknown  originals,  out  of  which  these 
Gospels  have  sprung ;  and  in  some  books  of  the  scep- 
tical 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. 
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  ( Vte  de  Jesns,  p.  xxii.) 
thus  describes  the  process  by  which  Matthew's  Gospel 
gradually  absorbed  Mark's  anecdotes,  and  Mark's  de- 
rived a  multitude  of  features  from  the  'logia'  of  Mat- 
thew : — '  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 
heart  the  living  image  of  Him  whom  they  hoped  soon 
to  see  again  in  the  clouds.  Hence  the  small  authority 
which  the  evangelic  texts  enjoyed  for  one  hundred  and 

*  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,  und  Krit.,  1832. 


VII.]  ,  Papias.  115 

fifty  years.*  No  scruple  was  felt  as  to  inserting  addi- 
tions in  them,  combining  them  diversely,  and  com- 
pleting one  by  another.'  The  passage  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  tran- 
scribed in  the  margin  of  his  copy,  the  words,  the  para- 
bles, 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  un- 
authoritatively.'t  In  this  way  we  are  to  suppose  that 
the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  which  were 
originally  unlike,  came,  by  a  process  of  mutual  assimi- 
lation, 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.  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 

*  Later  editions,  '  nearly  one  hundred. ' 

t  '  La  plus  belle  chose  du  monde  est  ainsi  sortie  d'une  elaboration  obscure 
et  completement  populaire,' 

I  2 


1 1 6  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vir. 

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  uni- 
formity. 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  ex- 
isting 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  adultery  is,  as  you  pro- 
bably 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  four  manuscripts  of  compara- 
tively late  date,  which,  however,  show  evident  marks  of 
having  been  copied  from  a  common  original,  it  is  in- 
serted in  St.  Luke's  Gospel  at  the  end  of  the  2  ist  chapter. 
It  would  be  out  of  place  to  discuss  here  the  genuine- 
ness   of  this    particular   passage.  *      Critics    generally 

*  Eusebius  gives  us  some  reason  to  think  that  the  story  of  the  adulteress 
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  should 
have  an  explanation  how  the  paragraph  has  come  to  be  inserted  in  the  par- 
ticular place  in  which  we  find  it. 


VII.]  Papias.  1 1 7 

regard  it  as  an  authentic  fragment  of  apostolic  tra- 
dition, 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  Renan'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  were  com- 
mon to  all  the  Evangelists  or  special  to  one,  and  what 
place  in  that  one  they  ought  to  occupy.  Further, 
according  to  the  hypothesis  stated,  Alark'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  dis- 
courses and  actions  of  Jesus.  If  this  were  so,  it  might 
be  expected  that  Mark's  Gospel  would  differ  from  Mat- 
thew's by  excess,  and  Matthew's  would  read  like  a 
series  of  extracts  from  Mark's.  Exactly  the  opposite 
is  the  case. 

But  I  w^holly  disbelieve  that  the  word  Xo-ym  in  the 
extract  from  Papias  is  rightly  translated  *  the  speeches 
of  our  Lord.'  Not  to  speak  of  the  absurdity  of  suppos- 
ing a  collection  of  our  Lord's  sayings  to  have  been 
made  without  any  history  of  the  occasions  on  which 
they  were  spoken,  Xo7m  is  one  word,  A0701  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 
what  be  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God'  ;  and 
lastly,  I  Peter,  iv.  1 1,  '  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 


1 1 8  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vit. 


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 
Xoym  has  its  classical  meaning,   '  oracles,'   and  is  ap- 
plied 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  Xo-yiov,  an  oracle  of  God,  the  narra- 
tive in  Gen.  iv.   15,  'The  Lord  set  a  mark  upon  Cain, 
lest  any   finding   him    should   kill   him';    and    as   an- 
other oracle  the  words,  Deut.  x.   9,   '  The  Lord  is  his 
inheritance.'     The  quotations  from  later  writers,   who 
use  the  word  Aoym  generally  as  inspired  books,  are  too 
abundant  to  be  cited.     We  must  recollect  also  that  the 
title   of  Papias'  own  work  is  Aoyiwv  kv^uikiov  k^ij-yncTig,* 
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 

*  '  If  there  were  any  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  title,  it  Avould  be  re- 
moved by  the  words  of  Irenceus  in  the  preface  to  his  treatise.  Certain,  he 
says,  trapdyovffi  rhv  vovv  tSiv  anetporepciii/,  .  .  .  paSiovpyovures  ra  X6yia  Kvplov, 
HvyVTcd  KaKo]  TiSr  KaXSis  elprj/j.evcci'  ytvS/nevot.  Papias  wished  to  combat  false 
interpretations  of  the  "  oracles"  by  tnie.'     Westcott,  N.  T.  Canon,  p.  577. 


VII.]  Papias.  1 1 9 

that  the  name  Ao-ym,  the  oracles,  given  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures,  was  also  given  to  the  Gospels,  which 
were  called  ro  kv^iukli  Xoyia,  the  oracles  of  our  Lord.  The 
title  of  Papias'  own  work  I  take  as  meaning  simply  *  an 
exposition  of  the  Gospels';  and  his  statement  about  Mat- 
thew I  take  as  meaning:  'Matthew  composed  his  Gospel 
in  Hebrew,'  the  word  Ao-yta  implying  its  Scriptural  autho- 
rity. I  do  not  know  any  passage  where  Ao/m  means  dis- 
courses; 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  con- 
taining 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  present  Mark  ;  and  that  our  pre- 
sent Luke  contains  a  great  many  discourses  not  to  be 
found  in  Matthew  ;  and  so  the  theory  led  to  the  whim- 
sical result  of  critics  looking  for  the  original  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  reading  what  Papias  says  about  Mark's  Gospel,  two 
things  are  apparent — first,  Papias  had  a  strong  belief  in 
Mark's  perfect  accuracy.  Three  times  in  this  short  frag- 
ment he  asserts  it :  '  Mark  wrote  down  accurately  every- 
thing he  remembered';  *  Mark  committed  no  error'; 
'  He  made  it  his  rule  not  to  omit  anything  he  heard,  or 
to  set  down  any  false  statement  therein.'  Secondly, 
that  Papias  was  for  some  reason  dissatisfied  with  Mark's 
arrangement,  and  thought  it  necessary  to  apologize  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    Renan's 


I20  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 

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  col- 
lection of  anecdotes.  Respecting,  as  he  did,  Mark's  ac- 
curacy, Papias  would  assuredly  have  accepted  his  order 
had  he  not  been  in  possession  of  some  other  document, 
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  posses- 
sion did  not  merely  consist  of  loose  collections  of  uncon- 
nected 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  diffe- 
rent 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  inadmissible,  at  least  on  the  supposition 
that  the  Gospel  known  to  Papias  as  St.  Mark's  was  the 
same  as  that  which  we  receive  under  the  name.  These 
answers  are  :  first,  that  the  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 


VII.]  Papias.  I2i 

of  the  right  order,  but  of  any  historical  arrangement 
whatever.  Of  these  three  solutions,  the  first — that  the 
right  order  in  Papias'  mind  was  St.  John's — is  that 
defended  with  great  ability  by  Bishop  Lightfoot.  Be- 
sides 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  discus- 
sion 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  ac- 
count for  his  silence ;  but  when  we  have  only  remaining 
some  very  brief  extracts  from  his  book,  it  seems  ludi- 
crous to  conclude  that  Papias  was  ignorant  of  St.  Luke, 
merely  because  Eusebius  found  in  his  work  no  statement 
concerning  Luke  which  he  thought  worth  copying.  With 
regard  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  Eusebius  found  the  state- 
ments that  j\Iark  was  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  and  that 
Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew,  and  these  he  thought  worth 
preserving ;  but  if  Papias  added  nothing  to  what  was 
known  about  Luke,  we  can  understand  why  Eusebius 
should  not  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  w^as  certainly  known  to  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, who  was  not  so  much  later  than  Papias  that  both 
may  not  have  been  alive  at  the  same  time,  the  conclu- 
sion' that  it  was  known  by  Papias  also  is  intrinsically 
most  probable.  When,  therefore,  in  explaining  the  lan- 
guage used  by  Papias,  we  have  to  choose  between  the 
hypothesis  that  he  was  acquainted  with  Luke's  Gospel, 


122   Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 

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  phenomena.  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 
Rationalist  school.  His  notion  is  that  Papias  was  ac- 
quainted 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'  work,  in  which  we  find  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.  Light- 
foot  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.  i8. 

But  if  we  assume  that  Papias  recognized  St.  Luke's 
Gospel,  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  inten- 
tion to  write  in  order — ypd^ai  KuOt^rn',  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 


VII.]  Papias.  123 

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  under- 
took 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  re- 
ported ;  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  think  it  likely  that  this  remark  was  also 
made  in  explanation  of  an  apparent  disagreement  be- 
tween 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  Alatthew  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,  assum- 
ing 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  \6-^ia  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  disagree- 


124  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 

ment.  Mark's  order  may  be  different  from  Luke's  ;  but, 
then,  that  was  because  it  was  not  Mark's  design  to  re- 
count 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  an  erroneous  inference  has 
been  drawn.  Papias  declares,  in  a  passage  which  I 
have  already  cited,  '  It  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  the  living  and  abiding  voice.'  The  ques- 
tion is :  Does  this  disparagement  of  written  books  ex- 
tend to  our  Gospels  ?  are  we  to  suppose  that  Papias 
regarded  these  books,  if  he  had  them,  as  in  no  sense 
inspired,  and  that  he  preferred  to  obtain  his  knowledge 
of  the  Saviour's  earthly  life  from  viva  voce  tradition  ? 
Considering  his  solicitude  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 


VII.]  Papias.  125 

illustrate  the  Scripture  history  that  he  found  it  use- 
less to  search  the  Gnostic  interpretations*  then  cur- 
rent, and  that  he  preferred  his  own  collection  of  viva 
voce  traditions,  whose  genuineness  could,  as  he  al- 
leged, be  proved  by  tracing  them  up,  like  the  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'  work,  expositions  of  the  oracles  of 
our  Lord — interpretations ;  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  apo- 
logy, 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  texts  forget 
that  he  tells  us  the  two  things — that  he  was  in  posses- 
sion 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  weak'er  understanding  than  Eusebius 
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  re- 
tort the  charge  of  stupidity  on  his  critics.  He  had  called 
Matthew's  book  the  '  Logia,'  and  his  own  book  an  inter- 
pretation of  *  Logia,'  To  find  a  parallel  case,  then,  we 
must  imagine  a  writer  of  the  present  day  publishing  a 

*  Basilides,  apparently  a  contemporary  of  Papias,  is  said  to  have  written 
twenty-four  books  on  the  Gospel  (Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  7). 


126  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Chureh.  [vii. 

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  as- 
cribed the  highest  authority,  and  in  the  perfect  accu- 
racy 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  generation. 

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  be- 
fore Peter,  as  in  John,  i.  44  (compare  Mark,  i.  29) ;  Philip 
and  Thomas  are  selected  for  mention,  who  have  no  pro- 
minence 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  Lightfoot  gives 
strong  reasons  for  thinking  Papias  to  be  the  author  of  a 
passage  quoted    anonymously  by  Irenaeus,    and   which 


VII.]  Clement  of  Rome.  127 

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  re- 
cognized this  Gospel  if  we  afterwards  find  reason  to 
think  that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles. 

If  still  earlier  evidence  than  that  of  Papias  is  re- 
quired, 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  IMaster'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  testimony  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  mill- 
stone 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  longsuffering. 
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  kindness,  so  shall  kindness  be  shown 


128  Reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 

unto  you :  with  what  measure  ye  mete,  with  the  same 
shall  it  be  measured  unto  you'(C.R.  13).  Similar  quota- 
tions are  found  in  the  Letters  of  Polycarp  and  Ignatius, 
but  the  passages  I  have  read  illustrate  the  two  charac- 
teristics 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  word  ^Remember  the  words  of  our 
Lord  Jesus,'  when  addressed  to  the  members  of  a  distant 
Church  who  had  received  no  oral  instructions  from  the 
writer,  point  distinctly,  not  to  oral  tradition,  but  a  writ- 
ten record,  which  Clement  could  know  was  recognized 
as  well  by  those  whom  he  was  addressing  as  by  himself. 
St.  Paul,  addressing  the  Ephesian  elders,  might  say, '  Re- 
member the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  how  he  said,  It  is 
more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive'  (Acts,  xx.  35),  al- 
though these  words  do  not  occur  in  our  Gospel  history, 
because  he  had  taught  for  three  years  in  Ephesus,  and 
therefore  had  the  means  of  knowing  that  his  readers 
had  heard  the  same  words  before.  But  the  words,  '  Re- 
member 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 


VII.]  Barnabas.  129 

to  which  I  refer,  and  which  contain  the  passages  cited, 
the  verbal  differences  not  exceeding  those  that  are  com- 
monly found  in  viemoritcr  quotations.  I  have  already 
spoken  of  the  degree  of  accuracy  that  may  reasonably 
be  looked  for  in  the  memortfer  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  resisting  evidence  produced  to  prove  some- 
thing 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  Barnabas  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  cen- 
tury, or  at  least  the  beginning  of  the  second,*  a  period 
at  which,  according  to  some  of  our  opponents,  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gospel  was  perhaps  not  written,  and  at  any  rate 
could  not  yet  have  been  counted  as  Scripture.  .  But  this 
Epistle  contains  (c.  4)  the  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.  Mat- 
thew, introduced  with  the  well-known  formula  of  Scrip- 
ture citation, 'It  is  written.'  But  this  part  of  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  was  till  lately  only  extant  in  a  Latin  transla- 
tion ;  hence  it  was  said  that  it  was  impossible  that  these 
words,  *  It  is  written,'  could  have  been  in  the  original 
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  for- 

*  Hilgenfeld  dates  it  A.D.  97. 
K 


I30  Receptio7i  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Early  Church,  [vii. 

mula  of  citation,  but  he  had  no  doubt  it  must  have  been 
*  as  Jesus  says,'  or  some  such  like.  Unfortunately,  how- 
ever, lately  the  Greek  text  of  this  portion  of  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas  came  to  light,  being  part  of  the  newly-dis- 
covered Sinaitic  Manuscript,  and  there  stands  the  '  as  it 
is  written,'  wq  yiyparrTai,  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  ques- 
tion whether  this  book  is  not  post-Christian  (as  cer- 
tainly 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  conten- 
tion that  the  words  *  Many  are  called,  but  few  chosen,' 
are  not  from  St.  Matthew,  but  from  this  passage, 
which  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  quota- 
tion was  perhaps  from  some  lost  apocryphal  book.  And 
lately  a  more  plausible  solution,  though  itself  sufficiently 
desperate,  has  been  discovered.  Scholten*  suggests  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. 

*  Scholten  (bom  1811),  Emeritus  Professor  of  the  University  of  Leyden,  a 
representative  of  the  extreme  school  of  revolutionary  criticism. 


VIII. 

THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS, 


Part    I . 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THEIR  ANTIQUITY. 

T  T  7E  have  now  traced  back,  as  far  as  we  had  any  ma- 
^  '  terials,  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.,  in- 
dicate that  the  earliest  opinion  was,  not  that  these 
stories  were  written  from  one  end  to  the  other  by  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  Luke  and  John,  but  only  that  they  contain 
traditions  emanating  from  these  respective  sources- 
and  guaranteed  by  their  authority.f  But  assuredly  if 
that  had  been  what  was  intended  by  the  phrase  'accord- 
ing to,'  the  second  and  third  Gospels  would  have  been 
known  as  the  Gospel  according  to  Peter  and  the  Gospel 

*  The  student  who  desiies  to  see  the  evidence  of  the  early  use  of  the  Gos- 
pels in  fuller  detail  wtII  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  vdth.  each  passage  any  illustrative  parallel  to  be  found  in 
writers  earlier  than  Ireuaeus. 

t  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  con- 
tained cannot  be  relied  on. 

K  2 


132  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [viii. 


according  to  Paul.  The  account  of  Papias,  that  Mark 
did  nothing  but  record  narrations  of  Peter  concerning 
our  Lord,  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  (iii.  i.)— 'Paul's  follower  Luke  put 
in  a  book  the  Gospel  preached  by  him.'  Some  ancient 
interperters  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  un- 
derstood to  imply  anything  less  than  actual  authorship, 
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  au- 
thority 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  narra- 
tive, the  same  good  tidings  being  contained  in  all,  only 
presented  differently  by  different  hands. 

Hence  it  follows  that  the  titles  of  our  Gospels  afford 
internal  evidence  of  their  antiquity.  They  must,  in  any 
case,  be  earlier  than  Justin  Martyr.  In  Justin's  time 
the  word  Gospel  had  acquired  its  technical  meaning; 
for  he  uses  it  in  the  plural  number,  and  says  that  the 
memoirs  of  the  Apostles  were  called  Gospels.+  The  titles, 

*  See  note,  p.  iii.  Clement  states  (Ac.)  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  en- 
courage the  design. 

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

\  Juslin  also  uses  the  singular  (e.  g.  Dial.  10,  100). 


VIII.]  Their  Titles.  133 


on  the  contrary,  bespeak  a  time  when  the  word  Gospel 
had  acquired  no  such  technical  meaning,  and  when  the 
appellation  'Evangelist'  was  not  confined  to  the  authors 
of  four  books.  All  the  x\postles  and  other  preachers  of 
the  new  religion  had  the  same  message  of  good  tidings 
to  deliver.  Whatever  might  be  the  diversity  of  form  in 
their  teaching,  all  preached  '  the  Gospel.' 

Further,  these  titles  regarded  in  another  point  of 
view  prove  their  own  historic  character.  If  they 
had  been  arbitrarily  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  Apos- 
tles, and  possibly  not  even  eyewitnesses  themselves, 
were  in  immediate  contact  with  Apostles  and  eyewit- 
nesses. 

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  eye- 
witnesses 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  Gospels :  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 


134  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [viii. 


the  Gospel  had  travelled  far  outside  the  borders  of 
Palestine,  so  that  there  were  Christians  in  widely  sep- 
arated cities ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  main  subject  of 
the  preaching  of  every  missionary  of  the  Church  was 
Jesus  Christ.  Numerous  passages  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  our- 
selves,' says  St.  Paul  (2  Cor.  iv.  5),  *  but  Christ  Jesus  the 
Lord.'  Whatever  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  whatever  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  ques- 
tions, 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. 


VIII.]      Their  Report  of  our  Lord\  Discourses.        135 

When  I  discussed  the  external  evidences  to  the  Gos- 
pels, I  considered  all  four  together  :  for  my  judgment  is 
that,  with  respect  to  external  evidence,  there  is  no  ap- 
preciable 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  con- 
sider this  Gospel  separately.  I  shall,  therefore,  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.* 

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  dis- 
courses of  our  Lord.  That  the  report  of  these  discourses 
is  substantially  accurate  no  unprejudiced  critic  can 
doubt.  Renan  speaks  of  the  *  naturalness,  the  ineff- 
able truth,  the  matchless  charm  of  the  Synoptic  dis- 
courses ;  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,  as  it  were,  detaches  them 
from  the  context,  and  enables  the  critic  easily  to  recog- 
nize 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  in  striking 
relief.' 

Indeed,  I  need  hardly  quote  the  testimony  of  Renan  or 

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


136  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [viii. 

of  anybody  else;  for  we  have  sufficient  evidence  of  the  sub- 
stantial truthfulness  of  the  Gospel  report  of  our  Lord's  dis-. 
courses  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  surprising  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  at- 
tempted 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  imi- 
tators 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. 

Thus  we  see  that  if  tradition  had  been  silent,  criti- 
cism 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  teach- 
ing were  reduced  to  a  permanent  form.  Certainly  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 


VIII.]      Their  Report  of  our  Lord'' s  Discourses.        137 

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  dis- 
courses 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  ordinary 
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  ex- 
tremely little  in  the  way  of  reminiscences  of  his  con- 
versation he  will  be  able  to  recall.  If  Boswell  has  been 
able  to  give  a  vivid  representation  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  neces- 
sary to  conclude  that  our  Lord's  discourses  were  writ- 
ten 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  discourses  were 
reduced  to  a  permanent  form,  they  could  have  been  pre- 
served 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  be- 
lieve that  the  Apostles  were  aided  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  brought  to  their  memories  the  things  that  Jesus  had 
said.  But  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  this  assist- 
ance was  bestowed  on  such  terms  as  to   relieve   them 


138  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [viii. 

from  the  duty  of  taking  ordinary  precautions  for  the  pre- 
servation of  what  was  thus  recalled  to  their  minds. 

I  hold  it,  then,  to  be  certain  that  the  existing  Gospels 
contain  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  an- 
swer this  or  any  other  historical  question  rightly  who 
projects  his  own  feelings  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  inconceivable  that 
four  illiterate  Jews  should  each  independently  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  re- 
port 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 


VIII.]        Their  Report  of  our  Lord'' s  Actions.  139 

far  less  preaching  what  Christ  had  said  than  what  he 
had  done.  The  character  in  which  He  is  presented  is 
not  that  of  a  wise  moral  teacher,  but  of  one  '  anointed 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,  who  went  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  circumstances  under 
which  they  were  spoken)  that  we  cannot  reasonably  be- 
lieve 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  com- 
mon element,  which  includes  deeds  as  well  as  words  of 
Christ ;  and  the  only  satisfactory  account  of  this  com- 
mon 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  ac- 
count 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 
cdtogether  too  numerous  to  be  referred  to  chance.  They 
agree  in  the  main  in  their  selection  of  facts — all  travel- 
ling over  nearly  the  same  ground  ;  though  indepen- 
dent 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 


140  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [viii. 


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,  be- 
fore we  could  assert  the  perfect  independence  of  the  re- 
porters, we  should  have  to  inquire  in  what  language 
our  Lord  spoke.  If  he  spoke  in  Aramaic,  different  in- 
dependent translators  of  his  words  into  Greek  would 
not  be  likely  to  coincide  not  only  in  words*  but  in  gram- 
matical constructions.  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  gram- 
matical 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.f     Yet,  with  all   these   agree- 

*  As  an  example  how  likely  independent  translators  are  to  differ  in  their 
choice  of  words,  compare  the  following  two  translations  given  in  the  Autho- 
rized Version  for  the  same  Greek  words:  'The  scribes  which  love  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  ioxz. 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  room?,  at  feasts:  which  for  a  shew  make  long  prayers.' — St. 
Luke,  XX.  46. 

+  Here  are  two  examples  :  '  His  hand  was  restored,'  aweKaTeffrdOri  ij  x^^P 
auTov  (Mark,  iii.  5  ;  Luke,  vi.  10;  Matt.  xii.  13)  ;   'Let  it  out  to  husband- 


VIII.]  Their  Common  Matter.  141 


ments,  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  ori- 
ginal Gospel.  The  difference  is  just  this,  that  while 
the  orthodox  critic  makes  the  original  Gospel  proceed 
from  apostolic  lips  or  pen,  and  ascribes  the  recast- 
ings, if  we  may  call  them  so,  to  men  who  were  in  im- 
mediate contact  with  the  Apostles ;  sceptical  critics 
place  their  original  Gospel  at  about  the  same  date 
that  we  assign  to  the  present  form  of  the  Gospels;  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  tradi- 
tion as  to  the  authorship  of  a  book,  if  well  con- 
firmed, 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  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  conces- 
sions 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  con- 
siderable 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 

men  and  went  into  a  far  country,'  e^eSero  avThu  yecupyols  kuI  ane5r]/nr]aiei' 
(Matt.  xxi.  33  ;    Mark,  xii.  i  ;    Luke,  xx.  9). 


142  The  Sytioptic  Gospels.  [viii. 

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  mere  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  tra- 
ditional 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  history  of  the  period  gives  us 
a  right  to  pronounce  improbable.  Although  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  existing  Gospels  have  suffered  material 
change  since  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 


VIII.]  Their  Predecessors.  143 


not  asserted  that  these  Gospels  of  ours  had  no  predeces- 
sors. 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  declaration  of  the  things  most  cer- 
tainly believed  among  Christians.  What,  then,  has  be- 
come of  these  predecessors  of  our  Gospels  ?  How  is  it 
that  they  have  so  utterly  vanished  out  of  existence  ? 

That  there  are  extant  apocryphal  Gospels  you 
have  doubtless  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  inspec- 
tion of  them  shows  that  they  pre-suppose  and  acknow- 
ledge the  Canonical.  Accordingly,  when  Tischendorf 
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,  pro- 
bably current  in  the  second  century,  such  a  theory  was 
loudly  protested  against  by  sceptical  critics,  because 
these  documents  presuppose  respectively  the  Gospels  of 
Matthew  and  John,  which,  therefore,  must  have  been 
much  earlier.  The  choice  of  subjects  in  the  apocry- 
phal 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  be- 
side 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  con- 
tain 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 


144  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [viii. 


about  which  traditions  might  be  expected  to  exist.  They 
rather  undertake  to  fill  up  the  gaps  of  the  Gospel  his- 
tory, 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  these  topics,  and  finding 
the  Gospels  silent,  might  be  prepared  to  welcome  some 
answer  to  their  questions  from  anyone  who  professed  to 
he  able  to  give  it.  But  nothing  is  more  intrinsically  im- 
probable 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 
tradition;  and  was  it  in  consequence  of  the  pre-eminence 
given  to  these  by  the  force  of  authority  that  the  others  then 
disappeared  ?  Not  so :  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  we  have 
no  early  interference  of  Church  authority  in  the  mak- 
ing of  a  Canon ;  no  Council  discussed  this  subject ;  no 
formal  decisions  were  made.  The  Canon  seems  to  have 
shaped  itself;  and  if,  when  we  come  further  on,  you  are 
disposed  to  complain  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  evidence  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  informa- 
tion r 


VIII.]  Their  Oral  ConDiioii  Basis.  145 

Accept  Luke's  account  of  the  matter  as  given  in  the 
preface  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  amongthem,  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  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  com- 
panions;— 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  re- 
peat 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  em- 
brace all  that  Jesus  had  said  or  done.  He  would  be  more 
likely,  as  Papias  tells  in  the  case  of  St.  Peter,  to  give  the 
accounts  of  separate  incidents,  as  the  wants  of  his  hear- 
ers 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  me- 

L 


146  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [viii. 

mor}^  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  {kvaT(xl,aadai  dniyt]aiv)  the  things  which  had 
been  orally  delivered  to  them  by  those  who  were  from 
the  beginning  eye-witnesses  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  {ypa4^ai  Ka0is^c).  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  apostolical  traditions,  that  no  one 
tried  to  preserve  those  abortive  attempts.  Similarly,  if 
Matthew's  Gospel  and  Mark's  were  written  by  the  per- 
sons to  whom  we  ascribe  them,  we  can  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  com- 
mit 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  reputation,  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 
antiquity  of  our  Gospels  from  the  absence  of  all  authentic 
tradition  as  to  the  manner  of  their  first  publication. 
Such  tradition  would  be  very  welcome  if  it  could  be  had, 


VIII.]  Absence  of  Tradition  as  to  their  Publication.    147 

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  edi- 
tion of  his  Gospel,  so  that  each  of  the  types  of  manuscript 
represents  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  himself  ?  But  no  tradition  is  early 
enough  to  throw  any  light  on  such  a  hypothesis,  either 
in  the  way  of  confirmation  or  refutation.  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  published  his 
Gospel  in  Palestine,  Mark  in  Italy,  Luke  in  Greece;  and, 
at  a  later  period,  John  in  Asia-Minor,  by  way  of  supple- 
ment to  the  previous  histories.  It  is  by  no  means  in- 
credible that  the  fact  that  we  have  three  versions  of  our 
Lord's  life,  with  so  much  in  common,  may  have  arisen 
from  independent  publication  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,  who  made  it 
his  business  to  collect  them,  and  who  was  comparatively 
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. 

L  2 


148  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [viii. 


In  the  absence,  then,  of  any  contemporary  testi- 
mony as  to  the  manner  of  publication  of  the  Gospels, 
or  as  to  the  existence  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 
authorship  still  leaves  an  interval  between  the  first 
publication  of  the  Gospel  story  and  the  existing  re- 
cord, 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  Christian 
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 


VIII.]  Necessity  for  Written  Gospels.  149 

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  know- 
ledge of  the  facts,  such  presidents  would  be  able  to  tell 
all  that  was  necessary  from  their  personal  recollec- 
tions, unassisted  by  any  written  record.  But  what  would 
happen  when  the  Apostolic  preachers  who  had  founded 
a  new  Church  went  away  r  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  con- 
trast with  apostolic  missions,  that  in  our  day  the  for- 
mation 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  fur- 
nished by  the  Church  which  sent  forth  the  first  mission- 
aries. But  in  the  apostolic  days,  soon  after  the  first 
burst  of  missionary  effort,  and  the  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel 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 
generation  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  may  be  deemed  more  probable  that  ballads  should 
pass  on  from  mouth  to  mouth,  than  that  they  should  be 


150  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [viii. 

preserved  by  the  then  unknown  or  unfamiliar  art  of  writ- 
ing. We  have  to  do  with  a  literary  age.  If  we  want  to 
know  what  amount  of  literary  culture  was  possessed  by 
the  first  Christian  Churches,  we  have,  in  Paul's  unques- 
tioned Epistles,  specimens  of  the  communications  that 
passed  between  a  Christian  missionary  and  his  converts. 
Can  anyone  read  these  letters  and  doubt  that  the  first 
Christian  teachers  included  men  quite  competent  to  com- 
mit their  message  to  writing,  and  that  the  communities 
which  they  founded  included  men  capable  of  appreciat- 
ing 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  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  consis- 
tent with  probability  to  believe  that  they  were  sub- 
sequently changed  from  their  original  form  ?  I  have  told 
you  of  Renan's  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels 
in  the  little  books  in  which  different  simple  Christians 
wrote  down  such  stories  as  they  had  come  across  con- 
cerning the  Saviour's  life  and  teaching.  To  me  it  is 
the  most  amazing  thing  in  the  world  that  a  man  should 
writeseven  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 
Christians  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 


VIII. J    A  Gospel  once  Accepted  7iot  easily  Changed.     1 5 1 

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  feel- 
ings 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  whether  or  not  they  had  the 
exact  form  in  which  Mark  or  Luke  had  recorded  it.  But 
people  would  at  least  be  solicitous  about  the  historic  cer- 
tainty of  the  things  to  which  they  were  to  give  their  faith. 
St.  Luke  tells  his  disciple  his  object  in  writing  was  "iva 
Ivciyx'tj^q  TTipX  lov  KaTr}\{]Or]g  X6y(vv  t})v  a(T(pa\eiav.  W^ithout 
such  aa(l>a\ua  the  Christian  people  could  not  be  satisfied. 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  writing  about  A.D.  180,  says  : 
"  Writers  ought  either  to  have  been  eye-witnesses  them- 
selves of  the  things  they  assert,  or  at  least  have  accu- 
rately 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 


152  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [viii. 

cannot  believe  that  those  who  were  in  possession  of  narra- 
tives, 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  sjich  an  alteration  possible  know  of  the  con- 
servatism 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  'cucurbita,'  such  a 
tumult  was  raised,  that  if  the  bishop  had  persevered  he 
would  have  been  left  without  a  congregation.*  The  feel- 
ing 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  meet  him  again  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  be- 
lieve in  short  that  any  Church  wouldpermit  a  change  to  be 
made  in  the  form  of  evangelic  instruction  in  which  its 
membershad  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  innovate  on  the 
Gospel  as  it  had  been  delivered  by  those,  '  which  from 
the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
Word,'  I  venture  to  say  that,  like  the  bishop  of  whom 
Augustine  tells,  he  would  have  been  left  without  a  con- 
gregation. 

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


IX.]  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  153 

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  con- 
clusions 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  con- 
vince 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  de- 
scribe 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  re- 
gard their  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Gospels  as  pre- 
cluding 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  geological  in- 
quiries. If  the  markings  of  a  stone  resembled  a  plant  or 
a  fish,  it  was  held  that  this  was  but  a  sport  of  Creative 


154  ^'^^  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

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  w^orks 
present,  in  the  reverent  belief  that  He  has  not  mocked 
us  with  delusive  suggestions  of  a  fictitious  history.  Simi- 
larly 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  au- 
thentic history  to  guide  us ;  for  the  earliest  uninspired 
Church  writers  are  far  too  late  to  have  had  personal  know- 
ledge of  the  publication  of  the  Gospels,  and  such  tradi- 
tions as  they  have  preserved  are  extremely  scanty,  and  not 
always  to  be  implicitly  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  to  the 
origin  of  the  Gospels,  and  to  persuade  you  that  know- 
ledge 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 
unexpected  victories,  that  we  incur  the  reproach  of  in- 
dolent 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 


IX.]      Ways  of  accounting  for  their  Agreements.       155 

those  who  recognize  in  them  no  Divine  element,  than  by 
those  who  believe  in  their  inspiration.  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  examination  of  the  work  of 
the  respective  human  authors  of  the  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  in- 
dication 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  discouraging  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  common  matter  are  three-fold,  (i)  The  Evange- 
lists 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  faithfull}^  pre- 
served by  the  memory  of  different  disciples.    There  is  wide 


156  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

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, 
w^hichever  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  com- 
municated 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  to  give — viz.,  that  in  our  choice  of  a  solution 
we  ought  to  be  determined  solely  by  a  patient  compari- 
son 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  without  examina- 
tion both  the  first  and  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  per- 
mit 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  rea-son  for  preferring 

*  Thus  Mr.  Sadler,  a  writer  for  whom  I  have  much  respect,  says  (Comm. 
on  S.  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  nevei  have  made  if  he  looked  upon  them 
as  inspired  documents.'     And  again,   'The  inspiration  [of  the  Gospels]  is  in- 


IX.]      Theories  as  to  Inspiration  here  Irrelevant .       157 

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  narra- 
tives 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  accomplish  than  if  it  had  been  en- 
dowed 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  varia- 
tions 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  interfer- 
ing miraculously  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  estab- 
lishing that  conditions  have  been  satisfied  in  the  trans- 
mission of  the  Divine  message  which  cannot  be  shown 
to  be  essential  to  what  one  of  the  Evangelists  de- 
clares 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  preach- 

compatible  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.' 


158  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

ing  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  in- 
cident 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  state- 
ments 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  succes- 
sors, 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  Evangelist  (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,  not- 
withstanding, 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.  J^F^  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  know- 
ledge. Every  one  of  our  Evangelists  has  told  us  many 
things  which  he  could  not  have  learned  from  the  work 
of  any  of  the  other  three.  If  one  of  the  apostolic 
band  of  missionaries,  on  quitting  a  Church  which 
he    had    founded,  desired  to  leave    behind,   for  the  in- 


IX.]  Hypothesis  of  Common  Documetits.  159 

struction  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  Evan- 
gelist, 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  ac- 
cording to  which  inspiration  must  act,  and  if  we  under- 
take 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  archetype — at  one  moment  servilely  copying  its 
words,  and  the  next  moment  capriciously  deviating  from 
them — is  inconsistent  not  only  with  a  belief  in  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  antecedent  document  employed,  but  also 
with  the  ascription  to  it  of  any  authority  whatever.  I  am 
persuaded  that  this  assertion  cannot  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  Ship- 
wreck 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 


i6o  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

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  com- 
mon words;  sometimes  a  whole  sentence  is  common  to 
two  ;  and  yet  identity  of  narration  is  never  kept  up  long 
without  some  interruption. 

In  ancient  times  it  was  considered  legitimate  to  use, 
without  acknowledgment,  the  very  words  of  a  preceding 
writer  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  would  now  be  re- 
garded as  consistent  with  literary  honesty.  But  even 
when  one  means  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  few'er 
than  thirty-one  variations  from  the  portions  of  the 
actual  text  recently  recovered.*  The  frequent  occur- 
rence 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  temp- 
tation 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  remem- 

*  Maliaffy's  History  of  Greek  Literature,  ii.  121. 


IX.]      Variations  Consistent  with  this  Hypothesis.      lui 

bers  the  sense  ;  and  consequently,  while  he  reproduces 
the  more  remarkable  words  which  have  fixed  them- 
selves in  his  memory,  will  be  apt  to  vary  in  what  may 
seem  a  capricious  way  from  his  original.  I  do  not 
think  that  the  variations  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 
Evangelist  might  probably  think  it  needless  to  exclude, 
some  means  of  judgment  are  afforded  by  the  three  ac- 
counts of  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul  contained  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  These  accounts  present  the  same 
phenomena  of  great  resemblance  with  unaccountable 
diversities,  and  even  apparent  contradictions.  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  dis- 
covered the  different  *  tendencies '  of  the  narrators.  As 
things  are,  we  seem  to  get  a  measure  of  the  amount  of 
variation  which  St.  Luke  regarded  as  compatible  A\ith 
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  could  be  asserted  without  cast- 
ing 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  of  the  documentary 
hypothesis  the  right  to  get  a  hearing.     We  may  now  go 

M 


162"  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 


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/acts  ? 

Let  us  then  observe  the  precise  nature  of  the  agree- 
ment between  the  Synoptic  narratives.    If  the  story  of  a 
miracle  were  told  by  two  independent  witnesses  we  should 
have  relations  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  by  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  of  the  palsy)  arise, 
take  up  thy  bed  and  go  unto  thine  house.'    You  wnll  feel 
that  it  would  be  scarcely  possible  for  three  independent 
narrators  to  agree  in  interpolating  this  parenthesis  into 
their  report   of  our  Lord's  words.      Take  another  ex- 
ample:  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  remon- 
strances 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  parenthetically  that 
there  had  been  a  command,  this  coincidence  alone  gives 
us  warrant  for  thinking  that  we  have  here,  not  the  story 


IX.]  Oral  Hypothesis  approximates  to  Documentary.   1 63 

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  correspond- 
ing 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  ma- 
terial to  which  the  writing  had  been  committed  was  pa- 
pyrus, or  parchment,  or  waxen  tablets.  Well,  if  we  are 
willing  to  believe  that  the  memory  of  the  first  disciples, 
unspoiled  by  the  habit  of  writing  and  stimulated  by  the 
surpassing  interest  of  the  subject,  retained  what  was  en- 
trusted to  it  as  tenaciously  and  as  faithfully  as  a  written 
record,  then  the  hypothesis  that  a  story  had  been  pre- 
served 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  re- 
cord. 

M  2 


164  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix.. 

It  is  because  we  have  not  only  one  but  several  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  defi- 
nite order.  Our  choice  between  the  two  suppositions  can 
be  guided  by  examining  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  agree- 
ment in  the  way  of  telling  separate  stories,  but  extends 
also  to  the  order  of  arranging  them.  Take,  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  devia- 
tion from  the  natural  chronological  order  can  scarcely 
be  explained  except  by  supposing  either  that  one  Evan- 
gelist 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  imprison- 
ment of  John  in  its  proper  place  (iii.  19),  and  the  per- 
plexed 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  improvement  that  would  sug- 
gest itself  to  anyone  desirous  to  relate  the  history  in 


IX.]     Inferences  from  Arrangeme7it  of  Incidents.     165 

chronological  order.  And  we  may  even  conjecture  that 
it  was  in  consequence  of  Luke's  thus  departing  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  incident  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  incidents,  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  conclude  that  the  likeness  between 
the  Gospels  is  not  sufficiently  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  these  common 
sections  we  have,  represented  approximately,  a  primary 

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


1 66  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

document  used  by  all  three  Evangelists,  I  say  approxi- 
mately, 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 
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  discourses.  It  is  not  only  that  the  words  of 
Papias,  as  I  have  contended,  give  us  no  authority  for 
believing  in  the  existence  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  docu- 
ment, 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  Sermon  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  i  ith  chap- 
ter, 14  in  the  12th,  3  in  the  13th,  i   in  the  14th,  3  in  the 


IX.]     Inference  from  Arrajtgement  of  Discourses.      167 

1 6th,  and  47  are  omitted  altogether.  The  same  disloca- 
tion 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  discourses,  but  that  the  sayings  they 
have  in  common  must  have  reached  them  as  indepen- 
dent 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  com- 
pare 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  independent  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 

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


1 68  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  \yk. 


successive  revelations  to  Joseph,  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  the 
slaughter  of  the  Innocents,  the  flight  into  Egypt.  In  the 
other  the  annunciation  to  Mary,  the  visit  to  Elisabeth, 
the  taxing,  the  visit  of  the  shepherds,  the  presentation  in 
the  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  many  things  well  suited  to  his  purpose.  When,  there- 
fore, 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  hypothesis  may  safely  be  left  out  of  con- 
sideration. 

The  hypothesis  that  the  later  of  the  Synoptics  bor- 
rowed from  the  earlier  may  evidently  be  maintained, 
and  has  actually  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  arrangements.  How- 
ever, if  we  regard  it  as  established  that  Matthew  and 
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  consideration.  Some  maintain  that  Mark's  Gos- 
pel was  the  earliest,  and  that  Matthew  and  Luke  inde- 
pendently incorporated  portions  of  his  narrative  with 
additions  of  their  own  :  others  believe  that  Mark  wrote 


IX.]      Did  the  Later  borrow  from  the  Earlier?      169 

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  de- 
veloped. I  count  this  as  but  a  form  of  the  solution 
which  will  next  come  under  consideration,  viz.,  that 
the  Evangelists  used  common  documents.  To  give  to 
one  of  these  documents  the  question-begging  name 
of 'original  Matthew,'  Sec,  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  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 
Gospel  was  not  Matthew,  and  that  this  was  the  name  of 
the  author  of  the  basis-document.  It  is  grossly  unscien- 
tific so  to  encumber  with  details  the  solution  of  a  prob- 
lem which,  in  its  simplest  form,  presents  quite  enough  of 
difficulty.      Accumulation    of  unverifiable   details   is   a 

*  Tlais  controversy  illustrates  a  source  of  difficulty  in  these  critical  in- 
quiries, 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 '  (o\f I'as  yevo/xfi^ris  tire  edvffev  6  ^\tos). 
Here  St.  Matthew  (viii.  16)  has  'at  even'  (6<|/ias  yevo/nfuris);  St.  Luke  (iv.  40), 
'when  the  sun  was  setting'  (Swovros  rov  7i\iov).  One  critic  argues  that  this 
comparison  clearly  shows  Mark  to  be  the  earUest,  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  e\idently  being  Mark,  who 
carefully  combined  in  his  narrative  everything  that  he  found  in  the  earlier 
sources. 


lyo  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

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-Markus  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-Matthseus,  and  finally,  this  employed  by  a 
new  editor  of  the  proto-Markus  to  manufacture  by  its 
means  the  deutero-Markus  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  ro- 
mance, as  they  undertake  to  number  and  name  the 
different  documents  which  have  been  used  in  the  com- 
position 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 
emploj^ed  for  literary  purposes  :  Josephus,  for  instance, 
tells  us  in  his  preface  that  his  work  on  the  Jewish  wars 
had  been  originally  written  in  that  language.  It  is  in- 
trinsically   probable   that  the  Hebrew-speaking  Chris- 


IX.]  Hypothesis  of  Hebrew  Original.  171 

tians  of  Palestine  should  have  a  Gospel  in  their  own 
language,  and  we  actually  hear  of  Hebrew  Gospels 
claiming  great  antiquity.  It  is  therefore  no  great 
stretch  of  assumption  to  suppose  that  a  Hebrew  Gospel 
was  the  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  passages  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  think- 
ing themselves  bound  alwa3''s  to  translate  the  same 
Greek  word  by  the  same  English.  For  example,  there 
is  considerable  verbal  difference  between  the  two  fol- 
lowing 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  variations 
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  Evan- 
gelist and  the  '  leathern  girdle  '  of  the  other  being  both 
translations  of  the  same  Greek  words,  X^Lov^v  Sep/maTivriv. 
It  is,  then,  a  very  tempting  conjecture  that  the  further 
differences,  '  had  his  raiment  of  camel's  hair,'  *  was 
clothed  with  camel's  hair  ';  *  his  meat  was  locusts  and 

*  See  note,  p.  140. 


172  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  [ix. 

wild  honey,'  '  he  did  eat  locusts  and  wild  honey ' — dif- 
ferences which  exist  in  the  Greek  as  well  as  in  our  ver- 
sion—might be  explained  by  regarding  the  two  Greek 
accounts  as  translations  from  a  common  Aramaic  origi- 
nal. This  supposition  evidently  gives  a  satisfactory  ex- 
planation of  all  variations  between  the  Gospels  which 
are  confined  to  w^ords  and  do  not  affect  the  sense.  Some 
ingenious  critics  have  gone  further,  and  tried  to  show 
how  some  of  the  variations  which  do  affect  the  sense 
might  have  arisen  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  cor- 
rections. For  example,  in  Matthew  (ix.  12)  and  Mark 
(ii.  17)  we  read,  'They  that  are  strong  (oj  XayyovT^q)  have 
no  need  of  a  physician/  in  Luke  (v.  31)  it  is  'they 
that  are  well '  (ot  wymtVoi'TEc).  Now  Matthew  and 
Luke  may  have  independently  translated  the  same 
Aramaic  word  by  different  Greek  ones  ;  but  it  is  also  a 
possible  supposition  that,  having  Matthew  or  Mark's 
Greek  before  him,  but  knowing  that  our  Lord  had  not 
spoken  in  Greek,  Luke  purposely  altered  the  popular 
I^hrase  ot  Xayyovriq  into  the  more  correct  word  to  denote 
health,  {/•ym/i  ovref,'.*   Again,  St.  Mark  uses  several  words 

*  Similarly,  Luke,  v.  18  has  irapaXeKvfievos,  not  napaXvriKSs,  Mark,  ii.  3  ; 
laadai  (vi.  I9),  not  SiaffdoCeiv  (Matt.  xiv.  36)  ;  rpri/na  fie\6vr]s  (xviii.  25),  not 
TpviTTiixa  pa^lSos  (Matt.  xix.  24),  or  rpv/j.a\ia  pacpiSos  (Mark,  x.  25).  Many 
more  instances  of  the  kind  will  be  found  in  Dr.  Hobart's  interesting  book  on 
77ie  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  witli  that  of 


IX.]    Hypothesis  of  Hebrew  Original  insufficient.      173 


which  we  know,  from  the  grammarian  Phrynichus,  were 
regarded  as  vulgarisms  by  those  who  aimed  at  elegance 
of  Attic  style.  Such  are  layJnMQ  ixu  (v.  2->)\  ivaxvi^^ov 
(xv.  43),  KoWv[5i(TTai  (xi.  15),  Konaaiov  (v.  41),  K|Oa/3/3aroc 
(ii.  4),  iLiQv6(j}9aXfxog  (ix.  47),  opKi^w  (v.  7),  pcnrKrua  (xiv.  65), 
pa(pig  (x.  25).*  Now  when  Luke  avoids  all  these  words, 
we  cannot  infer  with  any  certainty  that  he  is  merely 
making  an  independent  translation  of  an  Aramaic  ori- 
ginal. The  case  may  be,  that  St.  Luke,  who,  of  all  the 
Evangelists,  had  most  command  of  the  Greek  language, 
may  have  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  purit}' 
than  those  for  whom  the  Third  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  trans- 
lators. If  such  cases  are  to  be  explained  by  the  use  of  a 
common  original,  that  original  must  have  been  in  the 
Greek  language.  I  do  not  lay  stress  on  the  liriovaiog  of 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  though  the  word  plainly  belongs  to 

Greek  medical  treatises.  The  result  is  to  show  that  a  common  featmre  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,  perhaps,  some- 
times pushes  his  argument  too  far,  forgetting  that  medical  writers  must  em- 
ploy ordinary  as  well  as  technical  language,  and  therefore  that  every  word 
frequently  found  in  medical  books  cannot  fairly  be  claimed  as  a  term  in  \vhich 
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  re- 
main to  establish  completely  what  he  desires  to  prove. 

*  I  take  this  hst  from  Dr.  Abbott's  article  '  Gospels  '  in  the  ninth  edition 
of  the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica. 


174  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

the  class  of  which  I  speak,  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  Trftrwi'  etti  tov  XiOov  tovtov  (TVvdXaaOijatTai, 
£(p'  ov  S'  av  TTccrrj,  XiKfxncrei  avTov.  We  have  the  very  same 
words  in  St.  Luke,  xx.  iS,  with  only  the  exception  of 
f.Ki7vov  XWov  for  XiOov  tovtov.  It  is  certainly  not  likely 
that  two  independent  translators  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,  insigni- 
ficant in  numbers,  no  doubt,  but  sufficient  to  establish 
the  fact  that  a  text  from  which  these  words  were  want- 
ing early  obtained  some  circulation.  And  then  we  must 
admit  it  to  be  possible  that  the  shorter  reading  repre- 
sents the  original  text  of  St.  Matthew ;  and  the  longer, 
one  which  a  very  early  transcriber  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  Evangelists : 
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,  v.  33-39),  when  you  will  find  such  a  continuous  use 
of  common  words  as  to  forbid  the  idea  that  we  have  be- 
fore us  independent  translations  from  another  lan- 
guage.* 

*  See  also  p.  140.  Other  examples  of  common  words  are — avdyaiov, 
(Mark,  xv.  IJ;  Luke,  xxii.  12);  5vffK6\us  (Matt.  xix.  23;  Mark,  x.  23;  Luke, 
xviii.  24);    /cRTe'/cAaere   (Mark,  vi.  41  ;   Luke,  ix.  16);  koKo^ovv  (Matt.  xxiv.  22; 


IX.]        A  Commoft  Greek  Original  necessary.         175 


The  use  of  a  common  Greek  original  is  further  estab- 
lished 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  Evangelist  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  Evangelists, 
As  a  rule  they  are  taken  from  the  LXX.,  and  when  they 
deviate  from  our  text  of  the  LXX.  all  agree  in  the  devia- 
tion. For  example,  all  three  quote  Malachi's  prophecy 
in  the  form — tSou,  aTroortAAw  tov  ayyeXov  juov  Trpo  npocru)- 
TTOu  (TOV,  oc  KaracTKEuacTEi  rrjv  oSov  (tov  (Matt,  xi.  lO  ;  Mark, 
i.  2;  Luke,  vii.  27).  Here  the  LXX.  has  ISov,  c^otto- 
oteAAw  r.  a.  jU.,  koX  lTn[5Xi\paTai  oSov  irpo  TTOoawirov  /liov. 
Similarly,  Matt.  xv.  8,  g,  is  in  verbal  agreement  with 
Mark,  vii.  6,7,  but  the  quotation  is  considerably  different 
from  the  LXX.  In  Matt.  iv.  lo;  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  coinci- 
dences. 

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 

Mark,  xiii.  20);  irrepvyiov  (Matt.  iv.  5;  Luke,  iv.  9);  SiaPKe'peis  (Matt.  vii.  5; 
Luke,  vi.  42). 


176  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

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  to 
multiply.  Eichhorn,*  for  example,  having  put  forward 
in  1794  the  idea  of  an  Aramaic  original  from  different 
recensions  of  which  the  different  Gospels  had  sprung, 
Marsh  t  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  Synop- 
tic Gospels  severally  took  their  origin.  Eichhorn  then, 
in  the  second  edition  of  his  Introduction,  adopted 
Marsh's  theory  as  to  its  general  outline,  but  added  to 
the  number  of  assumed  documents,  and  otherwise  com- 
plicated the  history.  It  is  not  wonderful  that  these 
theories  found  little  acceptance  with  subsequent  scho- 
lars, who  have  not  been  able  to  believe  in  so  complicated 
a  history,  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 
documents  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 

*  Eichhorn  (1752- 1827),  Professor  at  Jena  and  afterwards  at  Gottingen, 
pubUshed  liis  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  knowledge 
of  German  theological  speculation.  The  theor)^  referred  to  in  the  text  was  put 
forward  in  1803  in  an  Appendix  to  his  translation  of  Michaehs's  Introduction 
to  the  Ne-w  Testametit. 


IX.]  '  The   Triple  "^    Traditioyi.  177 

latter  hypothesis  nothing  forbids  us  to  suppose  that 
each  story  when  orally  delivered  may  have  been  sepa- 
rately written  down  by  the  hearers,  so  that  the  hypo- 
thesis is  practically  equivalent  to  one  which  assumes 
as  the  basis  a  large  number  of  independent  docu- 
ments. 

I  certainly  have  not  courage  to  follow  out  the  docu- 
mentary 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  to  pursue  this  study  you  can 
now  do  so  luxuriously  by  means  of  Mr.  Rushbrooke's 
Synoptico7i^  published  by  Macmillan  in  1880.  The  cor- 
responding passages  are  printed  in  parallel  columns, 
matter  common  to  the  three  Synoptics  being  printed  in 
red,  and  that  common  to  each  two  being  also  distin- 
guished 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  considera- 
tions which  it  seems  to  me  he  has  not  sufficiently  attended 
to,  and  which  ought  to  be  kept  in  mind  by  way  of  cau- 
tion 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  them- 
selves.   You  would  feel  that  a  man  knew  very  little  of 

N 


178  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

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  sen- 
tence, 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  brains ;  it  cannot  be  done  merely  by  blue  and 
red  pencils.  When  one  of  our  authorities  fails  we  must 
not  assume  without  examination  that  the  two  remaining 
ones  are  now  deriving  their  narrative  from  some  new 
source ;  and,  moreover,  the  questions  whether  the  common 
source  were  oral  or  written,  and  in  what  language  it 
was,  all  demand  careful  inquiry.* 

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  Synop- 
tics, he  forthwith  accepts  the  residuum  as  the  '  original 

*  A  specimen  of  the  scientific  conduct  of  a  quite  similar  investigation  is  to 
be  found  in  the  attempt  of  Lipsius  to  recover  the  common  document,  which 
he  beheves  to  have  been  used  by  three  different  writers  on  heresy — Epipha- 
nius,  Philaster,  and  Pseudo-TertuUian.  (See  Lipsius,  QiicUenkritik  des  Epi- 
phanios.) 


IX.]    Comvion  Document  not  necessarily  Complete,    ijg 

tradition  upon  which  the  Synoptic  Gospels  are  based,'  or 
at  least  as  representing  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.' 

Thus  the  triple  tradition  is  said  to  verify  itself,  be- 
cause 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  (ipaxtlQ  kuX  (rvvTOjuoi,  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  *t/ie  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  addi- 
tions 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 

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

(i)  .    .    .    to  the  mountain    .    .    late  .  .  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  appUcation  of  the  methods  of  Paulus  (see 

2  N 


i8o  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  re- 
cover 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  omis- 
sions 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  exa- 
mine it  more  closely.  We  find  then  that  it  is  cer- 
tainly 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 
certain  events  given  by  a  single  relater.     Compare  the 

p.  13) ;  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  else  where  the  language  used  by 
the  reporters  of  the  event  was  misunderstood. 


IX.]  Meaning  of  ^  Triple  Tradition.''  i8i 

story  of  the  Crucifixion,  as  told  by  St.  Luke,  with 
that  told  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  and  we  find 
the  two  accounts  completely  independent,  having 
scarcely  anything  in  common  except  what  results  neces- 
sarily 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  Evan- 
gelists 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  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  at- 
tested tradition,'  but  singly  attested  tradition.  If  you 
compare  the  history  of  the  early  Church,  as  told  by  three 
modern  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  his- 
tories ceases,  and  our  triple  tradition  comes  to  an  end. 
Thus,  instead  of  its  being  true  that  the  '  triple  tradition ' 


1 82  .  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  [ix. 

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  of  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  unexpectedly  lose  one  whom  we  love,  of  recall- 
ing 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  in- 
terval between  the  Resurrection  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  given  in  order  to  provide  them  with  a  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  for- 
bids 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  accu- 
racy words  spoken  at  some  distance  of  time,  that  there 


IX.]  Source  of  the  ^Triple  Tradition.''  183 

would  be  nothing  surprising  if  the  story  of  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  mainly  depended  on  a  single  witness, 
whose  recollections  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 
tradition '  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  imme- 
diately 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  Trans- 
figuration which  determines  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 


1 84  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

fully  awake,  to  explain  what  he  had  meant  by  them  ?  It 
seems  to  me  then  that  we  are  quite  entitled  to  substi- 
tute, 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  Gali- 
lean ministry.  Although  I  have  given  reasons  for  think- 
ing that  these  recollections  had  been  arranged  into  a  con- 
tinuous 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  tradi- 
tion, 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 
eye-witness.  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  eye-witness,  who 
evidently  had  followed  Jesus,  who  had  loved  Him,  and 
looked  on  Him  very  close  at  hand,  and  who  had  pre- 
served 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 


IX.]         Autoptic  Character  of  Second  Gospel.  185 


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  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  be- 
came visible  there  was  a  rush  of  the  crowd  running  to 
Him.  It  is  then  Mark  alone  who  records  the  conversa- 
tion 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  sufiice  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  consens.  Evaiigg.  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 
{■rrpaaial  irpamai)  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 


1 86  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

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  Cyrene.  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  of  the  primitive  Gospel.  But  sub- 
sequent criticism  has  generally  acknowledged  the  view 
to  be  truer  which  recognizes  in  these  details  particulars 
which  had  fastened  themselves  on  the  memory  of  an 
eye-witness.  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 


IX.]        Matthew  and  Luke  did  not  copy  Mark.        187 


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  confirma- 
tion to  the  tradition  that  Mark's  Gospel  took  its  origin 
in  a  request,  made  by  those  who  desired  to  have  a  per- 
manent 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  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  con- 
tains a  good  deal  more  than  the  Petrine  tradition  ;  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  con- 
tains so  little  outside  the  Petrine  tradition,  that  is  not 

*  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.' 


1 88  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

found  either  in  Matthew  or  Luke,  is  most  easily  ex- 
plained on  the  supposition  that  he  was  the  latest ;  for  if 
it  was  the  other  two  Evangelists  who  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  the  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  ap- 
pearance to  the  two  disciples  at  Emmaus.  The  current 
of  critical  opinion  runs  so  strongly  in  favour  of  the  re- 
jection of  these  verses  that  it  seems  presumptuous  to  op- 
pose 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  tradi- 
tion completed  into  a  Gospel.  Of  course,  it  is  not  to  be 
expected  that  there  should  be  uniformity  of  style  be- 
tween verses  that  belong  to  the  tradition  and  those  which 
belong  to  the  framework  in  which  it  is  set  ;  and,  there- 
fore, arguments  against  the  last  twelve  verses,  drawn 


IX.]  Last  Tivelve  Verses  of  St.  Mark.  189 

from  a  comparison  of  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  resemblance,  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 
concluding  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  [vv.  11,  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  evidence  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  ac- 
counts. AVhere  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. 


I  go  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 

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  whole  Gospel ;  and  I  am,  therefore,  dis- 
posed 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  tra- 
ditions 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  brief  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  disputed 
verses  are  expressly  attested  by  Irenaeus  in  the  second  century,  and  very  prob- 
ably 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  Cure- 
tonian  version  as  well  as  in  the  Peshito.  Possibly  we  ought  to  add  to  the 
witnesses  for  the  verses — Papias,  Celsus,  and  Hippolytus.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  earliest  witness  against  the  verses  is  Eusebius  in  the  fourth  century ; 
nor  is  there  any  distinct  witness  against  them  who,  we  can  be  sure,  is  indepen- 
dent of  Eusebius.  The  patristic  references  in  Dr.  Hort's  note  contain  interest- 
ing materials  for  discussion  of  the  question  what  amount  of  circulation  the 
Eusebian  form  of  text  obtained ;  but  his  best  attempt  to  obtain  pre-Eusebian 
testimony  is  an  argument  that  neither  TertuUian  nor  Cyprian  could  have 
known  verse  i6,  else  they  would  have  used  it  when  writing  about  baptism. 
It  is  a  very  common  experience  with  everyone  who  makes  a  speech  or  writes  a 
book  to  find  after  he  has  brought  his  work  to  a  conclusion  that  he  has  omitted 
to  use  some  telling  argument  which  he  might  have  employed.  In  the  present 
case  the  argument  ex  silentio  is  particularly  precarious.  If  the  verses  are  to 
be  rejected  it  must  be  as  a  Western  addition.  They  are  found  in  every  Latin 
nianubcript  that  \vc  know  of  but  one ;  and  they  were  in  the  Gospel  as  read  by 


IX.]  Last  Twelve  Verses  of  St.  Mark.  191 


Irenjeus.  This  alone  might  give  us  reason  to  think  that  they  must  have  been 
known  to  Cyprian  also  ;  but  it  happens  that  one  of  the  things  which  an  im- 
pugner  of  the  verses  has  got  to  explain  away  is  what  seems  a  clear  quotation 
of  them  by  a  bishop  at  one  of  Cyprian's  councils.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
argument  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  dif- 
ferent 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  2nd  century.'  Let  it  be  granted  that  this  inference  holds  good  in  the 
case  of  ordinary  agreements  between  B  and  N  ;  but  the  present  case  is  excep- 
tional. The  MSS.  are  here  not  independent,  the  conclusion  of  St.  Mark 
being  transcribed  in  both  by  the  same  hand.  Further,  that  conclusion  is  con- 
fessedly written  in  the  Sinaitic  (and,  as  I  believe,  in  the  Vatican  also)  on  a 
cancel  leaf,  which  apparently  takes  the  place  of  one  containing  more  matter 
than  the  present  text.  The  gap  is  covered  in  the  Sinaitic  by  spreading  out 
the  writing,  while  a  blank  is  left  in  the  Vatican.  There  is,  therefore,  strong 
ground  for  suspecting  that  in  this  place  these  MSS.  do  not  represent  the  read- 
ing 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  bibhcal  critic  was  predominant,  we  still  fail  to  get  distinctly 
pre-Eusebian  testimony  against  the  verses. 

(3)  '  Supposing  that  we  cannot  produce  against  the  verses  any  witness  ear- 
lier than  Eusebius,  stiU  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  I 
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  tmstworthy,  it  remains  to  be  considered  whether  we 
are  to  prefer  a  credible  witness  telling  an  incredible  stoiy  to  a  less  trustworthy 
witness  telling  a  highly  probable  one. 

II.  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. 

(i)  We  may  fairly  dismiss  as  incredible  the  supposition  that  the  conclusion 
which  St.  Mark  originally  wrote  to  his  Gospel  unaccountably  disappeared 


192  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  [ix. 


without  leaving  a  trace  behind,  and  was  ahnost  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,  indi- 
cations might  appear  that  the  addition  had  been  made  only  after  the  Gospel 
had  been  supposed  to  terminate.  In  this  way  might  originate  a  local  circula- 
tion 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  iU-omened  a  termination  as  i<poPovvro  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  docu- 
ment, 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,  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  i<pofiowTO  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  inter- 
nal difficulties  whatever  to  encounter.  The  twelve  verses  have  such  marks  of 
antiquity  that  Dr.  TregeUes,  who  refused  to  believe  them  to  have  been  written 
by  St.  Mark,  stiU  regarded  them  as  having  '  a  fuU  claim  to  be  received  as  an 
authentic  part  of  the  second  Gospel.'     In  fact,  we  have  in  the  short  termina- 


IX.]  Last  Tivelve  Verses  of  St.  Mark.  193 


tion  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  ;  \iii.  i ;  x.  12  ;  xii.  2).  TMs  belief  was  embodied  in  the  earliest 
Christian  Creeds,  especially  in  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  with  which  pro- 
bable tradition  connects  the  composition  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel.  Further,  the 
twelve  verses  were  written  at  a  time  when  the  Church  still  beUeved  herself 
in  possession  of  mii-aculous  powers.  Later,  a  stumbhng-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  beUeve.  Would  the  strongest  beUever  of  them 
all  test  the  matter  by  drinking  a  cup  of  poison .-'  The  objection  may  have  been 
as  old  as  Porphyry,  and  itiay  have  been  one  of  the  reasons  why  Eusebius  was 
willing  to  part  with  these  verses.  We  may,  therefore,  ascribe  their  authorship 
to  one  who  lived  in  the  very  first  age  of  the  Church.  And  why  not  to  St. 
IMark  ? 

Thus,  while  the  Eusebian  recension  of  St.  IMark  presents  intrinsic  difficul- 
ties of  the  most  formidable  character,  that  form  of  text  which  has  the  advan- 
tage 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  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. 

*  The  author  of  a  book  called  Apocritica,  written  about  a.d.  400,  and  con- 
taining heathen  objections  against  Christianity,  -with  answers  to  them.  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. 


O 


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-speak- 
ing 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 


X.']        The  Original  Lmiguage  of  St.  Matthew.        195 

next  lecture.  It  was  a  necessity  for  Greek  Apocryphal 
Gospels  to  be  different  from  the  Canonical  j  for  unless 
they  had  something  new  to  tell,  why  should  they  be 
written  ?  They  were  either  framed  in  the  interests  of 
some  heresy,  the  doctrines  of  which  were  to  obtain  sup- 
port 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  different 
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  neces- 
sity 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,  reason- 
ably 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  substantial,  not  in  absolute,  agree- 
ment with  each  other.  There  would  be  no  a  priori  rea- 
son 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  inde- 
pendent Hebrew  Gospel  record  some  sayings  or  acts  of 
our  Lord  other  than  those  contained  in  the  Greek  Gos- 
pels. 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  j  but 

o  2 


196        The  Original  Language  of  St.  Mattheiv.       [x. 

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  particularly  in  my 
mind  the  story  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery.  Euse- 
bius,  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  con- 
tained in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  Well,  I 
have  no  difiiculty  in  admitting  it  to  be  possible  that  a 
perfectly  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  20th 
Matthew,  found  in  some  early  authorities,  containing 
instructions  substantially  the  same  as  those  given  in 
14th  Luke,  against  taking  the  highest  place  at  a  feast. 

I  have  said  enough  to  show  that  there  is  no  ante- 
cedent 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  translation  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 


X.]       External  Evidence  for  Hebreiv  Origijial.        197 

critics.  In  the  first  rank  of  these  witnesses  must  be 
reckoned  Papias,  whom  I  have  already  quoted.  I  do 
not  know  whether  Irenaeus  can  be  counted  an  indepen- 
dent witness  :  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 
founding  the  Church  at  Rome.'  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  tradi- 
tion 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,  which  they  had  preserved  to 
the  time  of  Pantaenus'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,  however,  in  St.  Jerome  a  witness  who  seems 


198       The  Original  Language  of  St.  Matthew.       [x. 

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  Pam- 
philus,  and  that  he  himself  had  transcribed  the  Hebrew 
Gospel  with  the  leave  of  the  Nazaraeans  who  lived  at 
Bercea  in  Syria  [Aleppo],  and  who  used  that  Gospel.* 
We  have  the  further  testimony  of  Epiphanius,t  who 
was  well  acquainted  with  Eastern  languages.  He  men- 
tions the  same  sect  of  the  Nazarenes  to  which  Jerome 
refers,  for  he  describes  Bercea  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  take  away 
the  genealogy  from  the  beginning  [H(zr.  29).  This  con- 
fession of  ignorance  gives  us  reason  to  infer  that  he 
does  not  speak  of  this  Gospel  from  personal  knowledge. 
In  calling  their  version  complete  [yKr\piaraTov)  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 

*  De  Vir.  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  pub- 
lislied  in  392. 

t  Epiphanius,  bishop  of  Salamis  in  Cj^prus,  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  carelessness 
and  want  of  critical  discrimination.  On  this  account  his  unsupported  testi- 
mony 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  T:^vTi.-y\M(!ao%. 


X.J         Internal  Evidence  for  Greek  Original.         199 

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\  6X(i)  St  TrXrjpeorarfj),  aXAa  vevoOevfxivif)  koI 
riKpo)Tt]pia(Tfiivti)). 

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  con- 
siderations 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  Immanuel,  which  being  inter- 
preted is  God  with  us '  (i.  23).  'A  place  called  Golgotha,  ^  1 
that  is  to  say,  a  place  of  a  skull'  (xxvii.  ^t,)  ;  *Eli,  Eli, '^ 
lama  sabachthani,  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  ex- 
planations which  show  a  regard  to  the  case  of  read- 
ers  unacquainted  with  the  customs  of  Palestine  at  the  l>-<-i't^>' 
time  in  question :  *  The  same  day  came  to  him  the  Sad- 
ducees,  which  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection '  (xxii. 
23);  'Now  at  that  feast  the  governor  was  wont  to  re- 
lease 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 


200       The  Original  Lajigiiage  of  St.  Matthew.        [x. 

venture  to  lay  much  stress  on  instances  of  paronomasia, 
to  which  attention  has  been  called,  such  as  a<^aviZ,ovaiv 
oirojg  (pavCornv  (vi.  i6);  kukovq  kokwc  (xxi.  41)  ;  nor  on  ex- 
pressions such  as  (5aTTo\oyfXv,  TToXvXoyia.     Possibly  in- 
stances   of  this    kind    are  not    more    than    might    be 
unconsciously  introduced  by  a  translator.     But  the  in- 
vestigation in  which  we  engaged  in  the  last  lecture  goes 
very  near  to  determine  the  present  question.   For  exam- 
ple, 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  sup- 
position that  that  source  was  Aramaic :  being  led  to  this 
conclusion  by  an  examination  of  the  coincidences  of  lan- 
guage 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  possi- 
ble 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  origin- 
ality in  our  present  first  Gospel.     Some  of  them,  indeed, 
can  better  be  felt  than  described ;  but  certainly  the  im- 
pression 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  shows  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 


X.]  Evidence  of  Papias.  201 

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  Papias  to 
say  that  there  was  no  Greek  translation,  and  that  every 
one  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  authorised  Greek 
translation,  but  that  certain  persons  had  published  trans- 
lations 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  -np/nytvivat.  The  days  of  new  independent  transla- 
tion appear  to  have  been  over  when  Papias  wrote,  and 
we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  there  was  one  au- 
thoritative 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  origi- 
nal. 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  explana- 
tions and  additions  of  his  own. 


202        The  Origmal  Language  of  St,  Matthew.       [x. 

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  translated  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  autho- 
rised 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  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  Mat- 
thew 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  ex- 
ternal 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 

*  That  the  existing  Greek  text  is  not  authoritative  is  assumed  also  by 
Eusebius.  One  of  the  solutions  which  he  offers  {Quaest.  ad  Marin. II.)  of  the 
difficulty  which  he  finds  in  Matthew's  statement,  that  Mary  Magdalen's  visit 
to  the  Sepulchre  took  place  o^\  ffafifidraiv,  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  jSpaSwi'  than  6^4. 
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.  203 

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,  be- 
cause its  character  is  different  from  that  of  the  others. 
These  last  I  have  described  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  independent  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  original  of  our  St.  Matthew.  It  con- 
tained nothing  corresponding  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.  22),  and  to  which  I  find  it  convenient  to  give  the  dis- 
tinctive name  of  Elkesaite,  thereby  avoiding  some  contro- 
versy as  to  the  proper  extension  of  the  name  Ebionite.* 

*  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 


204       The  Original  Language  of  St.  Mattheiv.        [x. 

The  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  begin- 
ning of  the  third,  when  an  extreme  section  of  them 
assumed  an  aggressive  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.  23),  and  they  refashioned  for  their  purposes 
earlier  documents  which  professed  to  relate  the  preach- 
ing 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  per- 
suaded that  these  adepts  in  literary  forgery,  instead  of 
giving  a  faithful  translation  of  that  Gospel,  manufac- 
tured 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  ac- 
cording to  St.  John.  That  this  Ebionite  Gospel  never 
existed  in  Aramaic  is  more  than  I  can  venture  to  as- 
sert ;  *   but   I  hold  that  the   Gospel  which  Epiphanius 

who,  after  their  conversion,  merely  continued  to  observe  the  Mosaic  law  them- 
selves, 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. 

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


X.]  The  Ebionitc  Gospel.  205 

describes  was  in  Greek,  and  that  our  Gfeek  Gospels  were 
used  in  its  manufacture. 

I  have  already  said  that  this  Elkesaite  sect  was 
characterised  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  be- 
cause 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.'* 

It  was  a  natural  object  of  solicitude  with  these  Elke- 
saites  to  get  rid  of  the  encouragement  to  the  eating  of 
flesh  afforded  by  our  Lord's  participation  in  the  Pass- 
over feast.  Accordingly,  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, 
and  of  the  interrogative  particle,  describes  the  latter  as 
made  by  the  addition  of  the  two  letters  ^t,  ?} ;  showing 
plainly  that  it  was  a  Greek  book  he  had  before  him. 

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


2o6        The  Original  Langtiage  of  St.  Matthew.       [jk. 

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  ani- 
mal food  seemed  to  contradict  the  teaching  of  these 
Elkesaites,  I  mean  the  passage  which  describes  locusts 
as  having  been  the  food  of  John  the  Baptist.  Accord- 
ingly 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  lyKpig,  a  cake,  for  uKpig,  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  text  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  Fitzgerald.  Accord- 
ing to  St.  John  it  was  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
at  our  Lord's  baptism  which  taught  the  Baptist  to  re- 
cognize 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 


X.J  The  Cieme7itine  Quotations.  207 

baptized  by  Jesus.  This  Ebionite  Gospel  transposes  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.  Mat- 
thew, 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  John  ought  neces- 
sarily 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  impos- 
tures ;  and  I  hold  that  it  must  be  altogether  cast  out  of 
consideration  by  anyone  who  seeks  to  restore  a  consi- 
derably 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  Canoni- 
cal Gospels,  but  often  differing  a  good  deal  from  them 
in  form.     It  was  a  natural  explanation  of  these  varia- 


2o8        The  Original  Language  of  St.  Mattheiv.        [x. 

tions  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 
accustomed  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  quota- 
tions 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,  Mat- 
thew, 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  Clemen- 
tine 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  teach- 
ing and  His  acts.  The  conditions  of  the  story  then 
required  that  Peter  should  show  himself  to  be  an  inde- 
pendent authority,  and  not  the  servile  copier  of  a  pre- 
vious record.  I  feel  no  doubt  that  the  story  of  the  man 
born  blind,  which  I  have  quoted  (p.  92),  was  taken  from 
St.  John  ;  and  a  comparison  of  the  two  versions  shows 
the  amount  of  license  which  the  Clementine  writer  con- 
ceived 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  assur- 
ance 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 


X.]  The  Nazarene  Gospel.  209 


if  it  agrees  with  the  citation  of  another  writer,  then  we 
are  led  to  regard  it  as  taken  from  a  written  source,  and 
not  improbably  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  saw  it  himself  and  made  a 
copy  of  it.  Unfortunately,  he  goes  on  to  tell  us  that  he  pro- 
ceeded to  translate  it  into  Greek  and  Latin.  That  alone 
would  lead  us  to  suspect  that  the  book  must  be  some- 
thing different  from  our  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  or  that, 
if  the  latter  be  a  translation,  it  cannot  be  an  accurate 
translation.  And  this  suspicion  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  are  not 
in  St.  Matthew,  and  wanted  some  things  that  are  in  St. 
Matthew,t  and  told  in  different  ways  stories  that  were 

*  The  most  remarkable  instance  of  the  kind  is  the  saying  '  Be  ye  approved 
money-changers'  {-^iviaQi  S6Kifj.oi  TpoTre^iTai),  which  I  have  quoted  already 
(p=  23).  The  meaning  of  it  w^as  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  say- 
ing 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  here- 
tical 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. 

t  The  proof  of  this  is,    that    the   Hebrew  Gospel   is   the  shorter.      The 

P 


2IO        The  Original  Language  of  St.  Matthew.        [x. 

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 '  [Dc 
Vir.  Illust.  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.* 
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 

Stichometry  of  Nicepliorus  gives  2500  o-ti'xoi  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. 

*  An  abstract  preserved  by  Photius  {Cod.  17;)  gives  us  curious  information 
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.  Westcotl 
has  noted  that  the  same  charge  was  brought  by  Julian  the  Pelagian  (Augus- 
tine, Opus  Tmperf.  coiit.  Julian.,  iv.  88). 


X.]  The  Nazarenc  Gospel.  2 1 1 

I  Cor.  may  have  suggested  to  the  Jewish  Christian  framer 
of  the  Nazarene  Gospel  to  supplement  the  defect  of  the 
authentic  history  by  an  invented  narrative  of  the  details 
of  our  Lord's  appearance  to  the  venerated  head  of  the 
Jerusalem  Church.  And  some  suspicion  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 
remark  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  entertained  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  enlarge- 

*  Origen  in  Johan.,  torn.  ii.  6 ;  Hcrm.  in  yerem,,  xv.  4 ;  Hieron.  in  Mich., 
vii.  6:  in  Isai.,  xv.  11  :  in  Ezech.,  xvi.  13.  The  first  passage  quoted  from 
Origen  is  curious.  In  expounding  St.  John's  words  iri.vra  8t'  avrov  iyevero, 
he  includes  the  Holy  Spirit  among  the  iravra ;  and  adds,  that  if  anyone  ac- 
cepts the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  there  is  still  no  difficulty  in  inter- 
preting 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.'" 

P  2 


2 1 2        The  Original  Language  of  St.  Matthew.       [x. 


ment  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  Hilgenfeld,  who  tries  to  dis- 
cover in  St.  Matthew  an  anti-Pauline  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  Gos- 
pel 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  inconsistence  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  narrative  runs:  'It  came  to  pass,  when 
the  Lord  had  come  up  from  the  water,  the  entire  fountain 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  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  Gos- 
pel gives  of  our  Lord's  coming  to  be  baptized  :  '  Behold 


X.]  The  Nazarene  Gospel.  213 

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  bap- 
tized 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  interpolations,  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  pro- 
phets, since  it  is  written  in  the  law.  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
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  disciple  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  liveli- 
hood by  the  labour  of  my  hands.  I  pray  thee,  Jesus,  to 
restore  me  to  health,  that  I  may  not  beg  my  bread  in  dis- 
grace' (Hieron.  in  Matt.  xii.  13).     If  so  ran  the  original 

*  This  passage  is  given  in  the  *  vetus  interpretatio '  of  Origan's  Com- 
mentary on  Matthew  xix.  (torn.  xv.  14,  De  La  Rue,  iii.  671).  The  passage  is 
not  found  in  the  extant  Greek. 


214        The  Original  Language  of  St.  Matthew.        [x. 

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 ;  an- 
other hides  it ;  the  third  wastes  it  with  harlots  and  riot- 
ous living.  The  second  is  only  rebuked  ;  the  third  is 
cast  into  prison.*  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,  in- 
stead of  'daily  bread,'  it  had  'bread  for  the  morrow.' 
This  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  eTnouo-toc,  adopted  by 
Bishop  Lightfoot  [New  Testament  Revision^  Appendix) ; 
and  it  is  no  small  argument  in  his  favour  that  such  was 
the  interpretation  accepted  in  Palestine  apparently  be- 
fore the  end  of  the  first  century.  But  if  the  Aramaic 
had  been  the  original,  and  had  said  plainly  '  bread  for 
the  morrow,'  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  Or  at.  27,  quoted  by  Lightfoot  on  Revision^ 

P-  195)- 

It  would  be  time  wasted  if  I  were  to  accumulate  quota- 
tions for  the  mere  purpose  of  showing  that  the  Nazarene 

*  This  is  told  by  Eusebius  in  one  of  the  Greek  fragments  of  his  '  Theo- 
phaneia,'  published  by  Mai  {Nov.  Pat.  Bihl.  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. 


X.]  The  Nazarene  Gospel.  215 


Gospel  was  not  the  original  of  our  St.  Matthew.  The  only 
wonder  is,  how  St.  Jerome  could  ever  have  permitted  him- 
self to  think  or  say  that  it  was.  As  time  went  on  he  cer- 
tainly 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.  IMatthew  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.  However,  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  lan- 
guage had  any  reason  for  doubting  the  appellation  to 
be  correct.  St.  Jerome  would  therefore,  no  doubt,  em- 
brace with  eager  expectation  the  opportunity  of  obtain- 
ing 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 

*  '  In  evangelio  quo  utuntur  Nazaraei  et  Ebionitae,  quod  nuper  in  Graecum 
de  Hebraeo  sermone  transtulimus,  et  quod  vocatur  a  plerisque  Alatthaei  au- 
thenticum'  {in  Matt.  xii.  13,  written  in  A.D.  398).  'Evangelium  quod  Hebraeo 
sermone  conscriptum  legunt  Nazaraei'  (in  /j. xi.  2,  written  in  410).  See  also 
in  Ezek.  xviii.  7  (written  in  413).  'In  evangelio  juxta  Hebraeos,  quod  Chal- 
daico  quidem  SjToque  sermone  sed  Hebraicis  Uteris  scriptum  est,  quo  utuntur 
usque  hodie  Nazareni — secundum  Apostolos,  sive  ut  plerique  autumant,  juxta 
Matthaeum — quod  et  in  Caesariensi  habetur  bibliotheca'  (Dial.  adv.  Pelag.  iii. 
^vritten  in  416).  Jerome's  first  mention  of  the  book  is  in  his  Catalogue  of 
Ecclesiastical  Writers,  written  in  392. 


2 1 6        The  Original  Language  of  St.  Mattheiv.        fx. 

of  his  Shemitic  studies.  But  after  he  had  become  ac- 
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  Canonical  St.  Matthew  to  have  been 
an  unfaithful  translation,  or  else  the  Nazarene  Gospel  to 
have  beeti  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  to  be  in  many  respects  very 
different  from  the  Septuagint  and  its  Latin  translations, 
which  were  in  current  use  all  over  the  Christian  world. 
He  set  himself  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  contempo- 
raries. Now  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that,  notwith- 
standing 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  preference  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 


X.]  The  Nazarene  Gospel.  217 

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.* 

When  we  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the 
Hebrew  Gospel  known  to  St.  Jerome  was  not  the 
original  of  St.  Matthew,  but  to  all  intents  a  fifth  Gos- 
pel, 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  im- 
partial 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  distrust  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  ver- 
sions 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  superi- 
ority in  originality  and  simplicity  of  our  Greek  St.  Mat- 
thew over  the  Nazarene  Gospel,  I  have  the  adhesion  of 

*  Some  light  is  thro^vn  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  Vir.  Illustr.  134,  Praef.  in  Pss.). 


2 1 8        The  Original  Language  of  St.  Matthew.       [x. 


the  great  majority  of  those  critics  who  pay  least  regard 
to  the  authority  of  ecclesiastical  tradition.  Indeed,  critics 
of  the  sceptical  school  have  generally  adopted  Schleier- 
macher's  idea,  that  the  Hebrew  St.  Matthew  contained 
nothing  but  discourses  ;  and  so  they  have  felt  no  tempta- 
tion to  take  under  their  patronage  this  Nazarene  Gospel, 
which  clearly  dealt  in  narrative  just  as  much  as  the 
Canonical.  Hilgenfeld  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  aban- 
doned cause.  Volkmar,  Strauss,  Renan,  Keim,  Lipsius, 
Weizsacker  agree  in  the  opinion  which  I  express  in  the 
words  of  Anger  quoted  by  Hilgenfeld  :  *  Evangelium 
Hebraeorum,  testantibus  quae  supersunt  reliquiis,  cog- 
natum  cum  Ev.  Matthaei,  iis  in  rebus,  in  quibus  ab  eo 
differt,  nunquam  certo  formam  principalem,  plerumque 
indubitate  formam  derivatam  praebet.'  Indeed  it  is 
quite  intelligible  that  the  traditions  of  a  small  sect, 
which  was  isolated  from  the  Christian  world,  and  on 
that  account  uncontrolled  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 
grand-daughter  or  grand-niece,  it  does  not  follow  that  it 
stands  on  no  higher  level  than  the  Apocryphal  Gos- 
pels.    It  is  at  least  favourably  distinguished  from  them 

*  So  Renan,  v.  104  :  '  Notre  Matthieu  s'  est  conserve  intact  depuis  sa  redac- 
tion definitive,  dans  les  dernieres  annees  du  !*■''  si&cle,  tandis  que  I'Evangile 
hebreu,  vu  I'absence  d'une  orthodoxie,  jalouse  gardienne  des  textes,  dans  les 
Eglises  juda'isantes  de  Syrie,  a  ete  remanie  de  siecle  en  siecle,  si  bien  qu'  a  la 
fin  il  u'etait  pas  fort  superieur  a  un  Evangile  apocryphe.' 


X.]  The  Nazarene  Gospel.  219 

by  not  being  open  to  the  charge  which  I  brought  against 
the  rest  (p.  143),  that  they  are  silent  about  our  Lord's 
public  life,  concerning  which  it  is  not  incredible  that  true 
traditions  might  be  in  circulation  ;  while  they  speak  co- 
piously 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  con- 
cerning 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  favour- 
able 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  example,  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  de- 
rived 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  Smyrn.  3),  in  arguing  against  a  Do- 
cetic  conception  of  our  Lord's  body,  says,  '  And  when, 
after  His  resurrection,  He  came  to  Peter  and  his  com- 
pany. He  said,  "Take,  handle  me,  and  see  that  I  am 
not  a  spirit  without  body"'  {^(xi}x.6viov  aatofiarov).  We 
might  suppose  that  this  was  a  free  quotation  of  Luke, 
xxiv.  39;  but  we  find  from  Jerome  that  the  words  'incor- 
porale  daemonium  '  were  found  in  his  Nazarene  Gospel, 
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 

*  De  Vi'r.  Illustr.  i6;  In  Isai.  Lib.  i8,  Praef. 


2  20        The  Original  Lmiguage  of  St.  Matthew.       [x. 

is  to  be  remarked  that  Eusebius,  who  quotes  this  phrase 
from  Ignatius  [H.  E.  iii,  36),  does  not  know  where  he 
got  it ;  and  yet  Eusebius,  at  least  when  he  wrote  the 
Theophaneia,  knew  the  Hebrew  Gospel.  Again,  Origen 
in  the  preface  to  his  Wip\  'K^yjov  (De  la  Rue,  I.  47)  says 
that  the  saying  is  derived  from  the  apocryphal  book 
Doctrina  Petri.  It  is  best  to  acknowledge  that  our 
means  of  information  do  not  enable  us  to  speak  posi- 
tively as  to  the  filiation  of  these  different-  documents. 
In  any  case  we  know  that  Hegesippus,  in  the  second 
century,  used  the  Hebrew  Gospel  (Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  22).* 
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  testi- 
mony 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,  convinc- 
ing us  of  the  comparative  lateness  of  the  only  Aramaic 
Gospel  that  any  of  the  witnesses  had  seen.  We  have 
therefore  to  fall  back  on  the  earlier  witnesses,  and  we 

*  On  the  New  Testament  Quotations  of  Ignatius,  see  Zahn,  Ignatius  von 
Atitiochien,  p.  595,  et  seqq.  The  fragments  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel  have  been 
often  collected.  The  most  recent  collections  are  Westcott,  Introduction  to 
the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  452,  et  seqq. ;  Nicholson,  The  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews ;  Hilgenfeld,  Novum  Testamentnm  extra  Canonem  Receptum, 
the  section  treating  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  having  been 
just  published  in  a  second  edition,   1884. 


X.]  Languages  current  in  Palestine.  221 

have  now  to  consider  what  their  evidence  is  worth,  espe- 
cially 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  suflicient  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 
difliculties  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  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  Continent  that  I  dare  say  most  of  you 
would  beg  to  be  excused  from  answering.  I  doubt 
whether  many  educated  Frenchmen  would  have  confi- 
dence 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.     Accord- 


222        The  Original  Language  of  St.  Matthew.       [x. 


ingly,  a  knowledge  of  Greek  could  only  be  dispensed 
with  by  those  who  were  too  high  or  too  low"  to  be  con- 
cerned 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  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  remember  that  the  chief  captain, 
taking  Paul  for  a  leader  of  sicarii,  is  surprised  that  he 
can  speak  Greek.  On  the  other  hand,  when  Paul  ad- 
dresses the  people  from  the  Temple  steps,  they  expect 
him  to  speak  Greek,  but  are  gratified,  and  become  atten- 
tive, on  being  addressed  in  their  own  language.  Peter's 
discourse  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  his  address  to 
Cornelius,  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  ap- 
peals to  what  we  are  told  (Mark  iii.  7)  of  a  great  multi- 
tude 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  re- 
gions just  named  would  not  be  likely  to  do  this  un- 
less 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  inter- 


X.J  Greek  Original  7nore  Probable.  22^ 

preter  were  employed,  Greek  seems  to  have  been  more 
prevalent  in  Galilee,  which  is  called  Galilee  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, than  in  Jerusalem.  St.  Matthew,  as  a  collector  of 
taxes,  could  hardly  have  dispensed  with  a  knowledge  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  that  he  intended  it  only  for  the  use  of  the 
Christians  in  Palestine  ;  and  the  first  Gospel  contains 
internal  evidence  that  it  was  meant  to  have  a  wider  cir- 
culation. On  the  other  hand,  the  proof  I  have  given 
from  Josephus  (p.  170)  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  Gos- 
pel, if  only  decisive  evidence  for  its  existence  were 
forthcoming.  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 
contended  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 

*  See  his  Preface,  p.  vi.,  and  an  interesting  section  on  the  Hebrew  Gospel, 
pp.  Ixxiv.,  &c.  Renau  says  (v.  98)  :  C'est  bien  a  tort  qu'on  a  supposCjque 
la  version  Syriaque  de  Saint  Matthieu  publiee  par  Cureton  a  ete  faite  sur 
Toriginal  arameende  Saint  Matthieu.  L'idcc  qu'elle  scrait  cet  original  meme 
est  tout  a  fait  chimcrique. 


2  24        TJie  Original  Language  of  St.  Matthew.       [x. 

there  had  existed  in  use  among  Hebrew-speaking  Chris- 
tians 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  Naza- 
rene  Gospel  as  an  attempt  made  by  one  not  very  scru- 
pulous 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  pro- 
nounce in  favour  of  the  Greek  original  of  St.  Matthew. 
But  ithasbeen  objected,  Thegreat  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  Greek  Gospel  comes  from  St.  Matthew  at 
all  ?  Well,  I  do  not  think  that  the  two  things  stand  on  the 
same  level  of  testimony.  In  the  case  of  Papias,  for  ex- 
ample, 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  state- 
ment that  it  had  been  written  in  Hebrew  rests  on  a  pri- 
vate tradition,  for  all  we  know  first  made  public  by 
Papias  himself;  and  Papias  has  been  generally  con- 
demned 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  Gos- 
pel 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 


X.]  Greek  Original  7no ye  probable.  225 


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  neces- 
sary 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  difference  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, 


SOME  fifty  years  ago  or  more,  a  Mr.  Hone,*  who  was 
at  that  time  an  opponent  of  orthodoxy,  if  not  of 
Christianity  (though  I  understand  he  afterwards  re- 
gretted the  line  he  had  taken),  published  what  he  called 
the  Apocryphal  New  Testament,  which  had  consider- 
able sale  at  the  time,  and  which  may  still  be  picked 
up  on  stalls  or  at  auctions.  The  object  of  the  publica- 
tion 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 

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


XI.]  The  Apocryphal  Gospels.  ii^j 

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  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  selec- 
tion of  Apocryphal  Gospels,  Acts  and  Epistles,  taken 
from  works  of  orthodox  writers,  but  divided  by  him- 
self 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  ourselves.  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  weak- 
ening 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  spon- 
taneous consent  of  the  whole  Christian  world,  Churches 
the  most  remote  agreeing  independently  to  do  honour 
to  the  same  books.  Some  of  the  books  which  Mr.  Hone 
printed  as  left  out  by  the  compilers  of  our  Canon  were 

Q  2 


2  28  The  Apocryphal  Gospels.  [xi. 

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  insinua- 
tion 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  pub- 
lished a  few  years  ago  by  Hilgenfeld :  *  Novum  Testa- 
mentum  extra  Canonem  receptum.'  But  it  was  a  work 
of  a  very  different  kind  from  Hone's  catch-penny  pub- 
lication, having  been  compiled  by  a  man  of  real  learn- 
ing. 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  frag- 
mentary 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. 


XI.]  The  Protevangelium.  229 


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  doc- 
trine which  the  inventor  seems  most  solicitous  to  estab- 
lish 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 
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 

*  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. 


230  The  Apocryphal  Gospels.  |_xi. 

that  he  had  children  already.  The  story  of  the  appear- 
ance 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.  Mat- 
thew'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  Jesus  is  made  to  take  place,  not  in  the  stable  of  the 
inn,  but  in  a  cave  by  the  roadside  where  the  labour- 
pains  suddenly  came  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  repentance, 
she  is  healed  by  touching  the  child.  The  work  is  sup- 
posed to  be  written  by  James,  immediately  after  the 
death  of  Herod ;  and  the  last  things  related  are  a  mira- 
culous rescue  of  the  infant  John  the  Baptist  from  the 
massacre  of  the  children,  by  means  of  a  mountain  open- 
ing 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  Gos- 
pel used  by  the  fabulist,  of  the  text,  *  Zacharias  whom  ye 
slew  between  the  Temple  and  the  altar.'     His  blood  is 


xr.]  The  Protevangelium.  231 

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

From  this  sketch  of  the  contents  of  the  Protevange- 
lium you  will  see  that  it  is  merely  an  attempt  to  em- 
broider with  legend  the  simpler  narrative  of  the  earlier 
Evangelists,  and  that  it  could  not  have  come  into  exist- 
ence 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,  writ- 
ten about  376.t  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  Zacha- 
rias  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  sufiicient  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  else- 

*  This  story  of  the  biood  is  derived  from  a  Jewish  story  of  a  miraculous 
bubbhng  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  Echa  Rabbati 
(Wiinsche's  translation),  p.  21. 

t  Haer.  Ixxix.  5  ;  Ixxviii.  7  :  see  also  Greg.  Nyss.  Orat.  in  diem  Natal. 
Christi.  0pp.  Paris,  1638,  vol.  iii.,  34.6. 

X  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 


232  The  Apocryphal  Gospels.  [xi. 

where,*  not  professing  to  quote  the  book  of  James,  but 
relating  a  tradition  which  had  come  to  him,  gives  an  ac- 
count 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  slaughter  of  the  Inno- 
cents, 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,  at- 
tempted to  improve  on  the  account  there  given  of  the 
cause  of  his  death.  A  Gnostic  story  on  the  subject  is 
told  by  Epiphanius  [HcBr.  xxvi.  12);  and  another  ortho- 
dox account  is  reported  by  Jerome  in  his  commentary 
on  Matthew  xxiii.  35.  We  might  be  sure  that  the  Pro- 
tevangelium 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.  16) 
has  the  story  of  the  midwife's  attestation  of  Mary's  vir- 
ginity ;  but  it  must  be  owned  that  TertuUian  seems  igno- 
rant of  this  tale  {De  Cam.  Christ.  23) :  and  although  he 
knows  a  story  {Scorptace,  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  re- 
cognizing the  Protevangelium:  both,  for  instance,  repre- 
sent our  Lord's  birth  as  taking  place  in  a  cave ;  but  this 
may  have   been   a   local   tradition   (see  p.    85).     Other 

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.  E.,  vi.  12  ;  see  also  iii.  3  and  25). 
*  Series  Comiu.  in  Matt.  §25. 


XI.]  The  Pseudo- Matthew.  233 

coincidences  have  been  pointed  out  by  Hilgenfeld,  for 
instance,  the  phrase  xaoav  Xafioixra  Mapia/t  {Trypho  100  ; 
Protev.  12).  On  the  whole,  I  regard  the  Protevangelium 
as  a  second  century  composition  ;  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  ad- 
mitted 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  Gos- 
pels. 

I  pass  briefly  over  Gospels  which  bear  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  Protevangelium  that  it  bears  to  the  Synoptic 
Gospels;  and  which,  if  that  be  the  child  of  these  Gospels, 
are  only  their  grandchildren  :  I  mean  fictions  which, 
taking  the  Protevangelium  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,  however,  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  prophecy  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 


234  The  Apocryphal  Gospels.  [xi. 

be  known.'  You  must  be  familiar  with  the  ox  and  the 
ass  in  all  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  sup- 
plied its  fruit  to  satisfy  his  mother's  need  ;  how,  when  he 
entered  the  idol  temple  in  Egypt,  the  idols  all  fell 
with  theii"  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  childhood  of  our  Lord.  This  work,  in  its  ori- 
ginal, does  not  appear  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  in- 
vention of  tales  of  the  early  exercise  of  his  miraculous 
power,  but  if  so,  the  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 
Renan's  forcible  language,  vi.  51 4]  '  un  gamin  omnipo- 
tent et  omniscient,'  wielding  the  power  of  the  God- 
head  with  a  child's   waywardness    and    petulance.     It 


XI.  J  The  Gospel  of  St.  Thomas.  235 

tells,  for  example,  that  he  was  playing  and  making 
sparrows  out  of  mud ;  that  he  did  this  on  the  sabbath, 
and  that  when  complaint  on  that  account  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, 
andonbeingcalled  to  account  forthe  mischief  hehad  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 
happened  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  likewise  shows  himself 
from  the  first  as  omniscient  as  he  is  omnipotent.   When 


236  The  Apocryphal  Gospels.  [xi. 


he  is  brought  to  a  master  to  be  taught  his  letters,  and  is 
bid  to  pronounce  Aleph,  he  refuses  to  go  on  to  Beth 
until  the  instructor  has  taught  him  all  the  mysteries  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  pur- 
pose 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  de- 
velopments 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  ;t  and  Irenseus  (I.  xx.)  refers  to  the  story 
just  mentioned,  concerning  the  attempt  to  teach  our  Lord 
his  letters,  as  a  tale  in  circulation  among  heretics.:;:    And 

*  According  to  the  Stichometry  of  Nicepliorus  (see  p.  209),  it  contained 
1300  stichoi,  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. 

t  Hippol.  Rcf.  Haer.  v.  7 ;  Origen,  in  Luc,  Horn.  i. 

I  A  coincidence  with  Justin  Martyr  has  been  pointed  out.  Justin  {Dial.  88) 
states  that  our  Lord,  working  as  a  carpenter,  made  aporpa  koI  ^vyd,  words 
which  occur  Ev.Thom.  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  childhood,  although  in  the  chapter 
cited  they  could  hardly  fail  to  have  been  mentioned  if  they  had  been  known 
to  the  writer. 


XI.]  TJie  Gospel  of  N^icodermis.  237 

this  Gospel  in  its  developed  form  obtained  wide  circula- 
tion in  the  East.  From  such  a  Gospel  Mahomet  seems 
to  have  drawn  his  conceptions  of  our  Saviour  [Renan, 

VI.  515). 

In  the  Gospels  which  I  have  described,  the  public 
ministerial  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  sup- 
plement the  Canonical  Gospels  at  the  other  end.  It  has 
been  current  under  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  au- 
thorship. 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.  Tischen- 
dorf  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).  Some  suppose  that  Justin  Martyr  did 
not  himself  know  of  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  seems  more  probable  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  dis- 
puted verses  at  the  end  of  St.  Mark  ;  St.  John's  Gospel 


238  Tlie  Apocryphal  Gospels,  [xi. 

being  the  one  principally  used.  If,  then,  these  Acts  are  as 
early  as  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  it  would  fol- 
low 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  resur- 
rection relate,  how  they  had  been  confined  in  Hades 
when  the  Conqueror  appeared  at  its  entrance;  how 
the  gates  of  brass  were  broken  and  the  prisoners  re- 
leased, 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  de- 
scent 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, 

*  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  LipsiusZ)/i?  Pilatusacten,  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  [Hcsr.  50),  whence  we  may  conclude  that  our  Acts  are 
earlier  than  a.d.  376 ;  but  the  date  itself,  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  astronomical  cycle  by  means  of  which  he  imagined 
himself  able  to  calculate  the  day  of  the  Jewish  Passover  in  any  year  ;  and,  ac- 
cording to  this  cycle,  March  25  would  be  the  day  in  the  year  29  which  Hip- 
polytus supposed  to  be  the  year  of  the  Passion.  But  the  cycle  is  worthless, 
and  March  25  could  not  have  been  really  the  day. 


XI.]  Heretical  Gospels.  239 

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  suf- 
fice 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  abun- 
dant 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  cruci- 
fixion ;  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  what- 
ever things  I  find  you,  in  these  will  I  judge  you ' ;  but 
we  do  not  know  from  what  document  they  took  the  say- 
ing. The  doctrine  which  it  is  intended  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 

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


240  Heretical  Gospels.  [xi. 

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  Gos- 
pel of  which  quotations  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  movement  originated. 
In  that  hot  country  very  little  food  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary 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  mat- 
ter whence  it  was  believed  all  evil  had  flowed.  The 
admirers  and  imitators  of  these  men  by  degrees  spread 
themselves  outside  the  limits  of  their  own  land.  At  any 
rate,  whencesoever  the  teaching  was  derived,  it  became 
troublesome  to  the  Christian  Church  in  the  very  first 
years  of  its  existence.  Scarcely  had  St.  Paul  found  him- 
self 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  (l.  28)  tells  this  of  Saturni- 
nus,  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  Gnostics.  Their  principles 
obtained  converts    among  heathen  as  well    as  among 


XL 3        The  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians.         241 

Christians :  Porphyry,  for  instance,  the  great  adversary 
of  Christianity,  has  also  a  treatise  {De  Ahstinentia) 
against  the  use  of  animal  food.  And  even  the  Chris- 
tians who  refused  to  recognize  Encratism  as  a  binding 
rule  were  persuaded  to  acknowledge  it  to  be  a  more  per- 
fect way  of  life.  Among  ourselves,  for  example,  vege- 
tarianism is  regarded  as  a  harmless  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  apo- 
cryphal Acts  of  the  Apostles  proceeded  from  men  of 
Encratite  views ;  and  in  these  the  type  of  story  is  of  con- 
stant recurrence :  how  an  Apostle  persuades  a  young 
couple  to  abandon  an  intended  project  of  matrimony ;  or 
how  persecution  is  stirred  up  against  the  Christian 
missionaries  by  husbands  whose  wives  these  preachers 
have  persuaded  to  desert  them.  The  refutation  of  En- 
cratism 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  gar- 

R 


242  Heretical  Gospels.  [xi. 

ment  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  document  by  means  of  which  it  has  been  at- 
tempted, though  with  now  confessed  ill-success,  to  estab- 
lish the  posteriority  of  two  of  our  Canonical  Gospels;  I 
mean  the  Gospel  of  Marcion.  Marcion,  w'ho  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  anti- 


*  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iii.  6  and  9  :  Ex  Scr.  Theodot.  67 ;  Pseud.  Clem. 
Rom.  Ep.  12.  Notices  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians  are  also  found 
Hippol.  Ref.  V.  7  ;  Epiph.  Har.  62. 


.XI.]  Marcioii's  Gospel.  243 

theses  the  contradictions  which  he  imagined  he  found 
between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  and  between 
the  Old  Testament  and  itself.  But  how  was  this  dis- 
paragement 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  Gos- 
pels, 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  consisted  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  de- 
votes a  whole  book  to  Marcion's  Gospel,  going  regularly 
through  it,  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  Tertul- 
lian 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 

R  2 


244  Heretical  Gospels.  [xi. 

words  Iv  'E^ffff^  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  pre- 
judice that  Tertullian  and  other  fathers  accused  Marcion 
of  mutilating  the  Gospels  :  they  thought  because  his 
Gospel  was  shorter  than  theirs  that  he  must  have  muti- 
lated 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  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  Gos- 
pel— a  Pauline,  anti-Jewish  Gospel — and  to  have  the 
evidence  of  Marcion  that  this  was  really  current  at  the 
beginning  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  de- 
tailed attempt  to  refute  it.  The  falsity  of  the  theory  was 
exposed  by  persons  earnestly  desirous  to  believe  in  it ; 
indeed  the  death-blow  to  the  theory  was  given  by  Volk- 


xi.]  Marcion^s  Gospel,  245 

mar,  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  compared  it  with  our  St.  Luke, 
and  asked  themselves,  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  con- 
tended against  Jewish  exclusiveness,  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  examination  was,  that 
the  features  that  distinguished  Marcion's  Gospel  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  con- 
vinced their  opponents,  and  the  figment  that  Marcion's 
Gospel  was  the  original  St.  Luke  may  now  be  re- 
garded as,  by  the  consent  of  all  competent  judges,  quite 
exploded  by  criticism.  The  author  of  *  Supernatural 
Religion,'  however,  thought  proper  to  revive  this  mori- 
bund theory,  and  this  led  to  a  new  examination  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  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  con- 
vinced, and  has  abandoned  this  part  of  his  argument. 

*  See  his  '  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century.'  The  chapter  on  Mar- 
cion  had  previously  been  pubhshed  as  an  article  in  the  Fortnightly 
Review, 


246  Heretical  Gospels.  [xi. 

But  this  abandonment  is  really  an  abandonment  of 
great  part  of  his  book.  For  what  is  the  use  of  contend- 
ing that  Justin  Martyr  and  others  who  lived  still  later 
in  the  second  century  were  ignorant  of  St.  Luke's  Gos- 
pel, 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  Gos- 
pel, 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  dispensations  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 


XI.]  Marciofi's  Gospel.  247 

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  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. 

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 
ihe  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 


248  Heretical  Gospels.  [xi. 

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  know- 
ledge of  the  facts  of  our  Saviour's  life :  so  that  no  mo- 
dification of  the  fourth  Gospel  would  have  enabled 
Marcion  to  dispense  with  another  Gospel. 


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  intro- 
ductions 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  common  phrases:  'That  your  joy  may  be 
full'  (I'va  ri  x*"?"  vfiiov  y  TrcTrArjpWjulvi},  i  J.  i.  4 ;  J.  xvi.  20); 
*Walketh  in  darkness  and  knoweth  not  whither  he 
goeth '  [ev  rp  (TKOTiq.  TrepnraTei,  kol  ovk  olds  ttov  virdyei, 
I  J.  ii.  11;  J.  xii.  35) ;  '  Have  passed  from  death  unto 
life'  (jueTajSajS/jKa/iEv  Ik  tov  Oavarov  dg  rrjv  ^(urjv,  i  J.  m.  14  5 
J.  v.  24) ;  yiyvbjaKOfxsv  tov  a\r\Biv6v,  (l  J.  V.  24  ;  J.  xvil.  3). 
Moreover,  the  Epistle  gives  to  our  Lord  the  title  *only  be- 
gotten' (iv.  9;  J.  i.  14)  and  'Saviour  of  the  world'  (iv.  14; 
John  iv.  42,  and  iii.  17).  And  remember  that  this  phrase, 
*  Saviour  of  the  world,'  so  familiar  to  us,  conveyed  an 


250  The  Johannine  Books.  [xii. 

idea  novel  and  startling  to  the  Jewish  mind  of  that  day. 
I  also  take  notice  of  the  mention  of  '  the  water  and  the 
blood  '  in  the  Epistle  (v.  6),  which  we  can  scarcely  fail 
to  connect  with  St.  John's  history  of  the  Passion.  But 
besides  these,  and  several  other,  examples  of  phrases 
common  to  both  works,  there  is  such  a  general  resem- 
blance 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  T 
were  to  enumerate  and  answer  the  points  of  objection  to 
this  view  made  by  Davidson  and  others  of  his  school, 
whose  v/ork  seems  to  me  no  more  than  laborious  trifling. 
These  microscopic  critics  forget  that  it  is  quite  as  un- 
critical 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  writ- 
ten 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  ex- 
hausts 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 
productions  of  the  same  writer,  the  general  resemblance 
is  such,  that  a  man  must  be  devoid  of  all  faculty  of  criti- 
cal perception  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  doc- 
trines  of   the   Tubingen   school    was,   that    the    fourth 


XII.]  The  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle.  251 

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  disci- 
ples.   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  forth : 
they  that  have  done  good  unto  the  resurrection  of  life, 
and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto  the  resurrection  of 
damnation.'     Scholten  coolly  disposes   of  this  trouble- 
some passage  by  setting  it  down  as  an  interpolation.     It 
is  equally  necessary  to  reject  the  21st  chapter,  which  con- 
tains the  words  [v.  22), '  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  be- 
cause  we   love   the   brethren.'     In   this,    and   in  other 
instances   which   I    need  not  detail  to   you,    the    argu- 
ments 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  Poly  carp  [c.  7),  by 


252  The  Johanyiine  Books.  [xii. 

Papias  (Euseb.  ill.  39),  by  Irenaeus  ill.  xvi.,*  and  re- 
peatedly by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (e.g.  Strom.  11.  15)! 
and  Tertullian  (e.g.  Adv.  Prax.  15  ;  De  Pudic.  19).  In 
the  Muratorian  Fragment  it  is  spoken  of,  not,  in  what 
might  seem  its  proper  place,  among  the  Epistles,  but  im- 
mediately in  connexion  with  the  Gospel  (see  the  pas- 
sage quoted,  p.  64).  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  [Contemporary  Review ^  Octo- 
ber, 1875,  p.  835),  in  confirmation  of  a  theory  of  his,  that 
the  first  Epistle  was  originally  published  with  the  Gos- 
pel as  a  kind  of  commendatory  postscript.  J 

Augustine,  followed  by  other  Latin  authorities,  calls 
this  the  Epistle  to  the  Parthians  {QucBst.  Evangel.  11.  39). 
It  has  been  conjectured  that  this  may  have  been  a  cor- 
ruption of  a  Greek  title  irpoq  iragBivovg.  The  ground  is 
not  very  conclusive,  namely,  that  Clement  of  Alexandria 
tells  us  {Hypotyp.  p.  10 11,  Potter's  edition)  that  the 
Second  Epistle  of  St.  John  was  known  under  this  title. 
Gieseler  plausibly  conjectures  that  in  both  cases  a  cor- 
ruption took  place  of  the  title  tov  irapOhov,  which  was 
commonly  given  to  John  in  early  times,  and  which  may 
have  been  added  to  the  inscriptions  of  the  Epistles. 

*  The  language  of  Irenaeus  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. 

f  The  form  of  quotation  ip  tt?  fxu^ovi  iiriffroh^  implies  also  an  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  second  Epistle. 

X  On  the  attestation  borne  by  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Gospel,  it  is  particu- 
larly worth  while  to  consult  Hug's  Introduction,  ir.  245. 


xir.J  The  Fourth  Gospel.  253 


The  fourth  Gospel,  as  I  have  said,  has  been  the  sub- 
ject 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  as- 
signed 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  begin- 
ning 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  wri- 
ters. He  is  ready  enough  to  grant  the  antiquity 
of  our  documents,  though  claiming  for  himself  an 
intuitive  sagacity  which  can  discriminate  the  true 
words  and  actions  of  Jesus  from  what  may  have  been 
added  by  the  piety  of  the  second  generation  of  Chris- 
tians. 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  depreciating  epithets  which  I  need  not  repeat ;  but 
the  account  given  of  the  life  of  Jesus  he  treats  as  pre- 
ferable, in  a  multitude  of  cases,  to  the  narrative  of  the 
Synoptic  Evangelists.  In  particular  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  at- 
tribute 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 


2  54  The  yohannine  Books.  [xii. 

by  Jesus  with  the  first  place.  His  theory  is,  that  John  in 
his  old  age  having  read  the  evangelic  narratives  then  in 
circulation,  remarked  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  anti- 
quity of  the  Gospels  with  his  rejection  of  their  historic 
authority,  whenever  it  is  convenient  for  him  to  do  so, 
Renan  imagines  the  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  with- 
out hesitation  that  Napoleon  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  ofiicial  one. 
But  in  this  comparison  one  point  of  essential  differ- 
ence 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  statesmanship,  and  other  things  out  of 
their  sphere.    If  they  meddled  with  such  matters  in  their 


XII.]  The  Fourth  Gospel.  255 

stories  we  should  not  be  surprised  to  find  errors  and  con- 
tradictions. 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  autho- 
rity. 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,'  answers  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  reviewers  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  main- 
tain 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  ex- 
pressed 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 


256  The  yohannine  Books.  [xii. 

heretics — by  Judaizing  Christians,  Gnostics,  Mystics — 
all  of  whom  owned  the  necessity  of  reconciling  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  reasons  have  been  sought  for,  namely,  the  im- 
possibility 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  testi- 
mony. 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  de- 
veloped bears  on  the  face  of  it  the  marks  of  late  date. 
This  is  a  prepossession  against  which  it  is  hard  to  strug- 
gle ;  the  forms  of  scientific  inquiry  may  be  gone  through, 
but  the  sentence  has  been  passed  before  the  evidence 
has  been  looked  at.  Whatever  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  per- 
sonification of  all  that  was  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 


XII.]  The  FoiLvth  Gospel.  257 

abandoned  as  hopeless,  and  accordingly  the  overthrow 
of  at  least  St.  John's  Gospel  becomes  a  necessity. 

Strauss,  on  whose  principles  the  question  whether 
Jesus  was  more  than  man  cannot  even  claim  dis- 
cussion, 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  re- 
collection 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  as  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  the  language  of  Jesus  about  himself,  as  reported  in 
this  Gospel,  the  manner  in  which  he  insists  on  his  divi- 
nity, 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  en- 
thusiastic 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 

S 


258  The  Johannine  Books.  [xii. 

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-asser- 
tion 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  inconsistent  with  what  is  else- 
where 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. 

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  ;  Whosoever  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 


XII.]  Otcr  LorcPs  Self-assertion.  259 

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  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him'(xi.2  7, 
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  coming  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  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 

s  2 


26o  The  Johdmiine  Books.  [xii. 

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  prophesied  (Matt,  xxvii. 
65 ;  Mark  xiv.  62 ;  see  also  Luke  xxii.  60).  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 
sentence  on  the  rest  of  the  human  race.  If  we  could 
think  of  him  as,  after  all,  no  more  than  a  man  like  our- 
selves, 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  him  by  believing  him  to  be  in  real 
truth  more  than  man.  It  follows  that  the  claims  which 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  represent  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  lan- 
guage 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.  31) 
that  Baur  acknowledged  the  Apocalypse  to  have  been 
written  by  St.  John  ;  and  the  same  view  is  taken  by 
Renan  and  by  many  other  critics  of  the  same  school. 


xii.J  CJiristology  of  tJie  Apocalypse.  261 

who  draw  from  their  acknowledgment  of  the  Johannine 
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  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  authorship  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  attributes  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  (INIatt.  xx.  30,  xxi.  9)  :  the 
Jewish  rulers,  who  saw  all  that  was  implied  by  such  a 
title,  and  feared  the  fatal  consequences  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 


262  The  yohannine  Books.  [xii. 

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 
(xiii.  16):  'I  am  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David.' 
It  is  possible  to  give  the  word  pi^a  the  secondary  mean- 
ing, '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  expressed  in  other  pas- 
sages. There  is  one  passage  in  particular  where  the 
antecedence  to  all  created  things  of  Him  who  in  the  Re- 
velation 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  speaking 
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  (ver. 
17),  and  we  find  One  who  is  unmistakeably  our  blessed 
Lord  addressing  the  Apocalyptic  seer  with  like  words, 
which  are  again  repeated  (xxii.  13),  'I  am  the  Alpha 
and  the  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last,  the  begin- 
ning 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  Revela- 
tion. And  this  ascription  to  him  of  glory  not  dis- 
tinguishable 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 


XII,]  Christology  of  the  Apocalypse.  263 

is  called,  *  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb  '  (xxii. 
1,3;  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 
acknowledge.*  In  confirmation  of  the  view  that  the 
Apocalypse  was  written  by  a  personal  hearer  of  our 
Lord,  I  may  notice'  that  echoes  of  the  Gospel  records  of 
the  words  of  Jesus  are  to  be  found  more  frequently  in  this 
than  in  any  other  New  Testament  book,  except  perhaps 
the  Epistle  of  James. f  And  I  cannot  help  thinking  that 
we  should  find  still  more  coincidences  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 

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

t  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. 


264  The  Johannine  Books.  [xii. 

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.  So,  again,  the  coincidence  of 
the  phrase  '  book  of  life,'  Phil.  iv.  3,  with  that  which  is 
found  in  the  Apocalypse,  iii.  5,  and  in  five  other  places, 
is,  I  think,  most  easily  explained  by  the  supposition  that 
this  very  phrase  had  been  used  by  our  Lord.  See  Luke, 
X.  20. 

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  Colossians  (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 
(jreature  ;  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  con- 
sist ;  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 
vSt.  Paul :  but  most  critics,  even  of  the  sceptical  school, 
have  owned  that  the  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians  is  too  strong  to  be  resisted, 
especially  connected  as  it  is  with  the  Epistle  to  Phile- 
mon, which  bears  an  unmistakeable  stamp  of  truth,  and 
which  is  utterly  beyond  the  invention  of  any  forger. 

In  this  connexion  I  have  pleasure  in  referring  to  an 


XII.]  Agreement  of  yohn^s  Doctrine  with  PauPs.     265 

excellent  comparison  of  the  theology  of  St.  John  with 
that  of  St.  Paul  by  ]\Ir.  J.  J.  Murphy  {Scientific  Bases  of 
Faith,  p.  395),  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  doc- 
trines, 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 
Christology,  because,  though  not  really  the  strongest,  it 
is  I  believe  the  most  influential ;  and  the  reason  why 
other  arguments  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 

*  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,  lo;  2  Cor.  xiii.  14;  Gal.  i.  i  ; 
Eph.  V.  5,  I  Thess.  iii.  11)  ;  the  voluntariness  of  his  humihation  (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  Ufa  (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  with  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  wiU  find  a  wonderful  similarity  of  substantial  doctrine  with 
great  variety  of  expression.  The  two  witnesses  are  clearly  independent,  and 
their  teaching  is  the  sam.e. 


266  The  Johamiine  Books.  [xiii. 

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 
superhuman  character,  there  is  nothing  in  such  utter- 
ances unlike  what  is  found  in  every  report  of  the  lan- 
guage which  he  habitually  used. 


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 


XIII.]  The  Apocalypse.  267 

heretics  as  well  as  by  orthodox,  is  rather  stronger  for 
the  Gospel  (see  p.  73) ;  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.  CanoUy  Index,  p.  587).  I 
content  myself  with  appealing  to  Irenaeus,  whose  tes- 
timony to  the  four  Gospels  has  been  already  produced 
(p.  47).  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  num- 
ber of  the  beast  is  666  or  616,  both  readings  being  found 
in  MSS.  of  his  time;  as  they  are  still.*  Irenaeus  declares 
that  the  reading  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  Irenaeus 
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  adoption  of  the 
error  was  not  wilful.  The  denunciation  (Rev.  xxii.  18, 
19)  had  previously  been  clearly  referred  to  by  Dionysius 
of  Corinth  (Euseb.  iv.  22,).  Irenaeus  gives  examples  of 
Greek  names  the  arithmetical  value  of  the  sum  of  whose 
letters  amounts  to  666  [ivavQag,  Xardvog,  TUTav),  but  he 
does  not  venture  to  express  a  confident  decision  in 
favour  of  any  solution  ;  because  he  looks  on  the  Apostle 

*  616  is  the  reading  ofCodd.  C,  ii. 


268  The  Johannine  Books.  [xiii. 

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. f  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  personal  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 

*  Cum  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  Romanes  (sep- 
tima).  Verum  Corinthiis  et  Thessalonicensibus  licet  pro  correptione  iteretur, 
una  tamen  per  omnem  orbem  terrse  ecclesia  diffusa  esse  dinoscitur;  et 
Johannes  enim  in  Apocalypsi,  licet  septem  ecclesiis  scribat,  tamen  omnibus 
dicit. 

t  'Apocalypses  etiam  Johannis  et  Petri  tantum  recipimus,  quam  quidam 
ex  nostris  legi  in  ecclesia  nolunt,' 


XIII.]  Millemiaria7tism.  269 


work  in  which  Papias  collected  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,  remember  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.'* 

*  Great  light  has  been  cast  on  the  probable  source  of  this  tradition  of 
Papias  through  the  publication  from  the  Syriac,  by  Ceriaui  (Alilan,  1866),  of 
a  Jewish  book  called  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch.  It  is  included  in  Fritzsche's 
'  Apocrj'phal  books  of  the  Old  Testament'  (Leipzig,  1871).  Fritzsche  judges 
the  book  to  have  been  written  not  long  after  the  destruction  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  sajing  of  our  Lord. 


270  The  Johannine  Books.  [xiii. 


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  en- 
joyment 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  relied.     There 
were  in  the  third  century  some  who  ascribed  the  book 
to  the  heretic  Cerinthus.     Caius,  a  learned  Roman  pres- 
byter at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  (Euseb.  ii. 
28),  rejected   a   book   of  revelations   purporting   to   be 
written  by  a  great  Apostle,  but  ascribed  by  Caius  to 
Cerinthus,  in  which  the  author  professed  to  have  been 
shown  by  angels  that  after  the  resurrection  men  should 
inhabit  Jerusalem,  should  be   the   slaves   of  lusts   and 
pleasures,  and    should    spend   1000   years   in   marriage 
festivities.     Some  have  understood  this   description  as 
applying  to  our  Canonical  book,  and  in  a  passage  pre- 
sently to  be  quoted  from  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  Diony- 
sius  has  been  thought  to  refer  to  Caius.     But  this  is  more 
than  doubtful ;  for  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  nowhere 
describes  himself  as  an  Apostle,  nor  describes  Millen- 
narian happiness  as  consisting  in  sensual  gratifications  ; 
and,  besides,  the  passage  already  cited  from  the  Mura- 
torian  Fragment  shows  that  the  Roman  Church  of  Caius' 
time  did  recognise  the  Apocalypse  as  St.  John's ;  and 
the  same  thing  appears  from  the  use  of  the  book  of  the 
Revelation  by  Hippolytus,  who  was  contemporary  with 
Caius.     It  was  rather  in  the  East  that  its  authority  de- 
cayed.    It  is  not  included  in  the  Peshito  Syriac,*  and 

*  Yet  we  find  Theophilus  of  Antioch  using  the  book  before  the  end  of  the 
second  century  (Euseb.  iv.  24). 


XIII  .J  Ascription  of  the  Apocalypse  to  Cerinthus.      271 


Jerome  tells  us  that  the  Greeks  of  his  time  did  not  re- 
ceive it  {Ep.  iig^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).  Toward  the  end 
of  the  fourth  century  there  were  a  few,  of  whom  we  are 
told  by  Epiphanius  and  Philaster  [Haer.  60),  who  as- 
cribed both  Gospel  and  Apocalypse  to  Cerinthus,  Epi- 
phanius 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  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  unworthy  of 
notice,  since  their  objections  as  refuted  by  Epiphanius 
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  contemporary  with  St.  John.  This  report  of  the  evi- 
dence justifies  me  in  saying  that  if  we  were  compelled  to 

*  It  is  a  small  slip,  that  Canon  Westcott  (Speaker'' s  Commentary,  p.  xxix.) 
makes  Philaster  as  well  as  Epiphanius  use  this  name.  It  is  peculiar  to  the 
latter  wTiter,  who  expressly  claims  the  invention  for  himself.  It  was  probably 
from  Hippolytus  that  both  writers  derived  the  counting  opposition  to  the 
Johannine  writings  as  a  heresy ;  but  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  op- 
ponents were  united  into  a  sect,  any  more  than  those  who  denied  all  the  150 
Psalms  to  have  been  written  by  David  (Philast.  Haer.  130) ;  or  those  who 
denied  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  have  been  written  by  St.  Paul  {Haer. 
89)  ;  or  those  who  asserted  the  pluraUty  of  worlds  {Haer.  115);  or  those  who 
held  that  the  age  of  the  world  was  uncertain  {Haer.  112). 


272  TJie  Johammie  Books.  [xiii. 

abandon  one  or  other,  we  should  have  far  more  coun- 
tenance 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  testimony  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  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  pre- 
sident of  the  Catechetical  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  pre- 
served 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  occasion  to  which  I  refer  he  worked 
what  I  account  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  authentic 
miracles  of  ecclesiastical  history.  His  diocese  being 
much  troubled  with  disputes  on  the  Millennarian  contro- 
versy,   he    assembled    those    whom    perhaps    another 


XIII.]  Dionysms  of  Alexandria.  273 

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  him- 
self [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  Millennarian  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  graceful  way  in  which 
Dionysius  speaks  of  Nepos  and  of  the  services  which  he 
had  rendered  the  Church,  in  particular  by  his  composi- 
tion 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  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  by  saying  that  some  of 
his  predecessors  had  utterly  rejected  this  book,  criticising 
every  chapter,  declaring  it  to  be  unintelligible  and  in- 
consistent ;  and  asserting  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  was  not  John  the  Apostle,  but  Cerinthus,  \ 
one  of  whose  notions  was  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ 

T 


2  74  '^^^^  yohannine  Books.  [xiii. 

should  be  earthly,  consisting  of  those  carnal  and 
sensual  pleasures  which  he  most  craved  for,  and  (for 
a  decorous  cover  to  these)  feastings  and  sacrifices  and 
slaughters  of  victims.  *  But,  for  my  part,'  proceeds 
Dionysius,  '  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  reasoning  ;  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  (^0oc)  of  each,  and  the  character  of  the  language, 
and  from  what  is  called  the  Sts^aywyj]  of  the  book 
[general  method],  that  he  is  not  the  same  person,' 
The  arguments  which  Dionysius  then  proceeds  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  supposed  that  there  were 
many  of  the  name  of  John,  as  for  example  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 


XIII.  J  Diony sites  of  Alexandria,  275 


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  expressions  common  to  both, 
such  as  life,  light,  the  avoiding  of  darkness,  with  the 
commandment  of  love  one  toward  another,  &c. ;  none  of 
which  are  to  be  found  in  the  Revelation,  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  men- 
tion 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  offend- 
ing against  the  Greek  language,  but  even  most  eloquently 
in  point  of  expression,  reasoning,  and  literary  construc- 
tion, far  from  containing  any  barbarous  word,  or  sole- 
cism, or  vulgarism.  For  the  Apostle,  it  seems,  possessed 
either  w^ord,  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  and  received  knowledge 
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  sole- 
cisms, instances  whereof  it  needs  not  that  I  should  now 
detail ;  for  neither  have  I  mentioned  them  in  ridicule — 
let  no  one  suppose  it ;  but  only  as  criticizing  the  dis- 
similarity of  the  books  '  (Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  25). 

This  passage  contains  all  the  arguments  used  by 
modern  writers  against  the  common  authorship  of  Gos- 
pel and  Apocalypse,  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- 

T  2 


u 


276  T/ie  Johaniiine  Books.  [xiii. 

Pauline  liberality.   I  have  shown  that  in  this  respect  the 
Apocalypse  is  completely  Pauline  [see  p.  37). 

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  anonymous.     In  such  a  matter 
it  is  very  possible  that  the  same  man  might  act  differ- 
ently 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,  in- 
deed, of  the  Book  of  Nehemiah)  are  all  anonymous ;  but 
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    anonymous.*     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 

*  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.  277 

from  John  the  Apostle.  But  this  author  betrays  no  de- 
sire 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  argu- 
ment which  Dionysius  founded  on  the  difference  of  lan- 
guage between  the  Revelation  and  the  other  Johannine 
books.  Thus,  he  says,  we  do  not  find  in  the  Revelation 
the  Johannine  words,  ^wr),  ^a>c,  aXtfOeia,  \apig,  KpiaiQ,  &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  re- 
membered 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 
carefully  examine  their  language,  we  arrive  at  a  result 
quite  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.  y 

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 


278  The  yohannine  Books.  [xiii. 

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  distinctly  in 
the  former  [e.  g.  iii.  14)  as  in  the  latter.  I  have  shown 
(p.  38)  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.  88).  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  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)  unequivocally  express  the  same  doctrine, 
which  can  be  stated  in  words  which  I  am  persuaded 
John  had  read  '  Ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible 


XIII.]  The  Diction  of  the  Apocalypse.  279 

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  attributed. 
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  differing  from  the  Septuagint,  but 
agreeing  with   the   Gospel.     We  have  repeatedly   the 
phrase  '  he  that  overcometh ',  which  is  of  frequent  oc- 
currence in  all  the  Johannine  books:    Rev.  ii.   7,    11, 
iii.  5,  xii.  II,  xxi.  7  ;  John  xvi.  33  ;   i  John  ii.  13,  iv.  4, 
V.  4.     The  remarkable  word  aX»j0ivoc  occurs  nine  times 
in  the  Gospel,  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  /xapTvpsu)  and  fxaprvpia  in  all  the 
Johannine  books.     In  the  Revelation  (ii.  17)  Jesus  pro- 
mises believers  'the  hidden  manna';  in  the  Gospel  (re- 
ferring 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  4ife 

*  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.  i,  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.  ir,  xxi.  16  ;  i  Pet.  iii.  18, 
I  John  iii.  7;  i  Pet.  i.  10,  John  xii.  41  ;  i  Pet.  v.  13,  2  John  i.  These  co- 
incidences 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. 


28o  The  Johannhie  Books.  [xiii. 

freely.'*  The  abiding  of  God  with  man  is  in  both  books 
presented  as  the  issue  of  Christ's  work  (John  xiv.  21^ 
Rev.  iii.  20,  xxi.  3). 

I  have  produced  instances  enough  to  establish  de- 
cisively that  there  is  the  closest  possible  affinity  between 
the  Revelation  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  authorship.  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  Revelation, 
simply  the  *  Word '  in  the  Gospel.  Christ  is  the  Lamb 
in  both  books  ;  but  in  the  Gospel  6  aixvoq^  in  the  Revela- 
tion TO  apviov  ;  but  the  latter  form  may  have  been  pre- 
ferred in  order  to  give  more  point  to  the  opposition  which 
in  the  latter  book  constantly  prevails  between  to  apviov 
and  TO  Onpiov.  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 

*  Other  coincidences  are:  aK-qvovv,  John  i.  14,  Rev.  vii.  15,  xii.  12, 
xiii.  6,  xxi.  3;  'Lord  thou  knowest',  Rev.  vii.  14,  John  xxi.  [5-17  ;  ex«ti' 
fiepos,  (=to  partake)  John  xiii.  8,  Rev.  xx.  6;  <T(pa.miv,  i  John  iii.  12,  Rev.  v. 
6,  9,  12,  vi.  4,  9,  xiii.  3,  8,  xviii.  24;  o\\iis,  John  vii.  24,  xi.  44,  Rev.  i.  16; 
TTjpCiv  rhv  \6yov,  Rev.  iii.  8,  10,  xxii.  7,  9,  John  viii.  51-55,  xiv.  23,  xv.  20,  xvii. 
6,  I.John  ii.  5;  i^paiffri,  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.  Notwithstanding  the  perversity  of  some  of  his  decisions, 
and,  what  is  more  irritating,  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. 


XIII.]  The  Dictio7i  of  the  Apocalypse.  281 

preceding  books- with  an  object:  *he  that  overcometh  the 
world ',  &c.  There  are  likewise  peculiarities  of  the  Gos- 
pel which  are  absent  from  the  Apocalypse,  such  as  the 
use  of  \va  with  the  subjunctive  instead  of  the  ordinary 
construction  with  the  infinitive,  and  fondness  for  ovv  as 
a  connecting  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  hypo- 
thesis that  the  one  was  a  disciple  and  imitator  of  the 
other.  But  the  question  with  which  we  are  actuall}'' 
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  de- 
monstrates that  both  works  could  not  have  had  the  same 
author.  I  have  shown  that  no  such  result  can  be  ob- 
tained under  the  present  head  of  argument,  the  resem-| 
blances  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 
£1  Tiq^  the  other  lav  ng ;  the  one  Ipxo/xBvov  h  aapKi,  the 
other  eXinXvOoTu  ev  aapKi,  and  so  on.  Some  years  ago 
Dr.  Stanley  Leathes*  applied  to  our  English  poets  the 

*  Boyle  Lectures,  1868,  p.  283. 


282  The  Johaniiine  Books.  [xiii. 

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  //  Peiiscroso,  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  CEnone. 

I  pass  to  the  last  and  strongest  of  the  arguments  of 
Dionysius,  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  startling  from  the  first :  John  to  the 
seven  churches  of  Asia,  grace  to  you  and  peace  airo  6  wv 
Koi  6  riv  Koi  6  Ipxofxevog,  and  from  the  seven  spirits  which 
are  before  his  throne  koi  airo  'Ijjo-ou  Xpiarov  6  fxaprvg  6 
TTictTOQ,  to  him  that  loved  us  t(^  a-yaTrJivTi  rtfxaq  Km  XovaavTi 
rj/jiag  koi  airoir](nv  rifiag  (daaiXeiav.  Instances  of  false 
apposition  such  as  occur  in  this  example  present  them- 
selves several  times  where  a  noun  in  a  dependent  case 
has  a  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 
extenuate  these  irregularities,  and  they  have  at  least 
succeeded  in  showing  that  some  considerable  deductions 
ought  fairly  to  be  made  from  the  list.  They  have  pro- 
duced 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 

*  Thus:  ttIj  Kaivijs  'lepovaaArifx,  -q  icixTafialvovcra.  {m.  12),  vwo/xov^  rwu  ayiuov, 
ol  rripovvTfs  Tas  ivToXds  (xiv.  12),  rhv  dpaKovra,  6  o(})is  6  apx^^os  (xx.  2). 


xiil]  Solecisms  of  the  Apocalypse.  283 

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  maintain  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  evi- 
dence 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 
language  corresponds  very  well  with  what  might  be  ex- 
pected from  the  author  to  whom  it  is  ascribed.  It  gives 
us  no  reason  to  disbelieve  that  this  author  had  a  suffi- 
ciency 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  otto  6  wv  could  not  possibly  be  the  result  of 
ignorance  that  otto  governs  the  genitive  case.  One  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  authorized  version  of  Ex.  iii.  14.  This  very  text 
seems  to  have  suggested  the  6  wy  of  St.  John,  while  6  t\v 
is  a  bold  attempt  to  supply  the  want  of  a  past  participle 


284  The  Johannine  Books.  [xin. 

of  the  substantive  verb.  As  for  6  epxoi^^vog,  there  may 
possibly  be  a  reference  to  our  Lord's  second  coming,  but 
it  is  also  quite  possible  that  the  form  iaoinevog,  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  ex- 
press 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  grammatical  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  compli- 
cated 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 

*  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  pre- 
ceding poets. 


XIII.]  Solecisms  of  the  Apocalypse.  285 

correctly  the  grammatical  forms  which  are  of  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  employ- 
ing the  participle  present,  and  yet  not  be  equally  fami- 
liar 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  gram- 
matical 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  explanations  of  that  difference  can  be  given.  The 
opinion  of  critics,  orthodox  as  well  as  sceptical,   now 

*  The  above  was  written  before  I  had  read  Canon  Westcott's  Introduction, 
who  says  (p.  1.)  :  '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  goes  on  to  remark  that  there  is  at  most 
one  instance  of  the  use  of  the  omtio  oUiqua. 


286  The  Johannine  Books.  [xiii. 

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  of 
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 
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  supe- 
riority over  the  Greek  of  the  Apocalypse,  in  a  book  writ- 
ten 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  assist- 
ance. I  have  known  two  letters  sent  to  the  Con- 
tinent bearing  the  same  signature,  written  in  the 
same  foreign  language,  but  possibly  differing  from 
each  other  in  grammatical  accuracy  as  much  as  the 
Gospel  and  Apocalypse ;  and  the  explanation  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 


XIII.]  The  Date  of  the  Apocalypse.  287 

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. 

Such  explanations  being  available,  the  differences  of 
language  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  related  to  the  rest  as  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  to  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  If  we  regard  the  evi- 
dence from  language  solely,  I  dp  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  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, 


288  The  Johannine  Books.  [xiv. 

not  the  former.  And  in  this  case  we  have  the  singular 
instance  of  sceptical  critics  assigning  to  a  New  Testa- 
ment book  an  earlier  date  than  the  orthodox  had  claimed 
for  it.  The  latter,  following  Irenaeus,  had  assigned  the 
Apocalypse  to  the  reign  of  Domitian,  and  had  regarded 
it  as  the  last  work  of  the  Apostle  John,  written  in  ex- 
treme 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.  lo,  '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  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  pre- 
decessors. 

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.  11.  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 

*  See  the  authorities  quoted  by  Renan,  IV.  407. 


XIV.]         Renan^s  Theory  as  to  the  Apocalypse.  289 

in  personal  appearance,  and  had  the  same  musical  skill. 
Giving  himself  out  to  be  the  emperor,  he  got  some  fol- 
lowers 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  dis- 
pel 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  credence,  protection, 
and  support  (Suet.,  NerOy  57).  The  belief  that  the 
matricide  Nero  had  fled  beyond  the  Euphrates  is  ex- 
pressed 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.  11:*  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  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  contain- 
ing a  reference  to  the  Parthians,  by  whose  aid  Nero  was 
to  be  restored.* 

*  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  behef  is  ascribed  to  the  Apocalyptist.     For  we  only 

U 


290  The  Johannine  Books.  [xiv. 

This  is  the  theory  which  is  elaborated  in  Renan's 
fourth  volume  [U Antechrisf).  It  was  at  once  accepted 
by  a  writer  in  the  Edinhurgli  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  [Expository  1881).  Renan'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 
supposed  to  anticipate  and  to  predict  in  the  beginning 
of  the  eleventh  chapter  is  that  the  siege  would  to  a  cer- 
tain 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  accom- 
panied 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  tran- 
scribed by  his  English  followers,  with  the  view  of  show- 
ing 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 

hear  of  Parthia  in  connexion  with  Nero  full  twenty  years  after  that  emperor's 
death  ;  and  laaturally  it  would  not  be  untd  after  all  trace  of  him  had  disap- 
peared 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  also  believe  Nero  to  be  then  lurking  in  Parthia. 


XV.]    Failure  Imputed  to  Apocalyptic  Predictions.    291 


it  occurs  in  the  former.  It  is  supposed,  however,  that 
all  doubt  has  been  now  removed  through  the  dis- 
covery in  quite  recent  times  of  the  true  explanation  of 
the  mysterious  number  666.*  This  is  said  to  be  Nero 
Cffisar  written  in  Hebrew  letters  IDp  jTHJ-f  And  what 
is  supposed  to  demonstrate  the  correctness  of  this 
solution  is,  that  it  accounts  equally  for  the  numbers  666 
and  616,  both  of  which  were  early  found  in  MSS.  of  the 
Apocalypse  (see  p.  267).  For  the  difference  is  explained 
as  arising  from  a  difference  in  the  way  of  spelling  Nipwv 
with  or  without  the  final  letter,  the  numerical  value  of 
which  in  Hebrew  is  50. 

Who  the  false  prophet  was,  who  is  described  (xiii.  11, 
xix.  20)  as  working  miracles  and  compelling  men  to 
worship  the  beast  and  receive  his  mark,  these  inter- 
preters are  less  agreed.  One  (Volkmar)  gravely  main- 
tains 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.  Arch- 
deacon Farrar  upholds  the  claims  of  the  emperor  Ves- 
pasian. 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  fore- 
told (and  apparently  in  ignorance  of  the  prophecy  which 
Matthew  has    put  into   the  mouth   of  our  Lord)   that 

*  There  are  rival  claimants  for  the  honour  of  this  discovery — Fritzscjie, 
Benary,  Reuss,  and  Hitzig.     See  Farrar,  Expositor,  p.  347, 

t  Thus  :  J  =  50,  -,  =  200,  «,  =  6,  J  =  50,  p  =  100,  D  =  60,  -I  =  200 ;  total 
=  666. 

U2 


292  The  Johannine  Books.  ■  [xiv. 


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  interpreta- 
tion given  to  ch.  xvii.  16,  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  deso- 
late and  naked,  eat  her  flesh,  and  burn  her  w4th  fire. 
But  in  point  of  fact  the  wars  that  followed  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. 

I  confess  that  I  am  under  a  certain  disadvantage  in 
criticising  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  Academic  disputants,  'facilius 
me,  talibus  de  rebus,  quid  non  sentirem,  quam  quid  sen- 
tirem,  posse  dicere.'  However  I  am  bound  to  state  the 
difficulties  which  prevent  me  from  accepting  the  theory, 
now  becoming  fashionable,  as  furnishing  the  true  solu- 
tion. 

And  it  seems  almost  enough  to  appeal  to  the  estima- 
tion 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  with- 
in a  year  of  the  time  when  it  was  delivered?  According 
to  this  theory  St.  John  does  not,  like  some  pretenders  to 
the  gift  of  prophec}^,  make  himself  pretty  safe  by  post- 
poning 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 


XIV.]  The  Modern  Theory  Incredible.  293 

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  de- 
struction 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  pre-  \ 

diction  so  wild  and  so  unfortunate  should  make  the  repu-  ', 

tation  of  the  prophet,  and  that  the  book  which  contained  1 

it  should  live  for  generations  as  an  inspired  document?         .  1 
In  the  case  of  the  Apocalypse,  as  we  are  asked  to  under-  \ 

stand  it,  the  seer  could  hardly  have  had  time  to  publish  \ 

his  predictions  before  he  must  have  himself  wished  to  re- 
call or  suppress  them  ;  their  failure  was  so  rapid.     Pos- 
sibly within  a  month- after  they  were  made  the  pretended       \  : 
Nero  was  killed  and  his  imposture  exposed.     Then  came         :  r> 
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. 

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  r  It  was  intended,  we  are  told,  to  in- 
spire 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  completely  perished.  Irenaeus, 
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  pur- 


294  The  Johamiine  Books.  [xiv. 

port.  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  * 

The  argument  just  used,  that  permanent  reputa- 
tion 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  understands  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  Tem- 
ple 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  Apoca- 
lypse of  St.  John,  that  Hebrew  prophecy,  on  the  whole, 
has  nevertheless  not  failed  ;  that,  properly  understood, 
its  forecasts  have  been,  for  every  rational  and  religious 
purpose,  successful.'  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  mistaken,  but 
they  who  have  believed  will  find  at  last  that  they  were 
not    deceived,    that    Christ,   not   Antichrist,    rules    the 

*  Archdeacon  Farrar  is  too  good  a  scholar  to  entertaha  the  pre-scientific 
idea  that  one  authority  is  as  good  as  another,  and,  consequently,  any  two 
better  than  one.  It  was  therefore  with  the  utmost  amazement  I  read  what 
he  says  on  this  subject  {Expositor,  p.  333) :  'Against  the  authority  of  Irenaeus 
ftiay  be  placed  that  of  Epiphanius,  who  says  that  St.  John  was  banished  in  the 
reign  of  Claudius  {Har.  li.),  and  that  of  the  Syriac  version,  which  places  that 
event  in  the  reign  of  Nero  :  Theophylact,  who  had  many  good  sources  of  in- 
formation, says  the  same.'  To  parallel  the  enormity  of  such  a  sentence  Ave 
must  imagine  an  English  historian  of  the  Peloponnesian  war  waiting,  'Against 


XIV.]        Imputation  of  Failure,  how  declined.  295 

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  cir- 
cumstance, it  more  signally  came  true  in  the  barbarian 
overthrow  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  modern  Christendom. 

Substantially  the  same  view  is  taken  by  Archdeacon  Far- 
rar.  He  censures  Luther's  remark  that '  for  many  reasons 
he  regarded  the  book  as  neither  apostolic  nor  prophetic' 
The  Archdeacon  holds  it  to  be  both,  and  considers  that 
Luther's  unwarrantable  judgment  proceeded  from  a  defi- 
cient acquaintance  with  the  necessary  characteristics  of 
the  Apocalyptic  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  ful- 

the  authority  of  Thucydides  may  be  placed  that  of  Plutarch,  confirmed  by  that 
of  Mr.  Mitford,  who  had  many  good  sources  of  hiformation.'  With  regard  to 
Epiphanius,  see  note,  p.  198.  He  very  possibly  got  the  Claudian  date,  which 
is  certainly  wrong,  from  the  Apocryphal  acts  of  Leucius,  which  will  be 
described  in  a  later  lecture.  Of  Theophylact  it  is  enough  to  say  that  he  lived 
at  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century.  It  is  quite  possible  that  we  may  have  good 
reasons  for  rejecting  the  statement  of  Irenaeus,  but  I  cannot  count  among  such 
reasons  the  opposing  testimony  of  Epiphanius  and  Theophylact,  whose  com- 
bined authority  in  opposition  to  his  is  absolutely  insignificant. 


296  The  yohannine  Books.  [xiv. 

filment  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  dis- 
cuss 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  spo- 
ken, 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  sooth- 
saying is  not  the  intention  of  prophecy ; '  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 


XIV.]       Imperfect  Success  of  Modem  Solutions.        297 

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  want  of  accuracy  in  his  forecasts  that  can  be  de- 
manded 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 
back  ground.  It  is  only  the  opening  chapters  which 
appear  to  speak  of  then  present  events,  and  these  are 
occupied  not  with  temporal  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 


2g8  The  Jo hannine  Books.  [xiv. 

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  confine  inter- 
preters 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  no- 
thing which  had  then  actually  occurred.  It  is  idle  to 
suppose,  as  some  have  done,  that  xvii.  16  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  Alex- 
andria, 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 
interpreters  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  referred  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  per- 
mits no  man  to  buy  or  sell  who  has  not  this  mark.*    Who 

""  Neither  Farrar's  nor  Renan's  explanation  of  this  is  so  natural  as  that  we 
have  here  a  plain  prediction  of  'boycotting';  and  sure  enough  irappveWos 
makes  666.     But  seriously,  exclusion  from  ordinary  traffic  was  a  common  re- 


XIV.]       Imperfect  Success  of  Modern  Solutions.        299 

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  wit- 
nesses (ch.  xi.)  from  whose  mouth  fire  proceeds  to  de- 
stroy 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  inter- 
preters ought  to  be  modest  in  their  belief  that  they  have 
got  the  right  interpretation  of  the  second  verse  of  this 
chapter  when  they  must  own  that  their  method  will  not 
carry  them  a  single  verse  further.  On  the  whole,  it 
seems  to  me  that  Dr.  Gumming  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 

suit  of  the  calumnies  circulated  against  Christians  {see  the  letter  of  the 
Churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons,  Euseb.  v.  f,  a  document  which  quotes  the 

Apocalypse  as  Scripture). 


300  The  Johannine  Books.  [xiv. 

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  problem.  Among 
the  persons  supposed  to  be  indicated  are  the  emperors  Ca- 
ligula, Trajan,  and  Julian  the  Apostate,  Genseric  the  Van- 
dal, Popes  Benedict  IX.  and  Paul  V.,  Mahomet,  Martin 
Luther,  John  Calvin,  Beza,  and  NapoleonBonaparte.  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  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  suc- 
ceed 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 

*  I  remember  that  I  once  sent  to  Bishop  Fitzgerald  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  '^r^VQ  "lO  ;  but 
lie  added  the  Horatian  caution  : — 

Tu  ne  quccsieris,  quem  mihi  quem  tibi 

Finem  Di  dederint,  nee  Babylonios 

Tentaris  numeros. 
Yoimg  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  compara- 
tively modern  abbreviation  for  ar^  which  printers  now  use  also  for  the  Epise- 


XIV.]  Multiplicity  of  Solutions.  301 

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  in- 
quiry.' 

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  of  616.  But 
not  to  say  that  it  shares  this  advantage  with  other  solu- 
tions containing  a  name  ending  in  wy,  let  us  consider 
what  is  assumed  when  we  lay  stress  on  the  fact  that  a 
single  name  gives  the  explanation  of  two  different  num- 
bers. 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  Csesar  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  such  widespread  knowledge  of  the  solu- 
tion as  is  thus  assumed,  it  is  incredible  that  it  should 
have    been    so    completely    lost    when    Irenaeus     tried 

mon,  thereby  so  misleading  simple  readers,  that  I  have  found  in  a  scientific 
article  the  information  that  the  name  of  this  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  modem  cursive  characters.  In  extant  uncial 
MSS.  the  number  is  written  in  words  at  length,  and  Irenaeus  appears  to  have 
so  read  it  in  his  own  MSS.,  though  he  conjectures  that  the  various  reading  6i6 
originated  in  MSS.  where  the  number  was  written  in  letters.  His  words  are 
(v.  30),  '  Hoc  autem  arbitror  scriptorum  peccatum  fuisse,  ut  solet  fieri,  quoniam 
et  per  Hteras  numeri  ponuntur,  facile  literam  Graecam  quae  sexaginta  enuntiat 
numerum,  in  iota  Graecorum  literam  expansam.'  {See  Heumann  in  Bibliotk. 
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). 


302  The  Johannine  Books.  [xv. 

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  Introduc- 
tion [Speaker's  Commentary,  p.  Ixxxvi.).  Nor  do  I  think 
the  time  soon  after  the  death  of  Nero  an  improbable 
date.  I  am  well  disposed  to  adopt  Renan's  conjecture, 
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). 


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  argument,  which   I  am 


XV.]  The  Quartodecimans.  303 

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  pre- 
dominated in  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor,  did  not  recog- 
nise 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  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  pro- 
cess 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  Syn- 
optic 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.  Mat- 
thew 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  there- 
of until  it  be  fulfilled  in  the  kingdom  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 


304  The  Johannine  Books.  [xv. 

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  judg- 
ment 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  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  inter- 
preters. 

Now,  that  there  is  here  a  real  difficulty  I  freely  ac- 
knowledge ;  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 

*  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  Alessiah,  ii.  p.  479.  See  also  Dean 
Plumptre's  Excursus  in  EUicott's  Commentary.  The  opposite  view  is  main- 
tained by  Sanday,  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  201  ;   and  by  Westcott,  Introduction  to 


XV.]     Controversy  concerning  Day  of  the  Passion.     305 


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  informa- 
tion, 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  dis- 
ciples before  he  suffered ;  others  adopt  Chrysostom's 
conjecture  that  the  Jewish  rulers  postponed  their  pass- 
over  in  their  occupation  with  arrangements  for  the  cap- 
ture 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  prsetorium  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 
day  on  which  the  passover  was  afterwards  to  be  eaten. 
The  passover  would  not  be  eaten  till  the  evening ;  but  be- 
fore that  time  the  defilement  contracted  by  entering  the 
heathen  house  would  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  passover  proper,  their  regular  celebration  of 

Gospels,  p.  344;  andia  the  Speaker  s  Commentary.  The  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  (Ed,  Bonn.,  p.  12),  that  from  Clement  being  particularly  interesting. 
But  as  on  this  point  the  earliest  fathers  had  no  more  means  of  real  informa- 
tion than  ourselves,  the  opinion  of  a  father  has  no  higher  authority  than  that 
of  an  eminent  critic  of  our  OMn  day. 

X 


3o6  The  yohaiuiiiie  Books.  [xv. 


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  rooming  following  the 
passover,  but  to  which,  according  to  competent  authori- 
ties, 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  enquiry;  and, 
as  I  said  before,  concerns  Christians  alone,  and  is  one 
with  which  those  who  stand  without  have  nothing  to  do. 
Critics,  I  think,  overrate  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  be- 
lieve 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,  incon- 
sistent with  the  ascription  of  a  late  date  to  the  Gos- 
pel. 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  Christians  ?  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 


XV.]   Controversy  Concerning  Day  of  tJie  Pas:sion.    307 

of  preceding  writings,  and  does  not  declare  any  inten- 
tion 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  ac- 
cepted 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  him- 
self 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  pre- 
viously 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  con- 
ceivable 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.' 

X  2 


3o8  TJie  Job  aniline  Books.  [xv. 

I  have  now  to  explain  how  this  discrepancy,  real  or 
apparent,  between  the  Gospels,  has  been  connected  with 
the  Easter  controversies  of  the  second  century.  There 
is  still  a  g'ood  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  tradi- 
tion, spent  the  last  years  of  his  life,  celebrated  their 
paschal  solemnities  on  the  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  Christen- 
dom generally,  held  their  paschal  feast  on  the  following- 
Sunday,  and  continued  the  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  Resur- 
rection of  our  Lord.  In  the  Christian  Church  the  weekly 
Resurrection  feast  was  instituted  before  the  annual  feast ; 
and  it  is  plain  that  those  who  made  their  paschal  feast  co- 
incide 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  com- 

*  According  to  Expd.  xii.  6,  the  passover  was  to  be  killed  on  the  14th  day 
'  between  the  evenings.'  Since  the  Jewish  day  began  with  the  evening,  some 
have  understood  from  this  that  the  passover  was  to  be  killed  on  the  beginning 
of  the  Jewish  14th  day,  or,  as  we  should  count  it,  on  the  evening  of  the  13th. 
But  the  best  authorities  are  agreed  that  the  passover  was  kiUed  on  the  after- 
noon of  the  14th,  and  eaten  the  following  night,  which,  according  to  Jewish 
count,  would  be  the  15th.     (Joseph.  Bell.  Jud.  vi.  9,  3.) 


XV.]  History  of  Early  Paschal  Disputes.  309 

memorated  the  Last  Supper  on  the  fourteenth  day  of 
the  month  :  they  therefore  adopted  the  reckoning  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  according  to  which  the  Last  Supper 
was  held  on  the  fourteenth,  and  the  Passion  took  place 
on  the  following  day.*  And  since  the  Churches  of  Asia 
cited  John  as  the  author  of  their  custom,  they  must,  if  they 
knew  the  Fourth  Gospel,  have  rejected  its  claims  to  pro- 
ceed from  John  the  Apostle,  since  it  apparently  makes  the 
fourteenth  the  day  not  of  the  Supper,  but  of  the  Pas- 
sion. The  whole  argument,  you  will  perceive,  rests  on 
the  assumption  that  the  Asiatic  paschal  feast  was  in- 
tended to  commemorate  the  Last  Supper ;  but  where  is 
the  proof  of  that  assumption  ?    There  is  absolutely  none. 

And  now,  perhaps,  you  ma)*-  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  without  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  Tiibingen  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  commemoration,  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 

*  That  is,  as  we  count  days ;  but  the  Last  Supper  and  the  Passion  took 
place  on  the  same  Jemsh  day.  The  question,  How  did  the  Asiatic  Churches 
count  days  ?  materially  affects  Baur's  argument ;  but  I  do  not  discuss  it,  there 
being  other  reasons  for  regarding  that  argument  as  worthless. 


3IO  Tlic  Johannine  Books.  [xv. 

notice  of  the  controversy  is  in  the  account  given  by 
Irenaeus  (Euseb.  v,  24)  of  the  visit  of  Polycarp  to  Ani- 
cetus,  Bishop  of  Rome ;  on  which  occasion  we  are  told 
that  *  neither  could  Anicetus  prevail  on  Polycarp  not  to 
observe  [the  14th  Nisan]  (^u?)  T^pv.v),  inasmuch  as  he  had 
always  observed  it  with  John  the  Apostle  of  our  Lord, 
and  the  other  Apostles  with  whom  he  had  associated ; 
neither  could  Polycarp  prevail  on  Anicetus  to  observe 
{ry\puv),  for  he  said  that  he  ought  to  follow  the  example 
of  the  presbyters  before  him.'  Here  we  see  that  the 
Eastern  custom  was  'to  observe '  the  day:  the  Western, 
'not  to  observe  it/  The  language  of  Irenaeus  is  so 
vague,  that  it  even  leaves  it  an  open  question  whether 
the  Roman  bishops  before  Soter  had  any  Easter  cele- 
bration at  all,  for  he  speaks  of  the  difference  between 
Anicetus  and  Polycarp  as  more  fundamental  than  that 
involved  in  the  Easter  disputes  of  his  own  time.  At  any 
rate  we  are  not  told  in  what  way  the  Easterns  observed 
the  day,  nor  in  commemoration  of  what.  No  argument 
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  Anicetus  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  celebra- 
tions 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  trustworthy  tradition  as  to  the  days  of 
the  year  on  which  these  events  occurred.  Our  compli- 
cated rules  for  finding  Easter  serve  to  attest  that  among 


xv.l  Apostolic  PascJial  Ohservajices.  311 

nations  whose  calendar  was  governed  by  the  solar  year, 
the  annual  celebration  of  our  Lord's  death  and  resurrec- 
tion did  not  begin  until  so  long  after  the  events  that  the 
day  of  the  year  on  which  they  occurred  was  not  cer- 
tainly known.  We  know,  however,  from  the  Acts,  that 
Christians  of  Jewish  birth  continued  to  observe  the  cus- 
toms of  their  nation,  including,  doubtless,  the  passover. 
And  not  merely  the  Judaizing  Christians,  but  Paul  him- 
self. For  in  addition  to  what  we  elsewhere  read  of  his 
compliance  with  Jewish  institutions,  we  have  plain  in- 
dications 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  Pentecost.'  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  thaf  season  could  not  but  bring  vividly 
before  their  minds  all  the  great  events  which  the  pre- 
ceding passover  had  witnessed.  Now  this  is  quite  in- 
dependent of  any  theory  as  to  the  day  of  the  month  on 
which  our  Lord  suffered.  If  we  suppose  that  he  suffered 
on  the  fifteenth,  then  the  Apostles'  celebration  of  the  pass- 
over  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  differ- 
ence between  East  and  West  was  that  the  East  only  cele- 
brated one  day,  the  West  a  whole  week,  commemorating 
the  Crucifixion  and  Resurrection  on  different  days— the 


312  The  yohaiinine  Books.  [xv. 

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 
anniversary  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  cele- 
bration might  be  different.  The  Christians  would,  no 
doubt,  make  their  commemoration  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  :  therefore  let 
us  keep  the  feast,  not  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  hos- 
tility between  Jews  and  Christians  became  more  intense, 
it  was  made  a  point  to  celebrate  on  a  different  day  from 
the  Jews ;  and  to  this  possibly  is  owing  the  rule,  which 
we  still  observe,  that  if  the  full  moon  falls  on  a  Sunday, 
Easter  is  not  till  the  Sunday  after. 

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  Sard  is  wrote  a  book  on  this  subject. 


XV.]  History  of  Early  Paschal  Disputes.  313 

The  occasion  of  it  appears  to  have  been  that  a  leading 
Christian  named  Sagaris  suffered  martyrdom  at  Laodicea 
on  the  14th  Nisan  ;  and  that  when  in  the  following  year 
great  numbers  of  Christians  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  Quartodeciman  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  14th.  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  dis- 
puted 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  opposition  to  Melito  ;  or  whether  he  and  Melito  were 
on  the  same  side — both  Quartodecimans,  and  only  con- 
tending with  those  who  set  on  wrong  grounds  the  cele- 
bration of  the  1 4th  day.  For  our  purpose  it  is  immaterial 
to  decide  the  question.  At  this  stage  of  the  contro- 
versy the  arguments  did  not  rest  merely  on  traditional 
custom,  but  Scripture  was  appealed  to.  And  Apollinaris 
argues  from  St.  John's  Gospel  that  the  14th  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 

*  Paschal  Chron.  (Bonn  edit.)  p.  12  :   Routh,  Rell.  Sac.  i.  p.  160. 


314  The  Johannine  Books.  [xv. 

at  this  time  the  authority  of  St.  John's  Gospel  was  re- 
cognised by  the  Quartodecimans ;  of  which  we  have  a 
further  proof  in  the  fact  that  Melito  counted  our  Lord's 
ministry  as  lasting  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  schism atically  introduced  into  his 
own  Church.  Victor  was  boldly  resisted  by  Polycrates, 
in  a  letter,  of  which  a  most  interesting  fragment  is  pre- 
served 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  Gos- 
pel. 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  ApoUinaris  ;  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  with- 

*  This   appears   from  a  passage   preserved   by   Anastasius    Sinaita ;    see 
Routh,  Rell.  Sac.  I.  121. 


XV.]         Quartodeciman  use  of  Fourth  Gospel.  315 

out  any  suspicion  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  cele- 
bration, the  fact  of  its  reception  by  the  leading  men  of 
that  party  would  prove  that  the  authority  of  that  Gospel 
must  have  been  well  established  before  the  Quartodeci- 
man 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  15th  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  de- 
cide for  the  14th,  some  for  the  15th;  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  15th  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  14th  he  suffered,  the  15th,  and  consequently  the 
1st  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 


3i6  TJic  Johanmve  Books.  [xvi. 


the  table  had  been  ah-eady  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'=CleUan 
by  Professor  Adams  (see  M<;Clellan's  Commentary  N.  T.,  p.  493).  The 
year  A.  D.  29  is  that  which  Hippolytus  supposed  to  be  that  of  the  Passion ; 
and  this  date  was  adopted  by  many  subsequent  fathers.  I  have  already  men- 
tioned (p.  238)  that  Hippolytus  used  an  erroneous  table  of  full  moons,  which 
led  him  to  fix  the  date  of  the  Passion  as  ]\Iarch  25th.  But  that  was  so  many 
days  after  the  actual  occurrence  of  the  full  moon,  that  it  is  inconceivable  the  pass- 
over  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  in  the  afternoon  of  Thursday,  March  19th.  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,  II  P.M.,  .     ......  Monday,  March  31. 

, ,      ,  (  Friday,  March  20,  or 

33.  March  19,  i  P.M., \ 

\  Saturday,  March  21. 

i  March  9,  9  a.m., Wednesday,  March  10. 
or  /  Thursday,  April  8,  or 

April  7,  I  p.  M.,. I  Friday,  April  9. 

35.  March  28,  6  A.M., Tuesday,  March  29. 

36.  March  16,  6  p.m., Sunday,  March  18. 

The  year  30  is  that  which  Wieseler  looks  on  as  the  probable  year  of  the 


XVI.]  The  Gospel  and  Minor  Epistles.  31 


Passion;  and  since  in  that  year  the  passover  month  began  on  a  Friday,  he 
concludes  that  our  Lord  suffered  on  the  15th  Nisan,  as  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
would  lead  us  to  suppose.  But  in  this  I  think  Wieseler  has  made  a  mistake. 
As  the  Jewish  days  begin  with  the  evening,  the  appearance  of  the  moon 
on  Friday  evening  was  the  beginning,  not  the  end,  of  the  first  day  of 
the  month,  which  would  include  Saturday.  The  15th  Nisan,  therefore, 
was  also  a  Saturday,  and  the  day  of  the  Passion  (assuming  it  to  have  been 
a  Friday)  must  have  fallen  on  the  14th,  which  was  7th  April.  So  that 
it  seems  to  me  the  conclusion  is  just  the  opposite  of  what  Wieseler  sup- 
posed, and  that  if  we  can  build  on  astronomical  calculations,  they  altogether 
favour  John's  account.  In  fact  the  table  shows  only  one  year,  34,  in  which 
the  passover  could  have  been  celebrated  on  Thursday  evening;  and  that  is 
subject  to  a  double  doubt,  viz.,  as  to  which  was  the  passover  month ;  and  as 
to  the  day  on  which  it  began.  This  result  is  quite  opposed  to  my  prepos- 
sessions ;  but  if  it  be  the  case  that  John  was  able  on  such  a  point  to  correct  a 
false  impression  received  by  readers  of  the  Synoptics,  there  can  be  no  stronger 
proof  of  the  authority  of  his  Gospel.  [Since  this  note  was  in  type,  I  have 
found  that  this  correction  had  been  already  made  by  Caspari,  Chronological 
and  Geographical  Introduction  to  Life  of  Christ.  Edinb.,  1876,  pp.  17)  196; 
a  work  which  I  am  sorry  not  to  have  known  sooner.] 


XVI. 

Part  V. 

THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MINOR    EPISTLES. 

The  result  at  which  I  arrived  (p.  287),  from  a  com- 
parison 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  purpose  to  make  a  further  examination  of  the 
contents  of  the  Gospel,  with  the  view  of  obtaining,  if 
possible,  a  more  definite  conclusion.* 

*  In  this  lecture  I  chiefly  reproduce  the  arguments  of  Dr.  Sanday  [Fourth 
Gospel,  ch.  19),  with  the  additions  made  to  them  by  Prof.  Westcott  in  the 
Introduction  to  his  Commentary  on  St.  John's  Gospel.  I  also  make  use  of  an 
appendix  added  by  Renan  to  the  13th  edition  of  his  Vie  de  Jesus,  in  which 
he  justifies  the  preference  he  had  expressed  (see  p.  253)  for  the  narrative  as 
given  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 


3i8  The  Johaiimne  Books.  [xvi. 

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  Gospel,  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  41st 
Psalm  (xiii.  18),  'He  that  eateth  bread  with  me  hath 
lift  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.  g,  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  rendering 
in  St.  John  (xii.  40). 

(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  mentioned  (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  commen- 
tators 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  allusion  to  the  rite,  prac- 
tised 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  com-' 
mand,  which  commemorated  the  dedication  of  the  Tem- 
ple after  its  profanation  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (x.  22]. 


XVI.]  The  Fourth  Evangelist  a  Jew.  319 


(3)  In  connexion  with  the  preceding,  I  note  the  ac- 
quaintance shewn  with  Jewish  customs  and  habits  of 
thought.  There  are,  for  instance,  repeated  references  to 
the  customs  in  connexion  with  purification  :  the  '  water- 
pots  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  them- 
selves, previous  to  the  passover,  by  entering  the  heathen 
Prsetorium  (xviii.  28),  and  the  Jewish  scruple  against  al- 
lowing 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  instituted  by  John  the  Baptist,  but  one  known 
to  the  Jews  before  ;  for  the  question  is  not  put  to  the  Bap- 
tist (i.  25),  What  is  this  new  thing  that  thou  doest  r  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  Rab- 
binical and  popular  notions,  as  for  instance  concerning 
the  connexion  between  sin  and  bodily  suffering,  in  the 
question  (ix.  2),  'Who  did  sin,  this  man  or  his  parents, 
that  he  was  born  blind  ?';  as  to  the  importance  attached 
to  the  religious  schools  (vii.  15);  the  disparagement  of  the 
*  dispersion '  (vii.  i^ ;  and  with  the  Rabbinical  rule 
against  holding  converse  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  Gnosticizing  Gentile  of  the 
second  century.     In  the  very  passage  where  the  claims 


320  The  yoJiaiininc  Books.  [xvi. 

of  spiritual  religion,  apart  from  any  distinction  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 '  r  This  Gospel  puts  into 
our  Lord's  mouth  the  words  (iv.  22),  'Ye  worship  ye 
know  not  what,  we  know  what  we  worship  ;  for  salva- 
tion is  of  the  Jews.'  If  these  words  be  invention,  as- 
suredly they  are  not  a  Gentile  or  a  Gnostic  invention 
(see  also  p.  247). 

I  do  not  present  the  argument  from  the  language,  be- 
cause 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  argumentf  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  Gospel,  and  that  it  was  written  in  a  Greek  city  where 
*  the  Jews '  were  in  all  probability  the  bitterest  adver- 
saries of  the  Christian  Church.  I  need  only  refer  to  the 
hard  things  said  of  '  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.  38).+ 

*  For  proofs,  see  Sanday,  p.  289 ;  Westcott,  pp.  ra.,  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  government  in  the  high 
priesthood  at  this  time  are  mentioned  by  Josephus  {Antt.  xviii.  2,  2). 

\  In  John  vii.  i,  oi  'louSaTot  seems  to  mean  the  inhabitants  of  Judaea  as 
opposed  to  the  Galileans,  a  use  of  the  word  natural  enough  in  a  Galilean  writer. 


xvr,]  7^'/:'  Evangelist  a  Palestinian.  321 


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,  11,  iv.  46,  xxi.  2),  a 
place  not  noticed  b}-  any  earlier  writer ;  Bethsaida,  the 
native  place  of  Philip,  Peter,  and  Andrew  (i.  44) ;  Beth- 
any beyond  Jordan  (i.  28),  for  this  seems  to  be  the  true 
reading  instead  of  Bethabara  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) ;  ^non  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.  11),  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  hundred  feet  above  the  village,  and  where  the 
remains  of  a  temple  are  still  visible;  and  he  knows  the 
rich  cornfields  at  the  base  of  the  mountain  [v.  35).! 

There  is  the  sarne  familiarity  with  the  topography  of 
Jerusalem.  He  speaks  of  Bethesda,  the  pool  near  the 
sheep  gate,  having  five  porches ;  of  the  treasury  in  the 
Temple  ;  of  Solomon's  porch  ;  of  the  pool  Siloam,  which 

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  interpre- 
tation, since  it  is  not  said  that  the  objectors  were  visitors  from  Judaea. 

*  On  this  Renan  remarks,  Vie  de  Jesus,  p,  492,  '  On  ignore,  il  est  vrai,  ou 
etait  Salim;  mais  Puvuiv  est  un  trait  de  lumiere.  C'est  le  mot.3inawan,  pluriel 
Chaldeen  de  Ain  ou  iEn,  "fontaine."  Comment  voulez-vous  que  des  sectaires 
hellenistes  d'Ephese  eussent  deviiie  cela .''  lis  n'eussent  nomme  aucune  lo- 
calite,  ou  ils  en  eussent  nomme  une  tres-connue,  ou  ils  eussent  forge  un  mot 
impossible  sous  le  rapport  de  I'etymologie  semitique.' 

t  See  Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  ch.  v.,  ii.,  p.  240,  2nd  edit. 

Y 


32  2  The  Johannine  Books.  [xvi. 

name  he  correctly  derives  as  the  '  sending  forth '  of 
waters ;  of  the  brook  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  Tem- 
ple on  the  occasion  of  its  cleansing  by  our  Lord  ;  tlie 
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  cor- 
respondence 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  in- 
ference. This  writer  must  be  an  Irishman.  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  recog- 
nized 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  Nazareth?'  (i.  46). 
'Shall  Christ  come  out  of  Galilee?'   (vii.  41).     'Search 


XVI. J     Tlic  Gospel  a  Work  of  tJie  Fij'st  Century.       323 

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  years  was  this  Temple  in 
building.'  Counting  the  commencement  of  the  forty-six 
years  from  the  time  recorded  by  Josephus,  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  beginning  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  Epis- 
tles 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 

Y  2 


324  The  Johannine  Books.  ■  [xvi. 


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  sove- 
reignty 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  would  lead  them  against  the  Romans,  and  victo- 
riously 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  de- 
sired.    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  asser- 
tion 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  Avith  great 
clearness  the  fact  that  it  was  as  a  pretender  to  temporal 
sovereignty  that  Jesus  was  accused  before  Pilate,  who, 
though  personally  inclined  to   dismiss   the    complaint, 


XVI.]  The  Evajigelist  mi  Eye-witness.  325 


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  atmo- 
sphere 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  afterwards.  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  ? 
See  again  how  familiar  the  writer  is  with  the  expecta- 
tions 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  V  (vii.  31.) 

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  eye-witness  of 
our  Saviour's  life  (i.    14,  xix.   35,  xxi.  24,   i  John  i.  i)  ? 


326  Tlie  yohannine  Books.  [xvi. 


There  is  nothing  against  admitting  this  claim,  but  every- 
thing in  favour  of  it.  It  is  quite  remarkable  how  fre- 
quently the  Evangelist  throws  himself  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  in- 
stances in  the  very  second  chapter.  The  effect  of  the 
miracle  of  the  turning  the  water  into  wine  is  said  to 
have  been  that  'his  disciples  believed  on  him'  [v.  11). 
Again,  '  his  disciples  remembered  that  it  was  written, 
the  zeal  of  thine  house  hath  eaten  me  up  '  {v.  17). 
Again,  '  when  therefore  he  was  risen  from  the  dead,  his 
disciples  remembered  that  he  had  said  this  unto  them, 
and  they  believed  the  Scripture  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  favour- 
able impression  produced  by  the  testimony  of  the  Bap- 
tist, which  had  disposed  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 


XVI.  J      The  Evangelist  a  Disciple  of  the  Baptist.     327 

him,   and  that  they  had  done  these  things  unto  him ' 
(xii.  16). 

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  ima- 
gined, '  Jesus  went  away  beyond  Jordan  into  the  place 
where  John  at  first  baptized,  and  there  abode  ;  and  many 
resorted  unto  him  and  said,  John  did  no  miracle,  but  all 
things  that  John  spake  of  this  man  were  true' (xj^,  40).  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  them- 
selves to  Jesus,  would  not  actually  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 


328  The  yohannme  Books.  [xvi. 

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  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.  32,  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  Solo- 
mon'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  remark 
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  Bethsaida  (i.  44,  xii.  21):  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  would  rather  have  led  us  to  conjecture 
Capernaum. 

There  is  one  passage  in  particular  which  by  its  gra- 
phic character  forcibly  impresses  me  with  the  conviction 
that  I  read  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness  :  I  mean  the 
account  (xx.  3)  of  the  conduct  of  Peter  and  an  unnamed 
disciple  (who  is  unmistakeably  the  Evangelist  himself), 
when  the  women  came   running  t'"  tell  them  that   the 


XVI.]  The  Fourth  Evangelist  St.  John.  329 


body  of  our  Lord  had  been  removed  from  the  sepulchre ; 
how  the  younger  was  foremost  in  the  race,  but  contented 
himself  with  looking  into  the  sepulchre  ;  how  Peter,  with 
characteristic  boldness,  went  in,  and  how  the  other  dis- 
ciple then  followed  the  example  set  him.  If  any  but  an 
eye-witness  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 
apocryphal  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  be- 
lieved, for  as  yet  they  had  not  known  the  Scripture  that 
Christ  must  rise  again  from  the  dead.  Is  it  not  plain 
that  the  writer  is  relating  his  own  experience,  and  recall- 
ing 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  a  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  Magda- 
lene 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  eye-witness,  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  Evan- 
gelist actually  witnessed  what  he  related.  To  accept 
him  as  an  eye-witness  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 


330  The  Johannhie  Books.  [xvi. 


(iv.  11,  xi.  1 6,  xvi.  17,  XX.  25,  xxi.3,  7)  ;  what  they  thought 
(ii.  II,  17,  2^,  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),  irre- 
sistibly 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 
composition  of  the  Gospel  must  be  carefully  considered, 
namely,  one  of  the  most  shadowy  personages  in  ecclesias- 
tical history,  John  the  Elder.  A  whole  school  of  critics 
speak  of  him  with  as  assured  confidence  as  if  he  were  a 
person  concerning  whose  acts  we  had  as  much  informa- 
tion 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.  109) 
the  passage  of  Papias's  preface  from  which  Eusebius 
drew  his  inference.  In  naming  the  '  elders,'  whose  tra- 
ditions he  had  made  it  his  business  to  collect,  having 
mentioned  Andrew,  Peter,  Philip,  Thomas  and  James, 
John  and  Matthew,  Papias  adds  immediately  afterwards 
the  names  of  Aristion   and  John  the    elder.      Eusebius 


XVI.]  Jo Jm  the  Elder.  331 


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.  Euse- 
bius  had  learned  from  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (see 
p.  274)  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.  Irenseus 
also  (see  p.  109)  seems  to  be  ignorant  of  this  second 
John,  and  he  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  say- 
ing of  this  John  with  the  formula,  *  This  also  the  elder 
said'  (p.  no).  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  can- 
not be  supposed,  in  giving  this  title  the  second  time  to 
John,  to  intend  to  place  him  in  a  different  category  from 
those  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 


332  The  Johav nine  Books.  [xvi. 


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  admissible  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  r  But  here  we  are  inconveniently 
pressed  by  the  results  we  have  just  obtained,  namely,  that 
he  who  wrote  the  Gospel  must  have  been  an  eye-witness 
'  and  a  close  companion  of  our  Lord.  If  this  were  not 
the  Apostle,  there  must  have  been  in  our  Lord's  com- 
pany one  of  whom  the  Synoptic  Evangelists  have  told 
us  nothing,  and  he  no  ordinary  disciple,  but  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved,  and  who  at  the  Last  Supper  reclined 
in  the  bosom  of  our  Lord.  Further,  the  name  of  this 
disciple  was  John,  and  here  we  have  the  additional  diffi- 
culty that  (as  remarked,  p.  74)  the  Fourth  Gospel  gives 
no  intimation  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 


xvi.J  yoJin  the  Elder.  333 

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,  that  the  Gospel  was  written  by  a 
disciple  of  John,  who  wished  to  sink  his  own  person- 
ality, and  to  present  the  traditions  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  hypothesis  will  not 
bear  to  be  burdened  with  the  addition  that  the  record- 
ing disciple  was  John  the  Elder ;  for  his  is  a  personality 
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  identify- 
ing 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  Alexan- 
dria (see  p.  252).  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 

*  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. 

t  Origen's  immediate  object  apparently  would  lead  him  to  present  the 
least  favourable  view  of  disputed  books.     He  is  deprecating  the  multiplica- 


334  The  Johannine  Books.  [xvi. 


are  not  included  in  the  Peshito  Syriac.  Jerome  was 
disposed  to  ascribe  them  not  to  John  the  Apostle,  but 
John  the  Elder  {De  Vir.  Illiist.  g).  Other  proofs  may  be 
given  of  reluctance,  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  read- 
ing of  the  early  Church,  a  thing  intelligible  enough  from 
the  private  nature  of  their  contents.  The  antiquity  of 
the  letters  is  undoubted,  and  they  are  evidently  precious 
relics  of  a  venerated  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  evidence  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  conceiv- 
able motive  is  apparent.  The  writer  represents  {v.  n) 
that  he  had  sent  a  letter  to  a  Church,  but  that  his  mes- 

tion  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  into 
lUyricum  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  Ejiistle  :  tliere  may  be  a  second,  but 
that  is  controverted.  John  owns  (xxi.  25)  how  many  of  the  deeds  of  Christ  he 
has  of  necessity  kft  unrecorded;  and  (Rev.  x.  7)  that  in  his  Apocalypse  he  had 
not  been  permitted  to  write  all  that  he  had  heard.  He  lias  left  also  a  very 
short  Epistle.  There  may  be  likewise  a  second  and  a  third,  for  the  genuine- 
ness is  not  universally  acknowledged ;  but  in  any  case  they  do  not  make  up 
100  (TTixoiin  all.     Origen,  Injfoatin.  v.,  Praef.  1-4,  pp.  94-96,  [Philocal.  ch.  5;. 


XVI.]  The  Third  Epistle.  335 

sengers,  instead  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,  forbad  anyone  else  to  do  so.  This  is 
clearly  a  case  not  of  inhospitality  but  of  breach  of  com- 
munion. The  bearers  of  '  the  elder's '  letter  are  treated 
precisely  as  he  himself  had  directed  that  heretical  teach- 
ers should  be  treated.  '  If  there  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,  11).  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,  preserved 
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 

*  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  pre- 
vent 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  prophet.  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). 


336  The  Johannine  Books.  [xvi. 

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  per- 
sonality 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  {(pXvupHv),  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  com- 
pletely acquiesced  in.  When  such  a  man  publishes  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  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  tradi- 
tional 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  surround- 
ings 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  conse- 
quents, yet  enough  is  revealed  in  that  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 


XVI.]  The  Third  Epistle.  337 

long  established.  There  is  nothing  incredible  in  the 
statement  that  leading  persons  in  such  Churches  at  first 
resisted  the  authority,  not  of  John  himself,  but  of  emis- 
saries sent  by  him.  The  authority  which  these  emis- 
saries 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  ex- 
communicating 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  go- 
vernment 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  intru- 
sion, 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.  2i)f 
but  no  argument  can  be  built  on  the  recurrence  of  so 
very  common  a  name.  This  third  Epistle  professes  to 
have  had  a  companion  letter :  '  I  wrote  somewhat  to  the 
Church,'  says  the  writer  (z/.  9) ;  eypatpa  rt,  whjch  seems  to 

*  Pseud. -Athanas.,  Synops.  Sac. Script,  ch.  76  (Athan.t.ii.p.  202,Ed.Bened.) 

Z 


338  The  Johanfmie  Books..  [xvi. 

imply  some  short  composition.  I  believe  that  we  have  that 
letter  still,  in  the  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  described  [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  {y,  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  ac- 
cept Renan's  conjecture  {see  p.  302)  that  Peter  on  his  last 
visit  to  Rome  had  been  accompanied  by  John,  who, 
after  Peter's  martyrdom,  escaped  to  Asia  Minor.  Cer- 
tain 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  Evan- 
gelist shows  himself  acquainted  with  Peter's  martyrdom 
(xxi.  19);  while  the  Apocalypse  exhibits  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.  279)  some  coincidences  between 
Peter's  Epistle  and  the  Johannine  writings.  It  would 
then  be  only  a  reproduction  of  the  phrase  77  Iv  Ba(5vXh)vi 
(tuvckXekt);  (i  Peter  v.  13),  if  John  applies  the  title  £kX£ktj/ 
to  the  two  sister  Churches  of  Asia  Minor;  while  again 
his  description  of  himself  as  the  elder  would  be  sug- 
gested by  6  <jviJL7rp£(T(5vTtpoQ  (i  Peter  v.   i). 


XVI.]  The  Third  Epistle.  339 

What  I  have  said  about  the  Second  Epistle  is  in  a 
great  measure  conjectural ;  but  I  wish  you  to  observe 
that  the  uncertainty  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  impor- 
tance. At  the  present  day  Baur  has  more  faithful  dis- 
ciples in  Holland  than  in  Germany.  A  typical  represen- 
tation of  the  form  which  Baur's  theories  take  among  his 
disciples  of  the  present  day  is  to  be  found  in  a  book 
called  the  *  Bible  for  Young  People,'  of  which  the  New 
Testament  part  is  written  by  a  Dr.  Hooykaas,  and  of 
whigh  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  symboli- 
cal revelation  of  certain  passages  of  old  Church  history. 
If  it  is  said  that  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  is  to  re- 
main 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  nar- 
rative into  allegory,  we  have  cause  for  gratitude  that  the 
short  letter  to  Caius  has  been  preserved  to  us.  It  mat- 
ters 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 

z  2 


340  The  Johaiinine  Books.  [xvii. 

with  active  work  and  engaged  in  real  contests,  one  who 
claimed  the  superintendence  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. 


XVII. 

Part   VI. 

THE    FOURTH   GOSPEL  AND   THE   SYNOPTICS. 

There  is  one  class  of  objections  to  the  Johannine 
authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  which  I  might  decline 
to  discuss,  as  being  outside  the  limits  I  have  assigned  my- 
self 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  assist- 
ance, 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  so^jiier  gives  us  his 
recollections  of  stirring  events  in  which  in  his  younger 
days  he  had  taken  part.  But  when  such  recollections  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 


XVII.]       The  Omissions  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  341 


have  found  reason  to  believe  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  con- 
tains 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  cor- 
rection, 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  purpose  of  an  inquiry  as  to  the  authorship  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  we  might  set  aside  as  irrelevant  a 
great  deal  of  what  has  been  said  as  to  contradictions 
between  this  Gospel  and  its  predecessors ;  yet  so  many 
of  these  alleged  contradictions  melt  away  on  examina- 
tion, 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  re- 
lated in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  but  omitted  in  his  r  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  tra- 
versed. 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  under- 
stood as  bearing  testimony  against  whatever  he  does 
not  relate ;  that  we   are  to   assume  that  he  either  had 


342  The  Johannine  Books.  [xvii, 

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  open- 
ing sentence  of  his  Life  of  Jesus,  'Jesus  was  born  at 
Nazareth,  a  little  town  of  Galilee/  When  we  inquire  on 
what  authority  Renan  has  ventured  on  this  correction  of 
the  traditional  account  of  our  Lord's  birthplace,  we  find 
his  main  reliance  is  on  the  fact  that  John  *  knows  noth- 
ing' 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  un- 
contradicted 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  objection  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 

*    Vie  de  jfesus,  r    22. 


XVII.]       The  Omissions  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  343 

brother  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  exclaim,  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  foretold  that  the  Messiah  should  be  born  at 
Bethlehem  ;  therefore  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  ob- 
jections ;  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  contradic- 
tion between  acknowledging  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus, 
and  acknowledging  the  truth  of  the  Old  Testament  pro- 
phecies, unless  he  had  in  his  own  mind  some  way  of  re- 
conciling this  alleged  contradiction  r  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,  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 


344  The  Johannine  Books.  [xvii. 

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  ne- 
cessary 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  dis- 
putant 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  Mes- 
siahship  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 


XVII.]     SL  John  writes  for  Instructed  Readers.        345 

calls  attention  to  some  peculiarities  of  the  Evangelist's 
style,  and  also  throws  some  light  on  the  question  whether 
the  Fourth  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  {^.  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,'  evi- 
dently 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  it  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 

*  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). 


346  The  Joharmine  Books.  [xvii. 


unspoken  what  he  can  trust  his  readers  to  supply. 
He  does  not  claim  to  be  the  unnamed  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.  74) 
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. 

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  some 
one  else ;  and  though  it  may  be  doubted  whether  this 
gives  a  sufficient  account  of  all  our  mirthful  emotions,  it 
Js  certain  that  it  is  by  exciting  this  conceit  of  superiority 
that  literary  artists  have  produced  some  of  their  most  tell- 
ing 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  th6  surest  way  to  win  applause.  No  scenes  are 
more  effective  than  when  the  character  on  the  stage  is 
represented  as  ignorant  of  something  known  to  the  spec- 
tators, 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  misapprehension,  while  the 
spectators  are  in  the  secret;  and  their  pleasure  is  all  the 


XVII.]  The  Irony  of  St.  John.  347 

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  hunc  ;  se  primum  ait  scire,  is  solus  nescit  omnia. 

The  effect  of  tragedy  is  equally  heightened  when  a  per- 
sonage is  represented  as  ignorant  of  his  real  position.  In 
the  CEdipus  Rex*  o'i'$)0^\voc\QS  much  of  the  tragic  effect  is 
derived  from  the  King's  unconsciousness  that  he  is  himself 
the  object  of  the  wrath  of  heaven ;  while,  as  the  spectators 
hear  him  denounce  tjhe  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  contrast  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 

*  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  weU  as  its  use  of  the  word  '  irony, '  were  borrowed  from  Bishop 
Thirlwall's  celebrated  Essay  on  '  The  Irony  of  Sophocles '  (Philological 
Museum,  ii,  483). 


348  The  Johminine  Books.  [xvii. 

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  Evan- 
gelist 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  unintel- 
ligible to  one  not  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  asked,  *  How  can  this  man 
give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  P'  (vi.  52).  But  the  most  striking 
examples  of  the  introduction  of  characters  speaking 
truths  of  which  they  have  themselves  no  consciousness, 
are   that   of  Caiaphas   (xi.    50),    declaring   that  it   was 


XVII. ]]        SL  yohii  knew  of  previous  Gospels.  349 

'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  under- 
stands 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  qtiod  est  ah- 
surdum  to  the  conclusions  which  he  does  not  wish  them 
to  believe.  It  would  not  have  been  worth  while  to  make 
so  much  comment  on  Renan's  want  of  literary  tact  in 
misunderstanding  St.  John's  statements  about  our  Lord's 
birthplace,  if  this  had  been  an  isolated  piece  of  stupidity; 
but  full  discussion  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  fur- 
ther inference  that,  at  the  time  when  St.  John  wrote,  he 
knew  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 


350  The  Johmmine  Books.  [xvii. 

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  publica- 
tion 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  complete 
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  to  the  former  history  in  v.  20  is  quite  in 
St.  John's  manner  (see  vii.  50,  xi.  2,  xviii.  14,  xix.  39). 
Hilgenfeld  also  points  out  the  resemblance  of  the  phrases 
WQ  (iTTO  7rri\u)v  BtaKoaiwVf  V.  8,  with  ujg  awb  Gradiojv  deKairivTB 
(xi.  18);  of  the  bread  and  fish  {6\papiov  koX  aprov),  v.  9,  with 
the  same  words  (vi.  11),  the  word  o^apiov  being,  in  the 
JV.  T.,  peculiar  to  St.  John;  and  the  6  fxaprvpwv  wepX  tovtcov, 
V.  24,  with  i.  34,  xix.  35.  And  I  think  there  is  a  won- 
derful 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  interpreta- 
tion which  some  disciples  had  put  on  the  words,  '  that 
that  disciple  should  not  die  '.  The  Evangelist  evidently 
accepts  it  as  a  possibility  that  this  maybe  the  true  inter- 
pretation 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 

*  Quite  similar  phenomena  present  themselves  in  the  conclusion  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans. 


xvil]         S/.  John  knew  of  previous  Gospels,  351 


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  live  to  see  it,  yet  cor- 
recting the  belief  of  his  too  eager  followers  that  he  had 
any  guaranteed  promise  that  he  should. 

Now,  if  this  2 1  St  chapter  be  an  integral  part*  of  the 
Gospel,  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. 

*  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  1 2  (where,  however,  oTSas  seems  the  true  reading) ;  and  he  might 
have  added  that  they  have  a  close  parallel  in  John  xix.  35.  oWayctey  is  a  favou-  ^ 
rite  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  liis  opinion  that  this  verse  was  in  a  different  hand 
from  the  rest.  He  thought  that  the  scribe,  whom  he  calls  A,  who  v«ote  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  be- 
lieves, 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  Tischendorf's  opinion  as  to  there  being  a  dif- 
ference of  handwriting ;  and  Dr.  Gwynn  (who  has  obtained  from  his  study  of 
the  Sinaitic  MS.  some  interesting  results  which  I  hope  he  will  publish  else- 
where) has  made  two  remarks  which  prove  Tischendorfs  conjecture  to  be  un- 
founded: (i)  The  scribe  A  always  speUs  the  name'lflANNHS  with  two  N's; 
the  scribe  D  invariably  with  but  one.  The  subscription  here  has  the  double 
N.  (2)  The  final  '  arabesque,'  as  Tischendorf  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  discredited  by  the  testimony  of  the  Sinaitic  MS. 


352  The  yohannine  Books.  [xvii. 


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  without  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  with- 
out 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  himself  called  on  to  give  no  answer 
to  the  objection  that  Christ  must,  according  to  the  pro- 
phets, be  of  the  seed  of  David,  and  of  the  town  of  Bethle- 
hem, appears  to  me  to  be  a  proof  that  he  knew  that  his 
readers  had  in  their  hand  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  Gospels,  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  Sa- 
viour's life  without  any  knowledge  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  any- 
thing that  had  been  recorded  by  his  predecessors ;  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  persuaded,  is  that 
which  has  commonly  been  given  ;  viz.,  that  this  Evange- 


XVII. J  SL  John^s  alleged  Silence  as  to  the  Eucharist.  353 


list,  knowing  what  accounts  Christians  already  had  in 
their  hands,  wrote  his  Gospel  with  the  intention  of  sup- 
plementing these  previous  accounts.  When  he  omits 
what  his  predecessors  had  related,  he  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed 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  igno- 
rance nor  of  disparagement  becomes  still  plainer  when 
we  examine  each  instance  severally.  Thus  he  does  not 
relate  the  institution  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  any  one  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  our  Lord  should  on 
this  night  have  spoken  of  his  approaching  death,  Strauss 
believes  to  be  possible  enough.  He  thinks  that  Jesus 
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  dis- 
ciples, 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  foreboding  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 

2  A 


354  Tlie  Johmmine  Books.  [x\ii. 


to  found,  he  may  have  commanded  the  perpetual  repe- 
tition 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  Jesus 
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  formation  of  a  new  Society 
which  shall  own  him  as  its  founder.     He  foresees  that 
the  flock  of  timorous  followers,  whose  dispersion  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,  in- 
stead 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  followers,  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  in- 
timates that  the  rite  then  being  enacted  was  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 


XVII.]  Early  Christian  Belief  as  to  the  EiuJiarist.     355 

he  had  himself  predicted  their  desertion  and  denial. 
Surely,  in  the  establishment  of  the  Christian  Church, 
with  its  perpetual  Eucharistic  celebrations,  we  have 
the  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy,  such  as  no  human  fore- 
cast 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.  258)  that  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels represent  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  Eucharist,  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  perpetual  practice  of  the 
Church.  The  very  first  time  we  read  of  Christian  com- 
munities 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  onto  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,  at- 
tached 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  is  the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ  the 

2  A  2 


356  The  Johannine  Books.  [xvii. 

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  discus- 
sion.   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   accepted   as    evidence 
that  the  writer  was  acquainted  with  St.  John's  Gospel. 
"When    St.  John   wrote,    Eucharistic    celebrations   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 
believe  that  St.  John  intended  by  his  silence  to  nega- 
tive 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  resemblance  of  the  language  of  the 
6th  chapter  to  the  Eucharistic  language  of  the  writers  of 
the  second  century.     They  say  that  in  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels 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,  enters  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  indeed  and  my  blood  is  drink 


XVII.]      TJic  Eucharist  recognized  by  St.  John.  357 

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  ex- 
plain John  vi.  if  we  exclude  all  reference  to  the  Eucharist. 
If  both  the  Evangelist  knew  and  his  readers  knew  that 
our  Lord  had  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  dis- 
course 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  abrupt- 
ness 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  re- 
mind them  of  the  discourse  spoken  at  the  preceding  pass- 
over  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  the  6th  John  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  fore- 
saw nor  intended;  that  he  was  ignorant  of  this  ordinance 
or  wished  to  disparage  it.     And  if  the  result  of  the  pre- 


358  The  Johannine  Books.  [xvii. 

vious  investigation  has  been  to  establish  that  this  Evan- 
gelist habitually  relies  on  the  previous  knowledge  of  his 
readers,  we  cannot  doubt  that  in  this  as  in  other  cases  he 
speaks  words  ^wvavra  a\}vi.roi(siv\  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  dis- 
ciples to  go  and  baptize  all  nations.  If  by  his  silence 
he  intended  to  disparage  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  ava-^ivv\\csiq^  by  which  in  the  middle  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'  (vi.  62) ;  'Touch 
me  not,  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  my  Father '  (xx.  1 7) ; 
but  he  assumes  the  fact,  not  in  a  single  verse  but  through- 
out the  Gospel.  The  Evangelist  is  never  weary  of  teach- 
ing 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 


XVII.  j      Careful  Co7nposition  of  Fourth  Gospel.        359 


after  he  left  earth,  it  can  only  be  that  he  was  aware  that 
this  was  already  well  known  to  his  readers  by  the  attesta- 
tion 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  unknown ;  but  that  on  the  contrary  he  constantly 
assumes  his  reader's  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  Christ 
the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life 
through  his  name '  (xx.  31).  The  Gospel  bears  the  marks 
of  having  been  written  after  controversy  concerning  our 
Lord's  Person  had  arisen.  The  writer  seems  like  one 
who  has  encountered  objections,  and  who  therefore  anti- 
cipates 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 

*  Renan  remarks  (iv.  408)  that  the  story  of  our  Lord's  Ascension  was 
known  to  the  writer  of  the  ApocaljqDse ;  for  that  on  this  story  is  based  the 
account  of  the  resurrection,  followed  by  an  ascension,  of  the  two  witnesses, 

Xi.    T/!, 


360  TJie  Johannine  Books.  [xvii. 

apostle?  (ii.  24,  vi,  71,  xiii.  11).  He  is  emphatic  in  his 
testimony  to  facts  which  would  confute  the  Docetic 
theories  prevalent  when  he  wrote  (xix.  35).  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  ex- 
pressions to  a  use  different  from  that  which  the  writer 
intended ;  but  that  these  utterances  are  the  deliberate 
expression  of  the  Evangelist's  firm  conviction. 

If  we  find  reason  to  think  that  St.  John  knew  of  pre- 
vious 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  be- 
tween St.  John's  Gospel  and  the  Synoptics,  but  perhaps 
hardly  sufficient  of  themselves  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.  Thfe 
mountain  unto  which  our  Lord  ascended  to  pray  is,  as 
in  the  other  Gospels,  '■the  mountain'  to  opog.  In  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  a  distinction  is  carefully  made  be- 
tween the  two  miracles  of  feeding  the  multitude,  the  bas- 
kets taken  up  being  in  the  former  case  K6(pivoi,  in  the 
latter  (nrvpi^eg;  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  use  of  the  word  Kotpwoi.  St. 
John  preserves  a  feature  that  distinguishes  Mark  from 
Matthew,  the  200  pennyworth  of  bread  which  the  dis- 
ciples exclaim  would  be  needed  to    supply  the  people. 


XVII.]      5/.  Jolm^ s  Coincidences  with  Synoptics.        361 


Some  minute  critics  have  accused  John  of  love  of  exag- 
geration because  he  says  (vi.  7)  that  Mark's  200  penny- 
worth (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  co- 
incidence between  these  two  evangelists  is  in  the  words 
by  which  this  ointment  is  described,  fxvpov  vapdov  irKrriKrjg, 
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  oc- 
curs in  a  different  connexion;  but  the  description  (xii.  2) 
of  Martha  as  *  serving  ',  and  the  part  ascribed  to  the  two 
sisters  in  c/i.  xi.  are  in  close  harmony  with  St,  Luke's  ac- 
count. 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  formally  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 


362  The  Johan7iine  Books.  [xvii. 


this  be  so,  we  have  only  the  choice  of  three  suppositions, 
and  the  acceptance  of  any  of  them  leads  to  interesting 
consequences.  Either  (i)  John  read  Mark  xvi,  ig,  and 
then  it  would  follow  that  words,  which  have  been  ques- 
tioned 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  avEipipero  i\g  tov  ovpavov  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  Ascen- 
sion 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  re- 
corded by  John  is  laid  at  Jerusalem,  and  he  relates 
visits  of  our  Lord  on  the  occasion  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  nothing 
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  min- 
istry 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  extremely  improbable  that  our 


XVII.]   Our  Lord  visited  Jerusalem  several  times.     363 


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  complied  with  this 
ordinance,  and  brought  himself  up  to  Jerusalem,  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  pressing  entreaties  of  Gentile  converts  to 
make  a  longer  stay  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  ?  Fur- 
ther, if  our  Lord  made  his  appearance  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,  and  have  so  sud- 
denly come  to  the  conclusion  that  his  existence  was  in- 
compatible with  the  safety  of  the  nation  as  at  once  to 
concert  measures  for  his  destruction,  to  succeed  in  find- 
ing 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 
likewise  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 


364  The  Johannine  Books,  [xvii. 

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  har- 
monizes with  this  account,  although  he  does  not  state 
distinctly,  as  John  does,  that  the  procession  which  es- 
corted Jesus  was  made  up  of  Galilean  Jews  who  had 
come  up  to  the  feast.  For  Matthew  (xxi.  10,  11,)  repre- 
sents 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  fickle- 
ness in  the  change  of  the  cries  from  'Hosanna'  to 
*  Crucify  him.'  It  would  seem  to  be  multitudes  of  Gali- 
leans 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  we  turn  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
we  find  the  head  quarters  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  contra- 
diction 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. 


XVII.]]   Our  Lord  visited  Jcriisalcvi  several  times.     365 


*  preached  in  the  Synagogues  of  Judaea ',  not  Galilee. 
This  is  the  reading  of  Codd.  ^^,  B  and  c,  three  of  the 
most  ancient  extant  MSS.  But  I  may  remark  in  the  first 
place  that,  according  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  trustworthy, 
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. 


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.  42),  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  companion  of  St.  Paul,  it  will  follow 
that  the  still  earlier  book,  the  Gospel,  which  confessedlyf 
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  ex- 
ternal evidence.  At  the  end  of  the  second  century,  the 
earliest  time  of  which  we  have  copious  Christian  re- 
mains, the  evidence  of  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  and  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  shows  the  authority  of  the  Acts  as  well 
established  as   that  of  the  Gospels. +     The  Muratorian 

*  This  is  the  title  of  the  book  in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  TertuUian,  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  fuU  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  etc  seri- 
eusement  contestee  '  (Renan,  Les  Apoires,  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.  r,  2 ; 
Deyejun.  x. 


XVIII.]  External  Evidence.  367 


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.  246)  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  ex- 
ample, Clement  of  Rome  [ch.  2)  praises  the  Corinthians 
for  being  *  fonder  of  giving  than  receiving,'!  we  cannot 
prove  that  he  had  in  his  mind  our  Lord's  saying 
(Acts  XX.  35),  *  It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  re- 
ceive ; '  and  when  Ignatius  [ad  Srnyrn.  3)  tells  how  our 
Lord,  after  the  Resurrection,  ate  and  drank  with  the 
disciples  [avvi^ayiv  Kai  (rvviiriev),  we  cannot  demonstrate 
that  he  knew  the  awecpayofxiv  koI  awsTrio/uev  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 

*  The  words  are  (see  p.  64),  '  Acta  autem  omnium  apostolorum  sub  uno 
libro  scripta  sunt.  Lucas  optirae  Theophilocomprendit,  quia  sub  praesentia  ejus 
singula  gerebantur,  sicuti  et  semote  passionem  Petri  evidenter  declarat,  sed 
et  profectionem  Pauli  ab  urbe  ad  Spaniam  proiiciscentis  '  (Westcott,  Canon, 
p.  528).  Notwithstanding  the  corruption  of  this  passage,  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  martyidora, 
and  as  to  Paul's  journey  to  Spain. 


368  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

Polycarp  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  converted  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  Areopagite  of  his  own  name.  In  like  manner  let 
us  admit  the  possibility  that  Papias,  who  mentions 
Justus,  surnamed  Barsabas,  may  have  derived  his  know- 
ledge of  him  from  some  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  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  ssveral 
others,  are  at  once  accounted  for ;  but  if  anyone  choose 
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 

•  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,  RcU.  Sac.  i.  p.  9). 


XVIII.  J  Internal  Evidence.  369 


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  es- 
tablish 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 
m.ight  be  confident  that  we  have  here  some  genuine  re- 
mains 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  acknowledge.  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.' 

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  recogni- 
tion 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 

2  B 


370  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

part  of  their  hypothesis  from  destruction.  These  hypo- 
theses 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  in- 
convenience. When  we  encounter  a  theory  impugning 
the  authority  of  one  of  our  New  Testament  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'  sec- 
tions 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  Tu- 
bingen theory  is  that  some  compiler  who  lived  in  the 
second  century  happened  to  get  possession  of  memo- 
randa really  made  by  a  travelling  companion  of  St.  Paul, 
whose  name  we  don't  know,  and  that  the  compiler  in- 
corporated these  in  a  narrative,  in  the  main  unauthentic,- 
and  intended  to  disguise  the  early  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  Thus,  Hooykaas  (see  p.  339)  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  almost  unaltered  into  his  own.     In  this 

*  In  particular,  this  is  the  history  of  the  criticism  of  the  2nd  Epistle  to 
Timothy. 


XVIII.]  The  '"we''  Sections.  371 


itinerary,  then,  we  possess  the  records  of  an  eye-witness. 
This  is  of  incalculable  value.' 

The  '  almost  unaltered'  of  this  extract  are  words  that 
all  critics  of  the  same  school  would  not  adopt.  The  evi- 
dence 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  relations  of  miracles  which  the  same 
critics  are  unwilling  to  believe  were  told  by  a  contem- 
porary. So  the  theory  which  simply  separated  the  au- 
thorship 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  additions  of 
his  own. 

Who  was  the  original  writer  of  the  memoranda 
rationalist  critics  are  not  agreed.  The  claims  of  Ti- 
mothy have  been  strongly  urged,  notwitstanding  that, 
to  name  no  other  objection,  Timothy  is  expressly  dis- 
tinguished 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,  accordingl}^ 
Hooykaas  always  refers  to  the  author  of  the  memo- 
randa as  Titus  (?).  Why  St.  Luke,  with  or  without  a 
note  of  interrogation,  might  not  have  been  left  in  pos- 
session 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.  11)  show  that  he  had  a  companion  of  the  name 

2  B  2 


37-  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

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  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  in- 
scribed to  the  Third  Gospel.  "We  cannot,  then,  reason- 
ably 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  Chris- 
tians of  the  second  century,  was  afterwards  extended 
to  the  Gospel  which  they  perceived  to  be  of  the  same 
authorship.  The  true  history  seems  to  be  just  the. re- 
verse. 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  companion  named  Luke. 
In  any  case,  I  cannot  account  for  the  reluctance  of  ration- 
alist critics  to  own  Luke  as  the  author  of  what  they  re- 
gard the  original  portions  of  the  Acts,  except  through  a 
feeling  on  their  part  that  the  name  of  Luke  is  indisso- 
lubly  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 


XVIII.]  The  'we^  Sectio7is.  373 

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  con- 
tinues till  his  arrival  in  Rome,  xxviii.  16.  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  pro- 
phecy 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 
containing  Paul's  address  at  Miletus  ;  but  unreasonably. 
For,  though  in  the  latter  part  of  the  20th  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  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  Jeru- 
salem 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 

*  See  Hooykaas,  vi.  332. 


374  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,     ^■pptvm 


^^ 


that  Ulysses  had  a  fair  average  passage.  It  appears 
(xx.  i6)  that  Paul  at  the  beginning  of  his  voyage  was  by 
no  means  sure  of  being  able  to  reach  Jerusalem  at  the 
time  he  wished.  Actually,  he  only  succeeded  in  obtain- 
ing a  passage  in  a  ship  which  went  no  further  than 
Patara.  He  could  not  foresee  what  delay  he  might  en- 
counter there ;  but  after  he  had  caught  a  ship  for  Tyre, 
and  made  a  prosperous  voyage  thither,  he  could  calculate 
his  time  differently ;  and  notwithstanding  his  week's  de- 
lay at  Tyre,  might  feel  that  he  had  several  days  at  his 
disposal  at  Caesarea  before  he  needed  to  begin  his  land 
journey  to  Jerusalem.  There  are  other  frivolous  objec- 
tions, 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  pas- 
sage. Thus,  why  did  not  Paul  go  himself  to  Ephesus 
instead  of  sending  a  messenger  to  fetch  his  friends  from 
that  city  ?  I  dare  say,  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  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 '  sections  as 
futile,  and  in  restricting  their  efforts  to  the  separation 
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  suf- 
ficiently formidable: — How  arf>  we  to  account  for  the 


xviiT.]  Unity  of  Authorship.  375 


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  authenticity  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  immediately  after  disap- 
peared. 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  contrary 
a  highly  organized  structure,  showing  evident  marks 
that  the  whole  proceeded  from  a  single  author.  Thus 
references,  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  h.e  took  in  the  martyrdom 
of  Stephen  (vii.  58,  viii.  r).  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 
v/hich  in  the  Gospels  are  only  attributed  to  John  the 
Baptist,  and  these  words  are  quoted^  as  our  Lord's 
(xi.  16).* 

I   will   notice    one    coincidence   more   between    the 
earlier  chapters  and  the  later,  which  I  think  not  only 

*  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.  11. 


376  TJie  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

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  hostility  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  Chris- 
tians on  the  side  of  the  Pharisees  in  their  chief  subject  of 
dispute  with  the  Sadducees ;  while  again  the  Pharisees 
found  no  difficulty  in  believing  the  Gospel  accounts  of 
angelic  messages,  which  the  Sadducees  rejected  as  in- 
credible. 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  considerations  make  Luke's  ac- 
count 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  himself 
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.  g)  interfere  to  protect  Paul  from  the  violence 
of  the  Sadducees,  much  in  the  same  way  as  the  chief 


XVIII.]  Unity  of  Authorship.  377 

Pharisaic  Rabbi,  Gamaliel,  is  represented  at  the  begin- 
ning" of  the  book  (v.  39),  as  interfering  on  behalf  of  the 
elder  apostles. 

An  independent  proof  of  the  unity  of  authorship  is 
obtained  from  a  study  of  the  language.  Tables  have 
been  made  of  words,  phrases,  and  turns  of  expression 
characterizing  the  Gospel ;  and  these  are  found  reappear- 
ing 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 
phenomena,'  says  Davidson  (ll.  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  Gos- 
pel and  the  Acts  was  evidently  a  person  of  considerable 
literary  skill.  The  less  you  believe  (I  will  not  say  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  writer,  but)  in  his  substantial  truthful- 
ness, the  more  you  must  admire  his  literary  skill.  Where 
he  and  the  other  Synoptic  evangelists  differ  in  their  lan- 
guage in  relating  the  same  story,  the  difference  is  often 


378  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 


accounted  for  by  the  supposition  that  the  third  Evan- 
gelist gave  the  language  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  distor- 
tion 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  hearingbefore  Agrippa,the  proceedings  before  Gallic  ; 
or,  to  go  back  still  earlier,  in  the  story  of  Peter  knock- 
ing at  the  door,  and  Rhoda  so  delighted  that  she  runs 
oif  with  the  news  without  waiting  to  open  to  him.  A 
critic  must  be  destitute  of  the  most  elementary  qualifi- 
cations for  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  under- 
stands 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 

*  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  explication  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  *^r6s-bipn  redige,  compose  avec  rePexicn,  et  meme  avec  art,  ecrit  d'une 


XVIII.]     The  Supernatural  Eleinent  in  tJic  Book.     379 

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  con- 
temporary 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  im- 
possible that  anyone  should  ever  have  believed  in  a 
miracle.  Whether  the  former  doctrine  be  good  philo- 
sophy 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  denying  the  contemporary  authorship  of  all  but  the 
*we'  sections,  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  report  of  an 
eye-witness,  this  part,  too  contains  the  supernatural 
facts  of  a  vision  seen  by  Paul,  and  of  his  predictions  as 

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 
fafon  de  citer  I'Ecriture.  Une  faute  de  redaction  aussi  choquante  que  celle 
dontil  s'agit  serait  inexplicable.  On  est  done  invinciblement  porte  a  conclure 
que  celui  qui  a  ecrit  la  fin  de  I'ouvrage  en  a  ecrit  le  commencement,  et  que 
le  narrateur  du  tout  est  celui  qui  dit  "  nous  "  aux  passages  precites.' 

*  '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). 


38o  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

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  supernatural  portions,  and  treating  these 
as  additions  made  by  the  later  compiler.* 

It  can  be  shown  that  the  parts  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  cut  out  are  indissolubly  connected  with  those 
which  are  left  behind  ;  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  impos- 
sibility. A  critic  might  as  well  spend  his  time  in 
making  a  new  edition  of  the  plays  of  Hamlet  or  Mac- 
beth, cutting  out  as  non-Shaksperian  every  passage 
which  implied  a  belief  in  the  supernatural. 

But  in  addition  to  the  predominance  of  the  miracu- 

*  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  de- 
cisively 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  hypothesis  that 
those  sections  were  borrowed  from  another  is  not  tenable,  unless  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  pubHcations  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  bom  in  1814,  and  was 
Professor  of  Theology  at  Berne  in  1847  ;  afterwards  Professor  of  Philosophy 
at  Heidelberg,  and  at  Berlin  1872. 

Franz  Overbeck,  born  at  St.  Petersburg  1837,  Professor  of  Theologj'  at 
Basle  1870. 


:K.Yiu.jPau/^s  relations  with  the  original  Apostles.   381 

lous  in  the  Acts,  every  disciple  of  Baur  has  a  reason  for 
rejecting  the  book,  in  its  irreconcilable  opposition  to  the 
Tiibingen  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  re- 
move any  cause  of  offence  or  suspicion  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  ob- 
serving 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  him- 
self 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  com- 
mence 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  hea- 
then religions,  and  who  heard  with  interest,  or  who  had 
even  formally  embraced,  the  monotheism  and  pure  mor- 
ality 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 


382  The  Ads  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii . 

from  the  Jewish  part  of  the  audience  that  they  can  no 
longer  continue  their  preaching  in  the  synagogue,  they 
gladly  avail  themselves  of  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  sum- 
marized, is  a  complete  falsification  of  the  true  his- 
tory. This  true  history  is  that  Paul,  even  before  his 
conversion,  had  seen  clearly  that  to  become  an  ad- 
herent 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  ac- 
ceptance 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  Resur- 
rection 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  re- 
conciled 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 


XVIII.]    The  Tiibingen  Version  of  PauPs  History.    383 

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  pro- 
bably knew  little  of  the  substance  of  his  preaching; 
otherwise  they  would  have  had  little  reason  to  be  satis- 
fied 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  conduct  of  Jewish  and  of 
Gentile  Christians  in  such  matters. 

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  transformation  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  op- 
position and  hatred  not  only  of  the  old  friends  whom  he 
was  forsaking,  but  of  all  the  previous  professors  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  rela- 
tions between  Paul  and  earlier  Christians  is  mere  inven- 
tion 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  consequence  of  his  in- 
vitation that  Paul    came  there   ('xi.    22^   25) ;    and   that 


384  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

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  introduced  by  this 
eccentric  convert  completely  supplanted  the  old  one. 
As  soon  as  the  new  religion  comes  under  the  cog- 
nizance of  the  historical  student,  we  find  the  Chris- 
tian 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  cham- 
pion of  the  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  re- 
sisted the  making  Jewish  observances  obligatory  on  Gen- 
tiles, 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  the  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). 


XVIII.]  Improbability  of  the  Story  as  told  by  Baur.    385 

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  prac- 
tice 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  unbeliev- 
ing Jews  from  Asia  who  set  on  Paul,  and  raised  the  cry 
that  he  had  introduced  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  be- 
came hearers  of  the  word,  through  their  having  previously 
so  inclined  to  Judaism  as  to  frequent  the  Synagogue  wor- 
ship ;  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  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  attested  by  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  which  tells  that  Peter  was  the  object  of  Paul's  first 

2  c 


386  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

visit  to  Jerusalem  after  his  conversion,  that  he  saw  James 
on  the  same  occasion,  and  that  these  Apostles  with  John 
afterwards  formally  gave  him  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship, and  divided  with  him  the  field  of  labour.  The 
same  Epistle  also  confirms  Luke's  account  that  Bar- 
nabas 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 
temporary  abandonment  of  this  principle,  Paul  notes 
with  surprise,  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 
recognize  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  justification  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  controversies  in  which  at 
one  time  he  takes  an  earnest  part  often  die  out  before 
his    life-work   is    finished.      These    controversies    with 


xviii.  j      The  Parallel  between  Peter  and  Paul.         387 

Judaizing  Christians  form  the  chief  topics  of  four  epistles 
all  written  at  the  same  period  of  Paul's  life  ;  namely,  to 
the  Romans,  to  the  Galatians,  and  the  two  to  the  Corin- 
thians. 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  unbe- 
lievers, his  subject  naturally  is  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus, 
and  the  truth  of  his  Resurrection.  On  the  whole  I  con- 
clude 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  as- 
serting 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  Phi- 
lippi.  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. t  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 

*  Phil.  iii.  9  is  nearly  the  oialy  instance  of  their  introduction. 

f  '  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. 

2  C  2 


388  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

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  an- 
ticipation, 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  question  is  whether  this  was  a  parallelism  existing 
in  fact,  or  one  invented  by  the  narrator.  In  all  true  his- 
tory we  have  numerous  parallelisms.  I  barely  allude  to 
Plutarch's  attempt  to  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  pre- 
ceding, 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  re- 
public, succeeded  by  a  military  despotism  and  ending 
with  the  restoration  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  succeeds,  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  nar- 
ration 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   in- 


XVIII.]  Absence  of  natural  Climax  of  the  Parallel.  389 

troduced ;    and  I   shall  presently   offer   what   seems  to 
me  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  mar- 
tyrdom 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  be- 
lieve 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,  repre- 
sented both  as  joined  in  harmonious  resistance  to  the 
impostures  of  Simon  Magus.    And  though  I  believe  these 
stories  to  be  more  modern  than  the  latest  period  to  which 
anyone  has  ventured  to  assign  the  Acts,  yet  what  an 
opportunity  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  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  differences,  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  oppor- 
tunity of  bringing  his   book  to   its    most  worthy  con- 
clusion, by  telling  how   the   two    servants    of    Christ, 
all    previous    differences,    if  there    had   been    any,  re- 


3 go  The  Ads  of  the  Apostles:  [xviii. 

conciled  and  forgotten,  joined  in  witnessing  a  good 
confession  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  unsatisfactory 
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 
intention  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  before  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-^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 


XVIII.]     Principle  of  Luke's  selection  of  Topics.        391 

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  ob- 
jection 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  as- 
sign 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  pro- 
jected a  third  work,  which  he  did  not  live  to  execute,  I 
find  it  hard  to  explain  his  silence  as  to  the  deeply  inte- 
resting 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  ac- 
count of  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  the  history  of  Philip 
and  the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  and  so  forth.  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,  *  or  of  which  he  had  the 
opportunity  of  hearing  from  eye-witnesses,'  you  will  have 
the  true  explanation.  St.  Luke  tells  in  the  preface  to 
his  Gospel  how  he  made  it  his  business  to  trace  every 
thing  from  the  very  first ;  and  the  Acts  show  what  op- 
portunities he  had  of  gaining  information.  If,  for  in- 
stance, we  read  the  8th  chapter  of  the  Acts  in  connexion 
with  the  2 1  St,  which  tells  of  several  days  which  Luke 


392  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

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  insertion  of 
the  8th  chapter,  I  know  no  other  way  which  is  not 
forced  in  the  extreme ;  while  nothing  can  be  more  na- 
tural 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 
ecclesiastical  tradition.  There  is  quite  satisfactory  evi- 
dence 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  authority.  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  interlocutor 


XVIII.]  Philip  the  Deacon  and  Philip  the  Apostle.     393 


Proclus  speaks  of  four  prophetesses,  daughters  of  Philip, 
whose  tomb  was  still  at  Hierapolis,  and  that  of  their 
father  as  well  (Euseb.  iii.  31).  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  Proclus  identified  the  Philip  of  Hierapolis  with  the 
Philip  of  the  Acts,  as  Eusebius  expressly  does.  Whe- 
ther they  were  right  in  doing  so  is  a  question  which 
cannot  be  confidently  answered.  The  Philip  of  the 
Acts  lived  at  Csesarea,  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  daugh- 
ters; yet  the  simplest  way  of  explaining  the  facts  seems 
to  be  that  the  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  pre- 
sumably 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  re- 
mark— 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  know- 
ledge of  this  fact  puts  upon  Luke's  book.  But  at  present 
I  am  not  concerned  with  the  question  whether  Philip  the 
deacon  afterwards  went  to    Hierapolis.      I  am    merely 

*  That  this  became  the  received  opinion  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact 
that,  in  Jerome's  time,  they  showed  at  Csesarea  the  chambers  of  the  four 
daughters,  not  the  tombs  {Ep.  io8,  ad  Eustochiuni). 


394  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii, 

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  Caesarea  ;  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  con- 
stantly see  Philip.  He  would  there  hear  from  him  of 
his  mission  to  Samaria,  and  of  the  subsequent  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 
Csesarea  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. 

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  ac- 
count 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  the  next  day  over 
against  Chios,  and  the  next  day  we  touched  at  Samos, 


Txviii.]    Possible  use  of  Travelling  Memoranda.        395 

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  inter- 
esting 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.  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 

*  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 
mireasonable.  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  commission 
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  rehgion.  He  begs  to  be  allowed  to  speak  in  its  defence,  and 
gets  a  hearing  accordingly.  But  the  result  is,  that  though  he  makes  a  favour- 
able impression  on  a  few,  the  greater  part  go  away. unconvinced.  This  story 
seems  to  me  to  bear  the  stamp  of  simple  truth. 


396  TJie  Ads  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

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,  however,  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  Thessa- 
lonians,  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. 
'  SouAeueij/  Ty  Kupicp,  Acts  XX.  19,  six  times  in  Paul,  only  in  Matt.  vi.  24, 
Luke  xvi.  13  besides;  raireivo<ppoa-vvij,  xx.  19,  five  times  in  Paul,  only  in  i  Peter 
V.  5  besides;  viroffTeWw,  xx.  20,  Gal.  ii.  12  ;  rh  avfxtpepov,  xx.  20,  three  times 
in  I  Cor.,  only  in  Heb.  xii.  20  besides;  ^laKovia,  xx.  24,  twenty-two  times  in 
Paul;  fiapTvpofiai,  xx.  26,  Gal.  v.  3,  Eph.  iv.  17;  Kadaphs  eyd,  xx.  26,  Acts 
xviii.  6 ;  (peiSo/xai,  xx.  29,  seven  times  in  Paul,  only  in  2  Pet.  ii.  4,  5  besides ; 
vovdereTv,  XX.  31,  seven  times  in  Paul ;  iiroiKodofxelv,  xx.  32,  six  times  in  Paul, 
only  in  Jude  20  besides ;  Koiriav,  active,  xx.  35,  thirteen  times  in  Paul ;  the 
hortative  ypr]'yope7Te,  xx.  31,  i  Cor.  xvi.  13.  These  may  show  nothing  more 
than  a  writer  familiar  with  the  Pauline  diction,  as  the  author  of  the  Acts  un- 
doubtedly 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  hypo- 
thesis 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  hypo- 
thesis that  he  also  got  possession  of  other  genuine  records  of  Paul's  preaching. 


xviri.]         Luke's  Report  of  PaitPs  Speeches.  397 

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  expressions,  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  be- 
lieve that  the  hearer  of  a  speech,  when  he  afterwards 
came  to  write  it  down  from  memory,  might,  while  giving 
the  substance  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  ac- 
knowledged 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 

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  cradle  of  Stoicism.  Amongst 
the  Stoic  teachers  which  it  suppHed  were  Zeno  of  Cyprus,  Persseus  of  Cyprus, 
Chrysippus  of  SoU,  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  (z/.  26),  and  about  Pantheism,  aU  that 
is  true  in  which  is  recognized  (z'.  28). 


398  TJi'^  ^cts  0/  the  Apostles.  [xviii.. 

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,'  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  satis- 
.  factory  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  right- 
eousness 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 


XVIII.]    The  Ads  make  little  use  ofPauPs  Epistles.  399 

to  have  been  utterances  of  the  same  man  ;  yet  the  like- 
ness is  certainly  not  that  of  direct  imitation.  If  the  an- 
tiquity of  th«  book  of  Acts  were  undoubted,  and  that  of 
Paul's  Epistles  disputed,  I  am  persuaded  that  our  oppo- 
nents 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 
remarked,  the  author  of  the  'we'  sections  spent  a  con- 
siderable 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 
mentioned  by  name.  If  the  Epistle  had  been  forged  by 
anyone  who  had  seen  the  Acts,  that  name  would  surely 
have  been  found  in  it ;  but  it  is  absent.  On  the  other 
hand,  ther«  is  not  a  word  in  the  Acts  about  Epaphro- 
ditus,  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. 

*  Bishop  Fitcgerald  used  to  think  there  was  an  oblique  reference  to  the 
Macedonian  gifts  in  o-ui/ei'xeTo  rif  \6yip  (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. 


400  The  Acts  0/  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

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  jour- 
ney to  Arabia,  the  rebuke  of  Paul  to  Peter  at  Antioch, 
the  dispute  concerning  the  circumcision  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  be- 
tween 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  sup- 
position 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  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  something  of  our  Lord's  appearance  to  James 
and  to  the   five   hundred   brethren  at  once;  and  if  he 


XVIII.]        Use  of  PauVs  Epistles  in  the  Acts.  401 


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,'  IcrBUTe  ra  Trapandifieva  vixiv.  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.  How- 
ever 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  ob- 
tained general  circulation,  the  compiler  would  at  least 
have  mentioned,  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.  Biogra- 
phers of  St.  John,  of  whom  I  shall  speak  in  the  next 

2  D 


402  TJie  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

lecture,  do  not  fail  to  tell  the  circumstances  under 
which  he  wrote  his  Gospel.  But  to  the  author  of 
the  Acts  St.  Paul  is  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  pro- 
perty of  the  several  Churches  to  which  they  were 
addressed,  and  had  become  the  general  property  of 
Christians.  Secondly;  the  Acts  not  only  do  not  men- 
tion 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.  2}^,  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.  11,  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  doubt- 
ing 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  use- 
less to  give  proofs  of  Luke's  accuracy  in  particulars,  and 
of  his  exact  knowledge  of  localities.     It  would  simply 


xviii.J  External  Confirmation  of  Luke  s  Accuracy.  403 


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  investiga- 
tion has  confirmed  it.  Sergius  Paulus  is  described  (xiii. 
7)  as  proconsul  [av^v-Karoq)  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  emperor.  The  ruler  of  a  senatorial 
province  bore  the  title  of  Proconsul ;  that  of  an  imperial 
province  was  called  Propraetor  (avrtorparrjyoc).  Strabo 
further  informs  us  that  Cyprus  was  governed  by  (rrpaTT^yoi. 
Hence  it  was  inferred  that  these  were  styled  proprsetors, 
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 
arpciTriyoi,  by  whom  he  tells  us  Cyprus  was  governed, 
bore  the  title  of  Proconsul,  and  were  prsetors  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  subsequently  made  by  him,  the  dis- 
turbed province  of  Dalmatia,  which  had  been  assigned 
to  the  Senate,  having  been  exchanged  for  quiet  pro- 
vinces in  the  emperor's  portion ;  and  that  at  that 
time  Cyprus  reverted  to  the  Senate.  This  is  con- 
firmed by    coins    and    other    remains,*   showing    that 

*  In  Cesnola's  Cyprus  an  inscription  is  given  (p.  425),  in  which  the  words 

2  D  2 


404  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

down  to  and  after  the  time  of  Paul's  visit  the  governor 
of  Cyprus  bore  the  title  of  Proconsul.  It  may  be  men- 
tioned that  Pliny,  in  his  Natural  History,  for  two  books, 
II.  and  XVIII.,  quotes  the  authority  of  a  Sergius  Paulus. 
The  name  is  not  so  uncommon  as  to  make  an  identifi- 
cation 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  de- 
scription of  the  magistrates.  At  Corinth,  Gallio  is  de- 
scribed as  av^v-KOToq  (Acts  xviii.  12),  This  was  in  the 
reign  of  Claudius.  Under  Tiberius,  Achaia  was  impe- 
rial ;  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  men- 
tion of  avOviraTOL  (xix.  38)  is  equally  correct.  At  Thessa- 
lonica,  again,  the  magistrates  are  called  politarchs  (Acts 
xvii.  6).  Now  this  name  is  found  in  connexion  with  Thes- 
salonicain  no  ancient  author;  but  an  arch  which  to  this 
day  spans  the  main  street  of  the  city  bears  the  inscrip- 
tion 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 
Acts  XX.  4,  and  that  of  Secundus  in  connexion  with 
Thessalonica,  St.  Luke  mentions  also  the  Demos 
of  Thessalonica,  an  appropriate  word  in  speaking  of  a 
free  city.  Srjoartjyoj',  praetors,  seems  a  very  grand  title 
for  the  two  magistrates  of  the  little  provincial  city  of 

EHI  nATAOY  [AN0]TnATOY  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,  Conte7nporary  Review,  May,  1878. 
*  Boeckh,  Inscr.  Gr.  No.  1967 ;  Leake's  Northern  Greece,  iii.  236. 


XVIII.]         Had  the  Writer  read  Josephus  ?  405 


Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  20) ;  but  Cicero,  in  one  of  his  orations* 
a  hundred  years  earlier,  laughs  at  the  magistrates  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  or  Pro- 
praetor, but  head-man,  Trpwroc,  a  title  the  accuracy  of 
which  is  attested  by  inscriptions.  (Boeckh,  No.  5754). 
Luke's  mention  of  Iconium  is  noteworthy  (Acts  xiii.  51). 
Just  before  (xiii.  13),  he  has  described  Perga  as  'in 
Pamphylia,'  Antioch  as  'in  Pisidia ' :  just  after  (xiv.  6), 
Lystra  and  Derbe  as  Hhe  cities  of  Lycaonia.'  Iconium 
alone  is  named  without  geographical  designation.  Now 
it  seems  likely  that  Iconium  was  at  the  time  extra-pro- 
vincial; 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.f 
Before  leaving  the  subject  of  the  Acts,  I  may  mention 
one  of  the  newest  of  attacks  on  it — so  new,  indeed,  that 
the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  had  not  discovered 
it  when  he  published  his  volume  on  the  Acts  in  1877  ;  but 

*  De  Leg.  Agrar.  contra  Rullum,  §  xxxiv.     See  also  Hor.  Sat.  i.  v.  34. 

t  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  appa- 
rently had  its  own  tetrarch  {see  above) ;  possibly  its  Duumviri,  as  a  Colonia 
(Boeckh,  3991,  3993;  Eckhel,  Doctr.  Numm.  Vet.  III.  32;  Marquardt 
Romische  Staatsverw.,  II.  B.  30),  or  if  counted  as  of  Lycaonia,  it  would  belong 
at  different  times  to  Galatia  (Strabo  Xli.  v.  i ;  vi.  i),  to  Cappadocia  (Ptolemy, 
V.  6),  to  Asia  (Phny,  ut  supr.  [f],  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. 


4o6  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xviii. 

shortly  after,  having  met  an  article  by  Holtzmann  in  Hil- 
genfeld's  Zeitschrift  for  1873,  he  communicated  an  ab- 
stract of  it  to  the  Fortnightly  Review^  Oct.,  1 87  7 .  St.  Luke 
had  been  accused  of  certain  historical  blunders,  the  evi- 
dence 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  conse- 
quently 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  men- 
tioned 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  preface.  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  dif- 
ferent 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  again 
(aOroTrrijc  for  example),  as  Dr.  Hobart  has  shown  [Medi- 
cal Language  of  St.  Luke,  pp.  87-90),  belong  to  the 
vocabulary  of  Greek  medical  writers.     Galen's  prefaces 


XVIII.]      Luke  repeatedly  differs  from  Josepkns.        407 

have  closer  affinities  with  St.  Luke's  than  have  those  of 
Josephus.*    Thus  we  find  in  Galen's  prefaces  the  compli- 
mentary epithet  KpartarE,  the  commencement  by  EvratS/j  with 
SoKti  for  apodosis,  the  phrases  aKpt/3wc  irapaKoXovBriaai  and 
hrixiiQtiv.     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  tuttto)  ;  which  would  raise  the  ques- 
tion, 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  Tratc  irwv  SwSfKa  if  Josephus  had  not  spoken  of 
his  own  proficiency  when  he  was  TraTc  tte/oi  recrmipsaKat^i- 
Karov  tTog.     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  re- 
markable as  the  coincidences.    For  instance,  the  'Egyp- 
tian' who  in  Acts  xxi.  38  leads  out  4000  Sicariiis  in  Bell. 
Jud.  II.  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  remem- 
bered very  little  of  what  he  read.     And  the  best  critics 
of  the  sceptical  schdol  have  found  themselves  unable  to 
execute  the  change  of  front  from  accusing  Luke  of  contra- 
dicting 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  eTrixeiperv  as  above,  is  found  in  Hippocrates  some  centuries  earlier, 
as  Dr.  Hnbart  has  pointed  out. 


4o8  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 


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  admission  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 
Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  but  though  there  is 
great  abundance  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  judge  by  the  number  of  New 
Testament  books  which  modern  critics  have  rejected  as 

*  Until  comparatively  lately  the  most  important  collection  of  such  writings 
was  that  by  Fabricius  {Codex  Apocryphus  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  Apocry- 
phal 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,  187 1).  A  very  important  addition  to  our  sources  of  infor- 
mation will  be  made  in  Max  Bonnet's  Supplementum  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.  The  publication  of  the  part  which  treats  of  the  Acts  of  Peter 
and  Paul  has  been  delayed  until  some  new  materials  have  been  made  accessible. 

Lipsius,  Rd.  A.,  born  1830,  Professor  of  Theology  at  Jena.  Though  dif- 
fering in  opinion  from  him  on  many  important  points,  I  cannot  forbear  to 
acknowledge  the  obligations  students  owe  to  his  ability,  learning,  and  industry. 


XIX.]  No  Acts  but  Luke's  admittedi7ito  the  Canon.   409 

spurious,  we  should  be  led  to  think  that  the  early  Church 
was  extremely  easy  in  admitting  the  claims  of  any  docu- 
ment which  aspired  to  a  place  in  the  Canon.  But  ac- 
tually we  find  cause  to  admire  the  extreme  rigour  of  the 
scrutiny  to  which  any  such  claim  was  subjected.  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  consequence  was  that  this 
branch  of  Christian  literature,  being  not  interfered  with 
or  controlled  by  ecclesiastical  authority,  became  liable  to 
great  variations  of  form.  Successive  relaters  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  re- 
cover the  original  form  of  the  legends.  The  difficulty  is 
increased  by  the  number  of  the  documents  that  demand 
investigation,  much  still  remaining  to  be  done  for  a  com- 
plete 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 
subjected  to  some  alterations  and  recastings  was  indeed 
a  necessity  resulting  from  the  fact  that  it  was  in  here- 
tical circles  that  the  majority  took  their  origin.  I  have 
already  (Lect.  11.)  spoken  of  the  Clementines,  which  were 


4IO  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

in  fact  Ebionite  Acts  of  Peter.  There  was  still  more 
active  manufacture  of  apocryphal  literature  among  the 
Gnostics,  some  of  whom  displayed  great  fertility  of  in- 
vention, and  had  tales  to  tell  of  wonders  wrought  by  the 
Apostles  which  had  as  lively  interest  for  the  orthodox 
as  for  tKe  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  here- 
tical additions.*  And  then  it  was  a  natural  step  to  ex- 
purgate 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  unlaw- 
ful. The  apostolic  preachers  are  represented  as  having 
done  a  good  work,  when  a  couple  about  to  unite  in  wed- 
lock have  been  prevailed  on  to  abandon  the  design,  or 
when  a  wife  has  been  persuaded  to  refuse  further  inter- 
course 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  Encra- 
tism is  removed.  The  woman  who  separates  herself  is 
not  a  wife  but  a  concubine ;  or  there  is  some  impediment 
of  close  kindred;  or  the  separation  is  not  intended  to  be 
permanent,  but  is  only  a  temporary  withdrawal  for  pur- 

*  The  preface  of  the  Pseudo-Melito  to  his  'Passion  of  St.  John,'  in 
words  reproduced  in  a  forged  letter  of  Jerome  to  Chromatins  and  Hehodorus, 
exempKfies  the  opinion  of  an  orthodox  reviser  concerning  the  work  of  his  here- 
tical predecessor:  'Qujedam  de  virtutibus  quidem,  [et  miraculis]  quae  per  eos 
Dominus  fecit,  vera  dixit ;  de  doctrina  vero  multa  mentitus  est.'  Thus,  by  a 
curious  reversal  of  modem  canons  of  behef,  the  rule  is,  Believe  all  the  miracu- 
ous  part  of  the  story,  and  disbelieve  the  resi . 


XIX.]  The  Abgar  Legend  of  Edessa.  411 

poses  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  because  we  have  an  assurance  of  "the  an- 
tiquity 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  theolo- 
gical 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  privileges, 
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  suc- 
cessive 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 


412  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

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  ver- 
bal ;  in  others  the  verbal  answer  is  turned  into  a  letter 
by  the  apostle  Thomas.  It  begins,  'Blessed  art  thou 
\\  ho  hast  believed  in  me  without  having  seen  me  ;  for  it 
is  written  of  me  that  they  who  have  seen  me  shall  not  be- 
lieve me,  and  that  they  who  have  not  seen  me  shall  be- 
lieve and  live.'  There  seems  to  be  here  a  clear  use 
of  John  XX.  29.  The  nearest  Old  Testament  passage  is 
Is.  lii.  15,  and  the  resemblance  of  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 
Thaddaeus,  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  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  con- 
cludes his  abstract  by  telling  that  Abgar  offered  Thad- 

*  This  recognizes  the  story  of  the  '  harrowing  of  hell,'  told  in  the  Gospel 
of  Nicodemus  {see^.  238). 


XIX.]  The  Ab gar  Legend  of  Edessa.  413 

dseus  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  ex- 
tracts, or  an  amplification  of  it,  is  still  extant  in  Syriac. 
It  is  called  The  Teaching  of  Addai^  and  was  edited,  with 
an  English  translation,  by  Dr.  Phillips  in  1876.     It  con- 
tains, with  only  trifling  variations,  all  that  is  cited  by 
Eusebius  ;  but  it  contains  a  good  deal  more.     For  ex- 
ample, 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  Eusebius 
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  im- 
mediate 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,  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  sup- 

*  Die  edessenische  Abgarsage,  1880. 


414.  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

position,  a  conclusion  which  I  have  no  inclination  to  dis- 
pute. He  dates  the  original  document  used  by  Eusebius 
A.  D.  250,  and  the  enlargement  about  360.  I  have  already 
[see  p.  99)  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  specially  men- 
tioned (p.  44). t 

II.  The  work  which  I  next  consider  might,  on  chro- 
nological 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  conse- 
quently her  case  was  cited  against  Tertullian  in  the  con- 
troversy 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  con- 
fessed 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  a  story  of  Thecla 
was  current  in  the  second  century;  and  I  know  no  good 

*  My  friend  Dr.  Quarry  has  given  me  the  curious  information  that  Diates- 
saron 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 
{Caelius  Aurelianus,  iv.  7,  vol.  ii.  p.  331 :  ed.  Halle  1774).  See  also  Galen, 
De  compositione  medicament,  fer  genera  v.  p.  857.  Leipzig,  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. 

t  Dean  Reeves  tells  me  that  no  inference,  as  to  the  currency  of  the  Thad- 
dseus  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  luiowu  in  tlie  form  Tcigue. 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecia.  415 

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  Thecia  is 
used  as  genuine  by  a  whole  host  of  fathers :  Ambrose, 
Augustine,  Gregory  Nyssen,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Epi- 
phanius,  Chrysostom,  and  others.*  Though  Eusebius 
does  not  directly  mention  Thecia,  he  shows  his  know- 
lege  of  her  story  by  calling  another  Thecia  17  koS'  rifxag 
Gf'icAa  [Mart.  Pal.  3).  His  contemporary  Methodius,  in 
his  Symposium,  makes  Thecia  the  victor  in  the  contest 
of  virgins.  The  Acts  were  translated  into  Latin,  Syriac, 
and  Arabic. 

These  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecia  are  deeply  tinged 
with  Encratism.  This  sufficiently  appears  from  the  fol- 
lowing 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  {pi  £7Kpar£tc)> 
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  Thecia  overhears  it  from  the  window  of  her  neigh- 
bouring 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 

*  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.  Hcsr.  Ixxviii.  l6;  Chrys.  in  Act. 
Horn.  25. 


4i6  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 


to  eat  or  to  drink ;  until  her  mother  in  despair  sends  for 
Thecla's  affianced  husband  Thamyris,  the  cliief  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  forbad  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  as- 
cribed to  these  characters,  and  the  doctrine  about  the 
Resurrection  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  coin- 
cidences. 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  de- 
scribed as  seeking  for  ;paul  (2  Tim.  i.  17),  and  you  may 
care  to  hear  the  description  by  which  he  had  been  taught 
to  recognise  the  apostle.  He  was  a  man  of  small  sta- 
ture, with  bald  head,  bow-legged,  of  a  healthy  com- 
plexion (tutKTtKoe),  with  eyebrows  joined  together,  and  a 
somewhat  aquiline  nose  [fxiKpCjg  enipivog).*  I  have  only 
mentioned  the  coincidences  with  2  Timothy  because  this 

*  On  tliis  description  have  been  founded  the  representations  of  Paul's 
appearance  given  by  several  later  writers.  The  follow^ing  is  Renan's  version  : 
'  II  etait  laid,  de  courte  taille,  epais  et  voute.     Ses  fortes  epaules  portaient 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  Paul  a7id  Thecla.  417 

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  ar- 
raigned 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  procon- 
sul had  been  willing  to  listen  to  the  Christian  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  fasting  and  praying  for  her  deliver- 
ance. 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  gar- 
ment 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 

bizarrement  une  tete  petite  et  chauve.  Sa  face  blerae  etait  comme  envahie 
par  une  barbe  epaisse,  un  nez  aquilin,  des  yeux  per9ants,  des  sourcils  noirs  qui 
se  rejoignaient  sur  le  front.' — Les  Apotres,  p.  170. 

2  E 


4 1 8  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

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  mean  time  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. 
Tryphsena  receives  her  to  take  the  place  of  her  deceased 
daughter,  and  Thecla  requites  the  service  by  efficacious 
prayers  which  transfer  the  soul  of  this  dead  heathen  to 
the  place  of  bliss.  The  lioness  to  whom  Thecla  is  first 
exposed  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.  Thereupon  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  t^wrto-Ev  is  to  be  un- 
derstood to  mean  *  baptized,'  there  is  no  mention  in  the 
Acts,  as  they  stand  now,  of  Thecla's  baptizing  anyone 
but  herself.    Jerome,  however,  speaks  contemptuously  of 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  Paid  and  TJiecla.  419 

the  Acts  of  Thecla,  as  containing  a  story  of  a  baptized 
lion  [De  Vir.  Illust.  7).  Either  this  was  a  hallucination 
of  memory  on  Jerome's  part  (which  I  think  by  no  means 
impossible,  his  story  being  absolutely  without  confirma- 
tion), or  this  incident  was  expurgated  from  the  version 
of  these  Acts  which  has  reached  us. 

If  we  had  not  TertuUian'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  Resur- 
rection. The  account  of  the  Apostolic  company  aban- 
doning 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  ortho- 
dox. Neither  again  can  I  look  on  these  Acts  as  an 
orthodox  recasting  of  Gnostic  Acts ;  for  J  find  nothing 
in  them  which  looks  like  a  softening  of  something  ori- 
ginally more  heretical.  I  therefore  accept  the  present 
as  the  original  form  of  the  Acts,  and  am  willing  to  be- 
lieve, on  TertuUian's  authority,  that  they  were  the  work 
of  a  Church  presbyter.  But  I  think  he  must  have  worked 
on  Gnostic  lines.  Fromx  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 

2  E  2 


420  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 


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  coinposition  of  what 
he  could  have  represented  as  an  edifying  fiction  not  in- 
tended 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  of  statement  is  easily  pardoned  to  good 
men  struggling  against  real  evils.  At  the  present  day, 
one  point  of  Encratite  doctrine — the  absolute  unlawful- 
ness of  the  use  of  wine — is  insisted  on  by  men  who  find 
sympathy  and  respect  from  many  who  cannot  be  per- 
suaded 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  heathen- 
dom, '  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  consequences  from  those  of  their  ascetic 
predecessors.  Instead  of  hoping  by  mortification  of  the 
body  to  lighten  the  weight  that  pressed  down  the  soul, 
these  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  knowledge  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 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  Thomas.  421 

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  Tryphsena,  who  conceivably  might  have 
been  in  Antioch  at  the  time  of  Paul's  visit.*  I  have  only 
to  remark,  in  conclusion,  that  these  Acts  show  no  signs 
of  acquaintance  with  any  struggle  between  Paulinists 
and  anti-Paulinists,  the  author  being  evidently  uncon- 
scious 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,  indeed,  some  hymns,  copied  in  all  sim- 
plicity 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  Photiusf  {Bihl.  114),  was 

*  '  Die  Konigsnamen  in  den  apokryfhen  Apostelgeschichten '  (Rhein. 
Museum,  1864,  xix.  178).  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. 

t  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 


42  2  .Apocryphal  Ads  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

a  volume  purporting  to  be  written  by  Leucius  Charinus, 
and  containing  the  travels*  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,  con- 
founding the  Divine  Persons,  it  identified  with  Christ. 
It  denied  the  reality  of  Christ's  Incarnation,  and  gave 
a  docetic  account  of  his  life  on  earth,  and  in  par- 
ticular of  his  crucifixion ;  it  condemned  marriage,  and 
regarded  all  generation  as  the  work  of  the  evil  prin- 
ciple ;  and  it  told  several  silly  and  childish  stories.  We 
can  satisfactorily  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  Mani- 
cheans  ;  yet  there  are  grounds  for  looking  on  them  as 
more  ancient  than  that  heresy,  which  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 

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. 

*  The  stichometry  of  Nicephorus  (see  p.  210)  contains  a  record  of  the 
number  of  CTixot  in  the  travels  of  Peter,  John,  and  Thomas,  respectively,  viz., 
2750,  2600,  1700. 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St  Thomas.  423 

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  likeness  of  the 
two  being  such  as  to  cause  one  to  be  taken  for  the  other. 
I  have  already  noticed  the  parallel  story  of  the  appear- 
ance 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  Apos- 
tles 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  noteworthy  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  mis- 
sion 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,  Cappado- 
cia,  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  Gnos- 
tici  Acts  the  allotment  of  labour  among  the  Apostles  is 
regarded  as  having  happened  very  soon  after  the  As- 
cension ;  but  what  is  apparently  an  earlier  account 
represents  the  Apostles  as  forbidden  to  leave  Jerusalem 

*  I  think  Lipsius  is  right  in  supposing  that  this  story  was  suggested  by  the 
casting  of  lots  (Acts  i.  23). 


424  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

for  twelve*  years.  Such  is  the  account  of  the  second 
century  writer  Apollonius  [Euseh.  v.  18);  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  merchant  finding  Thomas,  showed 
him  Jesus,  and  asked  him,  '  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  cannot  delay  to  tell  what  took  place 
at  it,  save  that  Thomas  refused  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  supposed, 

*  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. 

\  The  story  of  this  miracle  is  three  times  referred  to  by  St.  Augustine 
Cont.  Faust,  xxii.  79  ;  adv.  Adimant.  xvii.  2  ;  De  Sepn.  Dom.  in  monte.  xx.). 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  Thomas.  425 

conversing  with  her.  Then  he  asked  in  surprise,  *  How 
canst  thou  be  found  here  ?  Did  I  not  see  thee  go  out 
before  all'r'  And  the  Lord  answered,  '  I  am  not  Judas 
Thomas,  but  his  brother.'  Thereupon  he  made  them  sit 
■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  procrea- 
tion of  children,  and  promised  them  that  if  they  kept 
themselves  chaste,  they  should  partake  of  the  true  mar- 
riage, and  enter  the  bridechamber  full  of  light  and 
immortality.  The  young  couple  obey  this  exhortation, 
much  to  the  grief  of  the  King  when  he  learns  their  re- 
solution. He  orders  Thomas  to  be  apprehended,  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  abundantly  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  inquiry  about  the  palace,  he  learns  that 
Thomas  has  never  done  anything  but  go  about  preach- 


42  6  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.      ■      [xix. 

ing,  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  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  implored 
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  herCj'some  in- 
teresting details  about  the  Gnostic  rites,  and  the  agree- 
ment of  the  ritual  with  that  described  by  Cyril  of  Jerusa- 
lem 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. 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  Thomas.  427 


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  riiade  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  applica- 
tion of  oil  or  of  water  is  intended.  Thus,  in  one  place 
(19,  30,  iBonnet's  ed.),  we  have  Ik^ovjai  Tr]v  (T<ppayida  tov 
Xovrpov,  and  immediately  after .  (20,  9)  'Iva  Sia  tov  iXatov 
di^ovrai  rrjv  aippayl^a.  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  l7n(T<ppdyi(Tna  Trig  (T^pajldoQ.  The  baptismal  ceremony 
commenced  with  the  pouring  of  oil  on  the  candidate's 
head  by  the  Apostle,  with  words  of  benediction ;  but 
throughout  he  is  not  represented  as  confining  him- 
self to  a  definite  form  of  sacramental  words,  different 
forms  being  represented  as  used  on  different  occasions. 
Much  stronger  forms  of  prayer  are  used,  requesting  our 
Lord's  presence  in  the  consecrated  oil,  than  in  these  Acts 
are  used  with  regard  to  the  consecrated  bread,  e.^.  (82,  6) 
£7rtSrjjU^(rai  rtjJ  IXatt^  Kara^twirov  tovtc^  tig  o  koX  to  gov  ayiov 
£7rt0»)/jt^6Tat  ovo/xa  (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  ap- 
plication 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,  Constt.  App.  vii.  22,  XP'^^^^^  TrpCjTov 

*  Turibius,  Epist.  ad  Idacium  et  Ceponium. 


428  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

rtJ  fXatft)  ayitt),  tireiTa  (daTTTiaaig  v^ari,  koi  TeXevTolov  a(j)payi(TeiQ 
fxvpt^  (see  also  Cyril.  Hier.  xx.  3,  and  xxi.  3),  In 
these  authorities,  and  in  later  practice,  this  anoint- 
ing comes  after  the  baptism,  and  not  before.  In  one 
place  in  these  Acts  we  have  the  phrase  aXdipag  koI 
Xphag,  where  the  latter  word  seems  to  refer  to  the  pour- 
ing of  oil  on  the  head,  the  former  to  the  smearing  of  the 
ung-uent  on  the  body.  Cyril's  usage  is  the  reverse. 
Xpieiv  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.  Ap- 
parently 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  (crKa^rj).  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  con- 
veyed that  no  wine  was  used,  and  that  it  consisted  ot 
bread  and  water  only.  In  one  place,  however,  the  mate- 
rials brought  in  for  the  feast  are  Kpacjiv  v'^arog  koi  aprov  'iva; 
and  the  word  Kpaaig  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  considerable  variety  in  the  words  re- 
ported to  have  been  used  on  different  occasions.     We 

*  Du  Cange  in  his  Glossary  gives  <rKd(pr],  with  the  Romaic  diminutive 
ffKa(t>i56irov\o,  as  names  for  a  baptismal  font. 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  Thomas.  429 

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  was  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  pre- 
served by  Irenseus  (l.  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  sur- 
prise us  therefore  to  find  the  Amen  here. 

But  a  tale  is  told  showing  the  danger  of  receiving 
unworthily.  A  youth,  who  had  committed  a  grievous 
sin,  was  *  convicted  by  the  Eucharist,'  for  on  his  partak- 
ing of  the  holy  food  both*  his  hands  withered.  Being 
called  on  to  confess,  he  owned  that  he  had  been  ena- 
moured 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  continence,  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-bap- 
tismal sin.  The  Apostle  heals  the  young  man  and 
restores   the  woman  to  life,  who  anticipates  Dante  in 

*  A  couple  of  centuries  later  St.  Jerome  speaks  of  the  thunder  of  the 
Christian  Amen  :  '  ad  simihtudinem  caelestis  tonitrui  Amen  reboat '  {Procem. 
in  Galat.  Lib.  2). 


430  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

relating  what  she  had  witnessed  of  the  varieties  of  pun- 
ishment in  the  unseen  world. 

It  would  be  tedious  to  go  through  all  the  stories.  Suf- 
fice 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  proba- 
bility 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 
martyrdom  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 

*  Philaster  also  {Haer.  88)  notes  it  as  a  characteristic  of  the  Gnostic  Acts  : 
'ut  pecudes  et  canes  et  bestise  loquerentur.' 

f  Of  these  instructions  the  following  is  a  specimen  :  ovk  w(pe\7)(Tfi.  ffoi  rj 
Koivuvia  f)  pvnapa  t)  irphs  Thi>  crhv  &p5pa  •yi.vojj.tvri'  Kai  yap  auTT]  airoffrtpe?  anh 
TTjs  Koivcovlas  rrjs  a\rjdiv7js.  The  husband,  therefore,  is  guilty  of  no  misrepre- 
sentation when  he  complains,  6  izKavos  ^kuvos  tovto  StSdiXKet,  'Iva  fxri  rts  yvvaiKl 
irpocroixiXiicrri  'iZia,  Kai  h  t)  (pxiffis  oTraiTeif  ol^ev,  Ka\  6fhs  ivofj.odeTr](rev,  aiirhs 
avaTpeiret.  • 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  Thomas.  43 1 


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  exhi- 
biting 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. 

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?;oro5 
6  eTravaTravojuevoc  aTro  Tr\Q  odonropiag  rov  Kafiarov  wq  avupo)- 
TTog  KoX  £771  TOLQ  KVfiacn  TTEjOtTTarwv  WQ  dwg.  And  again,  6 
fjLovoyevrlQ  VTrap\(i)v,  6  irptjOTOTOKog  ttoWwv  oocX^wv,  die  Ik 
daov  vipiarov,  6  avOpcoTrog  6  naTacppovovinevog  ewg  apri.  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  for- 
bids 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  in- 
stance, 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 

*  Otto's  Apologists,  Fragments  vi.  xiii.  &c. 

t  A  limit  to  the  antiquity  of  these  Acts  is  placed  by  the  fact  that  the  mar- 
tyrdom  of  Thomas  was  unksown  to  the  Valentinian  Heracleon,  whose  date 


432  Apocryphal  Ads  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

And  though  there  is  not  the  least  ground  for  believing 
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  En- 
cratites  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,  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  Judas  Thomas  ;  and  the  Acts  of  Thomas  con- 
clude 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  [sec  p.  17) 
told  you  of  the  Clementine  writings,  founded,  as  it  would 
seem,  on  an  earlier  Jewish-Christian  work,  which  re- 
lated travels  of  Peter.  There  is  evidently  much  room  for 
difference   of  opinion  between   critics    who,  guided   by 

maybe  roughly  placed  at  170.  Heracleon,  quoted  by  Clem.  Alex.  {Strom,  iv. 
9),  arguing  against  the  riotion  that  the  only  way  of  confessing  Christ  was  con- 
fession before  a  magistrate,  names  Matthew,  Philip,  and  Thomas,  as  never 
having  had  occasion  to  make  this  kind  of  confession. 

*  Rufinus  tells  [H.  E.  ii.  5)  that  Edessa  claimed  to  possess  the  body  of 
St.  Thomas. 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  Peter.  433 

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 '  ter- 
minated 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  be'lieve  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 
character,  associating  Paul  with  Peter  in  joint  opposition 
to  the  magician.  Those  who  have  been  trained  in  the 
Tiibingen  theory  as  to  the  predominance  of  the  Anti- 
Pauline  party  in  the  early  Church  piously  believe  that 
the  Acts  relating  the  adventures  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  suggest 
that  they  originally  bore  an  anti-Pauline  aspect.  Non- 
Ebionite  Acts  of  Peter  are  as  old  as  the  second  century, 
for  we  learn  from  a  quotation  by  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria [Strom.  VI.  5.)  that  the  '■Preaching  of  Peter''  was  of 
this  character.* 

In  truth,  I  consider  that  the  first  condition  for  either 

*  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  (Origen  m  Joan. 
torn.  XIII.  17).  The  work  was  not  Ebionite,  for  it  condemned  equally  both 
false  methods  of  worshipping  God :  kot^  To\>s'''E.\\-t\va.s  and  Kara  rovs'loi/Saious 
(Clem.  Alex.  uM  supra).  It  is  now  generally  acknowledged  {See  Grabe  Spicil. 
I.  66,  Fabricius  Cod.  Ap.  N.  T.  vol.  i.  800)  that  the  book  contained  dis- 
courses of  Paul,  as  well  as  of  Peter,  and  that  it  is  the  same  work  as  that  called 
by  Pseudo-Cyprian  {De  Rehaptismate  17)  the  'Preaching  of  Paul,'  a  book 
which  represented  the    two  Apostles   as  joined  together   on  friendly  terms 

2  F 


434    '         Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

tracing  rightly  the  genesis  of  the  Petrine  legends,  or 
understanding  the  history  of  the  early  Church,  is  the  re- 
jection 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  per- 
spective 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.  24)  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  narrative. 
The  writer  shows  his  hostility  to  Paul  only  by  making 
no  mention  jof  his  subsequent  conversion  or  his  preach- 
ing to  the  Gentiles.  And  none  of  the  language  which,  in 
the  Recognitions,  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  Simon  con- 

at  Rome.  Lactantius  says  {I^ist.  Div.  iv.  21),  'quse  Petrus  et  Paulus 
Romse  prsedicaverunt ;  et  ea  praedicatio  in  memoriam  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  {Sirom.  vi.  5)  in  con- 
nexion with  the  Preaching  of  Peter,  and  by  Lactantius,  Inst.  Div.  vil.  15,  18. 
*  Hilgenfeld  has  lately  written  his  recantation  of  this  theory  {Ketzerge- 
schichte,  p.  164),  and  now  owns  the  historical  character  of  Simon. 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  Peter.  435 

veys  any  reference  to  Paul.  Indeed,  the  whole  story  of 
Simon,  which  is  found  in  both  forms  of  the  Clemen- 
tines, 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  con- 
cubine named  Helena,  he  works  miracles  in  no  way  re- 
sembling those  ascribed  to  Paul,  and  he  arrogates  to 
himself  divine  prerogatives. 

It  is  plain  that  the  use  of  a  historical  name  as  a  nick- 
name 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  vaiipov  Trporspov  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  Apostles'  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  Clemen- 
tine 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 

*  The  '  Doctrine  of  Addai '  I  count  to  be  later  than  the  Clementine  Recog- 
nitions, and  to  be  indebted  to  them  for  some  particulars.  For  instance,  it 
represents  Christ  as  lodging  at  the  house  of  Gamaliel,  and  (p.  i6)  the  Apostles 
as  bound  to  send  to  James  periodically  accounts  of  their  mission, 

2  ¥  2 


436  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.'  [xix. 


work  on  heresies  ;  and  the  best  &,uthorities  are  agreed 
that  this  lost  work  of  Justin's  formed  the  basis  of  the 
treatises  on  heresy  by  Irenaeus  and  Hippoiytus.  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  Sama- 
ritan Justin,  who  duly  records  the  villages  where  each 
was  born;  and  the  coincidences  between  the  account  of 
Simon  given  by  Irenseus  (i.  21)  and  in  the  Cle- 
mentines, 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  Tischen- 
dorf,  are  much  later  than  the  Clementines.  Simon  ap- 
pears 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,  under- 
taking 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  were  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  afiinity 
of  these  Acts  to   those  previously  described,  that  the 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  Peter.  437 


cause  of  hostility  to  the  Apostles  is  stated  to  be  the 
number  of  matrons  whom  they  had  persuaded  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 
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  r '  Peter  had,  by  the  advice  of  the 
leading  members  of  the  Church,  resolved  on  withdraw- 
ing from  the  coming  persecution  ;  but  outside  the  city 
he  meets  the  Lord  coming  in ;  and  on  asking  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  Tischen- 
dorf,  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 
in  three  days  to  rise  again.  But  buried  he  was,  and 
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.* 

*  Piudentius,  Peristeph.  12, 


438  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 


We  find  that  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century 
the  custom  had  begun  of  making  a  commemoration  of  a 
martyrdom  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,  commemora- 
tions on  successive  anniversaries.  For  these  purposes  it 
was  necessary  to  preserve  the  memory  of  the  exact  day  of 
the  martyrdom.  But  I  find  no  evidence  that  either  cus- 
tom 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  29th  June  does  commemorate  a 
real  occurrence.  In  an  authentic  Kalendar  of  the  Ro- 
mail  Church  t  it  is  recorded  that  on  the  29th  June,  258, 
the  relics  of  the  two  Apostles  were  solemnly  removed 
from  the  Catacombs  and  deposited  at  the  places  where 
they  were  respectively  supposed  to  have  suffered  :  Paul 
on  the  Ostian  Way,  and  Peter  at  the  Vatican. J  We 
gather  from  a  later  authority  that  the  removal  was  made 
at  the  instance  of  a  rich  lady,  Lucina,  who  owned  the 
ground  on  which  Paul  was  believed  to  have  suffered. 
This  solemn  commemoration  of  the  first  martyrs  of  the 

*  A  study  which  I  made  of  the  date  of  Polycarp's  martyrdom  led  me  to 
the  conclusion  that  it  took  place  on  the  2nd  of  the  lunar  month  Xanthicus, 
155,  which,  according  to  the  Jewish  reckoning,  beginning  the  day  with  the 
evening,  would  be  the  irrst  day  of  their  'ecclesiastical  year,  and  being  a  Sab- 
bath, would  of  course  be  a  '  great  Sabbath.'  The  document  in  which  the 
Church  of  Smyrna  invited  another  Church  to  commemorate  the  anniversary 
of  this  martyrdom  dropped  out  of  sight  until  it  was  recovered  about  loo  3^ears 
after.  The  martyrdom  was  thenceforward  commemorated  on  what  the  2nd 
Xanthicus  then  meant,  22nd  February,  instead  of  the  true  date  22nd  March. 
This  error  could  not  have  occurred  if  the  commemoration  had  been  annually 
kept  up  during  the  interval. 

t  See  Mommsen's  Memoir  on  the  Chronographer  of  the  year  354, 
Ahhandlungen  der  Konigl.  Sachs.  Gesellschaft,  i.  585. 

X  These  spots  had  been  held  in  honour  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  tliird 
century  (Caius,  ap.  Euseb.  ii.  25). 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  Peter.  439 

Roman  Church  may  have  been  of  great  use  in  bracing 
the  Christians  to  meet  then  present  dangers.  For  it  was 
a  time  of  great  strain  for  the  Church.  Valerian  was  the 
Emperor,  and  in  this  same  year  there  followed  the  mar- 
tyrdoms of  the  bishops  Sixtus  at  Rome  and  Cyprian 
at  Carthage.  It  is  this  memorable  consecration  of  the 
sacred  spots  by  the  deposition  of  the  Apostolic  relics, 
and  not  the  martyrdom,  which,  as  I  believe,  the  29th 
June  really  commemorates.  A  document,  therefore, 
which  describes  the  Apostles  as  suffering  on  that  day 
is  pretty  sure  to  be  considerably  later  than  the  year 
258. 

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  ac- 
tivity 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 
the  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  con- 
venient. 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  ec- 
clesiastical associations  by  a  claim  that  its  first  bishop 


440  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

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*—Oi  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  in- 
clined 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.  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  St.  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 
Alexandria  [Qiiis  div.  salv.  42)  from  some  different 
source.  For  later  Christian  writers,  who  show  inde- 
pendent 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  Nicaea.  They  had  been  appealed  to 
by  the  Iconoclasts  ;  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 ; 

*  Some  additions  were  made  to  the  previously  edited  remains  of  these 
Acts,  in  Acta  Johannis,  published  by  Zahu,  1880, 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  John.  44 1 

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  dis- 
ciple 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  informing  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  satisfying,  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  the  mob  believed  they  were  crucifying 
our  Lord,  he  conversed  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  docetism,  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. 


442  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.         [xix. 

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  intelli- 
gence 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  them- 
selves 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  hear- 
ing 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:  O  ye  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^atot),  rushed  from 
the  door  to  the  couch,  climbed  up  the  legs  and  disap- 
peared into  the  joinings.  And  John  said,  See  how  these 
(features,  having  heard  the  voice  of  a  man,  have  obeyed; 
but  we,  hearing  the  voice  of  God,  neglect  and  disobey ; 
and  how  long  r     (Zahn,  p.  226). 

I  will  now  mention  some  of  the  statements  which 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  John.  443 


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  : — 

(i)  These  Acts  tell  (Zahn,  p.  247)  how  John's  vir- 
ginity had  been  preserved  by  a  threefold  interposi- 
tion of  our  Lord,  breaking  off  the  Apostle's  designs 
each  time  that  he  attempted  to  marry.  In  con- 
formity 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,  Pistis 
Sophia,  the  name  of  the  Apostle  John,  ordinarily  has  the 
title  6  irapdevoQ  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  {De  Monog.  17).  We  are  not  entitled 
to  say  positively  that  this  opinion  must  have  been  de- 
rived from  the  Acts  of  which  I  am  speaking,  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  coin- 
cidences, 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. 
64)  of  John's  composition  of  his  Gospel  having  origin- 
ated from  a  request  of  the  bishops  of  Asia,  has  great  affin- 
ity with  what  Clement  of  Alexandria  tells  [Euseb.W.  14), 
that  John,  having  seen  that  the  bodily  things  had  been 
related  in  the  previous  Gospels,  made  a  spiritual  Gospel 


444  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 


TrporpoTTf'vra  vtto  tu)v  yvconifiov,  UvevjuaTi  6eo(f)opr)6tvTa.  It 
is  not  conceivable  that  one  of  tliese  writers  copied  from 
the  other;  but  several  later  writers  (as,  for  instance, 
Jerome  in  the  preface  to  his  Commentary  on  St,  Mat- 
thew) tell  the  same  story,  agreeing,  however,  in  som^e 
additional  particulars  which  show  that  they  did  not  de- 
rive 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  something  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.'  Other  coincidences  make 
it  likely  that  this  story  was  found  in  Acts  of  John  used 
by  Clement. 

(3)  Tertullian  {PrcBscrip.  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  Com- 
mentary 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  con- 
cluded that  Jerome,  who  is  otherwise  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  enougli  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 


XIX.]  The  Acts  of  St.  yohn.  445 


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 
traditions  about  John  were  in  circulation  before  the  time 
of  Clement  and  Tertullian.  When  we  combine  the  do- 
cetic  character  of  the  traditions  which  reached  Clement 
with  the  fact  that  the  Acts  of  Thecla,  a  work  known  to 
Tertullian,  had  clearly  an  Encratite  stamp,  it  seems  to 
me  highly  probable  that  these  second  century  Acts  of 
John  had  the  same  character,  and  that  they  were  either 
those  afterwards  known  under  the  name  of  Leucius,  or 
at  least,  that  thgy  contained  the  materials  on  which  the 
Leucian  writer  worked. f 

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  ot 
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,J  Later  versions  improve  the  miraculous 
character  of  the  story:  in  particular  that  of  which  Augus- 
tine makes  mention  [In  Johmm.  xxi,  Tradat.  124J;  that 

*  This  miracle  is  very  rare  in  ancient  hagiologj-.  The  only  other  case  I  re- 
member is  that  Papias  tells  that  Justus  Barsabas  drank  poison,  and  through 
the  Lord's  grace  received  no  hurt.  I  cannot  but  think  that  Papias  told  the 
story  in  illustration  of  Mark  xvi.  i8. 

t  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. 

\  This  story  is  accepted  as  true  by  Epiphanius  {HcBr.  Ixxix,  5). 


446  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

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  conjectured  that  the  story  of  two  tombs  of  John 
at  Ephesus  may  have  arisen  from  the  traditional  venera- 
tion 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  Assumption  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/xijatc,  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  meeting  of 

*  The  form  in  which  the  Gnostic  stories  about  John  were  circulated  among 
tlie  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  Evangelista  unus  ex  dis- 
cipulis  domini,  qui  virgo  electus  a  domino  est,  quern  de  nuptiis  volentem  nubere 
retocavit  dominus,  cujus  virgmitatis  in  hoc  duplex  testimonium  in  Evangelic 
datur,  quod  et  prse  ceteris  dilectus  domini  dicitur,  et  huic  matrem  suam  de  cruce 
commendavit  utvirginem  virgo  servaret.  Denique  manifestans  in  evangelic  quod 
erat  ipse  incorruptibilis,  [incorruptibilis]  verbi  opus  inchoans  solus,  verbum  car- 
nem  factum  esse,  nee  lumen  a  tenebris  fuisse  comprehensum  testatur,  primus 
signum  ponens  quod  in  nuptiis  fecit  dominus,  ut  ostendens  quod  erat  ipse  legen- 
tibus  demonstraret,  quod  ubi  dominus  invitatur,  deficere  nuptiarum  vinum 
debeat,  ut  veteribus  immutatis  nova  omnia  quae  a  Christo  instituuntur  ap- 
pareant.     Hie   evangelium  scripsit  in  Asia  postea  quam  in  Pathmos  insula 


XIX.],      Jlic  Assumption  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.         447 


the  Vatican  Council,  those  entitled  to  speak  with  autho- 
rity 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  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  Ascen- 
sion, 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, 

apocalypsin  scripserat,  ut  cui  in  principio  canonis  incormptibile  principium  in 
genesi  et  incorruptibilis  finis  per  virginem  in  apocalypsi  redderetur,  dicente 
Christo,  ego  sum  A  et  CI.  Et  hie  est  Johannes,  qui  sciens  supervenisse  diem 
recessus  sui  convocatis  discipulis  suis  in  Epheso  per  multa  signorum  experi- 
menta  promens  Christum,  descendens  in  defossum  sepulturse  sua;  locum  facta 
oratione  positus  est  ad  patres  sues,  tam  extraneus  a  dolore  mortis  quam  a 
corruptione  carnis  invenitur  ahenus.  Tamen  post  omnes  evangelium  scripsit 
et  hoc  virgini  debebatur.  Quorum  tamen  vel  scripturarum  tempore  dispositio 
vel  hbrorum  ordinatio  ideo  per  singula  a  nobis  non  exponitur,  ut  sciendi  desi- 
derio  collocato  et  quaerentibus  fructus  laboris  et  domino  magisterii  doctrina 
servetur. 

*  The  Greek  and  Latin  versions  are  included  in  Tischendorf's  Apocalypses 
apocryphcE  ;  and  Syriac  versions  have  been  published  by  Wright,  Contributions 
to  the  Apocryphal  Literature,  N.  T.,  zxvA  Journal  of  Soured  Literature,  1865. 


448  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  [xix. 

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  sup- 
pose 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  en- 
tertained 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  assailants  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  blind- 
ness ;  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  car- 
rying 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  the  songs  cease,  and  so  the  Apostles  know 
that  the  body  has   been    transferred  to  Paradise.     Ac- 


XIX.]      The  Assumption  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.        449 

cording  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  Tisch- 
endorf,  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  pre- 
face 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. 


1  G 


XX. 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 


IT  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  ac- 
knowledgments. 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  in- 
genuity, 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 


XX.]  The  Pauline  Epistles.  451 

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 
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  after- 
wards find  notions,  which  I  had  passed  by  as  too  con- 
temptible for  refutation,  circulating  among  half-learned 
people  as  the 'latest  results'  which  '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.  21)  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  pro- 
nounced every  note  which  Avas  tendered  him  to  be  a 
forgery,  every  sovereign  to  be  base  metal.  I  quite  dis- 
believe that  the  early  Christian  Church  was  so  taken 
possession  of  by  forgers  that  almost  all  its  genuine  re- 
mains were  corrupted  or  lost,  while  the  spurious  formed 

2  G  2 


452  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 


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  speaking  of 
the  genuineness  of  Epistles,  and  I  am  glad  that  I  can 
assume  your  acquaintance  with  Paley's  admirable  HorcB 
PaulincB.  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  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  Knowledge  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  Speaker's 
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  Commentaries,  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  Eng- 


XX.]  The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.  453 

land  receives  from  his  episcopal  labours  compensates 
the  loss  which  the  Church  at  large  has  suffered  in  the 
interruption  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,  sepa- 
rated by  intervals  of  time  of  somewhere  about  five  years: 
(i)  the  two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  (2)  the  four 
acknowledged  by  Baur,  (3)  the  Epistles  written  during 
the  Roman  imprisonment,  (4)  the  Pastoral  Epistles. 

I.  The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians. — 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  abso- 
lutely frivolous,  the  objections  which  Baur  and  his  fol- 
lowers 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.  13-18)  which  treats  of  the 
future  happiness  of  those  Christians  who  had  died  before 
the  time  when  the  Apostle  wrote.  The  passage  mani- 
festly 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  them- 
selves 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 


454  "^h.^  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

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  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  de- 
cisive, I  care  little  to  discuss  petty  objections.*  It  is  a 
little  inconsistent  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.  i6  that  his  stay  was  long 
enough  to  allow  time  for  his  Philippian  friends  twice  to 
send  him  a  gift  of  money.     He  gained  at  Thessalonica 

•  One  of  those  petty  objections  is  worth  repeating,  because  it  turns  on  a 
curious  coincidence,  the  discoverer  of  which,  Holsten  {jfahrbiuher  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  Avorks,  and  thy  labour, 
and  thy  patience ' :  izi  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. 3  The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.  455 

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  contributions  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).  Thuswe  perceive  that  the  preach- 
ing on  three  vSabbath  days,  which  Luke  records,  only  re- 
presents 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  Gen- 
tiles ;  for  the  Gentile  element  predominated  in  the  Thes- 
salonian Church  (i  Thess.  i.  9,  ii.  14).  But  we  find  from 
Luke's  narrative  of  what  occurred  in  several  cities,  that 
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  ac- 
count of  this  conduct,  which  was  regarded  by  the  Jews 
as  little  less  than  apostasy,  Paul  was  hunted  by  perse- 
cution 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  stumbling-block  in  the 
language  in  which  Paul  (ii.  14-16)  expresses  his  indig- 
nation against  '  the  Jews '  who  *  forbad  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  *  indignation  '  of  Dan.  viii.  ig,  xi.  36  ;  and  {iq  riXog 
is  a  common  Old  Testament  phrase  (Josh.  x.  20,  2  Chron. 
xii.  12,  xxxi.  i). 


456  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

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,  Baur  notes  several  coinci- 
dences between  this  and  other  Pauline  Epistles,*  but 
strange  to  say  he  uses  these  to  disprove  the  Pauline 
authorship.  He  holds  that  a  letter,  to  be  genuine,  must 
be  Pauline,  but  not  too  Pauline.  If  it  contain  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  Thessalomans. — I  said  (p.  42J 
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  chrono- 
logical 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 

*  i.  5,  I  Cor.  ii.  4  ;  i.  6,  i  Cor.  xi.   i  ;  i.  8,  Rom.  i.  8;  ii.  4,  i  Cor.  ii.  4, 
2  Cor.  ii.  17  ;  ii.  5,  2  Cor.  vii.  2;  ii,  6,  9,  2  Cor.  xi.  9;  ii.  7,  i  Cor.  iii.  2. 


XX.]  The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.  457 

opinion  do  not  seem  to  me  strong  enough  to  induce  me 
to  spend  time  in  discussing  them  with  you.  In  David- 
son'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  ex- 
aggerates, and  says  that  their  faith  grovveth  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  who  insists 
that  a  story  shall  be  always  told  him  in  precisely  the 
same  way.  For  instance,  the  commencement  of  ii.  11 
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,  fol- 
lowing Baur's  lead,  goes  on  to  condemn  the  Epistle  for 
its  too  great  likeness  to  Paul.  The  ideas  are  often  bor- 
rowed or  repeated  from  the  first  Epistle,  and  it  is 
dependent  on  other  Pauline  Epistles.* 

*  2  Thess.  iii.  8  repeats  i  Thess.  ii.  9 ;  and  iii.  10,  12  expands  i  Thess.  iv. 
II,  12.  2  Thess.  iv.  14,  follows  i  Cor.  v.  9,  il,  and  i  Cor.  iv.  14.  The  Lord 
of  peace  (iii.  16)  is  taken  from  i  Cor.  xiv.  33,  2  Cor.  xiii.  11  ;  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. 


458  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 


I  hardly  think  it  can  be  any  of  these  arguments  which 
induced  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  im- 
probable, and  is  a  mediatizing  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  contro- 
versies which  spring  out  of  questions  of  interpretation  of 
prophecy.  We  are  here  only  concerned  with  the  ques- 
tion of  authorship — whether  there  is  anything  improbable 
in  the  supposition  that  such  a  prophecy  should  have 
been  delivered  at  the  date  it  must  have  had,  if  this 
Epistle  was  really  written  by  St.  Paul.  Now  consider- 
ing the  paucity  of  documents  from  which  our  knowledge 
is  derived  of  the  growth  of  opinion  in  the  apostolic  age, 
and  for  half  a  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  doc- 
trine, and  then  condemn  any  document  that  refuses  to 
fall  in  with  their  theory.  It  is  true  that  apocalyptic  pre- 
diction is  in  our  minds  chiefly  associated  with  the  book 
of  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  ;    but  I  know  no  reason 


XX.]  The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.  459 

whatever  for  imagining  that  it  was  only  about  the  year 
70  that  the  minds  of  Christians  began  to  occupy  them- 
selves with  the  thoughts  of  the  second  coming  of  our 
Lord,  and  the  circumstances  that  should  attend  it.  Those 
who  own  the  first  Epistle  must  allow  that  at  the  time 
when  that  w'as  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  Christians 
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  Gos- 
pels record  in  substance  a  real  discourse  of  our  Lord. 
The  description  (Matt.  xxiv.  30,  31)  of  our  Lord  coming 
in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  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  de- 
scending 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  progress  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 
contained  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  foundation  for  such  an  assertion,  if  it  could  be 
said  that  the  view  presented  in  the  second  Epistle  con- 


460  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

tradicts  that  taken  in  the  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. 

In  respect  of  external  attestation,  no  New  Testament 
book  stands  higher  than  these  Epistles.  They  are  re- 
peatedly used  without  suspicion  by  Irenaeus,  Clement, 
and  Tertullian.  The}'-  are  included  in  the  list  of  Pauline 
Epistles  given  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment  which  I  have 
quoted  (p.  268).*  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.  3S),  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  pas- 
sage about  the  '  Man  of  Sin '  is  plainly  referred  to  by 
Justin  Martyr  [Trypho  no). 

I  must  not  omit  to  notice  the  token  of  genuineness 

*  It  is  convenient  to  give  here  the  passage  in  full  which  treats  of  the  Pau- 
line letters  :  '  Epistulae  autem  Pauli,  quae,  quo  loco,  vel  qua  ex  causa  directae 
sint,  volentibus  intelligere  ipsse  declarant.  Primum  omnium  Corinthiis  schisma 
haeresis  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.'  Then  follows  the 
passage  quoted  (p.  268),  and  the  fragment  proceeds  :  '  Verum  ad  Philemonem 
unam,  et  ad  Titum  unam,  et  ad  Timotheum  duas,  pro  affectu  et  dilectione ; 
in  honore  tamen  ecclesiae  catholicse  in  ordinatione  ecclesiasticee  disciplinae  sanc- 
tificatse  sunt.  Fertur  etiam  ad  Laodicenses,  alia  ad  Alexandrinos,  Pauli 
nomine  finctse  ad  haeresim  Marcionis,  et  alia  plura,  quae  in  catholicam  eccle- 
siam  recipi  non  potest :  fel  enim  cum  melle  misceri  non  congruit.' 

t  Ignat.  Ad  Polycarp.  i,  ad  Ephes.  10  ;  Polycarp,  cc.  2,  4,  il. 


XX.]  The  Epistles  to  the  Tkessalonians.  461 

given  at  the  end  of  the  Epistle,  namely,  that  the  saluta- 
tion 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  writ- 
ten by  the  Apostle's  own  hand.  It  is  remarkable  that 
precautions  against  forgery  should  have  been  so  early 
found  necessary.  The  Apostle  also  shows  his  fears  of  it 
in  cautioning  the  Thessalonians  not  to  be  misled  by 
any  Epistle  as  from  him.  It  is  remarkable  also  that  this 
expression,  *  In  every  Epistle  so  I  write,'  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  conclusion  intrinsically  not  improbable, 
and  which  I  see  no  reason  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  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  treasure  up  the  relics 
of  his  writings,  and  often  regret  our  own  careless- 
ness in  having  allowed  papers  to  be  destroyed  which, 
because  the  writer  was  still  with  us,  we  valued  lightly, 


462  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

but  now  would  give  much  to  recover.  There  is  no  im- 
probability then  in  the  loss  of  apostolic  letters,  unless 
God  worked  a  miracle  to  preserve  them.  We  may  be- 
lieve that  if  the  loss  would  have  deprived  "us  of  know- 
ledge necessary  for  our  salvation,  he  would  have 
interfered  miraculously  ;  but  otherwise  we  have  no 
ground  for  asserting  that  God  would  supernaturally  pre- 
vent 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  included 
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  note*  {Colossians,  p.  340), 
merely  saying  here  that  I  believe  the  letter  has  been 
rightly  identified  with  that  which  we  know  as  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Ephesians. 

II.  The  second  group  of  Paul's  letters  is,  in  some 
points  of  view,  the  most  important  of  all  ;  but  inasmuch 
as   their   authenticity   is  universally   acknowledged,    it 

*  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  Colossians. 
It  is  only  extant  in  Latin ;  but  Lightfoot  gives  good  reasons  for  believing  the 
original  language  to  be  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  Vir.  illiist.  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.  460) ;  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.  adv.  Marc.  v.  17). 


XX.]  The  Second  Group.  .  463 


does  not  come  within  my  plan  to  speak  of  them.  I  only- 
mention  some  doubts  that  have  been  raised  as  to  the 
concluding  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The 
Epistle,  previously  to  this,  closes  with  a  benediction 
at  the  end  of  chap.  xv.  Let  me  say,  in  passing,  that 
we  have  one  concluding  benediction  too  many  in  the 
Authorized  Version.  Both  at  xvi.  20,  and  24,  we  have 
'  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you.  Amen.' 
The  oldest  authorities  differ  as  to  which  place  this 
benediction  ought  to  occupy ;  but  there  is  no  good  MS. 
authority  for  putting  it  in  both  places.  In  some  MSS. 
the  concluding  doxology  (xvi.  25-27)  is  put  at  the  end 
of  ch.  xiv.  In  addition  to  the  fact  that  the  Epistle 
seems  to  finish  without  chap,  xvi.,  it  has  been  remarked 
as  strange  that  Paul  should  have  known  so  many  at 
Rome,  which  he  had  never  visited,  while  he  sends  no 
salutation  to  individuals  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Church  of 
Ephesus,  where  he  had  lived  three  years.  On  these 
grounds  some  reject  this  chapter.  Renan  imagines 
that  the  Epistle  was  a  circular  addressed  to  different 
Churches,  with  a  different  conclusion  for  each,  and  with 
his  usual  courage  he  picks  out  their  several  portions. 
He  assigns  the  list  of  names  to  whom  salutations  were 
sent  as  the  conclusion  of  the  Epistle  sent  to  one  Church, 
that  of  Ephesus ;  the  list  of  names  from  whom  saluta- 
tions are  sent  as  the  conclusion  of  that  to  another,  and 
the  doxology  as  of  that  to  a  third.  Strange  not  to  see 
that  these  three  fit  together,  and  make  an  harmonious 
whole. 

I  cannot  seriously  discuss  what  is  asserted  with  so 
little  evidence.  It  is  no  uncommon  thing  with  ourselves  to 
add  a  postscript  to  a  letter,  and  there  is  nothing  to  call  for 
explanation  if  Paul,  even  though  he  had  brought  his  letter 
to  a  close  in  the  15th  chapter,  should  add  a  postscript. 


464  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

Considering  how  people  pressed  to  Rome  from  all  parts 
of  the  Empire,  we  have  nothing  to  wonder  at  if  Paul  had 
many  friends  at  Rome,  even  though  he  had  not  visited 
it.  When  he  did  eventually  visit  Rome,  there  were 
friends  there  who  came  to  meet  him,  some  as  far  as 
Appii  Forum,  a  distance  of  forty-three  miles.  It  is,  I 
own,  a  little  surprising  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 
does  not  contain  a  corresponding  list  of  salutations. 
However,  what  has  been  ingeniously  urged  on  the 
other  side  is  worth  mentioning.  It  is  said  that  a  man 
writing  to  a  large  circle  of  friends,  because  it  would 
be  invidious  to  mention  some  names  and  omit  others, 
naturally  might  prefer  to  mention  none :  and  that  ac- 
cordingly in  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Churches  where  he  had 
personally  laboured,  those  of  Corinth  and  Thessalonica, 
no  names  are  mentioned  ;  while  several  names  occur  in 
the  conclusion  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Church  of  Colossse, 
a  place  where  the  Apostle  apparently  had  never  been. 

.  I  should  not  think  it  impossible  that  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  as  originally  written,  may  have  contained  a 
postscript  chapter  of  private  salutations  like  that  which 
ends  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  that  this  postscript 
was  not  copied  when  the  Epistle  was  transcribed  for  the 
use  of  other  Churches.  But  another,  and  more  common 
explanation  is,  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was  a 
circular  not  written  to  that  Church  exclusively.  Certain 
it  is,  some  of  the  most  ancient  copies  omitted  the  words 
Iv  'E0so-(|j  in  the  inscription.  Origen,  for  instance,  read 
the  saints  .*  that  are,'  and  explained  to\q  ovaiv  as  the 
saints  which  are  really  so ;  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by 
St.  Basil.  And  the  omission  of  Ephesus  is  found  in 
some  very  ancient  MSS.  at  this  day  (^^,  B.).  But  since 
this  rendering  is  extremely  improbable,  Archbishop 
Ussher  conjectured  that  the  original  letter  was  a  circular, 


XX.]  The  Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment.  465 

containing  after  the  words  ''  the  saints  that  are,'  a  blank 
for  the  name  of  the  Church  addressed.  Marcion  filled  it 
up  with  the  name  Laodicea,  and  called  this  the  Epistle 
to  the  Laodiceans. 

Lightfoot  has  noted  [Journal  0/ Philology,  1871,  p.  203) 
certain  peculiarities  in  some  MSS.  which  make  it  proba- 
ble that  an  edition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  also  had 
some  circulation  in  which  both  the  name  Rome  in  the 
address,  and  the  last  two  chapters  were  omitted.  Whether 
this  transformation  of  the  Epistle,  from  an  address  to  a 
local  Church,  into  a  kind  of  encyclical,  had  any  sanction 
from  the  Apostle  himself,  or  whether  it  was  the  unauthor- 
ized attempt  of  some  later  transcriber  to  make  the  work, 
as  he  thought,  more  useful,  we  cannot  tell.  The  true  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  belongs  to  a  period  earlier  than  any 
extant  Christian  history — the  period,  namely,  when  the 
Epistles  first  passed  out  of  the  exclusive  possession  of 
the  Churches  to  which  they  were  addressed,  and  became 
the  common  property  of  all  Christians.  ^ —  / 

III.  The  Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment. — Among  these, 
I  think  it  necessary  to  say  little  concerning  the  Epistle 
to  the  Philippians,  Baur's  objections  to  its  genuineness 
having  been  pronounced  futile  by  critics  not  disposed  to 
think  lightly  of  his  authority — Hilgenfeld,  Pfleiderer, 
Schenkel,  Reuss,  Davidson,  Renan,*  and  others.     Baur 

*  A  Frenchman  cannot  construct  a  drama  without  a  love  story,  and 
Renan,  by  the  help  of  this  Epistle,  with  some  countenance  from  Clem. 
Alex.  [Strom,  iii.  6),  has  contrived  to  find  one  in  the  life  of  St.  Paul.  He 
translates  {Saint  Paul,  p.  148)  yv^ffie  av^vye  (Phil.  iv.  3)  '  ma  chere  epouse  ' ; 
and  when  afterwards  he  has  occasion  to  speak  of  Lydia,  does  so  with  the  ad- 
dition, '  sa  vraie" epouse '  {L^ Antechrist,  pp.  18,  22).  Hilgenfeld,  who  will  not 
be  suspected  of  any  undue  bias  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  interprets  the  passage 
of  the  president  of  the  Philippian  Church :  '  Anstatt  mit  Renan  in  yvrjaie 
avv^vye  die  Purpurhandlerin  Lydia  von  Paulus  als  "meine  liebe  Gemahlin  " 
angeredet  werden  zu  lassen,  denkt  man  -besser  an  den  eigentlichen  Voibteher 

Z  H 


466  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 


has  pronounced  this  Epistle  dull,  uninteresting,  mo- 
notonous, characterized  by  j^overty  of  thought,  and  want 
of  originality.  But  one  only  loses  respect  for  the  taste 
and  skill  of  the  critic  who  can  pass  such  a  sentence  on 
one  of  the  most  touching  and  interesting  of  Paul's 
letters.  So  far  is  it  from  showing  signs  of  having  been 
manufactured  by  imitation  of  the  other  Epistles,  that 
it  reveals  aspects  of  Paul's  character  which  the  other 
letters  had  not  presented.  In  2  Cor.  we  see  how  the 
Apostle  could  write  when  wounded  by  ingratitude  and 
suspicion  from  children  in  the  faith  who  failed  to  return 
his  affection ;  in  this  Epistle  how  he  could  address  lov- 
ing disciples  for  whom  he  had  not  a  word  of  rebuke. 
Elsewhere  we  are  told  (Acts  xx.  34  ;  i  Cor.  ix.  15  ;  2  Cor. 
xi.  10;  I  Thess.  ii.  9  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  3)  how  the  Apostle 
laboured  with  his  own  hands  for  his  support,  and  de- 
clared that  he  would  rather  die  than  let  the  disinterest- 
edness of  his  preaching  be  suspected ;  here  we  find  (iK 
10-19)  that  there  was  no  false  pride  in  his  independence, 
and  that  when  there  was  no  likelihood  of  misrepresen- 
tation, he  could  gracefully  accept  the  un  grudged  gifts  of 
affectionate  converts.  Elsewhere  we  read  only  of  his 
reprobation  of  Christian  teachers  who  corrupted  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  Gospel;    here  we  are  told  (i.   18)    of  his 

der  philippischen  Gemeindc  '  {Einleitiing,  p.  345).  If  this  president  were 
Epaphroditus,  the  bearer  of  the  letter,  then  the  address  to  him,  without  mention 
of  his  name,  would  be  quite  intelligible.  Paul's  earliest  Epistle  (i  Thess.  v.  12) 
attests  the  existence  of  an  organized  Christian  ministry  (see  the  Bishop  of 
Derry's  Introduction  iia  the  Speaker's  Commentary) ;  the  present  Epistle  (i.  l) 
mlorms  us  that  there  were  Cniirch  officers  called  iiriffKonoi  and  SiaKovoi.  Both 
titles  are  found  again  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  The  former,  as  the  name  of 
a  Church  officer,  only  appears  once  elsewhere  N.  T.,  in  Paul's  speech  at 
Miletus  (Acts  xx.  28).  The  inference  from  Phil.  iv.  3,  that  one  of  the  Church 
officers  had  some  pre-eminence  over  the  others,  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be 
negatived  by  the  fact  that  no  notice  of  such  pre-eminence  appears  in  Polycarp's 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 


XX.]  The  Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment.  467 

satisfaction  that,  by  the  efforts  even  of  those  whose 
motives  were  not  pure,  the  Gospel  of  Christ  should  be 
more  widely  published. 

The  Epistle  to  Philevion  being  now  generally  accepted 
by  all  critics  whose  opinion  deserves  respect,  I  need  say 
nothing  about  its  genuineness,  and  have  no  time  for 
other  comments  which  that  charming  letter  suggests. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians, — The  extei-nal  attesta- 
tion to  this  letter  is  all  that  can  be  desired.  It  is  only 
within  the  last  fifty  years  that  anyone  has  doubted  it. 
It  is  used  without  suspicion  by  Irenseus,  Clement,  and 
Tertullian,  and  was  included  in  jNIarcion's  Canon.  The 
description  of  our  Lord  (Col.  i.  15)  as  ttpmtotokoq  TraariQ 
KTiatwQ  is  copied  by  Justin  Martyr  twice  verbally  [Trypho 
85,.  138),  and  twice  in  substance  (84,  100).  The  same 
expression  is  used  by  Theophilus  of  Antioch  (ii.  22). 
Davidson  owns  (ll.  177)  that,  'as  far  as  external  evi- 
dence goes,  the  epistle  is  unanimously  attested  in  ancient 
times.' 

We  turn  then  to  the  internal  evidence  ;  and  the  most 
trying  test  is  to  examine  the  personal  references  at  the 
end.  of  the  Epistle.  On  the  face  of  these  there  appears  a 
close  connexion  with  the  letter  to  Philemon.*  The  same 
names  occur  in  both  :  Epaphras,  Marcus,  Aristarchus, 
Demas,  Lucas,  as  names  of  Paul's  companions,  Onesi- 

*  On  this  connexion  Davidson,  in  his  discussion  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  does  not  say  a  single  word ;  Hilgenfeld  touches  on  it  very  lightly. 
Renan's  literary  instinct  often  keeps  him  straight  where  German  critics  had 
gone  astray.  He  had  not  been  without  difficulties  as  to  the  larger  Epistle, 
but  he  finds  it  impossible  to  get  over  the  fact  of  the  connexion  of  the  two.  He 
says  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  {Saint  Paul,  p.  xi.) :  '  Elle  presente  meme 
beaucoup  de  traits  qui  repoussent  I'hypothese  d'un  faux.  De  ce  nombre  est 
surement  sa  connexite  avec  le  billet  a  Philemon.  Si  I'epitre  est  apocryphe,  le 
billet  est  apocryphe  aussi ;  or,  peu  de  pages  ont  un  accent  de  sincerite  auss' 
prononce  ;  Paul  seul,  autant  qu'il  semble,  a  pu  ecrire  ce  petit  chef-d'oeuvre.' 

2  H  2 


468  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 


mus,  as  a  bearer  of  both  letters,  Archippus,  as  one  of 
those  addressed.  Yet  tnere  are  differences  which  pre- 
clude the  idea  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  was 
manufactured  out  of  the  shorter  epistle.  The  longer 
epistle  names  Jesus  surnamed  Justus  in  addition  to  those 
mentioned  in  the  shorter;  while  it  says  nothing  about 
Philemon,  the  principal  personage  in  the  latter.  Tychicus 
is  named  as  the  principal  bearer  of  the  longer  P2pistle ; 
but  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  Onesimus  alone  would 
be  entrusted  with  the  shorter.  Again,  the  title  fellow- 
prisoner*  is  given  to  Aristarchus  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians;  but  in  that  to  Philemon,  it  is  given  not  to  him, 
but  to  Epaphras.  Combining  the  epistles,  we  obtain  a 
clear  and  consistent  account  of  the  occasion  of  both.  The 
fugitive  slave  Onesimus,  formerly  a  resident  at  Colossse, 
is  converted  at  Rome  by  Paul,  who  desires  to  send  him 
back  to  his  master.  There  is  also  with  Paul  at  the  time 
another  Colossian,  Epaphras,  apparently  the  evangelist 
of  the  Churches  on  the  Lycus  (i.  7),  through  whose  affec- 
tionate remembrance  of  these  Churches  the  Apostle  has 
heard  much  of  their  prosperous  spiritual  state  (iv.  12,  13). 
He  therefore  joins  Onesimus  with  Tychicus,  whom  he 
was  sending  on  a  mission  to  the  Churches  of  Asia,  and 
while  giving  the  former  a  private  letter  to  his  master, 
entrusts  them  jointly  with  a  public  letter  to  the  Church. 
Archippus,  who  is  addressed  in  the  salutation  of  the 
shorter  letter,  is  commonly  supposed  to  have  been  a 
son  of  Philemon :  if  not  that,  he  could  only  have  been 
the  chief  minister  of  the  Church  to  which  he  belonged. 
It  would  seem  from  the  order  in  which  he  is  mentioned 
that   the  scene   of  his   labours   was    not    Colossae,   but 

*  The  most  probable  meaning  of  the  title  is  that  these  disciples  shared  St. 
Paul's  lodgings,  and  thereby  voluntarily  subjected  themselves  to  some  restric- 
tions of  liberty  from  the  surveillance  of  the  soldier  in  charge  of  him. 


XX.]  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  469 

Laodicea.      Possibly   at  the  time  of  writing   Philemon 
might  also  have  gone  to  reside  there.     If  this  were  so, 
it  would  be  natural  that  there  should  also  be  a  public 
letter  to  the  Church  over  which  Archippus  presided  ;  and 
we  find  from  iv.   16,   that  in  point  of  fact  there  was  a 
companion  letter  to  be  found  at  Laodicea.     I  feel  little 
doubt  that  this  is  the  letter,  a  duplicate  of  which  was 
taken  by  Tychicus  to  Ephesus,  where  Paul  had  resided 
so  long,  and  which  we  know  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians.     But  we  have  not  yet  come  to  discuss  that  letter 
suffice  it,  then,  to  say  now  that  on  the  supposition  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  all  the  de- 
tails of  Paul's  history  which  are  indicated  come  out  with 
perfect  clearness  ;  while,  if  you  want  to  convince  your- 
selves of  the  unreasonableness  of  the  opposite  supposi- 
tion, you  have  only  to  take  the  Epistle  to  Philemon — 
acknowledged  to  be  genuine — and  try  to  conceive  how  a 
forger  would  be  likely   to   utilize  its  contents  for  the 
manufacture  of  a  letter  intended  to  pass  as  contempora- 
neous.   I  am  sure  no  forger  could  devise  anything  which 
has  such  a  ring  of  truth  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians. 
What,  then,  are  the  reasons  why  we  are  to  reject  a 
document  coming  to  us  with  the  best  possible  creden- 
tials, and  presenting  several  characteristics  which  seem 
to  exclude  the  hypothesis  of  fraud  r     Three  reasons  are 
alleged.    The  first  I  shall  not  delay  to  discuss  at  length  : 
I  mean  the  argument  founded  on  the  occurrence  of  cer-  \ 
tain  words  in  this  Epistle  which  are  not  found  in  Paul's 
previous  letters.     I  cannot  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  that 
a  man  writing  a  new  composition  must  not,  on  pain  of 
losing  his  identity,  employ   any  word  that  he  has  not 
used  in  a  former  one.     Even  Baur,  who  acknowledged 
only  four  Epistles,  could  hardly  employ  this  argument 
consistently — for  there  are  great  dissimilarities  between 


470  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

the  first  and  second  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians — but 
when  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Thes- 
salonians  and  to  the  Philippians  is  acknowledged,  as  it 
now  is  by  all  the  best  critics,  it  is  admitted  that  we  may 
disregard  the  objections  made  by  Baur  to  these  Epistles 
on  the  ground  of  differences  of  phraseology,  and  it  is 
recognized  that  it  is  not  unnatural  that  certain  differ- 
ences of  language  should  show  themselves  in  letters 
written  by  Paul  at  some  distance  of  time  from  each 
other.  In  the  course  of  a  few  years  the  vocabulary  of 
any  man  is  liable  to  be  modified,  but  more  especially  is 
this  likely  to  happen  to  one  who,  as  Paul  did,  goes 
about  a  good  deal,  and  converses  with  many  new  peo- 
ple.* Critics  strangely  forget  the  probable  influence  on 
Paul's  language  of  his  two  years'  residence  in  Rome. 
In  the  next  century  Rome  was  a  hotbed  of  heresy,  all 
the  leading  Gnostic  teachers  having  established  schools 
there.  We  cannot  but  think  it  likely  that  in  the  first 
century  also  religious  speculators  of  various  kinds 
should  find  their  way  to  Rome,  and  strive  to  gain  dis- 

*  What  I  have  said  above  was  suggested  by  a  remark  of  Mr.  Mahaffy, 
which  he  has  been  good  enough  to  put  in  writing  for  me  : — 

'  The  works  of  Xenophon  show  a  remarkable  variation  in  their  vocabulary. 
Thus,  I.  and  ii.  of  theHellenica,  which  are  his  earliest  writings,  before  he  tra- 
velled, contain  very  few  lonisms,  Dorisms,  &c.,  and  are  written  in  verypure  Attic. 
His  later  tracts  are  full  of  un- Attic  words,  picked  up  from  his  changing  surround- 
ings ;  and  what  is  more  curious,  in  each  of  them  there  are  many  words  only 
used  by  him  once;  so  that  on  the  ground  of  variation  in  diction,  each  single 
book  might  be,  and  indeed  has  been,  rejected  as  non-Xenophontic.  This 
variation  not  only  applies  to  words  which  might  not  be  reqtiired  again,  but  to 
such  terms  as  evavSpia  (Comin.  3,  3,  12),  varied  to  ev\f/vxia  {Ven.  10,  21), 
evToXixia  (quoted  by  Stoboeus),  dySpeiJrrjs  {Anab.  6,  5,  14),  all  used  only  once. 
Every  page  in  Sauppe's  Lexilogus  Xeii.  bristles  with  words  only  used  once  in 
this  way.  Now,  of  classical  writers,  Xenophon  is  perhaps  (except  Herodotus; 
the  only  man  whose  life  corresponded  to  St.  Paul's  in  its  roving  habits,  whicli 
would  bring  him  into  contact  with  the  spoken  Greek  of  var3'ing  societies.' 


XX.]  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  471 

ciples.  What  more  natural  than  that  some  of  them 
should  visit  the  Apostle  in  his  lodgings,  and  compare 
doctrines  with  him  ?  And  might  it  not  be  accounted  a 
note  of  spuriousness  if  letters  alleged  to  be  written  after 
a  long  residence  in  Rome  exhibited  acquaintance  with 
no  phases  of  thought  but  those  which  are  dealt  with  in 
the  earlier  letters  ? 

The  second  objection  is  drawn  from  the  Christology  ^ 
of  the  Epistle,  the  view  of  our  Lord's  Person  and  work 
which  it  presents,  being  in  close  resemblance  to  the 
Logos  doctrine  of  St.  John.  But  is  it  so  impossible  that 
the  doctrine  of  two  Christian  teachers  should  resemble 
each  other  r  We  have  evidently  here  to  do  with  an  ob- 
jection in  which  one  brought  up  in  the  faith  of  the  Church 
can  feel  no  force  before  he  has  unlearned  a  good  deal. 
But  without  assuming  anything  as  to  the  unlikelihood 
of  Apostles  disagreeing  on  a  fundamental  doctrine,  when 
once  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  Johannine  writings, 
instead  of  only  originating  late  in  the  second  century, 
were  the  work  of  a  contemporary  of  St.  Paul,  then  the 
interval  in  time  between  the  composition  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians  and  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  is  reduced 
so  much,  that  it  becomes  very  rash  to  declare  that  what 
was  accepted  as  sound  doctrine  at  the  later  of  the  two 
periods  could  not  have  been  believed  in  at  the  earlier. 
Add  that  when  we  acknowledge  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  the  celebrated  Christological  passage  (ii, 
5-1 1)  forces  us  to  attribute  to  Paul  such  high  doctrine 
as  to  our  Lord's  pre-existence  and  as  to  the  pre-eminent 
dignity  which  he  enjoyed  before  his  humiliation,  that  I 
cannot  understand  how  it  should  be  pronounced  incon- 
ceivable that  one,  whose  conception  of  Christ  was  that 
expressed  in  the  Philippians,  should  use  concerning  him 
the  language  we  find  in  the  Colossians. 


472^  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

The  third  objection  is  the  Gnostic  complexion  of  the 
false  teaching  combated  in  the  Colossian  Epistle,  which, 
we  are  told,  could  not  have  characterized  any  heresy- 
existing  in  the  time  of  St.  Paul.  But  how  is  it  known 
that  it  could  not  ?  What  are  the  authorities  which  fix 
for  us  the  date  of  the  rise  of  Gnosticism  with  such  pre- 
cision that  we  are  entitled  to  reject  a  document  bearing 
all  the  marks  of  authenticity,  if  it  exhibit  too  early  traces 
of  Gnostic  controversies  ?  The  simple  fact  is,  that  we 
have  no  certain  knowledge  whatever  about  the  begin- 
nings of  Gnosticism.  We  know  that  it  was  in  full  blow 
in  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  The  Church  writers 
to  whom  we  owe  our  best  knowledge  of  it  wrote  at  the 
end  of  that  century,  or  the  beginning  of  the  next,  and 
were  much  more  busy  in  refuting  the  forms  of  heresy 
then  prevalent  than  in  exploring  their  antiquities. 
But  if  we  desire  to  describe  the  first  appearance  of 
Gnostic  tendencies,  we  have,  outside  the  New  Testament 
books,  no  materials  ;  and  if  we  assign  a  date  from  our 
own  sense  of  the  fitness  of  things,  we  are  bound  to  do  so 
with  all  possible  modesty.  '  Bishop  Lightfoot,'  says 
Davidson,  '  following  Neander,  thinks  that  the  Judaic 
Gnosticism  combated  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 
was  a  heresy  expressing  "the  simplest  and  most  ele- 
mentary conceptions"  of  the  tendency  of  thought  so 
called;  one  whose  speculations  were  so  "vague  and 
fluctuating,"  as  to  agree  with  St.  Paul's  time.'  From 
this  view  Davidson  dissents,  regarding  the  heretical 
tenets  of  the  Colossian  teachers  as  more  definite  than 
Lightfoot  represents.  I  myself  fully  believe  the  bishop 
to  be  in  the  right ;  but  for  the  purposes  of  the  present 
argument  I  count  it  absolutely  immaterial  whether  he  is 
or  not.  When  we  have  got  a  well-authenticated  first 
century  document,  that  document  is  evidence  as  to  the 


XX.]  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  '473 

state  of  opinion  at  the  time  when  it  was  written  ;  and 
whether  the  amount  of  Gnostic  opinion  which  it  reveals 
be  much  or  little,  we  hava  no  reason  for  rejecting  its 
testimony,  unless  we  have  equally  good  countervailing 
testimony.  But  countervailing  testimony  deserving  of 
regard,  in  this  case  there  is  none.  Davidson  says, 
*  Lightfoot  labours  without  effect  to  date  the  opinions  of 
the  Colossian  errorists  before  A,  D.  70,  for  in  doing  so  he 
is  refuted  not  only  by  Hegesippus,  who  puts  the  first 
exhibitions  of  heretical  Gnosis  under  Trajan,  but  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  dates  them  under  Hadrian, 
and  by  Firmilian  of  Caesarea,  who  dates  them  long  after 
the  Apostles.'  Firmilian  of  Caesarea!  he  might  as  well 
have  said  Theophylact.  I  think  he  misunderstands 
Firmilian;  but  it  is  useless  to  discuss  the  point;  for 
what  possible  value  can  attach  to  the  opinion  which  a 
writer  of  the  middle  of  the  third  century  held  as  to  the 
extent  to  which  Gnosticism  had  prevailed  two  hundred 
years  before  his  own  time  r 

There  is  no  surer  test  of  the  merit  of  an  historian 
than  to  observe  what  are  the  authorities  on  which  he 
builds  his  story.  If  you  find  him  relying  on  such  as 
are  worthless,  you  may  know  that  he  does  not  under- 
stand his  business.  It  would  be  unjust  to  Davidson 
if  the  present  example  were  offered  as  a  fair  specimen 
of  his  sense  of  the  value  of  authorities  ;  and  if  he  has 
not  produced  better,  it  is  because  there  were  no  better 
to  produce.  If  he  appealed  to  the  early  hseresiologists 
his  cause  would  be  lost ;  for,  following  the  lead  of 
Justin  Martyr,  they  commonly  count  Simon  Magus  as 
the  parent  of  Gnosticism,*  so  that  if  their  authority  is 
to  be  regarded,  the  heresy  existed  in  Apostolic  times. 
Hegesippus,  the  earliest  of  the  authorities  on  whom 
*  See  Irenaeus,  i.  xxiii.  4. 


474  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

Davidson  relies,  wrote  in  the  Episcopate  of  Eleu- 
therus,  that  is  to  say,  some  time  between  175  and  189. 
He  is  therefore  more  .  than  a  century  later  than  the 
times  concerning  which  he  is  appealed  to  as  a  witness ; 
and  he  is  later  than  Justin  Martyr,  whose  testimony  I 
have  just  quoted  on  the  other  side.*  But,  strange  to 
say,  Davidson  himself  thinks  (ii.  38)  that  Hegesippus 
was  acquainted  with  i  Tim.  vi,  20,  and  thence  derived 
the  expression  '  Gnosis  falsely  so  called.'  Hegesippus 
therefore  must  have  believed  that  Gnosis  existed  in 
the  Apostle's  days.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
authorities  that  can  be  used  to  fix  the  date  of  the  first 
appearance  of  Gnosticism  are  conflicting  and  untrust- 
worthy ;  nor  do  I  believe  that,  even  if  we  had  fuller 
information,  it  would  be  possible  to  name  a  definite 
date  for  its  beginning.  For  I  take  the  true  history  to 
be,  that  there  came  a  wave  of  thought  from  without, 
in  consequence  of  which  certain  ideas  foreign  to  Chris- 
tianity floated  vaguely  about,  meeting  in  different  quarters 

*  The  work  of  Hegesippus  is  lost ;  and  in  this  case  we  have  not  even  an 
extract  from  it,  but  only  the  report  which  Eusebius  gives  (iii.  32),  in  his  own 
words,  of  the  substance  of  what  Hegesippus  had  said.  For  want  of  the  con- 
text we  cannot  make  a  positive  affirmation ;  but  it  appears  to  me  that  when 
Hegesippus  says  that  '  down  to  the  times  of  Trajan  the  Church  remained  a  pure 
and  incoriupt  virgin,'  he  had  specially  in  view  the  Cimrch  of  Jerusalem  (com- 
pare Euseb.  iv.  22).  The  Elkesaites  were  the  heretics  with  whom  Hegesippus,  as 
a  Christian  of  Palestine,  would  liave  most  to  deal,  and  the  reign  of  Trajan  was  the 
veiy  date  they  claimed  for  the  revelation  of  their  peculiar  doctrines.  They  held  a 
kind  of  doctrine  of  development,  believing  that  the  latest  growth  of  time  was  the 
best,  and  that  the  full  truth  was  not  to  come  until  error  had  preceded  it.  Until 
Paul  had  promulgated  his  erroneous  doctrines,  the  revelations  of  Elkesai  were 
not  to  be  made.  Hegesippus  gave  a  different  account  of  the  matter.  While 
the  Apostles  were  alive  heresies  were  obliged  to  burrow  in  secret ;  but  when 
their  sacred  choir  had  departed,  and  the  generation  had  passed  away  which  had 
1  )een  vouchsafed  the  hearing  of  their  inspired  wisdom,  then  the  preachers  of 
knowledge,  falsely  so  called,  ventured  to  invade  the  Church,  as  if  now  bare  and 
unprotected. 


XX.]  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  '  475 

more  or  less  acceptance,  for  some  time  before  anyone 
formed  these  ideas  into  a  system.  With  respect  to  the 
history  of  this  undeveloped  stage  of  Gnosticism,  I  hold 
the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  to  be  one  of  our  best  sources 
of  information  ;  and  those  who  reject  it  because  it  does 
not  agree  with  their  notions  of  what  the  state  of  specula- 
tion in  the  first  century  ought  to  be,  are  guilty  of  the 
unscientific  fault  of  forming  a  theory  on  an  insufficient 
induction  of  facts,  and  then-  rejecting  a  fact  which  they 
had  not  taken  into  account,  because  it  does  not  agree 
with  their  theory. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians. — *  Among  the  letters 
which  bear  the  name  of  Paul,'  says  Renan  {Saint  Pauly 
xxiii.),  *  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  perhaps  the 
one  of  which  there  are  most  early  quotations,  as  the 
composition  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.'  On  in- 
ternal grounds  Renan  has  serious  doubts  as  to  the 
Pauline  origin  of  this  Epistle,  and  he  throws  out  the 
idea  that  it  may  have  been  written  under  the  Apostle's 
directions  by  Timothy,  or  some  other  of  his  compan- 
ions ;  but  he  owns  that  the  external  evidence  in  its 
favour  is  of  the  highest  character.  It  is  a  matter  of 
course  to  say  that  it  is  recognized  by  Irenaeus,  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  and  in  the  Muratorian  Frag- 
ment. The  fact  that  it  was  among  the  Pauline  Epistles 
owned  by  Marcion,  makes  it  unnecessary  to  cite  author- 
ities later  than  140.  There  is  what  seems  to  me  a  dis- 
tinct use  of  the  Epistle  by  Clement  of  Rome  ;  for  when 
he  exhorts  to  unity  by  the  plea,  '  Have  we  not  one  God, 
and  one  Christ,  and  one  Spirit  of  grace  poured  out  upon 
us,  and  one  calling  in  Christ'  ?  [c.  46)  I  cannot  think  the 
resemblance  merely  accidental  to  *  one  Spirit,' '  one  hope 
of  your  calling'  (Eph.  iv.  4).  There  can  be  no  doubt  of 
the  use  of  the  Ephesians  in  what  is  called  the  Second 


476  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

Epistle  of  Clement;  but  though  I  think  this  is  certainly 
older  than  the  age  of  Irenaeus,  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  is  older  than  that  of  Marcion.  The  recognition  of  the 
Ephesians  in  the  letter  of  Ignatius  to  the  same  Church 
is  beyond  doubt.  He  addresses  the  Ephesians  [c.  12)  as 
riauAou  (TVf.tjiiv(jT(H,  a  phrase  recalling  Eph.  iii.  3,  4,  g,  and 
goes  on  to  say  how  Paul  makes  mention  of  them  in  ev 
iraaij  tiTKTTo'XTg,  which  I  suppose  we  must  translate  *  in  all 
his  Epistle,'  but  which  in  any  case  implies  that  there  was 
an  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  for  I  know  no  other  Pauline 
Epistle  in  which  that  Church  is  mentioned.  There  are 
other  phrases  in  the  Ignatian  letters  which  remind  us  01 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  of  which  I  only  mention 
his  direction  to  Polycarp  [c.  5)  to  exhort  the  brethren  to 
love  their  wives,  even  as  the  Lord  the  Church  (Eph.  v. 
25,  29).  Polyparp's  own  letter  refers  [c.  12)  to  words  of 
Scripture,  'Be  ye  angry,  and  sin  not,'  and  'Let  not  the 
sun  go  down  on  your  wrath,'  tiie  former  sentence  being 
no  doubt  ultimately  derived  from  Ps.  iv.  5,  but  only  found 
in  connexion  with  the  latter  in  Eph.  iv.  26.  Hermas 
more  than  once  shows  his  knowledge  of  the  text,  *  Grieve 
not  the  holy  Spirit  of  God '  (iv.  30).  See  Mandat.  x. 
1,  2.  There  is  another  topic  of  evidence,  the  full  dis- 
cussion of  which  will  come  later  on ;  I  refer  to  the  fact 
that  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter  shows  traces  of  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  in  particular  vi^ith 
those  to  the  Romans  and  Ephesians.  This  fact  is  re- 
cognized by  Renan,  who  is  much  impressed  with  the 
evidence  it  offers  of  the  early  acceptance  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians  as  Paul's,  and  as  a  document  of  au- 
thority [Saint  Paul,  p.  xxii.).  Renan,  being  disposed  to 
accept, Peter's  Epistle,  but  having  doubts  about  that  to 
the  Ephesians,  is  rather  perplexed  by  this  fact,  which 
proves  the  priority  of  the  latter ;  and  he  suggests  that  it 


XX.]  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  477 


may  have  been  Peter's  secretary  who  turned  to  account 
his  knowledg-e  of  the  Epistle  ascribed  to  Paul  {V Ante- 
chrtst,  p.  vii.)  ;  but  this  very  gratuitous  suggestion  does 
not  affect  the  inference  as  to  the  relative  date  of  the 
two  Epistles.  Several  critics,  who  do  not  accept  either 
Epistle,  agree  as  to  the  fact  of  a  connexion  between  , 
them.  If,  as  has  been  already  suggested,  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians  had  the  character  of  an  Encyclical,  it 
would  be  natural  that  a  copy  should  be  preserved  for 
the  use  of  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  and  we  should  then 
have  a  simple  explanation  of  the  fact  that  Peter,  writing 
at  Rome,  should  find  there  in  constant  use  these  two 
letters  of  Paul  in  particular — that  to  the  Romans  and  to 
the  Ephesians. 

What,  then,  are  the  reasons  why  it  is  sought  to  re- 
ject so  weighty  a  mass  of  external  evidence  ?     You  will  I 
perhaps  be  surprised  to  hear  that  one  of  the  chief  is  the' 
great  likeness  of  this  Epistle  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Co-j 
lossians.     The  fact  of  the  close  affinity  of  the  two  letters 
is  indisputable,*  but  the  explanation  which  Paley  gave 
of  it  is  perfectly  satisfactory,  namely,  that  in  two  letters, 
written  about  the  same  time  on  the  same  subject  by  one 
person  to  different  people,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  the 
same  thoughts  will  be  expressed   in  nearly   the   same 
words.     Now  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  specially 
tied  to  that  to  the  Colossians  by  the  fact  that  both  letters 
purport  to  have  been  carried  by  the  same   messenger, 
Tychicus,  the  paragraph  concerning  whom  is  nearly  the 
same  in  both  (Eph.  vi.  21,  22  ;t  Col.  iv.  7,  8).     That  the 

•  '  Out  of  the  155  verses  contained  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  78  | 
contain  expressions  identical  with  those  in  the  Colossian  letter  '  (Davidson,  | 
ii.  200). 

t  From  the  word  'also'  in  Eph.  vi.  21,  Baur  inferred  the  priority  of  the 
Colossian  letter. 


V 


478  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

letters  which  the  Apostle  wrote  to  be  sent  off  by  the 
same  messenger  to  different  Churches  should  be  full 
of  the  same  thoughts,  and  those  thoughts  frequently 
expressed  in  the  same  phrases,  is  so  very  natural, 
that  instead  of  the  mutual  similarity  deserving  to 
count  as  an  objection  to  the  genuineness  of  either, 
this  correspondence  of  the  character  of  the  letters,  with 
the  traditional  account  of  the  circumstances  of  their 
origin,  ought  to  reckon  as  a  strong  confirmation  of  the 
correctness  of  that  account. 

Yet  this  explanation  of  the  similarity  of  the  two 
Epistles  is  commonly  dismissed  by  sceptical  writers 
with  small  consideration.  DeWette,  for  instance,  con- 
demns the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  as  but  a  '  verbose 
amplification '  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  He 
says,  'Such  a  transcription  of  himself  is  unworthy  of  an 
Apostle,  and  must  therefore  be  the  work  of  an  imitator.'* 
The  idea  that  it  is  unworthy  of  an  Apostle  to  repeat 
himself,  springs  from  the  tacit  assumption  that  the  first 
of  the  two  Epistles  was  a  work  published  for  general 
circulation  (though  indeed  it  is  not  uncommon  to  find 
authors  repeating  themselves  even  in  such  published 
works)  ;  but  I  am  at  a  loss  to  see  why  an  Apostle  might 
not  say  the  same  things  when  writing  to  different  people. 
No  one  finds  any  difficulty  in  the  supposition  that  an 
Apostle  might  write  a  circular  letter — that  is  to  say, 
that  he  might  send  to  different  Churches  letters  couched 
in  identical  words.  What  greater  impropriety  would 
there  be  if,  instead  of  directing  a  scribe  to  make  a  copy 
of  his  first  letter,  he  dictated  a  second  of  like  tenor  for  the 
use  of  a  different  Church  ?    Nor  is  the  case  much  altered 

*  In  like  manner  Renan  {Saint  Paul,  xvii.),  Comment  Paul  a-t-il  pu 
passer  son  temps  a  contrefaire  un  de  ses  ouvrages,  a  se  repeter,  a  fau-e  une 
lettre  banale  avec  une  lettre  topique  et  particulierc  ? 


XX.]  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  479 


if,  after  the  second  letter  had  been  written,  he  found  that 
it  added  so  much  to  what  had  been  said  in  the  first,  as  V 
to  make  him  wish  that  his  disciples  should  read  both 
(Col.  iv.  16). 

Those   who    ascribe    the   two   Epistles    to    different 
authors  are  not  agreed  which  was  the  original,  which 
the  imitator.    Mayerhoff,  the  first  assailant  of  the  Epistle/ 
to  the  Colossians,  made  the  Ephesian  letter  the  earlier, 
and  he  has  found  some  followers.    But  the  more  general, 
and  as  I  think  the  more  plausible,  opinion  reverses  the 
order.    Indeed,  the  personal  details  in  the  Epistle  to  the  v 
Colossians,  and  its  connexion  with  the  Epistle  to  Phil- 
emon, have  caused  it  to  be  accepted  as  Pauline  by  some   ■ 
who  reject  the  Ephesian  letter.'    But  what  I  regard  as  a 
complete  refutation    of  the   hypothesis  of  imitation  on 
either  side,  has  been  made  by  one  of  the  most  recent  of 
German  speculators  on  the  subject — Holtzmann.*     He  ^■^ 
has  made  a  critical  comparison  of  the  parallel  passages 
in  the  two  Epistles,  and  his  result  is  that  the  contest  as 
to  their  relative  priority  ends  in  a  drawn  battle.     He 
gives  as    examples  seven    passages    in    which  he  pro- 
nounces that  the    Ephesians   is  the   original,   and   the 
Colossians  the  imitation ;  and  seven  others  in  which  he " 
comes  to  the  opposite  conclusion.! 

The   natural   conclusion  from  these  facts   would    be 

*  Holtzmann,  Professor  of  Theology,  formerly  at  Heidelberg,  now  at 
Strassburg.  His  most  important  work  is  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  Tlial 
here  cited  is  Kritik  der  Epheser-  und  Kolosserhriefe.     Leipzig,  1872. 

t  These  are:  Priority  of  Ephesians— Ki^\i.  i.  4  =  Col.  1.  22;  Kph.  i.  6, 
7=  Col.  i.  13,  14;  Eph.  iii.  3,  5,  9 -Col.  i.  26,  ii.  2  ;  Eph.  iii.  17,  18,  iv.  16, 
ii.  20=  Col.  i.  23,  ii.  2,  7;  Eph.  iv.  16  =  Col.  ii.  19;  Eph.  iv.  22-24  =  Col.  iii- 
9,  10;  Eph.  V.  19  =  Col.  iii.  i6.  Priority  of  Colossians — Col.  i.  I,  2  =  Eph.  i. 
I,  2;  Col.  i.  3-9  =  Eph.  i.  15-18;  Col.  i.  5  =  Eph.  i.  3,  12,  13;  Col.  i.  25, 
29  =  Eph.  iii.  2,  7;  Col.  ii.  4-8  =  Eph.  iv.  17-21  Col.  iv.  5  =  Eph.  v.  15,  16; 
Col.  iv.  6  =  Eph.  iv.  29. 


480  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

that  the  similarity  between  the  Epistles  is  not  to  be  ex- 
plained by  conscious  imitation  on  either  side,  but  by 
identity  of  authorship.*  The  explanation,  however, 
which  Holtzmann  offers  is  that  only  a  certain  nucleus 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  is  genuine — that  a  forger 
taking  this  for  his  guide,  manufactured  by  its  means  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  ;  and  then,  pleased  with  his 
handiwork,  preceded  to  interpolate  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  with  pieces  taken  from  his  own,  composition. 
And  such  was  the  success  of  this  attempt,  that  not  only 
was  the  forged  Ephesian  Epistle  universally  accepted 
as  St.  Paul's,  but  no  one  cared  to  preserve  the  unim- 
proved Colossian  Epistle.  Holtzmann,  expurgating 
our  present  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  by  removing  this 
adventitious  matter,  publishes  what  he  offers  as  the  real 
original  Epistle.  The  engineer  Brindley  declared  that 
the  reason  rivers  were  made,  was  to  feed  navigable 
canals.  Some  German  writers  seem  to  think  that  in  the 
ancient  Church  Apostolic  documents  were  only  valued 
as  the  possible  basis  of  some  ingenious  forgery.  I  might 
seriously  discuss  this  theory  of  Holtzmann's  if  I  could 
find  that  even  in  his  own  school  he  had  made  a  single 
V  convert  to  it.f  If  you  study  the  Epistle  in  Lightfoot's 
commentary,  you  will  find  that  each  of  those  proposed 

expurgations  is  a  real  mutilation  of  the  argument ;  and 

» 

*  The  anacolutha  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (compare,  for  instance, 
iii.  I,  iv.  i)  afford  another  proof  that  we  have  here,  not  the  calm  work  of 
an  imitator  of  another  man's  production,  but  the  fervid  utterances  of  an  ori- 
ginal writer,  whom  a  rush  of  fresh  thoughts  occasionally  carries  away  from 
what  he  had  been  about  to  say. 

t  Hilgenfeld,  in  his  Journal  for  1873,  re\'iewing  Holtzmann's  book,  ex- 
presses his  complete  dissent  from  his  conclusions  ;  and  having  complimented 
*  the  author  on  the  ability  of  his  performance,  winds  up  with,  Aber  sollen  wir 
in  der  Wissenschaft  wirklich  weiter  kommen,  so  haben  wir,  meine  ich,  objec- 
tiver  zu  verfahren. 


XX.]  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  481 

the  chief  merit  of  Holtzmann's  work  is  his  success  in 
showing-  that  the  theory  that  the  Ephesian  Epistle  is  the 
work  of  an  imitator  of  the  Colossians,  gives  no  adequate 
explanation  of  the  facts. 

I  have  said  enough  to  show  that  no  good  reason  forv 
rejecting  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  can  be  drawn 
from  its  likeness  to  the  sister  Epistle  to  the  Colossians. 
But  I  think  that  the  real  cause  of  hostility  to  this  letter 
is  not  this,  but  rather  the  contradiction  which  it  offers 
to  modern  theories  of  early  Church  history.  According 
to  these,  the  feud  between  Paulinists  and  Anti-Paulinists 
continued  long  into  the  second  century,  and  it  was  only 
at  this  comparatively  late  period  that  there  arose  the 
conception  of  the  'Catholic  Church'  embracing  Jew 
and  Gentile  on  equal  terms,  and  giving  to  Paul  and 
Peter  equal  honour.  Men  have  refused  to  believe  that 
the  book  of  the  Acts  could  have  been  written  by  a  com- 
panion of  Paul,  even  ten  or  twenty  years  after  that 
Apostle's  death,  because  they  could  not  think  that  the 
conciliatory  school,  to  which  this  book  clearly  belongs, 
could  have  arisen  so  early.  But  if  we  accept  the  Epistle  V 
to  the  Ephesians,  we  must  own  that  Paul  was  himself 
no  Paulinist,  as  Baur  understands  the  word.  He  clearly 
belongs  to  the  era  of  the  'Catholic  Church,'  concerning 
which  he  has  so  much  to  say ;  and  he  even  speaks  of 
the  '  holy  Apostles  '  (iii.  5)  as  might  one  who  had  no 
cause  of  quarrel  with  the  Twelve. 

And  certain  it  is  that  in  this  Epistle  we  read  nothing 
of  St.  Paul's  controversy  with  those  who  '  forbad  him  to 
speak  to  the  Gentiles,  that  they  might  be  saved,'  nothing 
of  his  controversy  with  those  who  wished  to  impose  on 
Gentile  converts  the  yoke  of  circumcision.  All  such 
controversies  are  clearly  over  at  the  time  of  writing. 
Those  whom  he  addressed,  though  Gentiles  (iii.  i),  have 

2  I 


482  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

won  the  position  of  recognition  as  *  fellow-citizens  with 
the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God  '  (ii.  19).  But  is 
there  anything  incredible  in  the  supposition  that  Paul 
himself  lived  to  see  the  dying  out  of  the  controversy  that 
had  once  raged  so  violently  \  Controversies  soon  die 
out  in  the  face  of  accomplished  facts.  I  have  myself 
seen  many  hot  political  controversies — about  the  first 
Reform  Bill ;  about  the  Abolition  of  the  Corn  Laws  ; 
about  the  Disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church.  As 
long  as  any  practical  end  could  be  obtained  the  battle 
raged  fiercely ;  but  when  a  decision  was  made,  which 
there  was  no  hope  of  overturning,  all  parties  acquiesced 
in  the  inevitable,  and  took  no  interest  in  wrangling  over 
the  old  dispute.  So  it  was  with  the  dispute  as  to  the 
obligation  of  Mosaism.  When  emissaries  came  down 
from  Jerusalem,  assuring  Paul's  Gentile  converts  that 
unless  they  were  circumcised  Christ  should  profit  them 
nothing,  and  when  many  of  them  appeared  ready  to  g^ive 
ear  to  such  teaching,  it  was  natural  that  the  Apostle 
should  protest  loudly  against  a  doctrine  which  subverted 
the  whole  Gospel  he  had  taught.  But  he  counteracted 
it  in  even  a  more  effectual  way  than  direct  opposition. 
He  and  his  disciples  went  on  making  new  converts,  and 
founding  new  Churches  among  the  Gentiles,  on  whom 
no  obligation  of  Judaic  observance  was  laid,  until  it  be- 
came hopeless  for  the  zealots  for  the  Mosaic  Law  in 
Palestine  to  dream  of  excommunicating  so  large  and 
powerful  a  body.  Nine  or  ten  years  of  Paul's  preaching 
were  enough  to  put  the  position  of  the  Gentile  Churches 
beyond  danger  of  assault.  No  one  can  doubt  that  at  the 
time  of  Paul's  Roman  imprisonment  there  were  Chris- 
tian Churches  in  Ephesus  and  other  cities  of  Asia,  in 
Greece,  in  Syria,  in  Rome  itself,  containing  a  multitude 
of  Gentile  converts,  who   did  not  observe  the   law   of 


XX.]  TJie  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  483 

Moses,  and  who,  nevertheless,  did  not  doubt  that  they 
were  entitled  to  every  privilege  which  union  with  Christ- 
conferred.  Gentile  Christianity  was  by  this  time  an  ac- 
complished fact,  and  it  shows  inability  to  grasp  the 
historic  situation  if  a  man  expects  Paul's  letters  at  this 
date  to  exhibit  him  still  employed  in  controversial  de- 
fence of  the  position  of  his  Gentile  converts,  or  if  he  is 
surprised  to  find  Paul  taking  for  granted  that  the  barrier 
between  Jew  and  Gentile  had  been  thrown  down.*  It 
is  as  great  an  anachronism  to  expect  to  find  Paul,  at  the 
time  of  his  imprisonment,  maintaining  the  right  of  a 
Gentile  to  be  admitted  into  the  Christian  Church  without 
circumcision,  as  it  would  be  to  expect  to  find  a  states- 
man of  the  present  day  dilating  on  the  right  of  a  Jew  to 
be  admitted  into  Parliament  without  swearing  '  on  the 
true  faith  of  a  Christian,' 

But  though  we  can  see  that,  at  the  time  the  Epistle  \ 
■  to  the  Ephesians  was  written,  there  was  no'  need  of  a 
struggle  to  claim  for  Gentiles  admission  on  equal  terms 
to  all  the  privileges  of  the  Gospel,  we  can  see  also  that  1 
this  struggle  was  then  not  long  over.  We  take  it  now 
as  a  matter  of  course  that  we  have  a  full  right  to  every 
Christian  privilege,  and  we  should  be  amazed  if  anyone 
denied  our  title  on  the  ground  that  we  are  not  children 
of  Abraham,  or  do  not  observe  the  Mosaic  Law.     The 

*  Davidson  objects  (ii.  213)  that  Paul's  language  in  this  Epistle  'suits  an 
author  who  knew  the  wide-spread  fruit  of  the  Gospel  among  Gentiles,  and 
■witnessed  its  mighty  effects  long  after  Paul  had  departed,  but  is  scarcely  con- 
sonant with  the  perpetual  struggle  carried  on  by  the  Apostle  against  a  Judaiz- 
ing  Christianity  upheld  by  Peter,  James,  and  John.'  But  there  is  evidence 
that  Paul  himself  knew  the  wide-spread  fruit  of  the  Gospel  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  witnessed  its  mighty  effects  ;  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  his  stnigglel 
against  Judaizing  Christians  was  perpetual,  or  that  Peter,  James,  and  John,  1 
were  his  opponents  ;  unless  we  take  Baur's  word  rather  than  the  Apostle's  * 
own. 

o  I  2 


484  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

writer  of  this  Epistle  asserts  it  as  a  truth  that  in  Christ 
the  distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile  has  been  done 
away,  and  that  the  Jew  has  no  longer  any  exclusive 
position  of  pre-eminence;  but  to  him  this   truth  is   no 
matter  of  course,  but  an  amazing  paradox.     He  is  as- 
tonished as    he    contemplates  this    *  mystery  of  Christ ' 
which    in   other    ages    was    not    made  known    unto  the 
sons  of  men,  '  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  fellow-heirs, 
and  of  the  same  body,  and  partakers  of  his  promise  in 
Christ  by  the  Gospel '  (iii.  4).     He  is  thankful  that  to 
himself  the  revelation   of  this  mystery  had  been  made, 
and  that  by  the  grace  of  God  he  had  been  employed  to 
publish  it  to  the  world.     Cavils  have  been  raised  both 
against  the  exaggerated  humility  of  'less  than  the  least 
of  all  saints'  (iii.  8),  which  has  been  taken  for  a  mere 
imitation  of  i  Cor.  xv.  q,  and  against  the  boastfulness  of 
iii.  4,  where  the  language,  it  is  said,  is  that  of  a  disciple 
of  Paul  who  had  witnessed  the  victory  of  his  principles 
in  the  general  recognition  of  Gentile  Christianity.     But 
let  it  be  acknowledged  that  Paul  lived  to  witness  that  vic- 
tory himself,  and  that  at  the  time  he  wrote  his  Gentile 
disciples  were  affected  by  no  stigma  of  inferiority,  and 
is  it  possible  that  he  could  be  exempt  from  some  human 
feelings  of  triumph  at  the  greatness   of  the    revolution 
which,    through   his   means,  had  been  brought  about  ? 
That  revolution  he  looked  on  as  indicating  no  change 
-  in  the  Divine  plans.     It  had  been  God's  eternal  purpose 
i  thus  through  Christ  to  adopt  the  Gentiles  '  into  his  king- 
/  dom ' ;  and  it  was  Paul's  great  glory  that  God  should 
I  have   vouchsafed  to   choose  him,  unworthy  though   he 
I  was,  to  receive  the  revelation  of  a  mystery  unknown  to 
\  former  ages,  and  to  be  made  God's  instrument  for  pub- 
I  lishing  it  to  the  world.      I  am  persuaded  that  anyone 
J  who  studies  the  freshness  and  novelty  with  which  the 


XX.]  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  485 

doctrine  of  the  non-exclusive  character  of  Christianity  ( 
is  regarded  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  will  feel  | 
that  this  is  a  document  which  cannot  be  pushed  down  \ 
to  the  second  century.* 

It  has  been  objected  that  Paul  could  never  have ' 
directed  the  Colossian  Church  to  procure  what  was  but 
a  diffuse  and  vapid  copy  of  the  letter  addressed  to  them-  ; 
selves.  Let  me  point  out  that  though  the  two  letters 
deal  with  the  same  themes,  one  who  had  read  either 
would  find  in  the  other  a  varied  presentation  of  doc- 
trine. In  the  Colossian  Epistle  the  dignity  of  the  Head 
of  the  Church  is  set  forth  with  a  fulness  greater  than  in 
any  other  Pauline  Epistle;  in  this  Epistle  the  dignity  of 
the  Church  itself  has  been  exhibited.  We  are  so  familiar 
with  the  idea  of  the  Catholic  Church,  that  we  cannot 
easily  conceive  how  great  an  impression  must  have  been 
made  by  the  wonderful  unlikeness  of  the  Christian  or- 
ganization to  anything  the  world  had  previously  wit- 
nessed. In  every  great  town  throughout  the  empire  there 
was  now  a  community  in  which  equality  was  the  rule,  and 
all  the  distinctions  which  had  kept  men  apart  counted 
for  nothing.  Jew  and  Gentile,  Greek  and  Barbarian, 
were  united  in  mutual  love  ;  the  slave  and  the  freeman 
had  like  privileges,  male  and  female  were  on  equal 
terms.  There  was  no  exclusiveness,  any  who  desired  to 
join  was  welcome.  And  all  these  several  communities 
were  but  parts  of  one  wider  organization.  Distance  of 
place  counted  as  little  as  difference  of  social  condition. 
All  were  brethren  in  a  common  faith  ;  eager  to  do  good 
offices  to  each  other  because  bound  by  love  to  a  common 
Lord,  whose  glorious  reappearing  was  the  common  hope 

*  I  have  noted  (p.  37)  the  Pauline  trait  that  the  writer  (ii.  11)  feels  it 
an  affront  that  the  name  '  uncircumcised,'  bhould  be  applied  to  hib  Gentile 
disciples. 


486  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

of  all.     The  Christian  Church  impressed  the  imagina- 
tions of  men,  whose  own  claim  to  belong  to  it  was  not 
fadmitted.     According    to    Valentinus,    the    Church   on 
1  earth  was  but   the   visible   presentation  of  a   heavenly 
|Aeon  which  had  existed  before  all  time.     And  in  this 
jValentinus    agreed    with    what    I    count    to    be   older 
/heresies    (Iren.  i.  xxx.   i,   Hippol.   v.   6).     Let    no   one 
1  say   that   it    needed   a   century   before    such    a   pheno- 
i  menon   as  this   could    arrest  the  attention   or   impress 
^the   imagination    of  men.      The    phenomenon    existed 
in  Paul's  time.    The  unity  of  the  Church  was  manifested 
when   so   many    congregations    of   his    converts   made 
collections  for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem  ;  when  his 
disciples   sent  money  for  his    own    support   to   distant 
cities  ;  when  as  he  drew  near  to  Rome  brethren  came  as 
far  as  Appii  Forum  to  meet  him.    His  remaining  letters 
(and  he  probably  wrote  many  more)  testify  how  many 
different  communities  claimed  his  care.     Paul's  earlier 
\  Epistles,    especially    those    to    the    Corinthians,    show 
I  that  his   mind   had   dwelt   on  the   fact  that  Christians 
;  formed  an  organized  body,  which  he  describes  as  the 
1  temple  of  the  living  God  ;  as  a  body  of  which  each  par- 
Iticular  saint  was    a  member,  Christ  the  head.      These 
jfigures  are  repeated  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (i. 
\23,  ii.  20,  iii.  6,  iv.   i6,  25),   but   he  adds  a  new  one.* 
jThe  closest  tie  of  earthly  love  is  used  to  illustrate  the 
love  of  Christ  for  his  Church  ;  and  then  by  a  wonderful 
reflection  of  the  illustration,  the  love  of  Christ  for  his 
Church  is  made  to  sanctify  and  glorify  Christian  mar- 
Iriage,    husbands   being   exhorted   to   love   their   wives, 
lewen  as  Christ  the  Church. 

You  will  find  some   critics  using  very  disparaging 
terms  as  to  the  literary  excellence  of  the  Epistle  to  the 

*  Yet  see  2  Cor.  xi.  2  ;   and  Is.  liv.  5,  Ixi.  10 ;  Jer.  iii.  14. 


XX.]  Tlie  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  487 

Ephesians.  Questions  of  taste  cannot  be  settled  by  dis- 
putation, but  a  critic  may  well  distrust  his  own  judgment 
if  he  can  see  no  merit  in  a  book  which  has  had  a  great 
success  ;  and  I  do  not  think  that  there  is  any  N.  T.  book 
which  we  can  prove  to  have  been  earlier  circulated  than 
this,  or  more  widely  esteemed,  •  At  the  present  day  there 
is  no  more  popular  hymn  than  that*  which  but  turns  into 
verse  the  words  of  this  Epistle  ;  and. holding  the  opinion 
I  have  already  expressed  as  to  the  probability  of  the 
Apostle  John's  having  visited  Rome,  I  cannot  but  think 
that  when  he  beheld  in  apocalyptic  vision  the  'new 
Jerusalem  coming  down  from  God  out  of  heaven,  pre- 
pared as  a  bride  adorned  for  her  husband '  (Rev.  xxi.  2  ; 
see  also  xix.  7  ;  xxi.  9  ;  xxii.  17),  he  only  saw  the  em- 
bodiment of  a  conception  familiar  to  him  from  his 
knowledge  of  an  Epistle  highly  valued  by  the  Roman 
Church. t  I  very  strongly  believe  that  it  was  the  lan- 
guage (Eph.  i.  4)  about  the  election  of  the  Church  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world  which  was  the  source  not; 
only  of  the  Ophite  and  Valentinian  conceptions  to  which; 
I  have  just  referred,  but  also  of  the  language  employed  I 
by  early  orthodox  writers.     Hermas  {Vis.  ii,  4)  speaks 01 

*  '  The  Church's  one  foundation.' 

t  According  to  modern  sceptical  \vriters  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  was 
an  enemy  and  a  libeller  of  St.  Paul ;  but  the  real  St.  John  read  and  valued 
St.  Paul's  writings.  For  if  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  be  really  Paul's,  it 
scarcely  needs  the  quotation  of  particular  phrases  to  show  that  the  Christology 
of  that  Epistle  is  reproduced  in  the  Apocalypse  ;  but  we  have  the  very  phrases 
ttpootStokos  in  tuv  vfKpwv  (Col.  i.  18)  in  Rev.  i.  5,  and  the  apx^h  of  the  same 
verse,  with  ttpcotStokos  Trd(rr]s  KTiffews  (Col.  i.  15))  in  v  o-pxh  "J"^^  Kricreais  rod 
0eov  (Rev.  iii.  14).  The  writing  of  the  names  of  the  Apostles  on  the  founda- 
tions of  the  heavenly  city  (Rev.  xxi.  14)  had  been  anticipated  in  Eph.  iii.  20; 
and  there  is  a  close  resemblance  between  Eph.  iii.  5,  and  Rev.  x.  7.  There 
are  very  many  other  verbal  coincidences  wliich  quite  fall  in  with  the  supposi- 
tion of  St.  John's  acquaintance  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  though 
they  would  not  suffice  to  prove  it. 


488  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

the  Church  as  created  before  all  things,  and  of  the  world 
as  formed  for  her  sake ;  and  the  so-called  second  epistle 
of  Clement  of  Rome  [c.  14)  speaks  of  the  spiritual  Church 
as  created  before  the  sun  and  moon,  as  pre-existent  like 
Christ  himself,  and  like  him  manifested  in  the  last  days 
for  man's  salvation.  It  is  idle  to  discuss  the  literary 
excellence  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  if  I  am  right 
in  thinking  that  it  has  had  so  great  influence  on  Chris- 
tian thought. 

IV.  TJie  Pastoral  Epistles. — I  come  now  to  the  group 
of  Pauline  Epistles  against  which  the  charge  of  spu- 
riousness  has  been  made  most  confidently.  Renan,  who 
does  not  venture  positively  to  condemn  any  of  the  others, 
and  who  has  only  serious  doubts  about  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians,  seems  to  have  thought  that  his  reputa- 
tion for  orthodoxy  in  his  own  school  would  be  seriously 
compromised  if  he  showed  any  hesitation  in  rejecting 
the  Pastoral  Epistles ;  and  accordingly,  apocryphal, 
fabricated,  forged,  are  the  epithets  which  he  commonly 
applies  to  them.  Yet,  not  very  consistently,  he  con- 
stantly uses  them  as  authorities  for  his  narrative.*  Yet 
it  is  certainly  for  no  deficiency  of  external  attestation 
that  these  Epistles  are  to  be  rejected.  Irenaeus,  Clement, 
Tertullian,  the  Muratorian  Fragment,'  Theophilus  of  An- 
tioch,  the  Epistle  of  the  Churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons, 
unquestionably  recognize  them.  Polycarp,  at  the  very 
beginning  of  the  second  century,  uses  them  largely,  and 

*  See  Saint  Paul,  124,  132,  419,  439,  but  especially  L'Antechrist,  pp. 
100,  loi,  which  are  altogether  founded  on  these  Epistles.  At  p.  103  he  feels 
the  necessity  of  making  an  apology,  and  says,  '  Nous  usons  de  cette  epitre 
comme  d'une  sorte  de  roman  historique,  fait  avec  un  sentiment  tres-juste  de 
la  situation  de  Paul  en  ses  derniers  temps.'  There  could  not  be  clearer  tes- 
timony from  an  unwilling  witness  to  the  internal  marks  of  truth  presented 
by  the  E|)ibllc  wliich  he  cites. 


XX.]  The  Pasforal  Episfks.  489 

there  are  what  I  count  distinct  echoes  of  these  letters  in 
Clement  of  Rome,*  and  in  Justin  Martyr.  I  must  speak 
in  a  little  more  detail  about  Hegesippus. 

Baur  has  given  students  of  early  Church  History  so 
many  new  ideas,  that  they  would  have  great  cause  to  be 
grateful  to  him,  if  it  were  not  that  these  ideas  are  for  the 
most  part  wrong.  I  admire  the  ingenuity  of  Baur,  as 
I  admire  the  genius  of  Victor  Hugo.  But  I  think 
U Hoinuie  qui  rit  gives  as  accurate  a  representation  of 
English  History  in  the  reign  of  James  II.  as  Baur  does 
of  the  early  Christian  Church.  I  do  not  know  any  of 
Baur's  suggestions  wilder  than  that  about  Hegesippus 
and  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  I  have  already  [see  p.  474) 
referred  to  a  place  in  which  Eusebius  in  his  own  words 
gives  the  sense  of  a  passage  in  Hegesippus,  employing 
there  the  words,  '  knowledge  falsely  so  called.'  Baur 
thinks  that  Eusebius  found  these  words  in  Hegesippus  ; 
and  though  this  cannot  be  proved,  I  think  it  very  likely; 
for  we  constantly  find  that  where  Eusebius,  instead  of 
transcribing  a  passage,  gives  a  summary  of  it,  he  is  apt, 
as  is  very  natural,  to  incorporate  many  of  his  author's 
words.  It  seems  likely,  then,  that  Hegesippus  is  to  be 
added  to  the  number  of  those  who  use  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  But  instead  of  drawing  this  conclusion,  Baur 
infers  that  the  Pastoral  Epistles  use  Hegesippus ;  a 
frightful  anachronism,  in  which  few  of  his  disciples  at 
the  present  day  venture  to  follow  him  :  because,  whether 
the  Pastoral  Epistles  be  Paul's  or  not,  both  external  and 
internal  evidence  forbid  our  ascribing  to  them  so  late  a 
date  as  the  end  of  the  second  century.  Baur  has  no 
better   reason    for   his    opinion   than    that    Hegesippus, 

*  In  addition  to  several  in  the  previously  known  portions,  see  the  newly 
recovered  chapter  Ixi.,  in  particular  the  phrase  6  0a(n\(vs  riiJi'  aliiiuwv  (i  Tim. 
i.  17). 


490  ^/^^  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx, 

being  an  Anti-Pauline  Ebionite,  coiild  not  quote  St. 
Paul.  But  for  so  describing  Hegesippus  there  is  nO' 
evidence.  He  was  a  native  of  Palestine,  no  doubt ;  but 
Eusebius,  who  was  certainly  no  Ebionite,  has  no  suspi- 
cion of  his  orthodoxy,  Hegesippus  approved  of  the 
Epistle  of  the  Roman  Clement,  which  has  a  strongs 
Pauline  colouring,  and  he  was  in  full  communion  both 
with  the  Church  of  Rome  and  with  other  leading 
Churches  of  his  time. 

The  only  set-off  to  be  made  against  the  proof  of  the 
universal  reception  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  by  orthodox 
Christians,  is  the  fact  of  their  rejection  by  some  heretics. 
For  the  other  Pauline  Epistles  we  have  the  testimony  of 
Marcion,  but  these  three  were  not  included  in  his  canon» 
We  hear  also  of  Basilides  having  rejected  them.  Clement 
of  Alexandria  {Slro7Ji.\\.  1 1)  attributes  this  rejection  solely 
to  doctrinal  dislike,  naming  in  particular  the  verse 
about  xf^ev^Mwinoq  '^vCoctiq,  just  referred  to,  as  the  cause 
of  offence.  St.  Jerome,  in  the  preface  to  his  commentary 
on  Titus,  also  complains  of  the  arbitrary  conduct  of  these 
heretics  in  rejecting  epistles  which  they  did  not  like^ 
without  being  able  to  produce  good  reasons  to  justify 
their  rejection ;  and  he  says  that  Tatian,  though  he 
rejected  some  of  Paul's  epistles,  yet  accepted  that  to 
Titus  with  particular  Cordiality.  From  this  it  has  been 
commonly  imagined  that  the  epistles  which  Tatian  re- 
jected were  those  to  Timothy.  There  is  no  evidence  to 
prove  this,  but  the  thing  is  likely  enough.  At  least, 
the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  contains  matter .  offensive 
to  an  Encratite,  in  its  condemnation  of  those  who  for- 
bad to  marry  and  commanded  to  abstain  from  meat, 
and  in  its  advice  to  Timothy  to  drink  a  little  wine  for 
his  stomach's  sake.  Yet  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy 
and  that  to  Titus  so  clearly  stand  or  fall  together,  that 


XX.]  The  Pastoral  Epistles.  491 

to  accept  the  one  and  reject  the  other  is  a  decision 
which  commands  no  respect.  The  same  traits  which 
would  make  an  epistle  disliked  by  Tatian,  would  make 
it  also  disliked  by  Marcion,  who  shared  his  Encratite 
principles ;  and  Marcion  was  so  very  arbitrary  in  his 
dealings  with  the  Gospels,  that  his  rejection  of  epistles 
does  not  count  for  much,  especially  when  these  epistles 
have  the  earlier  attestation  of  Polycarp. 

If,  therefore,  the  battle  had  to  be  fought  solely  on  the 
ground  of  external  evidence,  the  Pastoral  Epistles  would 
obtain  a  complete  victory.  The  objections  to  these  epis- 
tles on  the  grounds  of  internal  evidence  may  be  classed 
under  three  heads  ;  and  the  facts  on  which  these  objec- 
tions are  founded  must  be  conceded,  though  we  dispute 
the  inferences  drawn  from  them.* 

(i)  There  are  peculiarities  of  diction  which  unite 
these  epistles  to  each  other,  and  separate  them  from  the 
other  Pauline  letters.  For  instance,  all  three  open  with 
the  salutation,  '  Grace,  mercy,  and  peace '  ;  in  the  other 
Pauline  letters    it  is   *  Grace    and  peace.'     The  phrase 

*  sound  doctrine '  CiSooncaXia  vyiaivovrra,  and  other  deriva- 
tions from  vyir}g  in  this  metaphorical  sense,  are  to  be 
found  repeatedly  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  and  not  else- 
where.    So  likewise,  the  word  evaijd^ia  and  the  phrase, 

*  this  is  a  faithful  saying.'  The  master  of  a  slave  is 
called  SfaTTorijc  in  these  epistles,  Kvpiog  in  the  others. 
The  appearance  of  our  Lord  at  his  second  coming  is 
47r/0ni/fm,  not  irapovaia,  as  in  the  earlier  epistles.  Several 
other  examples  of  the  same  kind  might  be  given,  but 
these  are  enough  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  the  argu- 
ment.    The  inference  which  sceptical  writers  draw  from 

*  lu  what  follows  I  repeat  several  things  which  I  said  in  an  article  on  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  in  the  Christian  Observer  for  1877. 


492  Tlie  Pauline  Episf/cs.  [xx. 

it  is,  that  these  three  epistles  have  a  common  author,  and 
that  author  not  St.  Paul. 

(2)  The  second  topic  is,  that  the  nature  of  the  con- 
troversies with  which  the  writer  has  to  deal,  and  the 
opponents  whom  he  has  to  encounter,  are  different  from 
those  dealt  with  in  Paul's  other  epistles.  The  writer 
does  not  insist  on  the  worthlessness  of  circumcision  and 
other  Mosaic  rites,  on  the  importance  of  faith,  or  on  the 
doctrine  of  justification  without  the  deeds  of  the  law. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  insists  more  sharply  than  in  the 
other  epistles  on  the  necessity  of  good  works.  For  the  false 
teachers  whom  he  had  in  view  appear  to  have  prided 
themselves  on  their  knowledge,  and  the  word  Gnosis 
seems  then  to  have  already  acquired  a  technical  sense. 
But  this  boasted  knowledge  consisted  merely  in  acquain- 
tance with  unprofitable  speculations  about  endless  gene- 
alogies, which  merely  ministered  questions ;  and  they 
who  possessed  it  neglected  the  practical  side  of  religion, 
confessing  God  with  their  mouths,  but  in  works  denying 
him,  'being  abominable  and  disobedient,  and  unto  every 
good  work  reprobate.'  In  opposition  to  such  teaching, 
the  writer  insists  sharply  on  the  necessity  that  those  who 
have  believed  in  God  should  be  careful  to  maintain  g'ood 
works,  should  avoid  foolish  and  unlearned  questions  and 
genealogies  and  contentions  and  striving  about  the 
law,  inasmuch  as  these  are  unprofitable  and  vain. 
The  false  teaching  combated  seems  to  differ  a  good 
deal  in  complexion  from  that  opposed  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians,  a,nd  to  have  a  more  Jewish  cast  (Titus 
i.  14).  It  has  also  been  contended  that  the  directions  to 
Christian  ministers  in  i  Tim.  and  Titus  imply  a  more  de- 
veloped hierarchical  system  than  do  Paul's  acknowledged 
letters.  These  common  characteristics  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  lead  us  to  believe  that  they  were  written  at  a 


XX.]  T]ic  Pastoral  Epistles.  493 

later  time  than  Paul's  other  epistles,  and  when  the  perils 
of  the  Church  were  different.  The  use,  concerning  the 
false  teachers,  of  the  word  heretic  (Titus  iii.  10)  has  also 
been  noted  as  a  sign  of  lateness ;  but  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  'heresies  '  are'  enumerated  among  the  *■  works 
of  the  flesh  '  (Gal.  v.  20). 

(3.)  There  is  great  difficulty  in  harmonizing  these 
Epistles  with  the  history  in  the  Acts.  The  Epistle  to 
Titus  implies  a  voyage  of  Paul  to  Crete,  the  First  Epistle 
to  Timothy  implies  other  travels  of  Paul,  for  which  we  can 
not  easily  find  room  in  Luke's  history.  Take  in  particular 
the  Second  Epistle.  This  was  writen  from  an  imprison- 
ment in  Rome  ;  for  we  are  told  (i.  17)  how  Onesiphorus, 
when  in  Rome,  searched  diligently  for  the  Apostle,  and 
found  him.  And  on  his  way  to  Rome  we  are  told  (iv.  20) 
that  the  Apostle  left  Trophimus  at  Miletus,  sick.  Now 
when  Paul  was  last  at  Miletus,  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem, 
he  did  not  leave  Trophimus  there ;  for  we  find  that 
Trophimus  accompanied  Paul  to  Jerusalem,  and  that  one 
of  the  causes  why  the  Jews  of  Asia  set  on  Paul  in  the 
Temple  was  that  they  had  seen  this  Trophimus  with  him 
in  the  city,  and  supposed  that  the  Apostle  had  brought 
him  into  the  Temple  (Acts  xxi.  29).  St.  Paul's  voyage 
from  Csesarea  to  Rome  is  carefully  traced  by  St.  Luke, 
and  we  find  that  he  did  not  touch  at- Miletus  on  his  way, 
I  will  not  trouble  you  with  some  far-fetched  attempts  to 
reconcile  this  statement  about  Trophimus  with  the  sup- 
position that  the  imprisonment  from  which  the  Second 
Epistle  to  Timothy  was  written  is  the  same  as  that 
recorded  by  St.  Luke.  In  my  judgment  these  expla- 
nations utterly  fail.  Further,  we  are  told  in  the  verse  just 
referred  to  that  '  Erastus  abode  in  Corinth  ';  and  the  most 
natural  explanation  of  this  is  that  Paul  had  left  him 
there;  but  we  find  from  the  Acts  that  the  Apostle  had 


494  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [ 


XX. 


not  been  in  Corinth  for  some  years  before  his  Roman 
imprisonment,  and  Timothy  had  been  with  Paul  since 
his  last  visit  to  Corinth,  so  that  there  was  no  occasion  to 
i  3  inform  him  by  letter  about  it.  Once  more,  the  verse  about 
the  cloak,  or,  as  some  translate  it,  the  case  for  books, 
that  Paul  left  at  Troas  (a  verse,  I  may  say  in  passing, 
which  no  forger  would  ever  dream  of  inserting),  would 
imply  that  Paul  had  been  at  Troas  within  some  moderate 
time  of  the  epoch  when  the  Apostle  was  writing,  for  it  is 
hardly  likely  he  would  have  left  articles  on  which  he 
seems  to  have  set  much  value  to  lie  uncalled  for  at  Troas 
for  many  years.  But  the  last  visit  to  Troas  recorded  in 
the  Acts  is  distant  some  seven  or  eight  years  from  the 
date  of  the  Roman  imprisonment.  Other  proofs  of  the 
same  kind  could  be  multiplied. 

Now,  of  these  three  difficulties,  the  first,  arising  from 
peculiarities  of  diction,  is  one  which  we  have  already 
learned  to  disregard.  The  Epistles  which  I  have  pre- 
viously examined,  exhibit  in  Paul's  writings  very  great 
varieties  of  expression,  showing  him  to  be  a  man  of  con- 
siderable mental  pliability,  and  not  one  whose  stock  of 
phrases  would  be  likely  to  be  stereotyped  when  he  came 
to  write  these  letters.  But  I  willingly  concede  that  the 
argument  from  the  diction  makes  it  likely  that  the  pastoral 
Epistles  were  written  at  no  great  distance  of  time  from 
each  other,  and  probably  at  some  distance  of  time  from 
the  other  Epistles.  For  in  Paul's  Epistles  we  find  great 
likeness  of  expression  between  Epistles  written  at  nearly 
the  same  time,  as  for  instance,  between  the  Romans  and 
Galatians,  between  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  while 
the  different  groups  of  Epistles  differ  considerably  in 
words  and  topics  from  each  other.  This  is  what  we 
find  on  examining  the  different  works  of  any  author  who 
has   written   much ;    viz.    considerable    resemblance   in 


XX.]  The  Pastoral  Epistles.  495 

style  between  works  of  the  same  period ;  but  often 
modifications  of  style  as  he  advances  in  life.  Now, 
though  each  group  of  Paul's  epistles  has  its  peculiar- 
ities of  diction,  there  are  links  of  connexion  between 
the  phraseology  of  each  group  and  that  of  the  next 
in  order  of  time ;  and  there  are  such  links  between 
that  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  and  of  the  letters  of  the 
imprisonment.  Thus  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  said  to 
be  un-Pauline  because  they  call  the  enemy  of  mankind 

*  the  devil,'  and  not  *  Satan,'  as  Paul  does.    But  the  name 

*  the  devil'  occurs  twice  in  Ephesians  (iv.  27,  vi.  11). 
The  name  iirKpavna,  applied  to  our  Lord's  second  coming, 
is  said  to  be  un-Pauline;  but  is  found  in  2  Thess.  ii.  8 
(see  also  the  (pavipovv  of  Col.  iii.  4).  The  ot/covojum  of  the 
Ephesian  Epistle  (i.  10,  ii  2,  9)  reappears  in  the  most  ap- 
proved reading  of  i  Tim.  i.  4.  The  coordination  of  love 
and  faith  in  Eph.  vi.  2;^,  is  said  by  Davidson  (il.  214)  to  be 
un-Pauline,  but  to  be  found  also  in  i  Timothy.  And  so 
it  certainly  is  (i,  14,  iv.  12,  vi.  1 1 ;  2  Tim.  i.  13,  ii.  22)  ; 
but  I  should  not  have  dreamed  of  building  an  argument 
on  what  seems  to  me  one  of  the  most  common  of  Pauline 
combinations  ;  for  instance,  '  the  breastplate  of  faith  and 
love,'  I  Thess.  v.  8.  The  stress  laid  in  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  on  coming  to  *  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  '  elg 
sTTiyvwaiv  aXriOtiag  (i  Tim.  ii.  4;  2  Tim.  ii.  25,  iii,  7;  Tit,  i. 
i)  has  been  imagined  to  indicate  a  time  after  Gnostic 
ideas  as  to  the  importance  of  knowledge  had  become 
prevalent ;  but  the  term  iTriyvfoaig  is  frequent  in  Paul's 
epistles  [see  in  particular  Eph.  iv.  13;  Col.  i.  9,  10,  ii.  2, 
iii.  10).  Dr.  Gwynn  [Speaker's  Commentary  on  Philip- 
pians,  p.  588)  has  noted  several  coincidences  between 
2  Tim.  iv.  6-8,  and  Philippians ;  in  particular  the  use  of 
the  three  words  aTrtvdoiJ.ai,  avaXvaig,  ayivv,  the  first  two 
words   being   peculiar   to   these   two  Epistles,  and  the 


496  TJic  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

third  being  also  a  rare  and  exclusively  Pauline  word. 
On  the  whole,  there  is  nothing  in  the  diction  of  these 
epistles  which  is  not  explained  by  the  supposition  that 
these  three  are  the  latest  of  St.  Paul's  epistles,  and  that 
they  were  written  at  no  great  distance  of  time  from  each 
other. 

We  are  led  to  the  same  conclusion  on  trying  to  har- 
monize these  epistles  with  the  Acts.  I  have  already 
mentioned  the  difficulties  attending  the  supposition  that 
the  second  to  Timothy  was  written  from  the  imprisonment 
recorded  in  the  Acts.  The  other  two  epistles  present  equal 
difficulties.  The  first  to  Timothy  intimates  that  Paul  had 
been  in  Ephesus  not  long  before  ;  for  it  begins  by  saying, 
'  As  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I 
went  into  Macedonia.'  But  on  Paul's  first  visit  to 
Ephesus  mentioned  in  the  Acts,  he  left  it,  not  for  Ma- 
cedonia but  for  Jerusalem.  On  his  second  visit  he  did 
leave  it  for  Macedonia  ;  but  instead  of  leaving  Timothy 
behind,  he  sent  him  on  before.  It  has  been  said  that 
Paul's  three  years  spent  at  Ephesus  did  not  exclude 
occasional  absences,  and  that  in  one  of  these  he  had 
gone  to  Macedonia — a  journey  imagined  for  the  sake  of 
this  epistle.  Yet  the  whole  tone  of  the  epistle  implies 
that  it  was  not  written  during  a  temporary  absence,  but 
that  Timothy  had  been  left  in  charge  of  the  Church  at 
Ephesus  for  a  considerable  time.  When  further  it  is 
proposed  to  take  out  of  Paul's  three  years  at  Ephesus 
time  for  a  journey  to  Crete,  in  which  to  leave  Titus  there, 
and  a  winter  at  Nicopolis  spoken  of  in  that  epistle,  so 
large  a  gap  is  made  in  the  three  years  at  Ephesus  that 
Luke's  silence  becomes  inexplicable.  Renan  spends 
some  twenty  pages  in  proving  satisfactorily  enough 
the  failure  of  all  existing  attempts  to  find  a  place  for 
these  epistles  in  the  period  of  Paul's  life  embraced  by 


XX.]  The  Pastoral  Epistles.  .         497 


the  Acts  ;  but  he  passes  over, almost  in  silence  the  solu- 
tion which  removes  every  difficulty,  that  Paul  was  re- 
leased from  his  Roman  imprisonment,  that  he  afterwards 
made  other  journeys,  and  wrote  the  Epistle  to  Titus  and 
the  first  to  Timothy,  and  was  then  imprisoned  a  second 
time,  and  wrote  the   second  Epistle  to  Timothy.     The 
distance    of   time    which,    according    to    this    solution, 
separates  tliese  Epistles  from  the  rest,  at  once  accounts 
for  the  peculiarities  on  which  I  have  already  commented. 
What  is  said  in  answer  to  this  is,  that  Paul's  release 
from  his  Roman  imprisonment  is  unhistorical — that  it  is 
a  mere  hypothesis  invented  to  get  rid  of  a  difficulty. 
But  this  answer  exhibits  a  complete  misconception  of 
the  logical  position  ;  for  it  is  really  those  who  refuse  to 
entertain  the  idea  of  Paul's  release  who  make  an  unwar- 
rantable  hypothesis.     Paul's   release   from  his  Roman 
imprisonment,   we   are   told,    is  unhistorical:  so  is  his 
non-release.     In  other  words,  Luke's  history  of  the  life 
of  Paul  breaks  off  without  telling  us  whether  he  was 
released  or  not.     Under  these  circumstances  a  scientific 
inquirer  ought  to  hold  his  mind  unbiassed  towards  either 
supposition.     If  new  evidence  presents  itself,   no    good 
reason  either  for  accepting  or  rejecting  it  can  be  fur- 
nished by  any  preconceived  opinion  as  to  the  issue  of 
Paul's  imprisonment.     Now  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  a 
new  source  of  evidence.     They  come  to  us  with  the  best 
possible  external  attestation  ;    and  our  opponents  will 
not  dispute  that  if  we  accept  them  as  Pauline,  they  lead 
us   to   the   conclusion    that  Paul  lived  to   make   other 
journeys  than  those  recorded  by  vSt.  Luke.     We  accept 
this  conclusion,  not  because  of  any  preconceived  hypo- 
thesis, but  because  on  other  grounds  we  hold  the  Epistles 
■  to  be  genuine.      But  it  is  those  who  say,    '  we  cannot 

2  K 


498  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

believe  these  Epistles  to  be,  Paul's,  because  they  indicate 
a  release  from  his  imprisonment  which  we  know  did 
not  take  place,'  who  really  make  an  unwarrantable 
assumption. 

I  am  compelled  to  elaborate  a  point  which  seems  to 
me  too  plain  to- need  much  argument,  by  the  confidence 
with  which  a  whole  host  of  Rationalist  critics  assume 
that  the  Pastoral  Epistles  can  only  be  received  on  con- 
dition of  our  being  able  to  find  a  place  for  them  within 
the  limits  of  the  history  recorded  in  the  Acts.     Reuss, 
for  instance,  who  gives  a  candid  reception  to  the  claims 
of  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  for  which  he  thinks  he 
can  find   a  place  within  these   limits,  rejects  the  first 
Epistle  and  that  to  Titus,  because  he  cannot  force  them 
in.     Let  us  take,  then,  the  argument  about  the  Epistle  to 
Titus,  and  it  will  be  seen  whether  it  is  the  accepters  or 
the  rejecters   of  that  Epistle   who   make   an  unproved 
hypothesis.     We  accept  the  Epistle  because  of  the  good 
external  evidence  on  which  it  comes  ;  and  we  then  draw 
the  inference,   Paul  at  some   time   visited  Crete.     Not 
that  we  had  had  any  previous  theory  on  the  subject,  but 
solely  because  this  Epistle — which  we  consider  we  have 
good  reason  to  regard  as  Paul's — states   that  he   did. 
Nay,  reply  our  opponents,  the  Epistle  cannot  be  Paul's, 
because  he  never  visited  Crete.     *  How  do  you  know  he 
did  not?'     '  Because  we  have  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
a  full  history  of  the  Apostle's  life,  which  leaves  no  room 
for   such  a  visit.'     *  Well,  we   are  pleased  to   see  you 
attribute  such  value  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  a 
record  of  Paul's  life  not  only  accurate   but   complete. 
But  the  history  of  the  Acts  breaks  off"  at  the  year  63. 
May  not  Paul  have  visited  Crete  later  ? '     *  No  :  he  could 
not  have  done  so,  for  he  never  was  released  from  his 


XX.]  Tlie  Pastoral  Epistles.  499 


Roman  imprisonment.'  '  But  how  do  you  know  he  was 
not?'  Which  of  us  now  is  making  an  unproved  as- 
sumption r 

If  we  were  arguing  against  a  disciple  of  Darwin,  and 
if  we  contended  that  the  Darwinian  theory  could  not  be 
true  because  the  six  thousand  years  for  which  the  world 
has  lasted  does  not  afford  room  for  the  changes  of  species 
which  that  theory  asserts,  would  he  not  have  a  right  to 
call  on  us  for  proof  that  the  world  has  only  lasted  so 
long  ?  Might  he  not  smile  at  us  if  we  declared  that  it 
was  he  who  was  making  an  unproved  assumption,  in 
asserting  the  possibility  that  the  world  might  be  older  ? 
So,  in  like  manner,  those  who  assert  that  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  cannot  be  Paul's,  because  there  is  no  room  for 
them  in  that  part  of  his  life  which  is  recorded  by  St. 
Luke,  are  bound  to  give  proof  that  this  is  the  whole  of 
his  active  life. 

If  the  Pastoral  Epistles  did  not  exist,  and  if  we 
were  left  to  independent  speculation  as  to  the  issue  of 
the  Apostle's  imprisonment,  we  should  conclude  that  the 
supposition  of  his  release  was  more  probable  than  the 
contrary.  We  learn  from  the  conclusion  of  the  Acts 
that  the  Jews  at  Rome  had  not  been  commissioned  to 
oppose  his  appeal ;  and  since,  until  the  burning  of  Rome 
in  64,  the  Imperial  authorities  had  no  motive  for  perse- 
cuting Christians  as  such,  we  should  expect  that  the  case 
against  Paul,  stated  in  such  a  letter  as  the  procurator 
was  likely  to  send  (Acts  xxv.  25,  xxvi.  32),  would  end  in 
such  a  dismissal  as  that  given  by  Gallio.  And  this  was 
Paul's  own  expectation  both  when  he  wrote  to  the 
Philippians  (Phil.  i.  25,  26,  ii.  24),  and  to  Philemon 
[v.  22).  Possibly  we  have  the  Apostle's  own  assertion 
of  his  release  as  an  actual  fact.  At  least,  when  later  he 
is  looking  forward  to  a  trial,  with  no  sanguine  antici- 

2  K  2 


500  TJie  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

pations  as  to  its  issue,  he  calls  to  mind  (2  Tim.  iv.  16)  a 
former  hearing,  when,  though  earthly  friends  deserted 
him,  the  Lord  stood  by  him,  and  he  was  delivered  out 
of  the  mouth  of  the  lion.  St.  Chrysostom  [in  loc.)  un- 
derstands '  the  lion '  here  of  Nero,  and  the  verse  as 
intimating  that  Paul's  trial  ended  in  an  acquittal. 

However  this  may  be,  certain  it  is  that  there  was  in 

the  early  Church  a  tradition  of  St.  Paul's  release,  quite 

independent  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles.     I  have   quoted 

(p.  367)  the  passage  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment  v^^hich 

speaks  of  Paul's  journey  to  Spain,  a   statement  which 

assumes  his   release  from  imprisonment ;   and  it   is    at 

least  probable  that  Clement  of  Rome  also  recognizes  the 

journey  to  Spain,  when  he  speaks  [c.  5)  of  Paul's  having 

gone  to  the  extremity  of  the  West.     On  this  evidence 

Renan  accepts  the  fact  of  Paul's  release  [L' Antechrist, 

p.  106)  ;   only  he  will  not  let  it  count  anything  in  favour 

of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  believing  that  the  Apostle  on 

his  release  went,  according  to  the  evidence  just  cited,  to 

the  West ;    and   not    as  these  Epistles  imply,   to  Asia 

Minor.     For  myself,  I  should  think  it  less  probable  that 

the  Apostle  carried  out  the  earlier  intention  expressed 

in    the    Epistle    to    the    Romans    than    the    later    one 

expressed   in   the  Epistles   to   the   Philippians   and   to 

Philemon.     But    it    is   not    impossible   that    he   might 

have  done  both.     The  evidence  is  too  slender  to  warrant 

any  positive  assertion  as  to  the  Apostle's  movements  ; 

and  we  appreciate  more  highly  the  obligations  we  owe 

to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  when  we  find  how  much  in 

the  dark  we  are  as  to   St.  Paul's   history  as   soon  as 

that  book  no  longer   guides  us.     My  object  has  been 

merely  to  show  that  those  who  assert  that  St.  Paul  was 

not  released  from  his  Roman  imprisonment  assert  not 

only  what  they  cannot  prove,  but  what  is  less  probable 


XX.]  The  Pastoral  Epistles.  501 

than  the  contrary.  And  when  once  the  possibility  is 
admitted  of  apostolic  labours  of  St.  Paul  later  than  those 
recorded  in  the  Acts,  all  the  objections  that  have  been 
urged  against  the  acceptance  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
immediately  lose  their  weight. 

Two  objections  to  the  late  date  which  I  have  as- 
signed to  these  Epistles  deserve  to  be  noticed.  One  is 
that  Paul,  writing  to  Timothy,  says,  '  Let  no  man  de- 
spise thy  youth'  (i  Tim.iv.  12);  whereas  many  years  must 
have  elapsed  between  the  time  at  which  we  first  hear  of 
Timothy  in  the  Acts,  and  the  date  which  I  have  assigned 
to  these  Epistles.  But  when  we  consider  the  office  in 
which  Timothy  was  placed  over  Elders,  with  power  to 
ordain  them  and  rebuke  ;  and  when  we  reflect  that  the 
name  of  Elder  must,  in  its  first  application,  have  been 
given  to  men  advanced  in  age  (certainly  I  suppose  not 
younger  than  forty-three,  the  legal  age  for  a  consulship 
at  Rome),  we  shall  see  that  even  if  Timothy  were  at  the 
time  as  old  as  thirty  or  thirty-five,  there  would  still  be 
reason  to  fear  lest  those  placed  under  his  government 
should  despise  his  youth.  The  other  objection  is  that 
the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  was  evidently  written  after 
a  recent  visit  of  Paul  to  Ephesus ;  and  if  we  suppose 
this  visit  to  have  taken  place  after  the  Roman  imprison- 
ment, we  appear  to  contradict  what  Paul  said  at  Miletus 
to  the  Ephesian  Elders,  '  I  know  that  ye  all  among 
whom  I  have  gone  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God  shall 
see  my  face  no  more'  (Acts  xx.  25).  Our  first  impres- 
sion certainly  is  that  these  words  imply  prophetic  assur- 
ance ;  yet  when  we  look  at  the  rest  of  this  speech  we 
find  the  Apostle  disclaiming  any  detailed  knowledge  of 
"the  future.  '  I  go  unto  Jerusalem  not  knowing  the  things 
that  shall  befall  me  there,'  save  that  he  had  this  general 
knowledge  that  the  Holy  Ghost  witnessed  in  every  city. 


502  TJic  Pauli)ic  Epistles.  [xx. 

saying,  bonds  and  afflictions  abide  him.  If  we  are  en- 
titled thus  to  press  the  force  of  oi^a,  we  might  assert 
confidently  that  the  Apostle  was  released  from  his 
Roman  imprisonment,  for  he  writes  to  the  Philippians 
(i.  25),  *  /  know  that  I  shall  abide  and  continue  with 
you  all  for  your  furtherance  and  joy  of  faith,  that  your 
rejoicing  may  be  more  abundant  in  Jesus  Christ  for  me 
by  my  coming  to  you  again.'  A  little  before,  however, 
in  the  same  chapter,  'I  know'  in  one  verse  (19)  is  modified 
by  '  according  to  my  earnest  expectation  and  my  hope  ' 
in  the  next :  and  when  Paul  says  to  Agrippa,  *  Believest 
thou  the  prophets  ?  I  know  that  thou  believest,'  I  sup- 
pose he  is  not  speaking  of  supernatural  certain  knowledge 
of  Agrippa's  heart,  but  merely  of  the  strong  persuasion 
which  he  entertained  concerning  the  king's  belief.  Thus, 
we  see  that,  whatever  our  first  impression  might  have 
been,  the  Apostle's  mode  of  speaking  elsewhere  quite 
permits  us  to  understand  that,  in  Acts  xx.  he  is  not 
speaking  prophetically,  but  only  expressing  a  strong  be- 
lief, founded  on  grounds  of  human  probability,  viz,  his 
knowledge  of  the  persecutions  which  certainly  awaited 
him,  and  his  intended  journeys  to  Rome  and  Spain, 
which  were  likely  to  take  him  far  away  from  Ephesus. 

Renan,  as  you  may  believe,  makes  no  difficulty  in 
conceding  that  Paul  when  he  spoke  at  Miletus  had  no 
infallible  knowledge  of  the  future.  But  that,  he  says,  is 
not  the  question.  '  It  is  no  matter  to  us  whether  or  not 
Paul  pronounced  these  words.  But  the  author  of  the 
Acts  knew  well  the  sequel  of  the  life  of  Paul,  though 
unhappily  he  has  not  thought  proper  to  tell  us  of  it. 
And  it  is  impossible  that  he  should  have  put  into  the 
mouth  of  his  master  a  prediction  which  he  well  knew 
was  not  verified.'  I  so  far  agree  with  Renan  that  I 
think  it  likely  that  if  the  author  of  the  Acts  had  known 


XX.]  The  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy.  503 

of  a  subsequent  return  of  Paul  to  Ephesus,  he  would 
have  given  some  intimation  of  it  in  this  place.  But  this 
only  yields  another  argument  in  favour  of  the  position 
in  defence  of  which  I  have  already  contended,  viz.  that 
the  book  of  the  Acts  was  written  not  long  after  the  date 
to  which  it  brings  the  history,  viz.  the  end  of  Paul's  two 
years'  residence  in  Rome. 

It  were,  perhaps,  enough  to  show  that  the  objections 
break  down  which  have  been  made  to  receiving  the  ex- 
ternal testimony  in  favour  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles ;  but 
in  the  case  of  one  at  least  of  these  Epistles,  the  second 
to  Timothy,  the  internal  marks  of  Pauline  origin  are  so 
strong,  that  I  do  not  think  any  Epistle  can  with  more 
confidence  be  asserted  to  be  the  Apostle's  work.  To  the 
truth  of  this  the  assailants  of  the  Epistle  bear  unwilling 
testimony.  There  are  passages  in  the  Epistle  which 
cling  so  closely  to  Paul  that  it  is  only  by  tearing  the 
letter  to  pieces  that  any  part  can  be  dissociated  from 
that  Apostle.  Thus,  of  those  who  reject  the  Epistle, 
Weisse,  Hausrath,  Pfleiderer,  and  Ewald,  recognize  the 
section  iv.  9-22,  or  the  greater  part  of  it,  as  a  fragment 
of  a  genuine  Pauline  letter ;  and  to  this  view  Davidson 
gives  some  kind  of  hesitating  assent.  Hausrath,  Pfleid- 
erer, and  Ewald,  further  own  the  section  i.  15-18. 

To  my  mind  there  cannot  be  a  more  improbable 
hypothesis  than  that  of  genuine  letters  of  Paul  being 
used  only  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  patches  out  of 
them  to  sew  on  to  forged  Epistles,  while  the  fragments 
left  behind  are  thrown  away  and  never  heard  of  again. 
You  will  observe,  too,  that  in  this  case  the  parts  of 
the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy  which  are  owned  as  ge- 
nuine, are  just  those  filled  with  names  and  personal 
details,  in  which  a  forger  would  have  been  most  likely 
to  make  a  slip.     It  is  tantamount  to  a  confession  of  de- 


504  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 

feat  to  surrender  as  indefensible  all  that  part  of  the  case 
which  admits  of  being  tested,  and  maintain  that  part 
only  with  respect  to  which  prejudices  and  subjective 
fancies  do  not  admit  of  being  checked.  Just  imagine 
that  the  case  had  been  the  other  way.  If  we  were  forced 
to  own  that  the  passages  which  dealt  with  personal  de- 
tails were  spurious,  with  what  face  could  we  maintain 
the  rest  of  the  Epistle  to  be  genuine  ? 

If  we  test  the  remaining  part  of  the  Epistle  we 
shall  find  the  genuine  Pauline  ring  all  through.  Let 
us  note  first  the  exordium  of  the  Epistle.  The  writer 
commences  by  thanking  God  for  the  unfeigned  faith 
which  is  in  Timothy,  and  tells  him  that  without  ceas- 
ing he  has  remembrance  of  him  in  his  prayers  night 
and  day.  Now  take  Paul's  ten  other  letters,  and  eight 
of  them  commence  with  thanking  God  for  what  he  has 
heard  or  knows  of  the  religious  progress  of  those  whom 
he  addresses.  The  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is 
scarcely  an  exception,  for  that  too  begins  with  thanks- 
giving. The  only  clear  exception  is  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  which  is  a  letter  of  sharp  reproof.  None  of 
the  other  New  Testament  Epistles  resembles  Paul's  in 
this  peculiarity.  Of  the  eight  Epistles  which  begin  with 
thanksgiving,  seven  also  have  in  the  same  connexion  the 
mention  of  Paul's  continual  prayer  for  his  converts.  It 
is  characteristic  of  St.  Paul,  that  even  when  writing  to 
Churches  with  which  he  has  in  many  respects  occasion 
to  find  fault,  he  always  begins  by  fixing  his  thoughts  on 
what  there  was  in  those  persons  deserving  of  praise,  and 
by  calling  to  mind  his  constant  prayer  to  God  on  their 
behalf.  Yet  this  characteristic  of  St.  Paul  is  by  no  means 
obtrusive  in  his  writings  ;  very  few  have  noticed  it.  You 
can  answer  each  for  yourselves  whether,  if  you  had  been 
desired  to  write  an  Epistle  in  St.  Paul's  style,  it  would 


XX,]  TJie  Second  Epistle  to  TiniotJiy.  505 


have  occurred  to  you  in  what  way  you  must  begin. 
Strange  that  this  characteristic  should  have  been  ob- 
served by  an  imitator  so  careless  as  to  be  unable  to 
copy  accurately  the  salutation,  '  Grace  and  peace,' 
with  which  Paul's  Epistles  begin  !  The  most  plausi- 
ble argument  I  can  think  of  putting  into  the  mouth 
of  anyone  who  still  maintains  this  Epistle  to  be  non- 
Pauline,  is  that  the  forger  has  taken  for  his  model 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  begins  in  precisely 
the  same  way.  Nay,  there  is  a  further  coincidence, 
for  the  next  topic  is  also  in  both  Epistles  the  same, 
namely,  that  there  was  no  reason  for  being  ashamed  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ  before  the  face  of  the  hostile  or  unbeliev- 
ing world.  But  the  hypothesis  of  conscious  imitation  is 
in  various  ways  excluded.  In  the  first  place,  the  mode  of 
commencement  is  different  in  the  other  Epistle  to  Timothy 
and  in  that  to  Titus ;  so  that  the  forger,  if  forger  there 
was,  must  have  stumbled  on  this  note  of  genuineness  by 
accident,  and  without  himself  knowing  the  value  of  it. 
And  secondly,  so  far  from  there  being  the  close  imita- 
tion of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  which  the  hypothesis 
assumes,  the  writer  completely  abandons  that  Epistle 
and  its  leading  ideas,  the  controversy  concerning  faith 
and  justification  being  wholly  absent  from  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  And  more  generally,  there  is  a  freeness  of 
handling  utterly  unlike  the  slavishness  of  an  imitator; 
while  the  ideas  introduced  seem  naturally  to  rise  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  writer,  and  not  to  have  been 
borrowed  from  anyone  else. 

I  would  in  the  next  place  call  your  attention  to 
the  abundance  of  details  concerning  individuals  given 
in  these  Epistles.  A  forger  would  take  refuge  in 
generalities,  and  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Apostle 
the   doctrinal   teachins"  for   which  he    desired  to  claim 


XX.]  TJic  Pauline  Epistles.  506 

his  sanction,  without  running  the  risk  of  exposing  him- 
self to  detection  by  undertaking  to  give  the  history 
of  Paul's  companions,  of  which  he  must  be  supposed 
to  know  little  or  nothing.  On  the  contrary,  with 
the  exception  of  the  last  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  there  is  no  part  of  the  New  Testament  so 
rich  in  personal  details  as  these  Epistles.  Twenty-three 
members  of  the  Apostolic  Church  are  mentioned  in  the 
second  Epistle  to  Timothy.  And  these  are  neither  ex- 
clusively names  to  be  found  elsewhere,  in  which  case  it 
might  have  been  said  that  they  had  been  derived  from 
the  genuine  writings  ;  nor  all  new  names,  in  which  case 
it  might  be  said  that  the  forger  had  guarded  himself  by 
avoiding  the  names  of  real  persons,  and  only  speaking 
of  persons  invented  by  himself;  but,  just  as  might  have 
been  expected  in  a  real  letter,  some  ten  persons  are 
mentioned  of  whom  we  read  in  the  other  scanty  records 
of  the  same  time  which  have  descended  to  us,  the  re- 
maining names  being  new  to  us. 

In  the  case  of  the  old  names  new  details  are  con- 
fidently supplied.  Thus  we  have  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  '  Luke,  the  beloved  physician,  and  DemaSj^ 
greet  you  ' ;  in  that  to  Philemon,  '  There  salute  thee  Mar- 
cus, Aristarchus,  Demas,  Lucas,  my  fellow-labourers.' 
Now  note  the  treatment  of  these  four  names  in  the 
second  Epistle  to  Timothy.  There  we  read,  '  Demas 
hath  forsaken  me,  having  loved  this  presen.t  world.  Only 
Luke  is  with  me.'  If  this  was  forgery,  what  a  wonderful 
man  the  forger  must  have  been  so  to  realize  the  per- 
sonality of  Paul's  attendants,  as  to  undertake  to  give 
their  history  subsequent  to  the  time  covered  by  the  au- 
thentic records,  and  to  put  a  note  of  disgrace  on  one 
who,  as  far  as  the  genuine  Epistles  went,  had  been 
honourably  recognized  as  Paul's  fellow-labourer.     The 


XX.]  TJic  Second  Epistle  to  TiniotJiy.  507 


second  Epistle  to  Timothy  has  also  to  tell  of  Marcus. 
He  is  supposed  not  to  have  been  at  the  time  with  Paul, 
but  is  commended  as  useful  to  him  in  the  ministry.  If 
a  forger  had  wished  to  represent  one  of  Paul's  com- 
panions as  failing  him  in  his  hour  of  trial,  he  would 
surely  have  selected  not  Demas,  but  Marcus,  who  is 
probably  the  same  as  he  whose  previous  desertion  of 
Paul  caused  the  rupture  between  him  and  Barnabas. 
Lastly,  of  Aristarchus  the  Pastoral  Epistles  have  not  a 
word  to  tell,  although  his  name  ought  to  have  come  in 
in  that  enumeration  of  his  attendants  which  the  Apostle 
makes  in  accounting  for  his  being  left  alone.  The  true 
explanation  probably  is  that  Aristarchus  was  dead  at 
the  time.  But  if  it  was  a  forgery,  how  is  it  that  the 
forger,  who  can  so  courageously  give  the  history  of 
Paul's  other  attendants,  fails  in  his  heart  when  he 
comes  to  speak  of  Aristarchus  ?  We  may  also  comment 
on  the  clause,  *  Titus  to  Dalmatia.'  Surely  if  it  were 
forgery,  the  forger  would  have  been  consistent,  and 
sent  Titus  to  Crete.  It  is  a  note  of  genuineness  when 
a  document  contains  an  apparent  contradiction  which  is 
not  real ;  for  forgers  do  not  needlessly  throw  stumbling- 
blocks  in  their  readers'  way.  Now  the  statement,  '  Only 
Luke  is  with  me'  (iv.  11),  seems  inconsistent  with  the 
list  of  salutations  {v.  21).  '  But  we  see  in  a  moment 
that  the  former  verse  does  not  mean  that  save  for  Luke, 
the  Apostle  was  friendless  at  Rome,  but  only  that  the 
company  of  personal  attendants  who  travelled  about  with 
him  had  all  been  scattered,  leaving  only  Luke  behind. 
Now  if  we  had  been  left  to  form  our  own  conjectures  we 
should  have  imagined  that  Paul,  brought  a  prisoner  to 
Rome,  would  have  been  completely  dependent  on  the 
society  and  support  of  the  Christians  of  the  Church 
which   he    might   hnd  there.     We  should  hardly   have 


5o8  The  Pauline  Epistles.  [xx. 


thought  of  him  as  this  Epistle  exhibits  him,  as  if  he  had 
made  this  missionary  journey  of  his  own  choice,  sur- 
rounded by  his  little  band  of  deacons,  sending  them  on 
his  missions,  and  feeling  himself  almost  deserted  when 
he  had  but  one  of  his  retinue  in  attendance  on  him. 
This  state  of  things,  not  consciously  disclosed  in  the 
Epistle  but  revealed  in  the  most  incidental  way,  could 
never  have  been  taken  for  granted  in  this  manner  ex- 
cept by  one  who  lived  so  close  to  the  Apostle's  time  as 
to  have  perfect  cognizance  of  the  conditions  in  which  he 
lived  at  Rome. 

Of  the  members  of  the  Roman  Church  whom,  he 
mentions,  one  is  certainly  a  real  person,  Linus,  whom 
very  early  tradition  asserts  to  have  been  the  first 
bishop  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  Roman  Church  to 
this  day,  and  we  have  reason  to  think  that  the  practice 
is  at  least  as  old  as  the  second  century,  commemorates 
in  her  Eucharistic  service  the  names  of  Linus,  Cletus, 
Clemens.  These  are  commonly  supposed  to  have  been, 
after  the  Apostles,  the  first  bishops  of  Rome  (see  Ire- 
naeus,  iii.  3),  and,  by  the  confession  of  everyone,  were 
leading  men  in  that  Church  in  the  latter  part  of  the  first 
century.  Clement,  in  particular,  became  the  hero  of  a 
number  of  legends,  and  was  believed  to  have  been  an 
immediate  disciple  of  the  Apostles.  Yet  neither  the- 
name  of  Cletus  nor  of  Clement  appears  in  this  list  which, 
if  the  work  were  a  forger}^,  we  must  therefore  suppose 
to  have  been  anterior  to  their  acquiring  celebrity.  Linus 
does  appear,  but  in  quite  a  subordinate  position — '  Eu- 
bulus,  and  Pudens,  and  Linus,  and  Claudia,  and  all  the 
brethren.'  If  the  letter  is  genuine  it  is  quite  intelligible 
that  Linus,  who  at  the  time  the  Epistle  was  written  was 
a  leading  disciple,  though  not  then  the  principal  one, 
might  have  held  the  chief  place  in  the  government  of  the 


XX.]  The  Pastoral  Epistles.  509 

Church  after  the  Apostle's  death;  but  if  the  letter  was 
composed  after'  he  had  held  that  place,  we  may  be 
sure  there  would  have  been  some  stronger  intimation  of 
his  prominence  here.  Two  other  persons  mentioned  in 
the  same  connexion  are  possibly  persons  of  whom  we 
read  elsewhere.  One  of  Martial's  epigrams  relates  to  a 
marriage  between  Pudens  and  Claudia,  and  a  very  in- 
genious case  has  been  made  by  putting  together  the 
notices  in  Martial  and  Tacitus  to  show  that  this  Claudia 
was  a  British  maiden  and  a  Christian.  The  close  con- 
tact of  the  two  names  in  the  Epistle  is  striking,  but  I 
cannot  pronounce  it  more  than  a  curious  coincidence. 
One  more  personal  reference  I  will  direct  your  attention 
to — the  twice  repeated  mention  of  the  household  of 
Onesiphorus.  You  know,  or  will  know,  the  controversial 
use  that  has  been  made  of  this  passage.  But  from  the 
salutation  being  to  the  house  of  Onesiphorus,  not  to 
Onesiphorus  himself,  we  may  reasonably  conclude  that 
Onesiphorus  was  either  dead,  or  at  least  known  to  the 
Apostle  not  to  be  with  his  household  at  the  time  this 
letter  is  written.  There  is  no  difficulty  about  this  if  all 
be  real  history.  But  that  a  forger  should  have  invented 
such  a  refinement,  yet  in  no  way  have  called  attention 
to  it,  is  utterly  incredible. 

I  could  add  many  more  arguments  ;  but  the  impres- 
sion left  on  my  mind  is  that  there  is  no  Epistle  which 
we  can  with  more  confidence  assert  to  be  Paul's  than 
the  second  to  Timothy.  When  this  is  established,  the 
judgment  we  form  of  the  other  two  Pastoral  Epistles  is 
greatly  influenced.  If  these  two  had  come  by  them- 
selves, the  way  in  which  both  begin  would  excite  sus- 
picion. They  do  not  open  as  do  Paul's  other  Epistles, 
but  commence  by  telling  that  Paul  had  left  Timothy  at 
Ephesus,  Titus  in  Crete.     This  is  information  which  his 


5IO  The  Pauline  Episfles.  [xx. 

correspondents  would  not  require;  and  we  are  reminded 
of  the  ordinary  commencement  of  a  Greek  play  in  which 
information  is  given,  not  for  the  benefit  of  any  personage 
on  the  stage,  but  for  that  of  the  audience.  Yet  as  we 
proceed,  our  suspicions  are  not  confirmed  ;  and  we  must 
own  that  there  is  no  reason  why  St.  Paul  should  not 
begin  a  letter  to  a  disciple  by  reminding  him  of  the 
commission  he  had  entrusted  him  with.  Critics  of  all 
schools  agree  that  the  three  Pastoral  Epistles  have 
such  marks  of  common  authorship  that  all  must  stand 
or  fall  together.  The  three  topics  of  objection  which  I 
have  mentioned  as  urged  against  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
turn,  when  any  one  of  the  Epistles  is  acknowledged,  into 
arguments  in  favour  of  the  other  two.  We  cannot  sa)'', 
for  instance,  that  the  diction  is  un-Pauline  when  there 
is  the  strongest  possible  resemblance  to  the  diction  of 
an  Epistle  which  we  own  to  be  Paul's.  The  admission  of 
the  second  Epistle  forces  us  to  believe  that  Paul  was 
released  from  his  Roman  imprisonment,  and  then  all 
the  marks  of  time  in  the  other  two  Epistles  fit  in  with 
the  late  date  which  we  are  thus  able  to  assign  to  them, 
I  see  nothing  in  the  development  indicated  of  Church 
organization  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  period  we 
assign  to  these  letters.  That  Paul,  who  addressed  the 
bishops  and  deacons  of  the  Philippian  Church  (Phil. 
i.  I  ;  see  also  Acts  xx.  28),  should  give  directions  for  the 
choice  of  such  officers  is  only  natural.  If  it  were  true 
that  these  Epistles  intimated  that  there  was  only  one 
tTrtWoTToc  in  each  Church,  I  should  have  no  difficulty  in 
believing  it  on  their  evidence.  But  in  my  opinion  this 
is  more  than  we  are  warranted  in  inferring  from  the  use 
of  the  singular  number  in  i  Tim.  iii.  2  ;  Tit.  i.  7.  The 
omission  to  say  anything  about  deacons  in  the  latter 
Epistle  is  more  like  what  would  occur  in  a  real  letter 


XX.]  TJic  Pastoral  Epistles.  5 1 1 

than  in  the  work  of  a  forger.  It  is  not  easy  to  see 
when  the  forger  could  have  lived,  or  with  what  object 
he  could  have  written  ;  or  why,  after  having  succeeded 
in  gaining  acceptance  for  one  of  the  Epistles,  he  should 
hazard  detection  by  writing  a  second,  which  seems  to 
add  very  little. 

As  for  the  general  Pauline  character  of  these  letters, 
there  cannot  be  a  better  witness  than  Renan,  who, 
while  still  continuing  to  assert  them  not  to  be  genuine, 
every  now  and  then  seems  staggered  by  the  proofs  of 
authenticity  that  strike  him.  He  says,  in  one  place, 
*  Some  passages  of  these  letters  are  so  beautiful  that  we 
cannot  help  asking  if  the  forger  had  not  in  his  hands 
some  authentic  notes  of  Paul,  which  he  has  incorpor- 
ated in  his  apocryphal  composition '  {L'Eglise  Chre- 
tienne,  p.  95).  And  he  sums  up  (p.  104):  'What  runs 
through  the  whole  is  admirable  practical  good  sense. 
The  ardent  pietist  who  composed  these  letters  never 
wanders  for  a  moment  in  the  dangerous  paths  of  quiet- 
ism. He  repeats  that  the  woman  must  not  devote  her- 
self to  the  spiritual  life  if  she  has  family  duties  to  fulfil  : 
that  the  principal  duty  of  woman  is  to  bring  up  child- 
ren :  that  it  is  an  error  for  anyone  to  pretend  to  serve 
the  Church  if  he  has  not  all  duly  ordered  in  his  own 
household.  The  piety  our  author  inculcates  is  alto- 
gether spiritual.  Bodily  practices,  such  as  abstinence, 
count  with  him  for  little.  You  can  feel  the  influence  of 
St.  Paul :  a  sort  of  sobriety  in  mysticism  :  and  amid  the 
strangest  excesses  of  faith  in  the  supernatural,  a  great 
bottom  of  rectitude  and  sincerity.' 


5 1 2  The  Epistle  to  tlie  Hcbrcivs.  [xxi. 

XXI. 

THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS. 

In  the  controversies  concerning  the  books  which  I 
have  already  discussed,  we  had  usually  the  deniers  of 
the  supernatural  ranged  on  one  side,  and  those  who 
acknowledge  a  Divine  revelation  on  the  other.  There 
is  no  such  division  of  parties  in  the  controversies  con- 
cerning the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  may  be  de- 
scribed as  being  more  important  from  a  literary  than 
from  an  evidential  point  of  view.  On  the  main  point  in 
dispute,  whether  or  not  St.  Paul  was  the  author,  there 
was,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  difference  of  opinion  in 
the  early  Church.  At  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
Erasmus,  Luther,  and  Calvin,  agreed  in  holding  that  St. 
Paul  was  not  the  author  ;  and  at  the  present  day  this  is 
the  opinion  of  a  number  of  divines  whose  orthodoxy 
cannot  be  impeached.  On  the  other  hand,  critics  of  the 
sceptical  school  do  not  dispute  the  antiquity  of  this 
Epistle,  nor  the  consideration  it  has  always  enjoyed  in 
the  Church.  The  general  opinion  is  that  it  was  written 
while  the  Temple  was  still  standing,  that  is  to  say,  be- 
fore the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  In  Hilgenfeld's  Tn- 
trodiiction  it  is  placed  immediately  after  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians,  and  before  any  of  the  Gospels,  or 
the  Acts,  before  the  Apocalypse,  and  before  2  Thess., 
Colossians,  and  Ephesians,  which  he  does  not  own  as 
Paul's,  as  also  before  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter.  David- 
son agrees  with  him  in  this  arrangement.  We  have 
indisputable  evidence  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Epistle  in 
the  fact  that  it  is  quoted  copiously — perhaps  more  fre- 
quently than  any  other  New  Testament  book — in  one  of 
the  earliest  of  uninspired  Christian  writings,  the  Epistle 


xxr.]  Early  Traces  of  its  Use.  513 


of  Clement  of  Rome.  Eusebius  (iii.  37)  takes  notice  of 
the  attestation  thus  given  by  Clement  to  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  Clement's  quotations  indeed  are,  as  usual 
with  him,  without  any  formal  marks  of  citation,  so 
that  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  say  whether  or  not 
he  believed  the  Epistle  to  have  been  written  by  St. 
Paul ;  but  we  can  at  least  see  that  he  knew  and  valued 
it.  One  specimen  out  of  many  is  enough  to  exhibit 
the  unmistakeable  use  he  makes  of  it :  '  Who  being 
the  brightness  of  his  majesty,  is  so  much  greater  than 
the  angels,  as  he  has  by  inheritance  obtained  a  more 
excellent  name  than  they.  For  it  is  written,  "Who 
maketh  his  angels  spirits,  and  his  ministers  a  flame  of 
fire.  But  of  his  Son  thus  saitb  the  Lord,  Thou  art  my 
Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.  Ask  of  me  and  I 
will  give  thee  the  heathen  for  thine  inheritance,  and  the 
utmost  parts  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession.  And  again 
he  saith  to  him,  Sit,  on  my  right  hand  until  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool '  (Clement,^.  36;  Heb.  i.  3,  4, 
7,  13).  Of  other  early  traces  of  the  use  of  the  Epistle, 
I  only  mention  that  Polycarp,  both  in  his  Epistle  [c.  12) 
and  in  his  last  prayer  at  his  martyrdom  (Euseb.  iv.  15), 
gives  our  Lord  the  title  of  Eternal  high  priest,  which  I 
look  on  as  derived  from  this  Epistle,  wherein  so  much 
is  said  of  our  Lord's  priesthood ;  and  that  Justin  Martyr 
[ApoL  i.  63),  besides  other  coincidences,  gives  our  Lord 
the  name  of  *  our  Apostle,'  an  expression  peculiar  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (iii.  i).  . 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  accepted  as  canon- 
ical by  the  whole  Eastern  Church,  with  no  exception 
that  I  know  of;  and  that  it  was  St.  Paul's  was  also 
the  received  tradition  and  popular  belief  of  the  East. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  unhesitatingly  quotes  the  Epistle 
as  Paul's  :  'Paul  writing  to  the  Hebrews,  says  so  and 

2  L 


514  The  Epistle  to  the  Hcbrcivs.  [xxi. 


so  ;  writing  to  the  Colossians,  says  so  and  so  '  {Strom,  vi. 
8  ;  see  also  Strom,  ii.  22).  Elsewhere  in  a  passage  referred 
to  by  Eusebius  (vi.  14)  he  accounts  for  the  absence  of 
Paul's  name  from  the  commencement  by  the  suggestion 
that  Paul  designedly  suppressed  his  name  on  account  of 
the  prejudice  and  suspicion  which  the  Hebrews  enter- 
tained towards  him.  He  quotes  another  reason  given 
by  the  'blessed  presbyter,'  by  whom  there  is  no  doubt  is 
meant  Pantaenus,  Clement's  predecessor  as  head  of  the 
Alexandrian  Catechetical  School,  viz.  that  since  our 
Lord  had  been  sent  as  Apostle  to  the  Hebrews,  Paul, 
whose  mission  was  to  the  Gentiles,  through  modesty 
suppressed  his  name  when  doing  this  work  of  superero- 
gation in  Writing  to  tKe  Hebrews.  Clement  also  gives 
his  opinion  that  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  in  Hebrew,  and 
that  it  had  been  translated  by  Luke,  from  which  has 
resulted  a  similarity  of  style  between  this  Epistle  and 
the  Acts.  We  need  not  scruple  to  reject  the  notion  that 
a  document  is  a  translation  from  the  Hebrew,  which  has 
the  strongest  possible  marks  of  being  an  original  Greek 
composition ;  and  we  cannot  attribute  much  value  to 
the  reasons  suggested  for  the  omission  of  Paul's  name  ; 
but  it  is  plain  that  it  occurred  neither  to  Pantaenus  nor 
Clement  to  doubt  that  Paul  was  the  author  of  the 
Epistle. 

In  the  next  generation  the  traditional  belief  of  Pau- 
line authorship  was  still  the  popular  one  at  Alexandria. 
Origen  repeatedly  cites  the  Epistle  as  Paul's  [De  Orat. 
§  27,  where  it  is  coujaled  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians;  in  Joajin.  t.  2  three  times,  citing  as  Paul's  the 
passages  Heb.  i.  2,  ii.  9,  ^  6,  and  vi.  16,  §  11  ;  iii  Numer., 
Hovi.  iii.  3  ;  in  Ep.  ad  Rom.,  vii.  §  i,  ix.  §  36).  In  one 
place  he  refers  to  the  fact  that  some  denied  the  Epistle 
to  be  Paul's,  and  promises  to  give  elsewhere  a  confuta- 


XXI.]       •   Accepted  as  Paur s  at  Alexandria.  515 

tion  of  their  opinion  [Epist.  ad  Africanum,  9).  But  in 
his  homilies  on  the  Epistle,  of  which  extracts  have  been 
preserved  by  Eusebius,  he  shows  himself  to  have  become 
deeply  impressed  by  the  difference  of  style  between  this 
and  the  Pauline  Epistles ;  and  he  starts  a  theory  that 
though  the  thoughts  were  Paul's,  he  might  have  em- 
ployed someone  else  to  put  them  into  words.  Who  that 
person  was  he  does  not  know :  possibly  Clement,  pos- 
sibly Luke.  He  says,  '  The  style  of  the  Epistle  has  not 
that  rudeness  of  speech  which  belongs  to  the  Apostle, 
who  confesses  himself  rude  in  speech.  But  the  Epistle 
is  purer  Greek  in  the  texture  of  its  style,  as  everyone  will 
allow  who  is  able  to  discern  difference  of  style.  But  the 
ideas  of  the  Epistle  are  admirable,  and  not  inferior  to 
the  acknowledged  writings  of  the  Apostle.  Everyone 
will  confess  the  truth  of  this  who  attentively  reads  the 
Apostle's  writings.'  Again  he  says,  '  I  should  say  that 
the  sentiments  are  the  Apostle's,  but  the  language  and 
composition  belong  to  someone  who  recorded  what  the 
Apostle  said,  and  as  it  were  took  notes  of  the  things 
spoken  by  his  master.  If  then  any  Church  receives  this 
Epistle  as  Paul's,  let  it  be  commended  for  this ;  for  it 
is  not  without  reason  that  the  ancients  have  handed 
it  down  as  Paul's.  Who  wrote  the  Epistle  God  only 
knows  certainly.  But  the  account  that  has  come  down 
to  us  is  various,  some  saying  that  Clement,  who  was 
bishop  of  Rome,  wrote  it ;  others  that  it  was  Luke,  who 
wrote  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts.'  Notwithstanding  this 
criticism  of  Origen's,  the  belief  in  the  Pauline  author- 
ship was  little  affected.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  refers 
to  the  Epistle  as  Paul's  without  any  expression  of  doubt 
(Euseb.  vi.  41),  and  at  a  later  period  Athanasius  counts 
fourteen  Epistles  as  Paul's  [Festal  Epistle^  39). 

The  Epistle  is  included  in  the  Peshito  Syriac  trans- 
2  L  2 


5 1 6  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrezvs.  [xxi, 

lation ;  but  placed  as  in  our  Bible ;  and  it  has  •  been 
doubted,  I  do  not  know  whether  or  not  with  good  rea- 
son, if  this  part  is  of  the  same  antiquity  as  the  rest. 

Such  was  the  Eastern  opinion  ;  but  in  the  West  quite 
a  different  one  prevailed.  I  have  already  given  proof  that 
at  the  end  of  the  first  century  Clement  of  Rome  valued 
the  Epistle.  It  would  be  natural  to  guess  that  he  ac- 
cepted it  as  Paul's  ;  but  on  that  point  we  have  no 
evidence,  and  doubts  are  suggested  by  the  subsequent 
history  of  Western  opinion.  There  are  no  authorities 
whom  we  can  cite  until  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
or  the  beginning  of  the  third  ;  but  at  that  time  none  of 
the  Western  writers  whose  opinion  we  know  regarded 
the  Epistle  as  Paul's.  I  have  already  mentioned  (p.  60) 
that  Eusebius  was  struck  by  the  fact  that  in  a  list  of 
canonical  books  given  by  the  Roman  presbyter  Caius, 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  third  century,  only  thirteen 
Epistles  of  Paul  were  counted,  and  that  to  the  Hebrews 
was  left  out.  And  I  mentioned  in  the  same  place  that 
the  Muratorian  Fragment  agrees  in  not  counting  this 
among  Paul's  Epistles.  It  does  not  mention  it  either 
among  canonical  books  ;  and  there  is  a  question  whether 
it  does  not  even  put  on  it  a  note  of  censure.  For  (see 
the  passage  quoted,  p.  460),  it  rejects  an  Epistle  to  the 
Alexandrians,  feigned  under  the  name  of  Paul,  and 
favouring  the  heresy  of  Marcion  ;  and  many  critics  have 
thought  that  under  this  description  we  are  to  recognize 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  But  this  seems  to  me  more 
than  doubtful.  We  have  no  other  evidence  that  this 
was  ever  known  as  an  Epistle  to  the  Alexandrians ;  it 
is  not  under  the  name  of  Paul,  and  it  does  not  favour 
the  heresy  of  Marcion.  That  heretic  did  not  include  the 
Epistle  in  his  canon.  If  I  were  to  indulge  in  conjec- 
ture, I  should  say  that  the  Epistle  which  goes  under  the 


XXI.]  Early  Western  Opinion  Adveise.  517 

name  of  Barnabas  better  answers  the  description ;  but 
it  is  quite  possible  that  forged  documents,  now  lost, 
may  have  been  put  forward  in  heretical  circles  at  Rome. 
We  have  other  evidence  that  at  the  epoch  of  which  I 
speak,  the  Epistle  was  not  recognized  as  Paul's.  Pho- 
tius  (see  p.  421)  has  preserved  a  statement  of  Stephen 
Gobar,  a  writer  of  the  sixth  century,  that  Irenaeus  and 
Hippolytus  asserted  that  the  Epistle  was  not  Paul's. 
In  point  of  fact  we  find  very  little  use  of  the  Epistle 
made  in  the  great  work  of  Irenaeus  against  heresies. 
There  are  a  few  coincidences,  but  we  cannot  positively 
pronounce  them  to  be  quotations,  and  certainly  the 
Epistle  is  never  referred  to  as  Paul's.  Eusebius  how- 
ever tells  us  (v.  26)  that  in  a  book  now  lost  Irenaeus 
does  quote  the  Epistle ;  but  this  still  leaves  the  state- 
ment uncontradicted  that  he  did  not  regard  it  as  Paul's. 
The  same  thing  may  be  said  about  Hippolytus,  in  the 
remaining  fragments  of  whose  works  there  are  distinct 
echoes  of  this  Epistle ;  but  there  is  no  proof  that  he  re- 
garded it  as  Paul's. 

But  we  have  in  Tertullian  a  decisive  witness  to 
Western  opinion.  The  controversy  as  to  the  possibility 
of  forgiveness  of  post-baptismal  sin  was  one  which 
much  disturbed  the  Roman  Church  at  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century.  The  suspicion  then  arises  that  oppo- 
sition to  this  Epistle  may  have  been  prompted  solely  by 
the  support  afforded  to  the  rigorist  side  on  this  ques- 
tion by  the  well-known  passage  in  the  sixth  chapter, 
which  seems  to  deny,  in  some  cases,  the  possibility  of 
repentance  and  forgiveness.  But  what  is  remarkable  is 
that  Tertullian  quotes  this  passage  in  support  of  his 
Montanist  views  ;  yet  though  his  interest  would  be  to 
set  the  authority  of  the  Epistle  as  high  as  possible,  he 
seems  never  to  have  heard  of  the  Epistle  as  Paul's,  and 


5 1 8  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  [xxi. 

quotes  it  as  Barnabas's ;  and  not  as  canonical,  but  as 
only  above  the  level  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  '  There 
is  extant/  he  says,  '  an  Epistle  of  Barnabas  addressed  to 
the  Hebrews,  written  by  a  man  of  such  authority  that 
Paul  has  ranked  him  with  himself:  "I  only  and  Bar- 
nabas, have  not  we  power  to  forbear  working?"  And 
certainly  this  Epistle  of  Barnabas  is  more  received  than 
that  apocryphal  Shepherd  of  the  adulterers  '  [De  Pudic. 
20).  This  is  the  language  of  a  man  to  whom  the  idea 
that  the  Epistle  was  Paul's  does  not  seem  to  have 
occurred ;  and  the  proof  appears  to  be  conclusive  that 
in  Tertullian's  time  the  Pauline  authorship  was  not 
acknowledged  in  the  Western  Church. 

St.  Jerome  and  St.  Augustine,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century,  seem  to  have  been  the  main  agents  in  effecting 
a  revolution  of  Western  opinion.  Jerome,  though  a 
Western,  resided  for  a  long  time  in  the  East,  and  was 
well  versed  in  Greek  Christian  literature.  He  therefore 
could  not  be  insensible  to  the  fact  of  the  general  accept- 
ance of  this  Epistle  in  the  Eastern  Church.  He  quotes 
it  repeatedly,  and  more  often  than  not  without  any  note 
of  doubt;  but  sometimes  with  some  such  phrase  as  '  Paul, 
or  whoever  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,'  '  Paul,  if 
anyone  admits  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.'  But  his 
most  distinct  utterance  on  the  subject  is  in  his  Epistle  to 
Dardanus  {Ep.  1 29,  vol.  i.  p.  965).  There  he  says  that  this 
Epistle  is  received  as  Paul's,  not  only  by  the  Churches 
of  the  East,  but  by  all  previous  Church  writers  in  the 
Greek  language,  though  many  think  it  to  be  the  work  of 
Barnabas  or  Clement ;  and  that  it  is  no  matter  who 
wrote  it,  since  it  is  the  work  of  an  orthodox  member  of 
the  Church,  and  is  daily  commended  by  public  reading 
in  the  Churches.  The  Latins  certainly  do  not  receive 
it  among  Canonical  Scriptures  ;  but  then  neither  do  the 


xxl]    Its  late  Recognition  as  Paur  s  in  the  West.     519 

Greeks  receive  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John  ;  and  in  both 
cases  Jerome  thinks  that  he  is  bound,  instead  of  follow- 
ing the  usage  of  his  own  time,  to  regard  the  authority  of 
ancient  writers  who  frequently  quote  both  books ;  and 
that  not  in  the  way  that  they  cite  apocryphal  books  (for 
heathen  books  they  hardly  cite  at  all) ;  but  as  canonical. 
Augustine  also  was  influenced  by  the  authority  of  East- 
ern opinion  to  accept  the  book ;  and  it  was  accepted  in 
Synods  in  which  he  took  part — Hippo  (393),  Carthage 
iv.  (397),*  Carthage  v.  (419);  yet  it  is  remarkable  how 
often  he  cites  the  Epistle  merely  as  that  to  the  Hebrews, 
apparently  studiously  avoiding  to  call  it  Paul's. 

The  place  of  the  Epistle  in  our  Bible  testifies  to  the 
lateness  of  the  recognition  of  the  Epistle  as  Paul's  in 
the  West.  First  we  have  Paul's  Epistles  to  Churches, 
arranged  chiefly  in  respect  of  their  length,  the  longer  ones 
coming  first.  Then  we  have  Paul's  letters  to  individuals. 
Then  comes  this  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ;  and  this  order, 
after  Paul's  acknowledged  letters,  is  that  which  prevails 
in  later,  and  especially  in  .Western,  MSS.  But  the  earliest 
order  of  all  concerning  which  we  have  information  is 
that  of  the  archetype  from  which  the  Vatican  MS.  was 
copied.  In  the  Vatican  MS.  itself,  and  in  other  Eastern 
MSS.  this  Epistle  comes  after  that  to  the  Thessalonians, 
and  before  the  letters  to  individuals ;  but  the  number- 
ing of  the  sections  shows  that  the  Vatican  MS.  was 
copied  from  one  in  which  the  Hebrews  stood  still  higher 
in  the  rank  of  Pauline  Epistles,  and  came  next  after 
that  to  the  Galatians.  The  Thebaic  version  placed  it 
even  a  step  higher,  viz.  immediately  before  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians. 

*  But  the  Epistle  is  not  classed  with  those  long  recognized  as  Pauline  in 
the  West.  The  list  runs:  'Epistolse  Pauli  Apostoli  xiii.,  ejusdem  ad  He- 
brseos  una.' 


520  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  [xxi. 

In  this  conflict  between  early  Eastern  and  Western 
opinion,  if  the  question  be  only  one  as  to  the  canonical 
authority  of  the  Epistle,  we  need  not  doubt  that  the  West 
did  right  in  ultimately  deferring  to  Eastern  authority. 
It  is  only  natural  that  an  anonymous  epistle  should 
be  received  with  hesitation  in  places  where  the  author's 
name  was  not  known  ;  but  since  the  oldest  and  most 
venerable  of  the  Western  witnesses,  Clement  of  Rome, 
agrees  with  the  Easterns  in  accepting  the  Epistle,  and 
since  dissent  is  not  heard  of  in  the  West  till  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  we  have  good  grounds  for  acknow- 
ledging its  canonical  authority.  But  the  tradition  of 
Pauline  authorship  is  not  so  decisively  affirmed  as  to 
preclude  us  from  reopening  the  question,  and  comparing 
this  tradition  with  internal  evidence. 

I  have  already  said,  that  Clement  of  Alexandria  took 
notice  of  one  point  in  which  this  differs  from  all  St.  Paul's 
letters,  namely,  the  suppression  of  his  name  ;  and  Cle- 
ment's mode  of  accounting  for  this  peculiarity  is  not 
satisfactory.  In  fact,  through- all  the  early  part  of  the 
work,  we  should  think  that  we  were  reading  a  treatise, 
not  a  letter.  It  is  only  when  we  come  to  the  end  that 
we  find  a  personal  reference — that  to  Timothy,  and  a 
salutation. 

That  salutation,  however,  *  They  of  Italy  salute  you,' 
suggests  a  remark.  This  vague  greeting  is  only  intelli- 
gible on  the  supposition  that  the  letter  was  written 
either  from  or  to  Italy.  Either  the  writer  is  sending 
home  salutations  to  Italians  from  their  fellow-country- 
men in  a  foreign  land,  or  he  is  sending  his  correspondents 
a  friendly  message  from  the  natives  of  the  country  in 
which  he  writes.  In  either  case  some  connexion  is  esta- 
blished between  Italy  and  the  Epistle  ;  and  therefore  we 
are  disposed  to  consider  the  Italian  tradition  as  to  the 


XXI.]         Inter7ial  Evide7ice  as  to  Authorship.  521 

authorship  with  more  respect  than  we  should  do  if  the 
Epistle  had  been  despatched  from  one  Eastern  city  to 
another. 

There  is  another  passage  which  very  much  weighed 
with  Luther  and  Calvin  in  leading  them  to  reject  the 
Pauline  authorship,  viz.  '  How  shall  we  escape  if  we 
neglect  so  great  salvation,  which  at  ihe  first  began  to  be 
spoken  by  the  Lord,  and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them 
that  heard  him?'  (ii.  3).  This  sounds  like  the  language  of 
one  of  the  second  generation  of  Chrisiians,  who  made  no 
pretensions  to  have  been  himself  an  original  witness  of 
Christ;  and  it  contrasts  strongly  with  the  language  in 
which  St.  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  disclaims 
having  learned  his  Gospel  from  men.  I  will  not  say  that 
the  argument  is  absolutely  decisive,  because  I  believe 
that,  during  the  interval  between  the  two  Epistles,  oppo- 
sition to  Paul  had  so  died  out  that  there  was  no  longer 
the  same  need  for  self-assertion;  and  it  was  no  doubt  true 
that  he  had  not  been  a  personal  attendant  of  our  Lord 
during  his  earthly  ministry.  It  has  been  said,  moreover, 
that  when  the  writer  says  'us  '  he  is  thinking  rather  of  his 
readers  than  of  himself.  We  may  grant,  therefore,  that 
this  verse  is  not  by  itself  sufficient  to  disprove  Pauline 
authorship ;  but  it  must  be  counted  among  the  considera- 
tions which  are  unfavourable  to  that  supposition. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  one  passage  which  used  to 
be  quoted  in  confirmation  of  the  I^auline  authorship  :  '  Ye 
liad  compassion  on  me  in  my  bonds'  (x.  34),  words  which 
agree  with  references  made  by  Paul  to  his  imprisonment 
in  uncontested  epistles.  But  the  best  critics  now  are 
agreed  that  the  reading  StujuoTc  /uou  probably  owes  its 
origin  to  the  persuasion  of  scribes  that  this  was  a  Pauline 
epistle,  and  that  the  true  reading  is  Ssa/u'oic,  which  has 
been   adopted  by  the  revisers  of  the  received  version. 


522  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  fxxi. 

This  reading  makes  better  sense  with  the  context.  The 
writer  is  referring  to  a  time  of  persecution,  not  extending 
to  taking  of  life,  (for  he  sa3'-s  '  they  had  not  yet  resisted 
unto  blood,  striving  against  sin '),  but  reaching  to  fines 
and  imprisonment.  And  he  notes  how  cheerfully  in  this 
persecution  the  Christians  bore  pecuniary  loss  and  other 
sufferings,  and  how  those  that  were  free  exhibited  their 
sympathy  with  the  prisoners.  '  Ye  endured  a  great  fight 
of  affliction,  partly  whilst  ye  were  made  a  gazing  stock 
both  by  reproaches  and  afflictions,  and  partly  whilst  ye 
became  companions  of  those  that  were  so  used.'  In 
every  subsequent  history  of  early  Christian  martyrdoms, 
a  striking  feature  is  the  interest  shown  in  the  confessors 
during  their  imprisonment  by  their  brethren  still  free  — 
interest  shown  both  by  gifts  to  them  and  to  their  jailers 
while  they  were  confined,  and  by  support  and  counte- 
nance given  to  cheer  them  at  the  hearing  before  the- 
magistrates.  St.  Paul  (2  Tim.  iv.  16)  notes  it  as  one  of 
the  discouraging  incidents  of  his  first  defence  before  the 
Roman  tribunal,  that  no  man  had  stood  with  him.  A 
century  later  Lucian,  in  his  tale  about  Peregrinus,  scoffs 
at  the  contributions  levied  on  their  brethren  by  those 
under  imprisonment. 

One  other  passage  remains  to  be  noticed  :  *  Know 
ye  that  our  brother  Timothy  has  been  set  at  liberty ' — 
or,  as  some  translate  the  words,  '  has  been  sent  away 
from  us' — 'with  whom  if  he  come  shortly,  I  will  see 
you.'  The  passage  shows  that  the  writer  was  not  in 
bondage  at  the  time  the  letter  was  written  ;  and  also 
that  he  was  either  Paul  or  one  of  his  circle.  It  does  not 
prove  that  he  was  necessarily  Paul  himself;  but  neither 
does  it  disprove  it,  even  though  we  cannot  fix  any  time 
in  Paul's  history  for  this  imprisonment  of  Timothy. 

On  a  comparison  of  the  substance  and  language  of 


XXI.]  Its  Doctrine  Pauline.  523 

the  Epistle  with  those  of  Paul's  acknowledged  writings, 
it  appears,  I  think,  with  certainty  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Epistle  is  altogether  Pauline.  Some  critics,  who 
have  surrendered  themselves  to  Baur's  theories,  have 
referred  the  document  to  the  conciliatory  school  of  which 
they  take  Luke  to  be  a  representative ;  and  some  have 
even  asserted  for  it  a  more  pronounced  Judaic  character; 
but  as  I  quite  disbelieve  that  at  the  date  of  the  Epistle 
the  Christian  Church  was  divided  into  two  parties  of 
rancorously  hostile  Paulinists  and  anti-Paulinists,  I  see 
nothing  in  the  letter  which  Paul  or  a  disciple  of  his 
might  not  have  written,  and  it  certainly  has  strong- 
traces  of  Paul's  influence.  In  fact  this  very  letter  may 
be  looked  on  as  furnishing  one  of  the  very  numerous 
proofs  how  little  truth  there  is  in  Baur's  theory  of  a  per- 
sistent schism  in  the  early  Church.  We  have  here  a 
document  earlier  than  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  and, 
for  the  writer,  the  controversy  between  Paulinists  and 
anti-Paulinists  absolutely  does  not  exist.  The  great 
distinction  for  him  is  between  unconverted  Jews  and 
Christian  Jews ;  but  that  there  were  two  classes  of 
Christian  Jews  he  seems  not  to  have  the  slightest  know- 
ledge. He  is  himself  a  Paulinist :  the  only  person  he 
mentions  by  name  is  Paul's  favourite  disciple  ;'  yet  he 
addresses  Jews  in  a  tone  of  authority  and  rebuke  with- 
out any  apparent  fear  that  his  interference  will  be  re- 
sented, or  that  he  will  be  an  object  of  dislike  or  suspicion 
to  them. 

As  for  the  language,  a  number  of  parallelisms  are 
adduced  between  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the 
Pauline  letters.  Thus,  to  give  one  specimen,  Jesus  is 
described  in  the  2nd  Epistle  to  Timothy  (i.  10)  as  '  having 
abolished  death'  (icaropyZ/croi^roc  }iiv  tov  OavuTov),  the  use 


524  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrezvs.  [xxi. 

of  Karapyio)  in  this  sense  being-  peculiar  to  Paul ;  and 
again,  in  i  Cor.  xv.  26,  *  the  last  enemy  that  shall  be  de- 
stroyed is  death'  (KaTapjeiTai  6  Savoroc,') ;  and  we  have  in 
Hebrews  (ii.  14),  'that  through  death  he  might  destroy 
{KaTapy7](Tr})  him  that  had  the  power  of  death.  So  again 
Paley  has  noticed  it  as  a  habit  of  Paul's  style  to  ring 
changes,  as  he  calls  it,  on  a  word,  or  to  use  in  the  same 
sentence  several  times  the  same  word  or  different  forms 
of  it.  An  example  will  make  plain  what  I  mean.  It  is 
that  in  i  Cor.  xv.  27,  in  which  the  Apostle  argues  from 
the  words,  '  He  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet,'  and  the 
changes  are  rung  on  the  word  viroTaaau).  Ylavra  vTrira^ev 
viro  ToiiQ  TTOoac  avTov.  '  Orav  ce  tnrrj  on  iravra  uTroriTa/crat, 
SjjAov  on  Iktoq  rod  inroTii^avTOQ  avrd^  to.  iravra.  "Orav  St 
vTroTuyy  avTtj  Ta  iravTa  tots  icat  avTog  6  vlog  VKorayi'iatTui 
TO)  VTroTct^avTL  avTtj)  ra  Travra.  Here  we  have  vTrordaau) 
six  times  in  five  lines.  Now  compare  with  this  the 
commentary  in  Hebrews  ii.  8,  on  the  same  verse  of 
Psalm  viii.,  in  which  changes  are  rung  on  the  same 
word.  TlavTa  inrsTa^ag  VTroKaroj  rojv  ttoSwi^  avrov.  'Ev 
yap  Tto  VTrora^ai   avrij^  ra   iravra,   ov^lv  a(j>TiKiv  avTtJ[)    avviro- 

TUKTOV.        NOl/    Se    OVKOJ     OpCJjUSV    UVTW     TO    TTQVTa    VTTOTiTay /JliVa. 

Further,  examples  are  adduced  of  similarity  of  construc- 
tion with  that  used  by  St.  Paul.  Thus,  the  change  of 
construction  from  the  third  person  singular  to  the  first 
nominative  plural  in  the  sentence,  Hebrews  xiii.  5,  '  Let 
your  conversation  be  without  covetousness  :  being  con- 
tent with  such  things  as  ye  have '  {a(})iXapyvpoQ  6  Tpoirog' 
apKovpivoi  To7g  napoixTiv),  is  noted  by  Bishop  Wordsworth 
as  exactly  paralleled  by  a  verse  in  Romans  xii.,  '  Let  love 
be  without  dissimulation,  abhorring  that  which  is  evil' 
()'j  aycnrri  avvTroKpiroQ'  airoaTvyovvrtQ  to  Troi'jjjooi').  Lastly, 
the  quotation  '  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  repay,  saith 


XXI.]  Its  Old  Testa7nent  Citations.  525 

the  Lord,'  does  not  agree  with  the  Septuagint,  but  is  in 
verbal  agreement  with  the  citation  of  the  same  verse  in 
Romans  xii.  19.       , 

These,  and  other  coincidences  with  Paul,  are  more 
than  can  be  attributed  to  accident :  if  the  writer  is  not 
Paul,  he  must  have  read  some  of  Paul's  Epistles — in 
particular  those  to  the  Romans  and  Corinthians.*  On 
the  other  hand,  all  the  other  O.  T.  citations  are  from  the 
Septuagint,  even  where  it  differs  from  the  Hebrew,  which 
is  contrary  to  St.  Paul's  usage.  The  writer  seems  habi- 
tually to  have  used  a  Greek  not  a  Hebrew  Bible.  A 
notable  case  is  his  adoption  of  the  LXX.  version,  *A 
body  hast  thou  prepared  me'  (x.  5),  instead  of  the  He- 
brew, *  Mine  ears  hast  thou  opened  '  (see  also  i.  6).  His 
formulae  of  Old  Testament  citation  are  also  different 
from  those  generally  used  by  Paul.  He  has  Alyfi,  ^lap- 
Tvpei  or  ^rjffi,  sometimes  alone,  sometimes  with  deog  or 
TO  irvivjxa  to  a7iov,  while  St.  Paul  commonly  has  yi- 
ypaiTTai,  or  1)  ypa^rj  Xiyei  ;  but  there  are  exceptions 
which  prevent  us  from  pressing  this  argument  confi- 
dently (Eph.  iv.  8,  V.  14;  Rom.  xv.  10;  2  Cor.  vi.  2  ; 
Gal.  iii.  16). 

This  letter  is  said  to  have  a  much  stronger  Alexan- 
drian colouring  than  have  the  writings  of  Paul.  Several 
parallels,  both  as  regards  the  thoughts  and  the  language, 
have  been  pointed  out  in  the  writings  of  Philo ;  and 
there  is  a  larger  use  of  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old 

*  Other  parallels  are  Heb.  xi.  I2,  viveKpwixivos,  Rom.  iv.  19;  Heb.  xii. 
14,  flpr)viiv  SidiKere,  Rom.  xiv.  19  ;  fiera  itdvrwv,  Rom.  xii.  18;  Heb.  i.  6, 
irpaiToroKos,  Rom.  viii.  29 ;  Heb.  xiii.  i.  2  <j)i\aSe\(pia,  Rom.  xii.  10 ;  <pi\o^evia, 
Rom.  xii.  13;  Heb.  x.  38=  Rom.  i.  17;  Heb.  xiii.  20,  6  Oehs  t^s  eip-fivr)s, 
Rom.  XV.  33  ;  Heb.  v.  12,  14=1  Cor.  iii.  2,  ii.  6  ;  Heb.  vi.  3  =  i  Cor.  xvi.  7  ; 
Heb.  vi.  10=  2  Cor.  viii.  24  ;  Heb.  viii.  10  =  2  Cor.  vi.  16  ;  Heb.  x.  28  =  2  Cor. 
xiii.  I.  There  are  coincidences,  but  not  so  numerous  or  so  clear,  wich  other 
Pauline  letters  ;  for  instance,  Heb.  ii.  2  =  Gal.  iii.  19. 


526  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  [xxi. 

Testament  than  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles.     "With  the  book 
of  Wisdom,  in   particular,    there  are    so   many   coinci- 
dences that  Dean  Plumptre  has  defended  a  theory  that 
ithe  two  books  have  the  same  author  [e.g.  TroXvfxepCog  i.  i, 
jWisdom  vii.  22]  awavyacfua  i.  2,  Wisdom  vii.  26;  vtto- 
laraaig  i.  3,  Wisdom  xvi.  21  ;   tottoq  fisravoiaQ  xii.  17,  Wis- 
/dom  xii.  10;  i:ic(3aaig  xiii,  7,  Wisdom  ii.  17).     Further,  it 
/  is-urged  that  this  letter  could  not  have  been  written  by 
/one  who  had  resided  long  in  Jerusalem,  its  descriptions 
!    of  the  Temple  ritual  not  being  founded  on  observation, 
\   but  being  entirely  drawn  from  what  the  Old  Testament 
j  tells  about  the  Tabernacle. 

1//'  But  the  strongest  argument  against  the  Pauline 
authorship  is  founded  on  the  dissimilarity  of  style  which, 
as  I  have  already  told  you,  was  taken  notice  of  by  Ori- 
gen.  There  is  here  none  of  the  ruggedness  of  St.  Paul, 
who  never  seems  to  be  solicitous  about  forms  of  expres- 
sion, and  whose  thoughts  come  pouring  out  so  fast  as  to 
jostle  one  another  in  the  struggle  for  utterance.  This  is 
a  calm  composition,  exhibiting  sonorous  words  and  well 
balanced  sentences.  In  explanation  of  the  difference  it 
may  be  urged  that  this  is  a  treatise,  rather  than  a  letter, 
and  that  therefore  greater  polish  of  style  is  natural ;  but 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  has  as  much  the  air  of  a  trea- 
tise as  that  to  the  Hebrews.  •  This  argument  from  the 
style  is  that  which  makes  the  strongest  impression  on 
my  own  mind.  I  have  already  shown  that  I  do  not 
ascribe  to  Paul  any  rigid  uniformity  of  utterance,  and 
that  I  am  not  tempted  to  deny  a  letter  to  be  his  merely 
because  it  contains  a  number  of  words  or  phrases  which 
are  not  found  in  his  other  compositions ;  but  in  this 
case  I  find  myself  unable  to  assert  the  Pauline  author- 
ship in  the  face  of  so  much  unlikeness,  in  the  structure 
of  the  sentences,  in  the  general  tone  of  the  Epistle,  in 


XXI.]  Conjectures  as  to  Authorship.  527 

the  way  of  presenting  doctrine,  and  in  other  points  that 
I  will  not  delay  to  enumerate. 

But  if  the  letter  be  not  Paul's,  whose  then  can  it  be  ? 
There  are  but  two  names  which  seem  to  me  worthy  of 
discussion.  Luther  guessed  Apollos ;  and  if  we  are  to 
trust  to  conjecture  solely,  no  conjecture  could  be  more 
happy,  for  it  seems  to  fulfil  every  condition.  Apollos  be- 
longed to  the  circle  of  Paul  whose  influence  on  this 
Epistle  is  strongly  marked ;  and  he  would  of  course  also 
be  intimate  with  Timothy  ;  he  was  an  eloquent  man, 
and  mighty  in  the  Scriptures  (Acts  xviii.  24),  a  descrip- 
tion which  admirably  suits  the  writer  of  this  letter ;  and 
he  was  a  native  of  Alexandria,  whereby  the  Alexan- 
drian colouring  of  the  Epistle  is  at  once  accounted  for. 
There  is  only  one  thing  against  this  conjecture,  and  that 
is  that  Luther  should  have  been  the  first  to  make  it.  I 
will  not  urge  this  objection  over  strongly,  because  if  one 
sentence  of  Tertullian's  had  not  been  preserved  we 
should  have  no  external  evidence  deserving  of  considera- 
tion for  any  authorship  but  Paul's.  We  may  dismiss  as 
a  mere  guess  the  suggestion  thrown  out  in  the  Alexan- 
drian schools  that  Paul  might  have  employed  the  pen  of 
Luke  or  of  Clement ;  and  the  guess  is  not  even  a  pro- 
bable one.  If  dissimilarity  of  style  is  a  good  reason  for 
believing  the  Epistle  not  to  be  Paul's,  the  same  argu- 
ment proves  it  not  to  be  Luke's  or  Clement's,  each  of 
whom  has  left  writings  very  different  in  style  from  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

But  what  TertuUian  says  cannot  be  passed  by  without 
serious  examination.  When  he  speaks  of  Barnabas  as 
the  author  he  is  plainly  not  making  a  private  guess,  but 
expressing  the  received  opinion  of  the  circle  in  which  he 
moved.  And  since  TertuUian  was  not  only  a  leading 
teacher  in  the  Church  of  Africa,  but  had  resided  for  some 


528  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  [xxi, 

time  at  Rome,  I  do  not  see  how  to  avoid  the  conclusion 
that  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  the  received 
opinion  in  the  Roman  and  African  Church  was  that 
Barnabas  was  the  author  of  the  Epistle. 

I  freely  own  that  if  I  had  been  set  to  conjecture  the 
author,  I  should  never  have  guessed  Barnabas  ;  but  it  is 
no  reason  for  rejecting  a  statement,  apparently  coming 
on  good  authority,  that  it  is  not  like  what  conjecture 
would  have  prompted.  What  we  must  really  inquire  is, 
whether  there  is  anything  about  the  statement  so  impro- 
bable as  to  make  us  unable  to  receive  it.  The  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  seems  to  have  been  written  after  Paul's 
death ;  and  we  should  not  expect  Barnabas  to  have  sur- 
vived Paul  as  an  active  worker  ;  for  he  was  not  only  the 
older  Christian  (Acts  ix.  27),  but  apparently  the  older 
man  ;  seeming  to  be  of  some  standing  (Acts  iv.  35)  when 
Paul  is  described  as  a  young  man  (Acts  viii.  58).  I 
may  add  that  Barnabas  was  taken  for  Jupiter  when 
Paul  was  taken  for  Mercurius  (Acts  xiv.  12)  ;  but  this 
point  cannot  be  pressed,  since  the  cause  of  the  latter 
designation  was  Paul's  powers  of  speech,  and  not  his 
personal  appearance.  In  any  case,  if  Barnabas  were  the 
older,  he  might  still  have  survived  Paul,  who  did  not 
die  of  old  age  but  by  martyrdom.  Again,  the  mission- 
ary work  of  Barnabas  has  been  so  overshadowed  by  that 
of  his  companion  Paul,  that  it  is  natural  to  us  to  think 
of  Barnabas  as,  though  a  very  good  man,  not  so  able  a 
man  as  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  must 
have  been.  If  this  be  our  impression,  we  ought  to  bear 
in  mind  how  very  little  we  really  know  of  the  grounds 
of  the  prominent  position  which  Barnabas  unquestion- 
ably held  in  the  early  Church.  He  probably  was  inferior 
to  Paul  as  a  speaker;  but  we  have  no  such  knowledge 
as  would  justify  an  as.sertion  that  he  was  incapable  of 


XXI.]  Was  Barnabas  the  Author'^  529 

writing  the  letter  which  has  been  attributed  to  him.  The 
reason  why  we  know  so  little  of  the  missionary  work  of 
Barnabas  after  his  separation  from  Paul  is  simply  that 
no  Luke  has  recorded  it  for  us.  Further,  it  is  pointed  out 
that  this  Epistle  is  very  unlike  that  which  goes  by  the  name 
of  Barnabas.  But  if  it  be  admitted  that  only  one  of  the 
two  epistles  can  be  the  work  of  Barnabas,  we  have  a 
better  right  to  claim  for  him  that  which  Tertullian  as- 
cribes to  him,  than  that  which  almost  all  critics  reject  as 
spurious.  Once  more,  it  is  said  that  the  Levite  Barnabas 
would  be  sure  to  have  a  first-hand  knowledge  of  the 
Temple  worship,  and  would  not  speak,  as  this  writer 
does,  like  one  who  had  derived  his  knowledge  from 
books;  he  would  have  been  familiar  with  Hebrew, 
and  not  have  used  the  Septuagint  as  his  Bible ;  nor 
can  we  think  of  him  as  so  subject  to  Alexandrian 
influences  as  the  author  of  our  Epistle  appears  to  have 
been. 

When  Barnabas  is  described  as  a  Levite,  all  I  think 
that  we  are  entitled  to  infer  is  that  he  had  preserved  his 
genealogy,  and  knew  that  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  that  to 
which  he  belonged.  I  do  not  think  we  are  bound  to  sup- 
pose that  he  was  a  Levite  ministering  in  the  Temple 
service.  But  the  important  question  is.  Was  he  a  Hel- 
lenist, or  did  he  reside  habitually  at  Jerusalem  ?  The 
early  part  of  the  Acts  would  dispose  us  to  form  the 
latter  opinion.  It  is  certain  that  he  early  gained 
consideration  in  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  by  the  gift 
of  the  price  of  his  estate  ;  but  it  is  not  stated  that 
Jerusalem  had  been  his  ordinary  dwelling-place.  He 
certainly  had  a  near  relation,  Mary,  the  mother  of  Mark, 
resident  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xii.  12,  Col.  iv,  10).  But  he 
himself  is  described  as  a  native  of  Cyprus,  and  as  keep- 
ing up  his  relations  with  that  island ;  for  it  is  Cyprus 

2  M 


530  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  [xxi. 

which  he  first  visits  when  starting  with  Paul  on  a  mis- 
sionary journey,  and  again,  Cyprus  to  which  he  turns 
when  separated  from  Paul  and  travelling  with  Mark. 
When  men  of  Cyprus  made  converts  among  the  Hel- 
lenists* of  Antioch,  Barnabas  was  judged  by  the  Apostles 
the  most  suitable  person  to  take  charge  of  the  newly- 
formed  Church.  How  long  he  had  previously  been  re- 
siding at  Jerusalem  we  cannot  tell,  but  from  that 
time  forth  we  never  hear  of  him  as  resident  in  Jeru- 
salem again.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that  even 
if  it  were  proved  that  Barnabas  had  resided  for  a 
long  time  in  Jerusalem,  it  would  not  follow  that  he  was 
not  a  Hellenist,  since  we  know  from  Acts  vi.  that  there 
were  Hellenists  who  lived  at  Jerusalem,  and  died  leaving 
widows  behind  them  there. 

That  Barnabas  was  acquainted  with  Alexandrian 
speculation  is  a  thing  which  w^e  should  not  have 
been  justified  in  asserting  without  evidence ;  but  we 
have  as  little  ground  for  contradicting  good  evidence 
that  he  was.  And  that  Alexandrian  philosophy  should 
be  taught  in  the  schools  of  Cyprus  is  in  itself  probable. 
I  may  mention,  though  without  myself  attaching  much 
importance  to  the  point,  that  the  Clementine  Homiliesf 
represent  Barnabas  as  teaching  in  Alexandria  imme- 
diately after  the  Ascension  ;  and  in  this  they  have 
been  followed  in  several  later  legends.  On  the  whole, 
feeling    that   the    Western   tradition   in   favour   of  the 

*  See  Dr.  Hort's  note  on  the  various  reading  of  Acts  xi.  20. 

t  The  Recognitions,  which  I  count  as  the  earlier  document,  malce  Rome 
the  scene  of  the  preaching  of  Barnabas.  I  take  the  view  of  Lipsius  and  Har- 
nack,  that  the  desire  of  the  Church  at  Rome  to  claim  Peter  as  their  first 
founder,  made  a  story  unpopular  which  represented  hi5  preaching  at  Rome  as 
preceded  by  that  of  another  EvangclisL.  Hence,  the  later  version  of  the  legend 
transferred  Barnabas  to  Alexandria  :  afterwards,  when  the  labours  of  Barnabas 
in  ;'i;'.lv  were  ackno\v"'jdge(l,  he  was  handed  over  to  the  Church  of  ^lilan. 


XXI.]  To  zvhat  Church  addressed?  531 

authorship  of  Barnabas  deserves  to  be  regarded  as  hav- 
ing some  historical  value,  I  do  not  find  myself  at  liberty 
to  reject  it  merely  because,  if  I  had  been  dependent  on 
conjecture  alone,  I  should  have  been  tempted  to  give  a 
different  account  of  the  matter.  This  view  is  taken  also 
by  Renan  {V Antechrist,  p.  xvii.). 

To  what  Church  are  we  to  suppose  the  Epistle  to 
have  been  addressed  ?  The  inscription,  which  is  of 
immemorial  antiquity,  says,  *to  the  Hebrews,'*  by  which 
we  must  understand  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  or  at 
least  of  Palestine.  For  the  promise  (xiii.  21]  that  the 
writer  would  come  and  see  those  whom  he  addresses 
makes  it  impossible  to  suppose  that  this  is  a  letter  to 
Jewish  Christians  scattered  all  over  the  world,  and  not 
to  a  particular  Church.  The  certain  antiquity  of  the 
inscription  is  a  strong  reason  for  not  lightly  rejecting 
its  statement ;  and  there  are  two  considerations  which 
confirm  it.  One  is,  that  throughout  the  Epistle  no 
mention  is  made  of  Gentile  Christians— the  writer  as- 
sumes that  all  whom  he  addresses  are  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham.  But  no  one  dates  the  Epistle  much  earlier 
than  the  year  64  ;  and  where,  except  in  Palestine,  could 
we  find  at  that  date  a  Church  of  which  Gentiles  did  not 
form  a  part,  and  probably  the  largest  and  most  influen- 
tial part  r  The  second  consideration  is,  that  no  other 
Church  claims  the  Epistle.  If  it  were  sent  to  Jerusalem, 
the  destruction  of  that  city,  a  very  few  years  afterwards, 
and  the  dispersion  of  its  Christian  inhabitants,  would 
explain  the  absence  of  a  more  distinct  tradition.  But 
there  is  no  reason  why  any  other  Church  to  which  the 
letter  had  been  addressed  should  not  have  preserved 
the  tradition,  and  taken  pride  in  claiming  this  Epistle 

*  The  passages  N.  T.  where  the  word  'Hebrews'  occurs  are  Acts  vi.  r, 
2  Cor.  xi.  22,  Phil.  iii.  5. 

2  M  2 


532  TJic  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  [xxi. 

as  its  own.  Those  who  suppose  Apollos  to  have  been 
the  author  very  commonly  suppose  also  that  it  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  Church  at  Alexandria.  But  if  so,  how  is 
it  that  the  members  of  that  Church  kept  no  memory  of 
their  own  connexion  with  the  letter  ?  How  is  it  that 
they  knew  less  than  did  Christians  in  the  West  of  the 
true  account  of  the  authorship  ?  How  is  it  that  the 
general  popular  belief  at  Alexandria  was  that  Paul  was 
the  author;  while  their  most  learned  men,  who  found 
difficulties  in  that  supposition,  were  reduced  to  guess- 
work ir^  order  to  get  over  them  ?  The  same  argument 
may  be  used  as  concerns  Ephesus  and  other  supposed 
destinations.  There  were  for  many  years  afterwards 
flourishing  Churches  in  the  places  in  question,  none  of 
which  was  likely  to  have  forgotten  so  important  an 
event  in  its  history  as  the  receipt  of  this  letter.  And 
the  same  thing  may  be  said  as  to  Renan's  theory 
that  the  letter  was  addressed  to  Rome.  If  so,  why 
did  not  the  Church  of  Rome  claim  it  ?  But  there  is  a 
still  graver  objection.  For  Ren  an  supposes  the  letter 
to  have  been  written  after  the  Neronian  persecution, 
of  which  the  imprisonment  of  Timothy  may  have 
been  one  of  the  incidents.  How  could  a  Church  which 
had  just  gone  through  so  fiery  a  trial  be  addressed 
in  the  words  (xii.  4),  '  Ye  have  not  yet  resisted  unto 
blood,  striving  against  sin '  ? 

Against  the  claims  of  Jerusalem  it  has  been  objected 
that  the  writer's  praise  of  his  correspondents'  benefi- 
cence (vi.  10)  is  not  applicable  to  the  Church  at  Jeru- 
salem, which  was  rather  the  object  of  the  beneficence  of 
foreign  Churches.  But  on  the  other  hand,  there  was  no 
Church  to  which  the  charge,  '  Be  not  forgetful  to  enter- 
tain strangers  '  (xiii.  2),  could  be  more  fitly  addressed 
than   that   Church   which  was  the  object  of  periodical 


XXI.]  To  what  Church  addressed?  533 

visits  from  Christians  of  Jewish  birth  throughout  the 
world.  And  the  alacrity  with  which  this  duty  was  ful- 
filled might  well  have  earned  the  commendations  oich.  vi. 
even  without  taking  into  account  the  ordinary  exercise 
of  liberality  from  richer  to  poorer  brethren.  But  the  chief 
reason  why  some  have  rejected  the  claims  of  Jerusalem  is 
the  imagined  hostility  between  the  Christians  of  Palestine 
and  the  Pauline  party,  which  is  thought  to  make  it  incon- 
ceivable that  a  Pauline  Christian  should  write  to  native 
Jews,  addressing  them  in  a  tone  of  great  authority,  and 
expecting  to  get  a  friendly  and  respectful  hearing.  But 
I  must  set  aside  this  objection  as  arising  from  a  mere 
prejudice.  The  last  act  of  Paul  before  he  lost  his  liberty 
was  to  go  up  to  attend  a  feast  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  for  the 
unprosperous  issue  of  that  visit,  unbelieving,  and  not 
Christian,  Jews  were  responsible.  Have  we  any  reason 
to  suppose  that  those  of  Paul's  company  who  were  '  of 
the  circumcision  '  were  so  disgusted  by  the  misfortune 
of  their  leader,  that  they  thenceforward  ceased  to  attend 
the  feasts  ?  And  in  particular  have  we  any  reason  to 
suppose  that  Barnabas  discontinued  this  practice  ?  or 
have  we  any  reason  to  think  that  he  ceased  to  enjoy 
that  consideration  among  the  heads  of  the  Church  at 
Jerusalem,  which  the  earlier  story  exhibits  him  as  pos- 
sessing ? 

It  seems  to  me  a  probable  account  of  the  origin  of 
the  Epistle,  that  Barnabas — if  anyone  prefer  to  say 
Apollos  I  shall  not  object,  though  Barnabas  seems  to 
me  the  more  probable — going  up  to  keep  at  Jerusalem 
a  feast,  subsequent  to  those  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  found  the  Church  suffering  from  the  pressure 
put  on  its  members  by  their  unconverted  brethren,  in 
consequence  of  which  many  of  them  had  fallen  away 
from  the  faith,  and  returned  to  Judaism.     The   visiter 


534  The  Epistle  to  the  Hcbreivs.  [xxi. 


might  then  have  spoken  strongly  of  the  disgrace  and 
danger  incurred  by  those  who  gave  up  the  better  for  the 
worse.  He  might  have  spoken  of  the  superiority  of  Jesus, 
the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  over  the  highest  of 
those  intermediaries,  whether  human  or  angelic,  through 
whom  the  Jews  boasted  that  they  had  received  their 
Law ;  and  of  the  High  Priesthood  of  Christ  as  making 
an  atonement  for  sin  better  than  any  that  the  Jewish 
sacrifices  could  have  accomplished.  If  any  such  teach- 
ing were  delivered  in  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  as  that 
expounded  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  I  can  well 
imagine  the  heads  of  that  Church  expressing  a  wish  to 
their  trusted  friend  that  his  doctrine  should  be  embodied 
in  a  permanent  form.  It  has  been  objected,  How  could 
one  who  did  not  profess  to  be  an  original  disciple  of  our 
Lord  (ii.  3)  presume  on  such  a  tone  of  rebuke  as  in 
V.  12?  But  if  the  writer  were  Barnabas;  although  he 
was  probably  not  an  original  disciple,  yet  he  was  a  man 
of  such  standing  and  consideration,  that  he  could  well 
take  upon  him  to  reproach  the  members  of  this,  the 
oldest  of  the  Churches,  that  they,  who  ought  to  be  the 
teachers  of  others,  should  themselves  need  elementary 
instruction.  In  fact  if  it  be  once  conceded  that  the  letter 
was  addressed  to  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  the  case  for 
the  authorship  of  Barnabas  becomes  very  strong.  Though 
I  have  refused  to  accept  the  Tiibingen  theory  as  to  the 
amount  of  hostility  between  Pauline  and  Palestinian 
Christians,  we  know  from  Acts  xxi.  that  there  were 
many  in  Jerusalem  who  regarded  Paul  with  prejudice 
and  suspicion,  and  therefore  that  an  ordinary  member 
of  his  company  would  not  be  counted  in  Jerusalem  a 
grata  persona,  whose  instructions  would  be  gladly  re- 
ceived, and  whose  rebukes  would  be  deferentially  sub- 
mitted to.      Further,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews   is    a 


XXI.]  Its  Date.'  535 

letter  in  which  one  who  thought  and  wrote  in  Greek, 
and  who  seems  only  to  have  used  a  Greek  Bible,  pre- 
sumes to  instruct  Hebrew-speaking  Christians.  We 
could  understand  that  such  an  act  might  be  ventured  on 
by  Barnabas,  whose  early  munificence  to  the  Church  at 
Jerusalem,  and  long  acquaintance  with  its  rulers,  gave 
him  consideration.  But  I  find  it  hard  to  believe  that 
Apollos,  or  any  other  of  Paul's  company,  could  use  the 
same  fi'eedom. 

When  we  regard  the  letter  as  not  written  to  Italy, 
xiii.  24  leads  us  to  think  that  it  was  written  from  Italy  : 
and  we  have  then  an  explanation  why  the  salutation 
should  be  in  general  terms.*  If  the  greeting  were  from 
definite  persons,  known  to  his  correspondents,  why 
should  not  their  names  be  mentioned  r  But  I  take 
this  to  be  merely  a  general  intimation  that  the  Hebrew 
Christians  were  held  in  kindly  remembrance  by  the 
disciples  of  the  place  whence  the  letter  was  written. 

Concerning  the  date  of  the  Epistle,  it  is  generally 
agreed  that  it  was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem. We  cannot  rely  absolutely  on  the  use  of  the 
present  tense  in  speaking  of  the  Temple  services — this 
way  of  speaking  being  employed  by  Clement  of  Rome 
and  others  who  lived  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
But  the  whole  argument  oi  ch.  x.,  which  asserts  the  supe- 
riority of  Christ's  unique  and  final  sacrifice  over  those 
Jewish  sacrifices,  which  betrayed  their  insufficiency  by 
their  need  of  constant  repetition,  can  hardly  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  supposition  that  the  Jewish  sacrifices 
had  come  to  an  end  before  the  time  of  writing,  and  were 
then  no  longer  constantly  repeated.  And,  besides,  if  we 
are  to  suppose  the  letter  written  after  the  destruction  of 

*  There  is  some  kind  of  parallel  to  the  vagueness  of  this  salutation  in  that  ■ 
from  the  '  Churches  of  Asia  '  (i  Cor.  xvi.  19). 


536  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrcim.  [xxi. 

Jerusalem,  we  could  not  account  for  the  absence  of,all 
reference  to  an  event  so  terrible  to  ev^ery  Jewish  mind, 
unless  we  were  able  to  push  down  the  date  of  the  Epistle 
so  late  that  the  impression  made  by  the  fate  of  their  city 
might  have  been  supposed  to  have  died  away. 

As  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  furnishes  a  lower 
limit  to  the  date  of  the  Epistle,  so  the  Neronian  perse- 
cution has  been  held  to  give  a  superior  limit ;  so  that 
the  date  would  come  between  64_and  69,  say  66.or-47. 
I  feel  by  no  means  sure  that  the  letter  may  not  have 
been  earlier  than  the  time  here  assigned.  If  we  compare 
this  book  with  the  Apocalypse,  its  calmness  contrasts 
forcibly  with  the  indignant  description  in  the  latter 
book  of  the  woman  '  drunken  with  the  blood  of  the  saints, 
and  with  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus'  (xvii.  6). 
Renan  finds  a  clear  reference  to  the  Neronian  persecu- 
tion in  Heb.  x.  33,  and  especially  in  the  word  dearfji^o- 
/ixevoi.  But  much  stress  cannot  be  laid  on  this  word, 
which  has  its  parallel  in  i  Cor.  iv.  9  ;  and  when  the 
writer  speaks  of  the  '  former  days '  of  the  Church,  he 
can  hardly  be  supposed  to  refer  to  what  had  taken  place 
only  a  couple  of  years  before.  I  look  on  the  reference 
in  the  passage  just  cited  to  be  to  the  persecution  that 
followed  the  death  of  Stephen.  The  verse  implies  that 
the  persecution  under  which  the  Church  addressed  was 
actually  suffering  was  not  so  severe  as  that  earlier  trial. 
In  any  case  it  did  not  extend  to  the  taking  of  life.  The 
exhortation  at  the  beginning  of  c/i.  xii.,  and  the  verse 
xiii.  3,  would  lead  us  to  think  that  the  disciples  were 
then  liable  to  suffer  from  legal  penalties  of  a  lesser  kind. 
But  their  constancy  would  be  severely  tried  if  they  had  to 
bear  no  other  penalties  than  those  which,  without  the 
sentence  of  any  magistrate,  a  bigoted  people  are  wont 
to  inflict  on  a  minority  who  live  among  them  professing 


XXI.]  The  Date.  537 

an  unpopular  creed.  We  can  see  that  some  of  the 
disciples  were  unable  to  bear  the  pressure  thus  put  on 
them,  their  faith  having  failed  through  impatience  at 
the  delay  of  the  second  coming  of  their  Lord  (x.  36,  37). 
It  is  quite  possible  that  Jewish  Christians  in  Palestine 
might  have  been  subjected  to  the  trials  here  described, 
before  the  breaking  out  of  Nero's  persecution;  and  the 
verse  xii.  4  seems  to  me  to  oblige  us  to  date  the  Epistle 
before  A.  D.  63,  which  was  probably  the  year  of  the  mar- 
tyrdom of  James  the  Just.  But  since  we  can  in  no 
case  assign  a  very  early  date  to  the  letter,  differences  of 
opinion  as  to  its  date  are  not  wide  enough  to  make  it 
worth  while  to  spend  more  time  on  the  discussion.* 

*  As  a  further  proof  of  what  was  stated  (p.  519)  concerning  the  late  re- 
cognition of  this  Epistle  in  the  West,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  the  Codex 
Claromontaniis,  written  in  the  sixth  century,  the  oldest  Graeco-Latin  MS.  of  the 
Pauhne  Epistles,  was  copied  from  one  which  did  not  contain  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  At  the  end  of  each  book  mention  is  made  of  that  which  next  suc- 
ceeds. For  example,  at  the  end  of  Titus,  '  ad  Titum  explicit,  incipit  ad 
Filemona ;  '  but  at  the  end  of  Philemon  w^e  have  merely  '  ad  Filemona  ex- 
plicit.' Then  follows  a  stichometrical  catalogue  of  the  books  both  of  Old  and 
New  Testament,  after  which  comes  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  cata- 
logue in  question  is  carelessly  written.  It  does  not  contain  either  Philippians 
or  Thessalonians — probably  from  the  eye  of  the  scribe  having  caught  Philemon 
when  he  ought  to  have  written  Philippians.  Nor  does  it  include  Hebrews ; 
but  after  Jude,  and  before  the  Apocalypse  and  the  Acts,  comes  the  '  Epistle 
of  Barnabas,'  for  which  are  set  down  'Vers.  850,'  this  being  about  the  length 
ascribed  to  the  Hebrews  in  other  catalogues.  In  this  catalogue  i  Cor.  is  set 
down  as  having  lobo  verses,  a  number  bearing  to  850  a  proportion  fairly  cor- 
responding to  that  between  the  actual  lengths  of  i  Cor.  and  Hebrews:  whereas 
the  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas  is  nearly  half  as  long  again  as  Hebrews.  Hence 
it  has  been  conjectured  that  it  is  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  which  here  goes  by 
the  name  of  Barnabas  ;  yet  some  doubt  is  cast  on  this  inference  by  the  fact  that 
the  non-canonical  books  of  this  catalogue  almost  exactly  agree  with  the  v6Qa.  of 
Eusebius  (see  next  page). 

Cod.  Augiensis,  an  inter-columnar  Graeco-Latin  MS.  of  the  9th  century,  does 
not  contain  the  Epistle  in  Greek,  but  gives  a  Latin  version  occupying  both 
columns ;  whence  we  may  infer  that  the  Greek  of  this  MS.  was  derived  from 
an  archetype  which  did  not  contain  this  Epistle. 


XXII. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  PETER. 


NEXT  after  the  Pauline  Epistles  I  take  St.  Peter's 
First  Epistle,  .the  only  document  among  those, 
ranked  in  the  early  Church  as  'uncontroverted,'  which  I 
have  not  yet  discussed.  At  the  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury there  was  such  general  agreement  between  Chris- 
tians all  over  the  world  as  to  the  bulk  of  the  books 
which  they  venerated  as  sacred,  that  in  the  preceding 
lectures  I  have  had  very  little  occasion  to  cite  authori- 
ties later  than  the  very  beginning  of  the  third  century. 
On  this  account  I  have  not  hitherto  quoted  the  passage 
in  which  Eusebius  (iii.  25)  sums  up  his  views  as  to  the 
New  Testament  books;  but  though  it  is  somewhat  later 
than  most  of  the  other  testimonies  with  which  we  have  to 
deal,  the  opinion  of  one  of  the  most  influential  critics  at 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  is  too  important  to  be 
passed  over  in  silence.  You  will  find  the  passage  trans- 
lated and  discussed  in  Westcott's  iV.  T.  Canon,  p.  414. 
Suffice  it  here  to  say  that  Eusebius  makes  three  classes 
of  Ecclesiastical  books:  (i)  The  generally  accepted  Books 
[o/noXoyouiuKvctj,  of  which  he  enumerates,  the  four  Gospels, 
the  Acts,  the  Epistles  of  Paul  (and  it  appears  from 
another  passage  (iii.  3)  that  he  counts  the  Hebrews  in 
the  number),  the  former  Epistle  of  John  and  that  of 
Peter.     To  these  is  to  be  added,  if  at  least  it  should  so 


XXII.]         Eitscbius's  List  of  N.  T.  Books.  539 

appear  [H-^t  (^avuri),  the  Apocalypse;  (2)  T/ie  Disputed 
Books  [avTiXeyoiJieva),  which,  however,  are  well  known 
and  recognized  by  most  [■yvwpifxuyv  ofxwg  To'ig  iroWoic), 
viz.  that  which  is  called  James's,  that  of  Jude,  the 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  that  which  is  called  the 
Second  and  Third  of  John,  whether  they  belong  to  the 
Evangelist  himself  or  to  a  namesake  of  his  ;  (3)  T/ie 
Spurious  or  Rejected  Books  [vodu],  viz.  the  Acts  of  Paul, 
the  Shepherd,  the  Revelation  of  Peter,  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  the  so-called  Teachings  of  the  Apostles,  and 
if  it  should  so  appear  (ei  (paviir]),  the  Revelation  of  John, 
which  some  reject,  others  count  among  the  ofxoXoyovijLeva. 
Some  also  count  with  these  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  Both  these  last  two  classes  Eusebius  includes 
under  the  general  title  of  Disputed  Books.  He  is  clearly 
speaking  only  of  books  in  use  among  orthodox  Church- 
men ;  for  he  goes  on  to  speak  of  such  works  as  the  Gos- 
pels of  Peter,  Thomas,  and  Matthew,  the  Acts  of  Andrew, 
John,  and  the  other  Apostles,  which  he  condemns  as 
heretical  forgeries,  and  as  not  deserving  to  count  even 
among  the  voOa.  The  odd  thing  in  this  classification  is, 
that  he  mentions  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  Revela- 
tion of  St.  John  ;  but  instead  of  then,  as  we  should 
expect,  classifying  this  among  the  disputed  books,  he 
gives  his  readers  the  choice  whether  to  place  it  among 
the  'accepted'  or  the  'spurious,'  himself  showing  a  lean- 
ing to  the  latter  verdict.  I  imagine  that  the  first  class 
includes  the  books  which  were  generally  accepted  in 
Churches  without  any  feeling  of  doubt ;  the  second  class 
those  concerning  which  doubts  were  entertained  ;  and 
the  third  class  those  which  generally  were  not  admitted 
to  have  pretensions  to  Apostolic  authority.  I  take  it 
that  the  Apocalypse  was  received  without  hesitation  by 
so  many  Churches  that  Eusebius  felt  himself  bound  to 
report  its  claims  to  the  first  rank ;  but  that  he  himself,  fol- 


540  The  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxii. 

lowing  the  opinion  ofDionysius  of  Alexandria  and  other 
divines  whom  he  respected,  was  disposed  to  place  it 
in  the  third  class.  We  are  a  little  surprised  to  find  no 
mention  made  of  Clement's  Epistle,  since  we  know 
(Euseb.  iii.  i6)  that  it  was  included  in  the  public  reading 
of  many  Churches,  as  its  place  in  the  Alexandrian  MS. 
testifies.  There  is  no  very  apparent  reason  why  it  did 
not  deserve  to  be  mentioned  as  well  as  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas  or  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas ;  so  that  I  feel  by 
no  means  sure  that  the  omission  was  not  mere  inadver- 
tence. If  not,  the  best  explanation  we  can  give  is  that 
Clement's  Epistle  did  not  claim  to  proceed  from  an 
Apostle,  like  one  of  the  two  books  I  have  named,  or 
to  contain  a  prophetic  revelation  like  the  other. 

I  have  found  it  convenient  to  speak  here  about  this 
list  of  Eusebius;  but  we  are  not  immediately  concerned 
with  the  questions  I  have  touched  on  concerning  his 
principles  of  classification ;  for  Peter's  Epistle  is  placed 
by  him  unequivocally  in  the  first  rank.  And  certainly 
the  testimony  in  its  favour  is  of  the  highest  character  ; 
indeed,  I  do  not  know  that  any  New  Testament  book 
is  better  attested.  The  latest  witnesses  with  whom  I 
have  usually  begun,  Iren^us,  Clement,  and  Tertullian,* 
all  employ  it. 

It  is  quoted  also  in  the  Epistle  of  the  Churches  of 
Vienne  and  Lyons.  It  was  included  in  the  Syriac  and 
in  the  old  Latin  Versions.  Eusebius  (iv.  14)  has  taken 
notice  of  the  use  made  of  this  letter  in  the  Epistle  of 
Polycarp  :  and  this  Epistle  being  extant  enables  us  to 
verify  the  accuracy  of  the  report,  the  quotations  from 
Peter  being  extremely  numerous  ;  and  his  Epistle  being 
more  frequently  employed  by  Polycarp  than  any  other 

*  Iren.  iv.  ix.  2,  xvi.  5 ;  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iv.  7 ;  Paed.  i.  6 ;  Hypotyp. 
p.  1006,  Potter;  see  also  Euseb.  vi.  14.  Teit.  Scorp.  12,  14;  De  Orat.  20; 
Adv.  Jud.  10, 


xxii.]  External  Evidences.  ^       541 


New  Testament  book.  Clem.  Alex.  {Strom,  iv.  12) 
quotes  a  passage  from  the  heretic  Basilides,  in  which 
the  influence  of  Peter's  Epistle  is  distinctly  marked. 
I  have  already  (p.  no)  spoken  of  the  use  made  of  the 
Epistle  by  Papias,  and  shall  presently  have  a  few  words 
more  to  say  on  the  same  subject.  There  are  several 
resemblances  to  i  Peter  both  in  Clement  of  Rome 
and  in  Hermas,  and  at  least  in  the  former  case  I 
think  they  deserve  to  be  regarded  as  quotations. 
I  myself  believe  that  the  stories  concerning  the  Re- 
deemer's liberation  of  souls  from  Hades  which  early 
acquired  so  great  currency  were  suggested  by  i  Peter 
iii.  1 9  ;  but  no  doubt  this  is  only  matter  of  opinion.* 
However,  the  earliest  attestation  to  Peter's  First  Epis- 
tle is  that  given  in  the  Second  (iii.  i) ;  for  those  who 
deny  this  Second  Epistle  to  be  the  work  of  Peter 
acknowledge  that  it  is  a  very  early  document ;  and  if  it 
be  a  forgery,  it  is  nevertheless  clear  that  there  was,  at 
the  time  when  it  was  written,  an  Epistle  already  in  cir- 
culation, which  the  author  believed  to  be  Peter's,  on  the 
level  of  which  he  aspired  to  place  the  second  letter. 

The  external  attestation  to  the  Epistle  being  so  strong, 

*  See  note,  p.  412.  In  some  of  the  Gnostic  systems  this  liberation  of 
souls  from  Hades  is  made  to  be  the  great  object  of  the  Redeemer's  death. 
Hades  is  deceived  into  regarding  the  Redeemer  as  one  of  the  ordinary  dead, 
and  so  admitting  the  Spoiler  who  was  to  depopulate  his  kingdom.  This  was 
the  theory  of  the  Marcionites,  described  by  Eznig  {see  Smith's  Diet,  of  Christ. 
Biog.,  iii.  822),  and  of  the  Sethites  of  Hippolytus  (v.  19,  p.  142  MiUer). 
Several  orthodox  fathers  adopted  the  theory  of  a  deception  suffered  by  the 
devil  in  consequence  of  our  Lord's  humiliation ;  see  in  particular  Origen's 
strange  comment  on  Ps.  xxii.  6. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  fair  to  mention  the  curious  fact,  which  illustrates 
the  precarious  character  of  the  argument  from  silence,  that  Irenaeus,  who  else- 
where shows  that  he  was  acquainted  with  Peter's  Epistle,  does  not  quote  it  in 
connexion  with  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  descent  to  hell.  His  chief  proof  of 
that  doctrine  is  founded  on  a  supposed  Old  Testament  passage,  which  he  cites 


542  The  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxii. 


I  attribute  no  importance  to  the  only  point  in  which  it  is 
defective,  viz.  that  the  Muratorian  Fragment  mentions 
neither  Epistle  of  Peter.  I  myself  believe  that  fragment 
to  be  later  than  Irenaeus ;  but  grant  it  the  greatest 
antiquity  that  has  been  claimed  for  it,  and  we  have  older 
testimony  that  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  was  then  in  cir- 
culation. I  cannot  but  think,  therefore,  that  anyone  pro- 
fessing to  give  a  list  of  New  Testament  books  would  have 
been  sure  to  name  this  Epistle,  if  not  for  approval,  at  least 
for  rejection.  Now,  Westcott  [N.  T.  Canon,  Appendix  C.) 
has  pointed  out  that  other  work  done  by  the  scribe  to 
whom  we  owe  the  preservation  of  this  fragment  is  dis- 
figured by  hasty  errors  of  omission.  It  seems  to  me 
therefore  probable  that  a  sentence  has  been  accidentally 
left  out,  in  which  the  Petrine  Epistles  were  spoken  of. 
The  omission  is  to  be  regretted,  not  as  regards  the 
First  Epistle  concerning  which  we  have  other  abundant 
evidence,  but  as  depriving  us  of  some  important  guid- 
ance in  our  judgment  about  the  Second.  For  the  omis- 
sion of  mention  of  it  in  that  fragment  is  a  fact  which  has 
no  weight,  when  the  First  Epistle  also  is  not  noticed. 

I  come  now  to  the  internal  difficulties  which  have 
been  alleged  to  warrant  the  rejection  of  so  much  external 

four  times  (III.  xx.  3;  IV.  xxxiii.  i,  12;  V.  xxxi.  i),  '  The  Lord  God  the  Holy- 
One  of  Israel  hath  remembered  his  dead  which  lay  in  the  earth  of  the  grave, 
and  he  descended  to  them  that  he  might  proclaim  to  them  his  salvation.'  This 
passage  had  also  been  cited  by  Justin  Martyr  [Trypho  72),  who  attributes  it 
to  Jeremiah,  and  accuses  the  Jews  of  having  cut  it  out  of  their  copies.  This  in- 
terpolation has  close  affinity  with  2  Esdras  ii.  31.  The  other  passages  which 
Irenaeus  (V.  xxxi.)  cites  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  are  Matt.  xii.  40,  Eph.  iv.  9, 
Pss.  Ixxxvi.  13,  xxiii.  4.  TertuUian  also  {Dc  Ani?na  55)  omits  to  cite  I  Peter; 
but  it  is  easy  to  see  that  in  this  place  he  is  following  Irenaeus.  The  passage  of 
Peter  is  used  by  Clement  Alex.  {Strom,  vi.  6).  Hennas  {Sim.  ix.  16)  has  a 
notion  peculiar  to  himself,  that  the  Apostles  descending  to  Hades  not  only 
preached  to  those  who  had  died  before  theirt,  but  there  baptized  those  so  cvan- 
;rolized. 


xxii.J      Internal  Diffi,culties  alleged  against  it.         543 

evidence.      And  first  we  must  notice  the  indication  of 
advanced  date  afforded  by  tlie  fact  that,  when  this  Epistle 
was  written,  the  Christians  as  such  were  subject  to  legal 
penalties.     When  Paul  wrote  to  the  Romans,  he  could 
tell  them  (xiii.  3)  that  rulers  were  '  not  a  terror  to  good 
works  but  to  the  evil';  that  they  need  not  be  afraid  of 
the  power ;  for  if  they  did  that   which    was    good  they 
should  have  praise  of  the  same,  '  for  he  is  the  minister  of 
God  to  thee  for  good.'     Paul's  own  experience,   when 
brought  before  Gallio  (Acts  xviii.   14),  had  taught  him 
that  a  man  against  whom  no  charge  of  'wrong  or  wicked 
villany'  could  be  laid,  would  be  protected  by  the  Roman 
magistrate  against  an  attempt  to  punish  him  merely  on 
account  of  his  religious  opinions.     But  Peter's  Epistle 
contemplates  a  state  of  things  when  innocence  was  no 
protection,  when  a  man  might  do   well  and  suffer  for 
it  (ii.  20). .   The  name  Christian  had  become  a  title  of 
accusation  (iv.  i6) ;  and  a  main  object  with  the  writer  is 
to  animate  his  disciples'  courage  to  endure  a  'fiery  trial' 
coming  on  them  solely  on  account  of  their  religion.     It 
has   been    assumed  that  it  was  the   Emperor  Trajan's 
rescript  in    answer  to  Pliny  which  first  made  the  pro- 
fession of  Christianity  illegal,  and  so,  that  Peter's  Epistle 
cannot  be  dated  earlier  than  that  emperor's  reign.     But 
Trajan  did  no  more  than  sanction  the  line  of  action  Pliny 
had  taken  before  he  consulted  him  ;  and  it  is  plain  from 
Pliny's  letter  that  the  state  of  things  he  found  existing 
when  he  entered  upon  office  was,  that  Christians  as  such 
were  liable  to  be  punished.     Pliny  states  that  he  had 
never  been  present  at  trials  of  Christians,   and  conse- 
quently was   puzzled  how  to   conduct  them.      He  was 
himself  desirous  to  take  a  merciful  view  ;  and  as  he  could 
find  no  evidence  that  Christians  had  been  guilty  of  any 
immoralit}',  he  wished  that  men  should  not  be  punished 


544  The  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxii. 


for  the  past  offence  of  having  belonged  to  the  prohibited 
sect,  provided  they  were  willing  to  withdraw^  from  con- 
nexion with  it  in  the  future.  But  he  had  no  doubt  of  the 
propriety  of  punishing  those  who  contumaciously  refused 
to  abandon  their  Christian  profession.  It  is  therefore 
quite  clear  that,  if  we  wish  to  name  the  time  when  Chris- 
tianity became  a  prohibited,  religion,  we  must  assign 
an  earlier  date  than  Trajan's  reign.  To  me  it  seems  that 
the  most  probable  date  is  64,  the  year  of  Nero's  perse- 
cution ;  and  therefore,  though  I  see  nothing  inconsistent 
with  Petrine  authorship  in  the  fact  that  when  the  Epistle 
was  written  Christians  were  liable  to  be  punished  as  such, 
I  think  that  this  fact  forbids  us  to  date  the  letter  earlier 
in  Peter's  life  than  the  year  of  the  burning  of  Rome. 

I  have  already  more  than  once  had  occasion  to  men- 
tion the  chief  cause  of  opposition  to  Peter's  Epistle. 
Those  who,  with  Baur,  accept  the  Clementine  Homilies 
as  revealing  the  true  history  of  the  early  Church,  learn 
to  think  of  Peter  as  an  Ebionite  in  doctrine,  and  as 
permanently  in  antagonism  to  Paul.  But  tiie  Peter  of 
this  Epistle  teaches  doctrine  which  has  the  closest  affinity 
with  that  of  Paul,  and  even  adopts  a  good  deal  of  that 
Apostle's  language.  I  will  not  repeat  the  arguments  I 
have  already  used  to  show  the  Clementines  to  be  wholly 
undeserving  of  the  credence  Baur  has  given  to  their 
representations,  and  it  is  the  less  needful  to  do  so  be- 
cause there  are  manifest  indications  that  Baur's  theory 
is  dying  out.  In  Germany,  scholars  who  would  think  it 
an  affront  to  be  classed  as  apologists,  such  as  Pfleiderer, 
Weizsacker,  Keim,  retreat  from  his  extreme  positions. 
Renan  accepts  Peter's  Epistle,  refusing  to  count  its 
conciliatory  tendencies  as  a  decisive  objection,  and  says 
{UAuteclirist,  p.  ix.),  '  If  the  hatred  between  the  two 
parties  of  prirnitive  Christianity  had  been  as  profound 


XXII.]  Its  Paulinism.  545 

as  the  school  of  Baur  believes,  the  reconciliation  could 
never  have  been  made.' 

One  who,  as  Renan  does,  accepts  the  tradition  that 
the  letter  was  written  from  Rome,  cannot  reasonably  be 
surprised  at  its  Paulinism.  Peter  was  not  one  of  those 
rugged  characters  whom  it  costs  nothing  to  be  out  of 
harmony  with  their  surroundings ;  who,  living  much  in 
their  own  thoughts,  arrive  at  conclusions  which  they  hold 
so  strongly  as  to  have  power  to  force  them  on  unwilling 
ears.  Peter,  on  the  contrary,  possessed  an  eminently 
sympathetic  nature.  He  was  one  who  received  impres- 
sions easily,  and  could  not,  without  an  effort,  avoid 
reflecting  the  tone  of  the  company  in  which  he  lived. 
I  need  only  remind  you  of  what  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians  tells  of  Peter's  conduct  at  Antioch ;  how  readily 
he  conformed  to  the  usage  of  the  Pauline  Christians  of 
that  city,  but,  on  the  arrival  of  visiters  from  Palestine, 
fell  back  into  the  Jewish  practice.  What  business  should 
Peter  have  at  Rome  if  in  his  mind  Christianity  were 
still  but  a  reformed  sect  of  Judaism,  and  if  he  had  not 
risen  to  the  conception  of  a  universal  Church  ?  And  how- 
could  he  live  in  a  Church,  so  many  of  whose  members 
owed  their  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  to  Paul's  preaching, 
without  sympathizing  with  the  honour  in  which  the  work 
of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  was  held  ?  Was  the  man 
who  did  not  hold  aloof  from  Paul's  company  at  Antioch, 
when  the  idea  of  the  admission  of  Gentiles  to  equal  pri- 
vileges was  still  a  novelty  offensive  to  Jewish  minds, 
likely  to  play  the  part  of  a  separatist  at  Rome,  after 
Gentile  Christianity  had  established  its  full  rights  not 
only  there  but  in  so  many  cities  of  the  Empire  ? 

There  has,  indeed,  been  a  good  deal  of  controversy 
as  to  the  place  of  composition  of  the  Epistle.  I  need 
hardly  remind  you  that  at  the  close  (v.  13)  a  salutation 

2  N 


546  TJie  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxii. 

is  sent  from  '  the  Church  that  is  at  Babylon  elected 
together  with  you.'  The  early  Church  generally  under- 
stood that  Babylon  here  was  a  mystical  name  for  Rome  ; 
but  many  moderns  take  the  word  in  its  literal  and  ob- 
vious sense  as  denoting  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates,  a 
place  which  was  the  centre  of  a  considerable  Jewish 
population,  as  Josephus  and  Philo  bear  witness.*  I  will 
not  trouble  myself  to  discuss  a  third  theory  which  finds 
an  Egyptian  Babylon.  The  connexion  of  Peter  with 
Rome  has  been  so  much  insisted  on  by  Roman  Catholics, 
that  Protestants  have  thought  it  a  duty  to  deny  it ;  and 
thus  there  is  a  certain  number  of  commentators  whose 
views  have  been  so  biased,  one  way  or  other,  by  the 
effect  their  decision  may  have  on  modern  controversies, 
that  their  opinion  deserves  to  go  for  nothing.  For  my 
part,  I  so  utterly  disbelieve  in  any  connexion  between 
Peter  and  Leo  XIII.,  that  I  count  a  man  as  only  half 
a  Protestant  if  he  troubles  his  head  about  the  Romish 
controversy  when  he  is  discussing  the  personal  history 
of  Peter.  One  might  expect  to  find  unprejudiced  judges 
in  men  so  advanced  in  their  opinions  that  they  ought  to 
be  sublimely  indifferent  to  controversies  between  one 
sect  of  Christians  and  another.  Yet  it  is  curious  how 
the  scent  of  the  roses  will  cling  to  the  fragments  of  the 
shattered  vase.  Thus,  Comte's  Positive  Religion,  though 
not  Christian,  or  even  theistic,  retains  a  strong  Roman 
Catholic  complexion.  Accordingly  on  the  present  question 
Renan  adheres  to  the  view  in  which  he  had  been  brought 
up,  and  takes  Babylon  to  mean  Rome;  while  Lipsius,  and 
other  German  divines,  who  hold  the  opposite  opinion, 
appear  to  me  not  free  from  anti-Romish  bias.  I  think 
that  any  critic  who  puts  the  Epistle  down  to  the  reign 
of  Trajan  ought  to  feel  no  difficulty  in  taking  Babylon  to 

*  Joseph.  Anit.  xv.  3,  i  ;  Philo  De  legat.  «</  Caiuiii,  p.  1023. 


XXII. J        ,        Its  Place  of  Composition.  547 

mean  Rome  :  for  by  the  time  of  that  Emperor's  reign 
the  Apocalypse  must  have  had  large  circulation,  and 
might  well  have  influenced  Christian  phraseology  ;  and 
in  that  book  Babylon  unquestionably  denotes  Rome. 
But  for  us  who  maintain  an  earlier  date  for  the  Epistle, 
the  question  is  not  so  easy  of  decision.  For  then  we 
must  hold  that  it  was  St.  Peter  who  set  the  first  example 
of  tliis  way  of  speaking ;  and  as  his  letter  is  not  a  mys- 
tical book  like  the  Apocalypse,  it  is  natural  for  us  to 
ask.  If  the  Apostle  meant  Rome,  why  did  he  not  say 
Rome  ?  On  the  other  hand,  the  evidence  that  Babylon 
was  the  centre  of  a  large  Jewish  population  relates  to  a 
date  somewhat  earlier  than  the  time  of  this  Epistle. 
For  Josephus  relates  [Antt.  xviii.  9)  that  in  the  reign  of 
Caligula  the  Jews,  partly  on  account  of  persecutions 
from  their  neighbours,  partly  on  account  of  a  pestilence, 
removed  in  great  numbers  from  Babylon  to  the  new  and 
rising  city  of  Seleucia,  about  forty  miles  distant.  And 
there  new  quarrels  arose,  in  which  the  greater  part  of 
the  Jews,  to  the  number  of  50,000,  were  slain.  Thus  it 
would  appear  that  at  the  date  of  the  Epistle  there  was 
no  Jewish  colony  in  Babylon  ;  and  so  Peter's  journey  to 
that  city,  which  in  any  case  would  'be  a  little  surprising, 
becomes  quite  unaccountable. 

The  most  trustworthy  tradition  makes  the  West, 
not  the  East,  the  scene  of  Peter's  labours.  The  pas- 
sage in  which  Eusebius  speaks  (ii.  15)  of  the  verse 
about  Babylon  is  worth  attention  on  account  of  the 
two  earlier  writers  whom  he  cites.  Eusebius  tells 
that  Peter's  hearers  had  begged  his  disciple  Mark  to 
give  them  a  written  record  of  the  Apostle's  teaching, 
and  that  in  compliance  with  this  request  the  Gospel 
according  to  St.  Mark  was  composed.  And  he  goes  on, 
*  It  is  said  [<^(xai)  that  when  the  Apostle  knew  what  had 

2  N  2 


54S  The  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  .         [xxii. 

been  done  (for  the  Spirit  revealed  it  to  him),  he  was 
pleased  by  the  eager  zeal  of  the  men,  and  gave  his 
sanction  to  the  writing  for  use  in  the  Churches  (Clement 
has  recorded  the  story  in  the  6th  book  of  his  Hypotyp- 
oseis,  and  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  gives  like  tes- 
timony) ;  and  that  Peter  makes  mention  of  Mark  in  his 
first  Epistle,  which  it  is  also  said  that  he  composed  in 
Rome,  and  that  he  himself  intimates  this,  by  giving  the 
city  the  metaphorical  name  of  Babylon.'  Now  Eusebius 
elsewhere  (vi.  14)  quotes  the  passage  from  the  Hypotyp- 
oseis,  telling  the  same  story  as  to  the  origin  of  St.  Mark's 
Gospel ;  but  with  this  difference,  that  when  Peter  heard 
w^hat  had  been  done  he  neither  approved  nor  disapproved. 
It  is  natural  to  suspect  that  the  parts  in  the  passage  I 
have  just  cited  which  do  not  appear  to  rest  on  Clement's 
authority  were  derived  by  Eusebius  from  the  other 
writer  whom  he  cites,  Papias.  Now  the  words, '  as  I  said,' 
in  the  passage  of  Papias  cited  p.  no,  show  that  there 
was  a  previous  passage  in  which  he  had  spoken  of  the 
relations  between  Peter  and  Mark.  And  as  Eusebius 
further  states  that  Papias  quoted  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter, 
the  probability  rises  very  high  that  the  passage  quoted 
was  the  verse  (v.  13)  which  in  the  above  extract  Eusebius 
brings  into  such  close  connexion  with  the  name  of 
Papias.  If  this  be  so,  we  could  not  have  higher  au- 
thority for  interpreting  '  Babylon  '  in  that  verse  to  mean 
Rome ;  both  because  Papias  lived  before  the  invention 
of  the  Clementine  legend,  and  because  his  authority, 
John  the  Elder,  was  one  likely  to  be  well  informed. 

It  must  be  added,  that  if  the  scene  of  Peter's  activity 
were  on  the  Euphrates  at  so  late  a  period  as  that  which 
I  have  assigned  to  his  Epistle,  it  is  unlikely  that  he 
should  be  found  so  soon  afterwards  suffering  martyrdom 
at  Rome.     But  the  Roman  martyrdom  of  Peter  is  very 


XXII.]  The  Roman  Martyrdom  of  Peter.  549 


well  attested..  We  gather  from  John  (xxi.  19)  that  Peter 
did  suffer  martyrdom  ;  and  no  other  city  claims  to  have 
been  the  place.  At  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
Tertullian  {De  Praescrip.  36,  Scarp.  15)  and  Caius  (Euseb. 
ii.  25)  have  no  doubt  that  it  was  at  Rome  he  suffered. 
And  Caius  states  further  that  there  were  '  trophies,'  by 
which,  I  suppose,  we  are  to  understand  tombs  or  memo- 
rial churches,  marking  the  spots  sacred  to  the  memory 
of  the  Apostles.*  Now  it  is  reasonable  to  think  that 
these  could  not  have  been  of  very  recent  erection  when 
Caius  wrote.  The  testimony  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth, 
also  quoted  by  Eusebius  in  the  chapter  just  cited,  gives 
us  reason  to  believe  that  some  time  before  the  end  of  the 
second  century  the  Christian  world  generally  acknow- 
ledged the  Roman  martyrdom. 

If  we  are  to  understand  that  Peter  gave  to  Rome  the 

*  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  11.  5)  has  given  what  ap- 
pear to  me  conclusive  reasons  for  holding  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.  There  is  a  difficulty,  however, 
in  reconciling  the  tradition  as  to  the  place  of  burial,  which  seems  to  be  as  old 
as  Caius,  with  what  also  appears  to  be  a  well  attested  fact,  that  the  body  lay 
for  some  time  in  the  Catacombs,  the  very  spot  being  stiU  shovm.  Pope 
Gregoiy  the  Great  {Ep.  iv.  30)  relates  a  legend,  more  obscurely  told  in  verses 
of  Pope  Damasus  (De  Rossi,  Inscr.  Christ.  11.  32  ;  see  also  Acta  Pet.  et  Pauli, 
ap.  Tischendorf,  Acta  Apoc.  p.  38),  that  certain  Greeks  attempted  to  steal  the 
bodies  of  Peter  and  Paul,  but  were  compelled  by  a  miraculous  thunder-storm 
and  earthquake  to  drop  them  at  a  place  near  that  where  they  were  temporarily 
deposited  in  the  Catacombs.  Duchesne  {Liber  Pontificalis,  civ.)  gives  an  ex- 
planation, which  I  now  believe  to  be  the  true  ojie,  but  which  was  not  known  to  me 
when  p.  438  of  this  volume  was  printed,  namely,  that  what  took  place  in  the  year 
258  was  a  removal  of  the  bodies  to,  and  not  from,  the  Catacombs.  When  the 
stress  of  Valerian's  persecution  made  it  impossible  for  Christians  to  hold  their 
meetings  at  the  Memories  above  ground,  a  more  secure  place  of  fesort  was  pro- 
vided by  transporting  the  apostolic  relics  to  the  concealment  of  the  Catacombs. 


550  The  First  Epistle  of  St.  Petei'.  [xxii. 

name  of  Babylon,  we  have  an  additional  reason  for  as- 
signing to  the  Epistle  a  late  date  in  Peter's  life.  Such 
a  name  would  not  be  given  until  Rome  had,  by  its  per- 
secution of  the  Church,  come  to  be  regarded  by  Chris- 
tians as  the  true  successor  of  the  tyrant  city  which 
oppressed  the  Church  of  the  elder  dispensation. 

The  question  next  comes  under  consideration,  For 
what  readers  was  the  Epistle  intended  ?  The  opening 
address  recalls  the  Epistle  of  James,  a  document  which 
I  shall  presently  give  reasons  to  think  was  known  to 
Peter.  The  letter  of  James  is  addressed  '  to  the  twelve 
tribes  which  are  of  the  Dispersion'  (rate  ^^v  t^  Sia<nropa), 
a  phrase  by  which  we  readily  understand  Jews  living 
outside  the  limits  of  the  Holy  Land.  St.  Peter's  Epistle 
is  addressed  to  the  elect  who  are  sojourners  of  the 
Dispersion  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and 
Bithynia  (IkXektoic  TrapeiridrjinoiQ  Bia(nropag)  ;  but  on  ex- 
amination we  find  that  in  this  case  the  '  Dispersion  ' 
does  not  consist  exclusively,  or  even  principally,  of  Jews. 
The  persons  addressed  had  been  '  called  out  of  darkness 
into  God's  marvellous  light '  :  in  times  past  they  '  had 
not  been  a  people,  but  were  now  the  people  of  God ' 
(ii.  9,  lo).  In  this  verse  a  passage  of  Hosea  is  made 
use  of  which  Paul  had  employed  (Rom.  ix.  25)  with  re- 
ference to  the  calling  of  the  Qentiles.  The  uncoifverted 
days  of  those  addressed  had  been  days  of  *  ignorance ' 
(i.  14),  days  when  they  had  '  wrought  the  will  of  the  Gen- 
tiles'  (iv.  3).  It  may  be  inferred  from  these  expressions 
that  the  persons  addressed  are  not  Jews ;  and  yet  are 
not  permanent  residents  in  the  countries  addressed,  but 
for  some  reason  '  dispersed  '  among  them.  I  do  not  lay 
stress  upon  the  word  TrapeTn^iiij.oiQ  as  proving  that  those 
addressed  were  but  temporary  sojourners  where  they 
dwelt ;    for  the  thought  was  constantly  present  to    the 


XXII.]  Shows  Acquaintance  ivith  Epistle  to  Romans.  55  i 

minds  of  Christians  that  they  were  but  '  strangers  and 
pilgrims'  upon  earth  i^ivoi  koi  TrapeTridi^uoi,  Heb.  xi.  13: 
see  also  Lightfoot's  note  on  the  address  of  the  Epistle 
of  Clement  of  Rome).  It  is  possible  that  the  word 
dia(nropa  may  also  be  here  used  in  a  metaphorical  sense, 
the  Christians  scattered  among  the  world  of  heathen 
being  regarded  as  a  spiritual  Israel  dispersed  among 
the  Gentiles.  But  I  feel  much  inclined  to  take  the 
word  literally,  and  to  believe  that  Peter's  letter  was 
written  to  members  of  the  Roman  Church  whom  Nero's 
persecution  had  dispersed  to  seek  safety  in  the  pro- 
vinces, Asia  Minor  being  by  no  means  an  unlikely  place 
for  them  to  flee  to.* 

I  have  already  had  occasion  to  express  my  opinion 
that  the  Paulinism  of  Peter's  Epistle  proceeds  beyond 
identity  of  doctrine,  and  is  such  as  to  show  that  Peter 
had  read  some  of  Paul's  letters.  In  particular  the  proofs 
of  his  acquaintance  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  are 
so  numerous  and  striking  as  to  leave  no  doubt  on  my 
mind.  I  have  just  referred  to  the  use  in  both  Epistles  of 
the  same  verse  from  Hosea  ;  so,  in  like  manner,  both 
combine  in  the  same  way  the  verses,  Isaiah  viii.  14,  and 
xxviii.  16,  '  Behold  I  lay  in  Sion  a  stumbling  stone  and 
rock  of  offence,  and  whosoever  believelh  on  him  shall 
not  be  ashamed  '  (Rom.  ix.  33,  i  Pet.  ii.  6-8).  There 
are  many  passages  where  there  are  distinct  verbal  co- 
incidences, and  especially  in  the  directions  to  obedience 
to  the  civil  rulers. f 

*  An  interesting  paper,  taking  this  view,  was  published  by  Dr.  Quarry  in 
the  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  Jan.  i86i.     The  use  made  by  Peter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  dwelt  on  in  the  same  paper, 
t  vTTOTdyr]Te  fiaffi\e7  ws  virepexovTi  (l  Pet.  11.  13); 

iracra  ^vx^  i^ovciais  inrepexovffais  inronxa'ffeffdw  (Rom.  xiii.  l). 

els  (K'Siic-qcnv  KOLKoiroiZv  (I  Pet.  11,  14); 

(kSikos  els  opy-qv  r^  rb  Kanhv  wpicrcrovTL  (Rom.  xiii.  4). 


552  The  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxii. 

There  are  isolated  coincidences  with  other  Pauline 
Epistles  (compare,  for  instance,  ii.  i6,  with  Gal.  v.  13  ; 
V.  8,  with  I  Thess.  v.  6  ;  v.  14,  with  i  Cor.  xvi.  20).  But 
it  is  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  that  the  affinity- 
is  closest.  A  great  many  critics — Holtzmann,  Seufert, 
Renan — have  convinced  themselves  that  it  is  such  as 
to  prove  that  Peter  must  have  used  that  Epistle,  and 
I  had  myself  accepted  that  conclusion.  I  still  hold  it ; 
though  now  that  I  come  to  lay  the  proofs  before  you,  I 
have  to  own  that  they  are  by  no  means  so  demonstrative 
as  I  count  them  to  be  in  the  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  There  are  several  passages  in  Peter's  Epistle 
which  so  strongly  remind  us  of  passages  in  the  Epistle 

erratpov  5e  ayaOoiroioov  (l  Pet.  ii.  14)  ; 

rb  a/yaOhv  ■Kolei  koI  e^eis  eiraivov  (Rom.  xiii.  3). 

I  Peter  iii.  8,  9,  is  an  abridgment  of  Rom.  xii.  10,  13-16. 

irdvTes  dfi6(j)poves,  Taireiv6<ppoves,  ^i\dSe\poi,  jui)  aTroSiSSvTes  Kanhv  avrl 
KUKov,  rovvavriov  Se  evKoyovvTes  (l  Pet.) ; 

Tb  avrh  ets  a\Xi\Xovs  (ppovovvres,  fj,^  tk  vt|/?j\a  (ppovovvTss  aWa  To7i  ra- 
ireivois  ffvyaTrayS/xevoi,  Trj  (ptXaSektpia  els  aW'fiXovs  <pi\6<Tropyoi,  /XTiBful  KaKhv 
avrl  KUKov  airoSiSSuTes,  evAoyeTre  Kal  fii]  KaTapciff^e  (Rom.). 

Compare  also  Rom.  xii.  6,  7,  with  i  Pet.  iv.  10,  11.  Observe  how  the 
(rvv(rxvf^''''''iC^cS^  of  Rom.  xii.  2  is  reproduced  in  i  Pet.  i.  14  (the  word  not 
occurring  elsewhere  N.  T.) ;  and  note  the  similarity  of  the  thoughts,  Rom. 
xii.  I,  I  Pet.  ii.  5. 

6  iradchv  iv  crapKl  -niiravTai  afiaprlas  (l  Pet.  iv.  I.) ; 

6  yap  airadav^v  SeSiKaiwrai  airh  ttis  afiaprias  (Rom.  vi.  7)- 

Kadh  Koiva>vuTe  rois  rov  xP'-<^'''ov  iraO-fifiairiv,  x«'P^''^  '^'"'^  '""^  *''  ''"^  "'"'<'■ 
Ka\i^ei  TTJs  S6^ris  aiirov  x'^pV'''^  (^  Pet.  iv.   13) ; 

XpiffTov,   eiirep  cvfj.ir6.<TxoiJ.iv  'Iva  Ka\  crvvSo^affdci/xev  (Rom.  viii.  17). 

fidpTvs  Twv  rov  xp'-'^'''^^  imBTifJLdrwv,  6  Kal  rrjs  fj.e\\ov(rr)s  airoKaXvimaQai 
8({^rjs  Koivo)v6s  (i  Pet.  v.   i) ; 

ra  irad^ifiara  rod  vvv  Kaipov  irphs  rrjv  fieWovcrav  56^av  airoKaXvcpBrjvai 
els  T]fias  (Rom.  viii.   18). 

These  are  only  a  few  of  the  more  striking  coincidences,  but  the  list  might 
be  greatly  enlarged  if  we  included  several  where  the  same  thoughts  are  ex- 
pressed with  variations  of  language.  See  Seufert  in  Hilgenfeld' s.Zeitsc/iri/f, 
1874,  P-  360. 


XXII. J  Its  Coincidences  imth  Ephesians.  553 


to  the  Ephesians,  that  the  simplest  explanation  of  their 
origin  is  that  they  were  suggested  to  the  writer  by  his 
knowledge  of  Paul's  Epistle.  But  the  resemblance  is 
often  merely  in  the  thoughts,  or  in  the  general  plan, 
without  any  exact  reproduction  of  the  words.  We  might 
conjecturally  explain  this  difference  by  supposing  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  to  have  been  so  long  known  to 
St.  Peter  that  he  had  had  time  to  become  familiar  with 
its  language,  while  his  acquaintance  with  the  Ephesian 
Epistle  was  more  recent. 

Comparing,  then,  Peter's  Epistle  with  that  to  the 
Ephesians,  we  find  that  after  the  address,  both  begin 
with  *  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,'  but  the  fact  that  this  is  also  the  commencement 
of  2  Cor.  weakens  the  force  of  this  coincidence,  and  the 
continuation  in  Eph.  and  i  Pet.  is  quite  different — 
6  svXoyi'taag  r)iJ.aQ  in  the  one  case,  6  avayevvyjcrag  riinag  in 
the  other.  Again,  in  the  opening  of  Peter's  Epistle 
we  have  licXeKTolg  .  .  .  .  kuto.  Trpoyvujaiv  Osov  iruTpbg  Iv 
ayLaajxd^  irvevfjiaTog  elg  .  .  -  .  pavTiafJov  aifxaTog  I.  X.  In 
that  of, Ephesians  Kadcog  IseAt^aro  rjiuag  ....  tlvai.  i^juac 
ayiovg....£V(x)  £\Ofxev  tijv  cnroXvTpijomv  hia  tov  ni/maTog 
avTov.  There  is  here  considerable  resemblance  in  the 
thoughts  ;  but  when  the  passages  are  compared  in  full 
there  is  found  to  be  a  good  deal  of  diversity  in  the  lan- 
guage. The  style  of  the  opening  of  the  two  Epistles  is 
much  alike.  Each  begins  with  a  very  long  sentence, 
Eph.  i.  3-14,  I  Pet.  i.  3-12,  the  clauses  being  connected 
alternately  by  participles  and  relative  pronouns. 

If  we  compare  i  Pet.  i.  20,  10-12,  with  Eph.  i.  4,  iii. 
g-ii,  we  have  the  same  doctrine  of  a  mystery  ordained 
of  God  TToo  KarajSoX^c  Koapov,  kept  secret  from  former 
generations  but  now  fully  revealed,  and  exciting  the 
interest  even   of  the  angelic  host.     Christ's  exaltation 


554  Tf^^  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxir. 

above  the  angels  is  spoken  of  i  Pet.  iii.  22,  Eph.  i.  20-22. 
Both  Epistles  contain  practical  admonitions  to  Christians 
as  to  their  duties  in  .the  several  relations  of  life  ;  but 
except  in  the  directions  to  wives  to  be  subject  to  their 
husbands,  and  slaves  to  their  masters,  there  is  very  little 
similarity  between  those  parts  of  the  two  Epistles.  In 
both  I  Pet.  ii.  4-7  and  Eph.  ii.  20-22,  we  have  the  com- 
parison of  the  Christian  society  to  a  building  of  which 
each  individual  member  is  a  living  stone  and  Christ  the 
chief  corner  stone  :  but  St.  Peter  is  citing  Ps.  cxviii.  22, 
and  Isaiah  xxviii.  16  ;  and  the  former  passage  may  have 
suggested  to  Paul  also  the  comparison  of  the  corner- 
stone. It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  passage  from  the 
Psalms  had  been  applied  by  our  Lord  to  himself  (Matt. 
xxi.  42),  and  is  similarly  cited  by  St.  Peter  (Acts  iv. 
II.  Other  coincidences  are  the  kqvktoq  tjIc  Kao^iaq 
avOpLOTTog  (i  Pet.  iii.  4)  with  the  ecruj  avdptxiTTOQ  (Eph.  iii. 
16);  "iva  Tffxag  Trpocrayayg  no  Oeo]  (l  Pel.  iii.  18)  with  81 
avTOv  £YO/i£a/  Trjv  Trpoaaywyr'iv  irpog  tov  TruT^pa  (Eph.  ii.  18); 
and  the  passage  about  Christ's  descent  to  hell  (i  Pet. 
iii.  1 9,  20)  with  Eph.  iv.  8-10.  The  coincidences  I  have 
described  have  been  accepted  by  many  critics  as  proofs 
that  the  one  Epistle  was  used  by  the  writer  of  the  other; 
Hilgenfeld,  however,  maintaining  that  it  is  Ephesians 
which  is  indebted  to  i  Peter.  Numerous  and  striking 
as  these  coincidences  are,  still  when  they  are  compared 
with  those  between  i  Peter  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  the  verbal  agreement  in  the  latter  case  is 
found  to  be  so  much  closer  that  a  good  deal  of  doubt  is 
cast  upon  the  assertion  that  the  former  case  is  one  of 
literary  obligation.  Lately  Seufert  (Hilgenfeld's  Zeit- 
schrift,  1 88 1,  p.  179)  has  offered  a  new  and  rather  startling 
explanation.  He  accounts  for  the  similarity  between  i 
Peter  and  Ephesians  as  we   account  for  that  between 


XXII.]  Its  Coincidences  zvith  EpJicsiam.  555 

Ephesians  and  Colossians,  viz.  that  one  document  was 
not  copied  from  the  other,  but  that  both  had  the  same 
author ;  and  of  course  in  this  case  that  author  could  be 
neither  Peter  nor  Paul.  I  could  point  out  a  very  formi- 
dable array  of  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this  hypothesis ; 
but  I  will  not  spend  time  in  refuting  a  theory  which  has 
not  as  yet  gained  adherents,  and  probably  will  never 
do  so.  The  resemblances  between  i  Peter  and  Ephe- 
sians are  very  much  less  numerous  and  less  striking 
than  those  between  Ephesians  and  Colossians ;  but  in 
order  to  establish  Seufert's  theory  they  ought  to  be  very 
much  stronger:  for  we  clearly  can  more  readily  recognize 
resemblances  as  tokens  of  common  authorship  in  the  case 
of  two  documents  which  purport  to  come  from  the  same 
author,  and  which  from  the  very  earliest  times  have  been 
accepted  as  so  coming,  than  when  the  case  is  just  the 
reverse.  So  Seufert  chiefly  aims  at  establishing  his 
theory  by  showing  that  the  resemblances  between  the 
two  Epistles  cannot  be  accounted  for  either  by  accident, 
or  by  the  hypothesis  that  one  writer  borrowed  from  the 
other.  But  there  is  a  third  explanation  which  in  my 
opinion  ought  not  to  be  left  wholly  out  of  account. 
Peter  may  have  arrived  at  Rome  before  Paul  quitted  it, 
in  which  case  there  would  be  a  good  deal  of  viva  voce 
intercourse  between  the  Apostles,  as  there  had  been 
in  former  times.  The  doctrines  taught  by  Paul  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  would  also  naturally  be  the 
subject  of  his  discourses  to  the  Christians  at  Rome ;  and 
these  discourses  may  have  been  heard  by  Peter.  Having 
this  explanation  to  fall  back  upon,  if  Peter's  direct  use 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  were  disproved,  I  find 
little  to  tempt  me  in  Seufert's  hypothesis. 

I  have  still  to  mention  another  fact  establishing  how 


556  The  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxii. 

completely  this  Epistle  ignores'  all  dissensions  between 
Pauline  and  Jewish  Christianity.  This  writer,  who 
shows  such  strong  tokens  of  the  influence  of  Paul, 
equally  exhibits  traces  of  the  influence  of  the  Epistle  of 
James.  This  phenomenon  presents  no  difficulty  to  one 
who  has  accepted  the  Church  tradition  that  Peter  was 
the  writer ;  and  that  Peter  was  on  terms  of  close  in- 
timacy and  friendship  both  with  the  head  of  the  Church 
of  Jerusalem  and  with  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  But 
on  Baur's  theory  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  Roman 
Paulinist  of  the  age  of  Trajan  would  have  been  a  dili- 
gent student  and  admirer  of  the  specially  Jewish  Epistle. 
The  proofs  of  the  use  by  Peter  of  the  Epistle  of  James 
are  sufficiently  decisive.  The  phrases  7r£<pa(7juoT(,'  -rroiKikoiq 
.  and  ro  liiKi^nov  vfxwv  Ti]Q  nhTeiog  (James  i.  3,  4)  are  repeated 
in  I  Pet.  i.  7.  The  phrase  (:t,i]pavOi}  6  xopro?  ic<n  to  avOog 
iHiTtcTz  (i  Pet.  i.  24)  is  in  verbal  agreement  with  James  i. 
II.  The  quotation  from  Prov.  iii.  34,  '  God  resisteth  the 
proud,  but  giveth  grace  to  the  humble,'  is  made  in  James 
iv.  6  and  i  Pet.  v.  5  with  the  same  variation  from  the  text 
of  the  LXX.  [BtoQ  instead  of  Kupioc),  and  is  followed  in 
both  places  by  the  same  exhortation,  'Humble  your- 
selves, therefore,  that  God  may  exalt  you.'  Another 
citation  from  Prov.,  x.  12,  'shall  cover  a  multitude  of  sins,' 
is  also  common  to  the  two  Epistles.  I  have  already  said 
that  the  address  of  Peter's  Epistle  seems  to  have  been 
suggested  by  that  of  James. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  Peter  also  made  use  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  but  this  appears  to  me  more 
than  doubtful.  One  of  the  closest  of  the  coincidences, 
viz.  the  use  of  aira^  with  respect  to  the  offering  of  Christ 
(Heb.  ix.  28,  I  Pet.  iii.  18),  is  accounted  for  by  the  ecpdiraK 
of  Rom.  vi.  10.     I  have  already  [see  p.  402)  .said  some- 


XXII.]  Its  Originality  and  Individuality.  557 


thing  about  the  coincidences  between  Peter's  Epistle 
and  Peter's  speeches  recorded  in  the  Acts,* 

However  much  Peter  may  have  availed  himself  of  the 
writings  of  other  members"  of  the  Apostolic  company, 
he  had  so  incorporated  with  his  own  mind  w^hatever  he 
had  imbibed  from  them,  that  his  letter,  notwithstanding 
its  borrowings,  bears  a  distinct  stamp  of  originality  and 
individuality.  We  cannot  read  it  without  feeling  that 
this  is  not  the  work  of  a  literary  artist,  whose  only  aim 
is  to  make  a  clever  imitation  of  the  previously  known 
Apostolic  Epistles;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  writer's 
object  is  entirely  practical.  His  mind  is  full  of  the  con- 
dition of  disciples  who  had  already  had  to  endure  much 
suffering  on  behalf  of  their  faith,  and  on  whom  he  sees 
coming  a  still  more  fiery  trial  of  persecution.  His  great 
object  is  to  bring  before  their  minds  such  thoughts  as 
shall  keep  them  steadfast  under  temptation,  and  give 
them  patience  and  even  cheerfulness  amid  their  tribula- 
tions. In  particular  he  dwells  on  the  thoughts  (i.  6)  that 
their  trials  are  only  'if  need  be,'  and  only  'for  a  season.' 
In  other  words,  he  tells  them  that  their  sufferings  will  be 
found  to  constitute  a  salutary  discipline,  out  of  which 
their  faith  will  come  purified  like  gold  from  the  furnace, 
and  that  after  a  while  their  brief  period  of  trial  will  be 
succeeded  by  eternal  glory.  He  dwells  so  much  on  this 
promise  of  future  glory,  that  he  has  been  called  by  some 
critics  the  Apostle  of  Hope. 

I  have  already  remarked  that,  if  we  compare  passages 

*  In  addition  to  the  examples  given  (p.  402),  there  have  been  cited  the 
use  of  rb  |v\ov  for  the  cross  (l  Pet.  ii.  24,  Acts  v.  30,  x.  39),  but  see  Deut.  xxi. 
23,  and  Gal.  iii.  13  ;  the  claim  to  be  a  'witness '  to  Christ  (Acts  ii.  32,  iii.  15, 
I  Pet.  V.  i) ;  the  appeal  to  the  O.  T.  prophets  (Acts  iii.  18,  x.  43,  i  Pet.  i. 
10) ;  and  the  phrase  *to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead '  (Acts  x.  42,  i  Pet.  iv.  5, 
elsewhere  only  2  Tim.  iv.  i). 


558  The  Fij'st  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxii, 

in  this  Epistle  with  passages  in  former  Epistles  which 
may  seem  to  have  suggested  them — for  example,  the 
exhortation  to  wives  in  this  Epistle  with  St.  Paul's  in- 
structions to  wives  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians — we 
find  here  so  completely  new  a  choice  of  topics  as  fully  to 
justify  our  assertion  of  the  writer's  originality.  Other 
points  peculiar  to  this  Epistle  are  the  prominence  given 
to  baptism  (iii.  21)  and  the  new  birth  (i.  3,  23) ;  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  preaching  to  the  spirits  in  prison  (iii.  19) ; 
the  interest  taken  by  the  angelic  host  in  the  Christian 
scheme  (i.  12);  the  designation  of  Christ  as  the  Chief 
Shepherd;  and  a  whole  series  of  topics  calculated  to 
raise  the  courage  of  sufferers  for  the  faith  (ii,  20,  &c.,  iv. 
12,  v.  9).  It  may  be  added  that  a  forger  would  have 
been  likely  to  give  to  Peter  some  less  modest  title  than 
avuTTpiaftvTipog,  and  that  we  have  an  indication  of  early 
date,  if  not  in  the  use  of  the  word  ewKTKoirovvTeg  (v.  2) 
to  describe  the  work  of  the  presbyters  (the  reading 
here  being  doubtful,  and  the  argument  in  any  case  not 
cogent),  at  least  in  the  use  (v.  3)  with  respect  to  their 
flocks  of  the  phrase  tCov  kX/^pwy,  a  term  which  came 
in  very  early  times  to  be  appropriated  to  the  clergy. 


XXIII. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.  JAMES. 


T  HAVE  already  stated  (p.  538)  that  Eusebius  in  his 
-'-  list  of  Canonical  books' (iii.  25)  places  the  Epistle  of 
James  in  his  second  class,  viz.  books  controverted,  but 
recognized  by  most.  Elsewhere  (ii.  22,)  having  told  the 
story  of  the  martyrdom  of  James  the  Just,  he  adds  : 
'  This  is  the  account  given  of  James,  who  is  said  to  have 
been  the  author  of  the  first  of  what  are  called  the  Catho- 
lic Epistles.  But  it  must  be  observed  that  this  is  held 
to  be  spurious  [voQiViTai] ;  at  least  not  many  of  the  an- 
cients have  made  mention  of  it,  nor  yet  of  the  Epistle  of 
Jude,  which  is  likewise  one  of  the  seven  called  Catholic. 
Nevertheless,  we  know  that  these  have  been  publicly 
used  with  the  rest  in  most  Churches.'  The  suspicions 
expressed  by  Eusebius  are  more  strongly  stated  by  St. 
Jerome  {De  Vtr.  illust.  3),  'James  wrote  only  one  Epistle, 
which  is  one  of  the  seven  Catholic.  It  is  asserted  that 
this  was  published  by  some  other  person  under  his  name, 
though  as  time  went  on,  it  by  degrees  obtained  autho- 
rity.' We  learn  from  what  Eusebius  says  that  there 
was  current  in  his  time  a  collection  of  seven  *  Catholic 
Epistles,'  which,  notwithstanding  the  doubts  of  learned 
men,  were  widely  acknowledged  as  authoritative.  The 
complete  subsidence  of  doubt  about  these  Epistles  in 


560  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

the  fifth  century  is  in  itself  evidence  that  they  must  have 
been  very  widely  received  in  the  fourth. 

Eusebius  himself,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms, 
quotes  the  Epistle  of  James  as  the  work  of  a  holy 
Apostle*  and  as  Scripture  ;t  and  in  the  passages  cited 
above  he  clearly  gives  us  to  understand  that  the  cause 
of  his  hesitation  about  recognizing  the  Epistle  was  not 
any  deficiency  of  acceptance  in  the  Church  of  his  own 
time,  but  infrequency  of  quotation  by  earlier  ecclesias- 
tical writers.  And  it  is  true  that  Origen  is  the  earliest 
writer  whom  we  can  produce  as  quoting  this  Epistle  by 
name.  He  uses,  too,  a  formula  of  citation,  '  the  Epistle 
current  as  that  of  James'  (tv  rp  (pspoinlvy  'Iokw/Sou  IttkttoXt^, 
In  Joann.  xix.  6),  which  suggests  that  he  entertained 
doubts  as  to  the  authorship.  Elsewhere,  however,  he  calls 
the  writer  James,  without  expression  of  doubt  [in  Ps.  30). 
There  are  several  quotations  in  the  writings  of  Origen 
which  have  been  preserved  in  the  Latin  translation  of 
Rufinus,  whose  faithfulness  as  a  translator  however  was 
not  such  as  to  enable  us  to  use  his  authority  with  per- 
fect confidence.  We  seem  to  have  an  earlier  authority 
in  Clement  of  Alexandria.  Eusebius  (vi.  14)  says  that, 
'to  state  the  matter  shortly,  Clement  in  Kis Hypotyposeis 
gave  expositions  of  all  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  not 
omitting  the  controverted  books — I  mean  the  Epistle  of 
Jude  and  the  other  Catholic  Epistles,  the  Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas, and  what  is  called  the  Revelation  of  Peter.' 
Photius  also  [Cod.  109)  adds  his  testimony  that  the  Hypo- 
typoseis  included  comments  on  the  Catholic  Epistles.  On 
this  evidence  several  have  thought  themselves  warranted 
in   asserting   that    Clement    commented   on    all    seven 

*  Ae7€i  701!;'  6  iiphs  air6(rTo\os'   KaKoiraOe?  ris  k.t.\.    (James  v.    13);  m 
Ps.  56,  p.  504,  Migiie. 
t  fn  Ps.  100,  p.  1244. 


XXIII.]  Whether  known  to  Clement  of  Alexa7idria.  561 

Catholic  Epistles.  But  we  are  led  to  doubt  this  by  the 
testimony  of  Cassiodorus  [De  Instit.  Div.  Litt.  c.  viii.).* 
He  say§  that  Clement  made  comments  on  the  Ca- 
nonical Epistles,  that  is  to  say,  on  the  first  Epistle 
of  St.  Peter,  the  first  and  second  of  St.  John,  and 
the  Epistle  of  James  ;  and  that  he  himself  had  had 
these  comments  translated  into  Latin,  omitting  a 
few  things  incautiously  said,  which  might  give  offence. 
Now,  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  Latin 
fragments  of  the  Hypotyposeis  printed  in  the  editions  of 
Clement  are  these  very  translations  of  which  Cassio- 
dorus speaks.  But  the  comments  are  on  i  Pet.,  i  and  2 
John,  and  Jude ;  not  James.  And  since  Eusebius  has 
made  express  mention  of  Jude,  we  are  led  to  correct 
James  into  Jude  in  the  passage  of  Cassiodorus  just  re- 
ferred to ;  and  can  feel  no  confidence  in  saying  that 
the  Hypotyposeis  contained  comments  either  on  James  or 
on  2  Peter.  There  are  in  other  works  of  Clement  coin- 
cidences with  the  Epistle  of  James,  but  all  can  be  ac- 
counted for  without  assuming  that  he  knew  the  Epistle. 
What  seems  most  like  a  real  quotation  is,  that  in 
Strom,  vi.  18,  commenting  on  Matt.  v.  20,  he  teaches 
that  it  is  not  enough  for  us  to  abstain  from  evil,  as  did 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  but  that  unless  we  love  our 
neighbour  and  do  him  good,  we  shall  not  be  'royal' 
(j3o(7tXtKo/).  There  might  seem  to  be  a  plain  reference  here 
to  the  '  royal '  law  of  James  ii.  8  ;  but  on  turning  back  to 
Strom,  ii.  4,  p.  438,  we  find  Clement  insisting  on  the  claim 
of  Christians  to  the  title  jdamXiKoi,  having  in  view  chiefly 
the  Stoic  ascription  of  kingly  dignity  to  the  wise  man  ; 

*  Cassiodorus,  who  had  been  minister  to  King  Theodoric,  in  his  old  age 
(about  A.D.  540)  retired  into  a  monastery,  where  he  gave  a  great  impulse  to 
literary  pursuits  among  monks,  and  himself  became  the  author  of  several 
treatises. 

2  O 


562  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

and  we  therefore  can  build  nothing  on  his  later  use  of 
the  same  title. 

Eusebius  was  not  likely  to  overlook  any  express 
quotation  of  disputed  books  by  early  writers.  But  he 
might  easily  fail  to  pay  attention  to  less  direct  proofs  of 
their  antiquity.  Now,  in  the  case  of  the  Epistle  of  James, 
such  evidence  is  forthcoming.  I  refer,  in  particular, 
to  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  This  is  a  book  in  which 
Scripture  quotations,  either  from  Old  or  New  Testament, 
are  scarce;  but  we  are  perpetually  reminded  of  James's 
Epistle,  the  great  number  of  the  coincidences  serving  as 
proof  that  they  are  not  accidental.  The  topics  dwelt  on 
by  James  are  those  to  which  Hermas  most  frequently 
recurs.  Thus  the  doctrine  of  the  opening  verses  of 
James  is  several  times  echoed  by  Hermas — that  we  must 
ask  God  for  wisdom  [Sim.  v.  4,  ix.  2),  ask  in  faith  with- 
out doubt  or  hesitation ;  for  he  who  doubts,  must  not 
expect  to  receive  anything  (James  i.  7,  Ma7id.  ix.).  He 
who  so  doubts  is  called  a  double-minded  man  (James 
i.  8),  and  the  phrase  Zv\ivx\.a  in  this  sense  is  of  constant 
occurrence  in  Hermas.  Again,  there  are  exhortations 
to  the  rich,  warning  them  that  the  groanings  of  the 
neglected  poor  will  go  up  before  the  Lord  (compare 
Jam.  ii.  6,  v.  1-6,  Vis.  iii.  9).  All  through  J/<3;?Z(^.  xi.  there 
runs  a  reference  to  the  contrast  which  St.  James  draws 
(iii.  15,  17)  between  the  wisdom  which  cometh  from  above 
(avaj0£y),  and  that  which  is  earthly,  iiriyeiog.  As  ex- 
amples how  the  vocabulary  of  James  is  reproduced  in 
Hermas,  I  mention  aKaTaaraaia,  aKaTaaTarog  (James  iii. 
16,  i.  8,  Sim.  vi.  3,  Mand.  ii.  3) ;  Kadapa  koL  ajuiavrog 
(James  i.  27,  Mand.  ii.  7) ;  kojottoc  ^LKaiocsvvr\q  (James  iii. 
18,  Sim.  ix.  19)  ;  awa-^ui-^ii  for  the  place  of  Christian 
worship  (James  ii.  2,  Mand,  xi.  9)  ;  tTpvcpiiaare  koX  iana- 
ToXriaaTi   (James  v.  5,  Sim.  vi.  i)  ;  x«'^'^'«7<^7t'<^  (James  i. 


XXIII.]      Whether  known  to  Clement  of  Rome.         563 

26,  iii.  2,  Aland,  xii.  i) ;  irokvaixXayx'^^Q  (James  v.  11, 
Sim.  V.  4)  ;  6  dwafxsvog  aiocrai  kol  aTroAfcrat  (James  iv.  12, 
Mand.  xii.  6)  ;  KaraXaAtw  (James  iv.  11,  Mand.  ii.  2,  Sim. 
ix.  23).  In  conclusion  I  mention  two  striking  parallels : 
*  the  worthy  name  by  which  ye  are  called,'  James  ii.  7 
{to  KoXoi'  ovo/jta  TO  iTTiKXr^dev  £^'  vfxag),  to  ovofia  Kvpiov 
TO  eiriKXtjOiv  lir'  avTovg  {Sim.  viii.  6)  ;  and  the  exhortation 
{Mand.  xii.  5),  'The  devil  may  wrestle  against  you,  but 
cannot  overthrow  you  :  for  if  ye  resist  him  he  will  flee 
from  you  in  confusion'  (compare  James  iv.  7). 

In  the  Epistle  of  the  Roman  Clement  there  are 
several  coincidences  which,  in  my  opinion,  are  best 
explained  as  indicating  that  he  used  the  Epistle  of 
James,  though  I  do  not  venture  to  say  that  any  of 
them  quite  amounts  to  a  positive  proof.  Thus,  the  quo- 
tation [c.  30)  '  God  resisteth  the  proud,'  &c.,  may  have 
been  suggested  not  by  James  but  by  i  Peter ;  and  Cle- 
ment's independent  study  of  the  Old  Testament  may 
have  led  him  {c.  10)  to  call  Abraham  the  '  friend  of  God.' 
But  though  this  title  is  twice  found  in  our  English  ver- 
sion (2  Chron.  xx.  7,  Isai.  xii.  8),  the  corresponding 
Hebrew  word  is  not  literally  translated  by  '  friend ' ; 
and  the  LXX.  render  it  not  by  (piXog,  but  in  the  first 
place  r(J  i)ja7rr)fiivio  aov,  in  the  second  ov  tfjairricTa. 
It  appears,  however,  from  Field's  Hexapla,  that  some 
copies  of  the  LXX.  have  the  rendering  '  friend '  in 
the  first  passage,  and  that  Symmachus  had  it  in  the 
second.  There  seems  also  to  have  been  a  various 
reading  ^iXov  for  irai^og  in  Gen.  xviii.  17,  and  Philo 
so  cites  the  verse  {De  resipis.  Noe,  c.  11);  there  is 
also  an  apparent  allusion  to  it  in  Wisdom  vii.  27.  We 
therefore  cannot  argue  as  if  it  were  only  from  James 
Clement  could  have  learned  to  use  the  term.  Still 
Clement's  acquaintance  with  our  Epistle  must  be  pro- 

202 


564  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

nounced  highly  probable,  when  we  note  how  he  dwells 
on  the  obedience  as  well  as  the  faith  of  Abraham ;  when 
we  observe  other  coincidences,  as  for  example,  between 
l-^KavxhiHivoiq  \v  aXaZoveiq.  (Clem.  2l)  and  KXtvxaaOe  h  Toig 
aXatiovtiaig  vfiCov  (James  iv.  16)  ;  and  when  we  bear  in 
mind  that  James  was  certainly  used  by  Clement's  con- 
temporary, Hermas. 

In  any  case  we  are  forced  to  ascribe  to  the  in- 
fluence of  James  ii.  22,,  the  manner  in  which  two 
Old  Testament  passages  are  combined  by  Irenseus 
(IV.  xvi.),  'Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  imputed 
unto  him  for  righteousness,  and  he  was  called  the 
Friend  of  God':  see  also  his  use  of  the  phrase  'law 
of  liberty '  (IV.  xxxiv.  4),  a  phrase  which  seems  to 
have  suggested  some  of  the  preceding  arguments  in 
the  same  book.  Hippolytus  has  been  quoted  as  using 
the  Epistle,  the  words  (James  ii.  13)  'he  shall  have 
judgment  without  mercy,  that  showed  no  mercy,'  being 
found  in  the  treatise  '  concerning  the  end  of  the 
world '  [c.  47) ;  but  this  treatise  is  not  genuine.  The 
resemblances  that  have  been  pointed  out  in  the  writings 
of  Tertullian,  appear  to  me  to  furnish  no  proof  that 
he  knew  St.  James's  Epistle  ;  and  no  mention  of  it  is 
found  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Epistle  was  early  acknowledged  by  the  Syrian 
Church,*  and  is  found  in  the  Peshito. 

It  is  curious  that,  as  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  clear  proof 
of  the  use  of  the  Epistle  is  found  in  the  pseudo-Clem- 
entines, although  in  the  sect  from  which  these  writings 
emanated,  James,  the  head  of  the  Church  at  Jeru- 
salem, was  accounted  the  highest  personage  in  the 
Church. 

From  this  review  of  the  external  evidence  it  appears 

*  See  Ephrem  Syr.  0pp.  Grace,  iii.  51. 


XXIII.]  James  Bishop  of  yerusalem.  565 

that,  although  the  antiquity  of  the  Epistle  is  sufficiently 
established  by  the  use  made  of  it  by  Hermas,  it  must 
in  early  times  have  had  a  very  limited  circulation, 
and  been  little  known  either  in  Alexandria  or  in  the 
West.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  internal  evidence  is 
altogether  favourable  to  the  claims  of  the  Epistle. 

Very  early  tradition  asserted  that  the  Church  of  Je- 
rusalem was  first  presided  over  by  James,  'the  Lord's 
brother.'  The  pseudo-Clementine  writings  so  far  mag- 
nify the  office  of  this  James  as  to  make  him  not  only 
head  of  the  local  Church,  but  supreme  ruler  of  the  Chris- 
tian society.  We  find  no  warrant  elsewhere  for  this 
extension  of  the  claims  of  James ;  but  with  regard  to  the 
Jerusalem  Episcopate,  early  authorities  are  unanimous. 
Hegesippus  (Euseb.  ii.  23,  iii.  32,  iv.  22)  not  only  relates 
that  James  was  the  first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  but  also 
states  that  on  his  death  Symeon,  another  relative  of  our 
Lord  after  the  flesh,  was  made  the  second  bishop ;  and 
it  was  probably  from  Hegesippus  that  Eusebius  derived 
the  list  which  he  gives  of  successors  to  Symeon,  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria  also,  in  his  Hypotyposeis,  cited  by 
Eusebius  (ii.  i),  says  that  Peter,  James,  and  John,  after 
our  Lord's  Ascension,  were  not  ambitious  of  dignity, 
honoured  though  they  had  been  by  the  preference  of 
their  Master,  but  chose  James  the  Just  as  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem. With  this  early  tradition  the  Scripture  notices 
completely  agree.  It  is  James  to  whom  Peter  sends  the 
news  of  his  release  from  prison  (Acts  xii.  1 7)  ;  James 
who  presides  over  the  meeting  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.), 
and  whose  decision  is  adopted ;  James  whom  Paul  visits, 
•and  whose  counsel  he  follows  on  a  later  visit  to  Jeru- 
salem (Acts  xxi.  18).  The  inferences  drawn  from  these 
passages  in  the  Acts  are  confirmed  by  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  (i.  19,  ii.  9,  12).     I  count  it  the  more  probable 


566  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

opinion  that  this  James  was  not  one  of  the  Twelve. 
Possibly  he  had  not  been  a  believer  in  our  Lord  at  the 
time  the  Twelve  were  chosen. 

Critics  are  so  generally  agreed  that  our  Epistle  pur- 
ports to  have  been  written  by  this  James  who  presided 
over  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  that  I  do  not  think  it 
worth  while  to  discuss  the  claims  of  any  other  James. 
Now  the  letter  itself  completely  harmonizes  with  this 
traditional  account  of  its  authorship,  for  it  appears 
plainly  to  have  been  written  by  a  Jew  for  Jewish  readers, 
and  in  the  very  earliest  age  of  the  Church.  Hug  [Iii' 
troductton,  vol.  2,  sec.  148)  has  carefully  noted  several 
indications  which,  though  they  do  not  amount  to  a 
proof,  at  least  point  to  Palestine  as  the  place  of 
composition.  The  writer  appears  to  have  lived  not  far 
from  the  sea.  He  takes  his  illustrations  from  the  wave 
of  the  sea  driven  by  the  wind  and  tossed ;  from  the  ships 
which,  though  they  be  so  great  and  are  driven  by  fierce 
winds,  are  turned  about  with  a  very  small  helm  whither- 
soever the  steersman  desireth  (i.  6,  iii.  4).  His  land  is 
the  same  as  that  of  which  it  is  written  in  Deut.  xi.  14 : 
*  I  will  give  you  the  rain  of  your  land  in  his  due  season, 
the  first  rain  and  the  latter  rain,  that  thou  mayest  gather 
in  thy  corn,  and  thy  wine,  and  thine  oil ' ;  for  he  illus- 
trates patience  by  the  example  of  the  husbandman 
waiting  for  the  precious  fruit  of  the  earth,  and  having 
long  patience  until  he  receive  the  early  and  the  latter 
rain  (v.  7).  And  that  wine  and  oil,  as  well  as  corn,  were 
among  the  natural  produce  of  his  land  is  shown  by  his 
question,  *  Can  the  fig-tree  bear  olive-berries,  or  a  vine 
figs?'  (iii.  12).  The  hot  burning  wind  [Kavatav]  which,* 
when  it  swept  the  land,  withered  up  the  grass  (i.  11),  is 
the  same  as  that  of  which,  according  to  the  Septuagint 
translation,  Ezekiel  speaks  when  he  asks,  '  Shall  not  the 


XXIII. J  Written  by  a  Jew  to  Jews.  567 

plant  utterly  wither  when  the  east  wind  toucheth  it  ?  it 
shall  wither  in  the  furrows  where  it  grew'  (xvii.  10).  It 
is  the  same  wind  which  burned  up  the  gourd  of  Jonah  ; 
the  same  probably  whose  approach  our  Lord  (St.  Luke 
xii.  54-57)  represents  his  countrymen  as  exerting  theit 
weather-wisdom  to  forecast ;  the  same  which  caused  the 
burden  and  heat  of  the  day  spoken  of  in  the  parable  oi 
the  labourers  of  the  vineyard.  Salt  and  bitter  springs 
are  known  to  the  writer  (iii.  11),  and  his  country  was 
exposed  to  suffer  from  droughts  (v.  17). 

The  writer  was  not  only  a  Jew,  but  he  wrote  for  Jews. 
The  address  explicitly  declares  for  whom  it  was  intended 
— the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion,*  the  twelve  tribes  that  were 
scattered  abroad ;  that  is  to  say,  the  letter  was  written 
by  a  Jew  residing  in  his  own  land  to  his  countrymen 
whom  commercial  enterprise  had  scattered  over  the  em- 
pire ;  with  whom  migration  from  one  city  to  another 
was  an  ordinary  occurrence,  as  they  said,  *  To-day 
or  to-morrow  we  will  go  into  such  a  city,  and  con- 
tinue there  a  year,  and  buy  and  sell,  and  get  gain' 
(iv.  13) ;  a  migration  which  may  be  illustrated  from 
the  New  Testament  references  to  Aquila  and  Priscilla, 
whom,  though  originally  from  Pontus,  we  find  suc- 
cessively at  Rome,  at  Corinth,  and  Ephesus,  at  Rome 
again,  and  at  Ephesus  again  (Acts  xviii.  i,  19,  Rom. 
xvi.  3,  2  Tim.  iv.  19).  But  to  return  to  the  proofs  that 
the  letter  is  from  a  Jew  to  Jews,  the  writer  speaks  of 

*  The  term  seems  to  have  its  original  in  Deut.  xxviii.  25,  i<x-^  Siaffnopa  4y 
irdffais  ^acriXiiais  t^s  yris.  It  occurs  often  O.  T.,  e.g.  Deut.  xxx.  4,  quoted 
Neh.  i.  9;  Ps.  cxlvi.  2  ;  2  Mace.  i.  27  ;  Judith  v.  19 ;  but  not  in  the  technical 
sense  in  which  it  is  here  employed.  And  though  Josephus  [Bell.  Jud.  vii. 
35),  andPhilo  [Legat.ad  Caium,  1023)  speak  of  the  dispersion  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  they  do  not  use  this  word.  We  have  real  parallels  in  John  vii.  35,  and 
Justin  Martyr  {Trypho  ii.  7), 


568  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

Abraham  as  'our  father'  (ii.  21) ;  he  gives  their  place  of 
meeting  the  Jewish  name  of  synagogue  (ii.  2) ;  he  as- 
sumes the  Old  Testament  to  be  familiarly  known  by  his 
readers,  referring  to  Rahab,  Job,  Elias,  and  the  prophets 
(ii.  25,  V.  10,  V.  17) :  God  is  designated  by  the  Old  Testa- 
ment name  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth  (v.  4) ;  and  the  Mosaic 
law  is  assumed  to  be  an  authority  from  which  there  is 
no  appeal. 

The  Jews,  however,  who  are  addressed  are  all  Chris- 
tian Jews.  The  writer  describes  himself  as  the  servant  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  addresses  his  readers  as  his 
brethren.  He  speaks  of  the  worthy  name  by  which  they 
are  called  (ii.  7) ;  and,  in  short,  the  whole  letter  assumes 
a  community  of  faith  between  the  writer  and  his  readers. 
The  history  of  the  Acts  relates  a  dispersion  of  Christian 
Jews  resulting  from  the  persecution  that  followed  the 
death  of  Stephen  ;  so  that  we  are  at  no  loss  to  seek  for 
Christian  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  to  whom,  at  an  early 
date,  the  letter  might  have  been  addressed.  Syria  in 
particular  was  full  of  them,  and  it  is  not  improbable 
that  this  was  the  country  to  which  the  letter  was  in  the 
first  instance  sent.  At  least,  one  of  the  evidences  of  the 
early  reception  of  the  Epistle  is  its  presence  in  the  an- 
cient Syriac  Peshito  translation. 

Further,  there  is  every  appearance  that  the  writer 
of  this  Epistle  had  been  a  personal  follower  of  our  Lord. 
We  infer  this  from  the  number  of  passages  where  we 
have  an  echo  of  our  Lord's  discourses.  In  the  Epistles 
of  Paul,  who  was  not  a  hearer  of  our  Lord  during  his 
earthly  ministry,  though  references  to  the  person  and  to 
the  work  of  Christ  are  of  constant  occurrence,  there  is 
but  little  trace  of  the  influence  of  our  Lord's  discourses.* 

*  One  of  the  few  examples  of  such  influence  is  the  saying  (i  Thess.  v.  2), 
that  the  day  of  the  Lord  cometh  'as  a  thief  in  the  night.'     Our  Lord's  dis- 


XXIII.]        The  Writer  had  heard  our  Lord.  569 

It  is  otherwise  here.  There  is  nothing  indeed  that  we 
are  entitled  to  say  is  directly  copied  from  the  Synoptic 
Gospels ;  but  there  are  very  many  resemblances  to  the 
discourses  of  our  Lord  which  those  Gospels  record,  such 
as  find  their  most  natural  explanation  in  the  supposition 
that  a  hearer  of  those  discourses,  on  whom  they  had 
made  a  deep  impression,  is  perhaps  unconsciously  re- 
producing the  lessons  he  had  learned  from  them.  The 
most  striking  example  will  probably  have  occurred  to 
you  :  *  My  brethren,  swear  not,  neither  by  heaven,  neither 
by  the  earth,  neither  by  any  other  oath ;  but  let  your  yea 
be  yea,  and  your  nay  nay,  lest  ye  fall  into  condemna- 
tion'  (James  v.  12,  Matt.  v.  37).  But  there  is  a  number 
of  cases  where,  though  the  resemblance  is  not  so  com- 
plete, it  is  sufficient  to  leave  little  doubt  that  it  is  more 
than  accidental.  St.  James  says,  '  Be  ye  doers  of  the 
word,  and  not  hearers  only '  (i.  22)  ;  our  Lord  had  said, 
*  Everyone  that  heareth  these  sayings  of  mine  and  doeth 
them  not,  shall  be  likened  unto  a  foolish  man  which  built 
his  house  upon  the  sand'  (Matt,  vii.  26).  St.  James,  *The 
doer  of  the  work  shall  be  blessed  in  his  doing '  (i.  25) :  our 
Lord,  '  If  ye  know  these  things,-  happy  are  ye  if  ye  do 
them'  (John  xiii.  17).  St.  James  speaks  of  the  poor  of 
this  world  as  heirs  of  the  kingdom  (ii.  5) :  our  Lord  had 
said,  '  Blessed  are  ye  poor,  for  yours  is  the  kingdom  of 
God'  (Luke  vi.  20).  St.  James,  'Humble  yourselves  in 
the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and  he  shall  exalt  you'  (iv.  10) : 
our  Lord  had  said,  '  He  that  shall  humble  himself  shall 
be  exalted '  (Matt,  xxiii.  12).  '  Who  art  thou  thatjudgest 
another?'  cries  St.  James  (iv.  12):  our  Lord  had  said, 
'Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged'  (Matt.  vii.  i).  St. 
James  says,  *  If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let  him  ask  of 

course  here  referred  to  seems  to  have  deeply  impressed  his  hearers  (see  2  Pet. 
iii.  lo,  Rev.  iii.  3,  and  xvi.  15). 


570  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

God,  and  it  shall  be  given  him '  (i.  5) ;  echoing  our  Lord's 
words,  *■  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you  '  (Matt.  vii.  7).  St. 
James  goes  on  to  say,  *  But  let  him  ask  in  faith,  nothing 
wavering'  (^jjSh-  SmicptvojUEvoc)  :  our  Lord's  promise  (Mark 
xi.  23)  had  been,  '  Whosoever  shall  not  doubt  in  his 
heart  (/xj)  SuikplO}]),  but  shall  believe,  shall  have  what- 
soever he  saith.'  Again,  our  Lord's  words,  '  Be  ye 
perfect,  as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect'  (Matt, 
v.  48),  appear  in  James  in  the  form,  *  Let  patience 
have  her  perfect  work  that  ye  may  be  perfect '  (i.  4). 
St.  James's  denunciations  of  the  rich  {c.  v.)  reproduce 
our  Lord's,  '  Woe  unto  you  rich,  for  ye  have  received 
your  consolation  '  (Luke  vi.  24).  St.  James's,  '  Let  your 
laughter  be  turned  to  mourning,  and  your  joy  to  heavi- 
ness '  (iv.  9),  answers  to  our  Lord's,  *  Woe  unto  you  that 
laugh  now,  for  ye  shall  mourn  and  weep  '  (Luke  vi.  25). 
Other  instances  might  be  added,  and  in  some  of  them, 
no  doubt,  the  likeness  may  be  only  accidental  ;  but 
the  cases  are  too  numerous  to  allow  us  to  think  that 
they  are  all  chance  resemblances.  They  are,  as  I  say, 
not  cases  of  quotation  from  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  but 
have  all  the  air  of  being  independent  testimony  to  our 
Lord's  teaching  given  by  one  who  draws  his  lessons 
from  his  own  memory  of  what  he  had  learned  from 
his  Master.  I  have  already  (p.  263)  thrown  out  the 
conjecture  that  a  great  deal  more  of  James's  Epistle 
may  be  founded  on  sayings  of  our  Lord  than  we  have 
now  the  means  of  identifying ;  and,  in  particular,  that 
what  is  said  (i.  12)  of  our  Lord's  promise  of  a  'crown 
of  life '  may  refer  to  an  unrecorded  saying  of  the 
Saviour. 

Turning  now  to  examine  the  date  of  the  composition, 
we  can  infer  that  it  was  written  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  from  the  entire  aspect  which  it  presents  of 


XXIII.]    Written  before  Destruction  of  Jerusalem.     571 

the  relations  between  the  Christian  Jews  and  their  un- 
converted brethren.  The  Apostle  represents  the  reli- 
gious difference  as  in  a  great  degree  coincident  with  a 
difference  in  social  condition.  It  is  the  poor  of  this 
world  who  have  been  chosen,  rich  in  faith,  and  heirs  of 
the  kingdom  which  God  has  promised  to  them,  that  love 
him.  The  rich,  on  the  other  hand,  oppress  the  disciples, 
draw  them  before  the  tribunals,  and  blaspheme  the 
worthy  name  by  which  they  are  called.  And  again, 
towards  the  end  of  the  letter,  the  Apostle,  in  tones  of 
one  of  the  old  prophets,  denounces  the  luxury  and 
wantonness,  the  grasping  oppression  and  tyranny,  of  the 
rich,  and  lifts  up  his  voice  in  warning  of  the  misery  that 
was  to  come  on  them. 

Now  the  picture  here  exhibited  well  corresponds  with 
that  which  is  presented  by  Josephus  and  other  Jewish 
authorities,  of  the  condition  of  Palestine  in  the  time 
following  the  death  of  our  Lord.  The  pride  and  luxury 
of  the  rich  Sadducean  party  were  at  their  height.  They 
filled  the  high  offices  of  the  priesthood,  which  they  had 
simoniacally  purchased  with  money.  They  tyrannized 
over  the  poor.  Josephus  tells  how  the  high  priests  sent 
their  servants  to  the  threshing-floors  to  take  away  the 
tithes  that  by  right  belonged  to  the  poorer  priests,  beat- 
ing those  who  refused  to  give  them  ;  and  that  some  of 
the  poorer  priests,  thus  defrauded  of  their  maintenance, 
actually  died  of  want  [Antt.  XX.  viii.  8,  ix.  2).*  It  can 
easily  be  imagined  that  the  religiously-minded  of  the 
Jews  revolted  against  such  practices,  and  that  poverty 
and  piety  came  to  be  naturally  associated.  It  was  most 
natural,  too,  that  it  should  be  among  those  who  re- 
volted against  the  worldliness  and  ungodliness  of  the 
men  of  high  condition,  that  minds  should  be  found  best 

*  See  Derenbourg's  Palestiiie,  c.  15 


572  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

prepared  for  the  reception  of  the  Gospel.  In  fact,  the 
poverty  of  the  Jewish  Church  is  proved  by  many  indica- 
tions. The  Gentile  Churches  were,  as  a  whole,  not  very 
rich.  St.  Paul  says  that  not  many  mighty,  not  many 
noble,  had  been  called  ;  but  yet  the  Gentile  Churches 
were  rich  in  comparison  with  the  native  Jewish  Church  ; 
and  in  the  Acts  and  in  Paul's  Epistles  we  read  more 
than  once  of  the  contributions  which  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  collected  among  his  converts,  that  he  might 
bring  them  as  alms  to  his  nation  and  offerings.  In 
somewhat  later  times,  Ebionite,  a  name  derived  from 
poverty,  was  that  by  which  the  Jewish  Christians  were 
known.  We  see,  then,  how  completely  historical  is  the 
picture  which  St.  James's  Epistle  presents  of  the  social 
line  of  separation  which,  as  a  general  rule,  divided  the 
Christians  from  their  unconverted  brethren.  But  this 
picture  belongs  to  a  time  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem. The  rich  classes  courted  the  favour  of  the  Ro- 
mans, and  by  purchasing  their  support  were  able  to 
maintain  the  tyranny  which  they  exercised  over  their 
poorer  brethren.  Thus  they  arrayed  against  themselves 
not  only  the  religious  but  the  patriotic  feelings  of  the 
nation.  At  length  this  patriotism  burst  forth  in  wild 
fury,  which  drew  down  destruction  on  the  city.  And 
then  the  Sadducean  power  came  to  an  end ;  so  that  it 
would  be  a  complete  anachronism  to  put  any  later  that 
representation  of  the  heartless,  God-forgetting  prosperity 
of  the  upper  classes  which  we  find  in  St.  James's  Epistle. 
The  argument  which  I  have  here  used  convinces  Renan, 
who  accepts  this  Epistle  as  written  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.* 

We  find  other  evidence  of  early  date  in  the  indis- 

*  Des  tableaux  evidemment  relatifs  aux  luttes  interieuics  dcs  classes  di- 
verses  de  la  societe  hierosolymitaine,  comme  cehii  que  nous  presente  I'epitre 


XXIII.]       Internal  Evidence  of  Early  Date.  573 

tinctness  of  the  line  of  separation  between  the  converted 
and  the  unconverted  Jew.  The  Christian  Jew,  as  we 
know  from  the  Acts,  frequented  the  temple  worship,  and 
observed  the  national  rites.  James  himself  bore  among 
his  countrymen  a  reputation  for  the  greatest  sanctity.* 
But  the  Christians  had  besides  of  necessity  synagogues 
of  their  own,  private  conventicles  for  their  own  worship. 
These  were  open  to  any  unconverted  brethren  whom 
curiosity  might  lead  to  visit  them.  In  the  very  natu- 
ral picture  drawn  [ch.  ii.)  of  the  well-dressed  stranger 
coming  into  the  synagogue,  received  with  high  respect, 
and  shown  into  the  best  seat,  the  poor  visiter  allowed 
to  stand  or  pushed  into  the  least  honoured  place,  it 
is  plain  that  the  visiters  are  men  who  have  no  recog- 
nized right  to  a  place  of  their  own ;  that  is  to  say,  that 
they  are  strangers  to  the  community.  Further  evidence 
may  be  drawn  from  the  statement  that  the  rich  op- 
pressors harassed  the  Christians  by  bringing  them  before 
the  tribunals.  This  cannot  refer  to  Gentile  tribunals. 
Down  to  a  date  later  than  any  suggested  for  this  letter,  a 
charge  brought  against  Christians  solely  on  the  ground  of 
their  religion  would  be  received  by  a  heathen  magistrate 
as  Gallio  received  the  accusation  brought  against  St.  Paul. 
But  the  Roman  policy  allowed  to  the  Jewish  authorities 
considerable  power  over  their  own  countrymen  ;  and  that 
not  only  in  the  Holy  Land  itself,  but  in  the  countries  to 
which  the  Jews  were  dispersed.  With  respect  to  Syria 
in  particular,  we  have  evidence  in  the  mission  of  Saul 
to  Damascus,  where  the  power  and  authority  given  him 
by  the  chief  priests  at  Jerusalem  would  have  sufficed  him 
for  the  imprisonment  and  further  punishment  of  those 

de  Jacques  (v.  i  et  suiv.)  ne  se  con9oivent  pas  apres  la  revoke  de  I'an  66  qui 
mit  fin  au  regne  des  Sadduceens  (U Antechrist^  p.  xii.). 

♦  See  the  account  of  James  given  by  Hegesippus  (Euseb.  ii.  23). 


574  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

who  called  on  the  name  of  Jesus.  It  is  plain,  then,  that 
when  the  Epistle  was  written  the  Christians  were  in  the 
eyes  of  their  Roman  masters  but  a  sect  of  Jews,  and 
were  as  such  subject  to  their  national  tribunals. 

But  we  may  go  still  further  back,  and  argue  from  the 
total  absence  of  all  reference  in  the  Epistle  to  the  non- 
Jewish  world.  There  is  not  a  word  of  allusion  to  the 
existence  in  the  Church  of  men  of  Gentile  birth  ;  not  the 
slightest  notice  of  the  controversies  to  which  their  ad- 
mission led  as  to  the  obligation  of  such  persons  to  ob- 
serve the  Mosaic  law.  It  is  often  one  of  the  surest 
criteria  of  the  date  of  a  document  to  notice  what  were 
the  controversial  interests  of  the  writer.  In  the  present 
instance  there  is  no  notice  whatever  of  that  great  dispute 
on  which  the  assembly,  whose  proceedings  are  recorded 
in  the  15th  of  Acts,  was  called  on  to  pronounce,  and  of 
which  the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Romans,  and  Corin- 
thians are  full ;  namely,  the  terms  of  justification  of  the 
Gentile  believer,  and  the  extent  to  which  he  was  obliged 
to  observe  the  Mosaic  law.  In  this  Epistle  all  its  readers 
are  assumed  to  be  under  the  obligations  of  that  law. 

What  I  have  stated  would  not  be  correct  if  the  views 
could  be  maintained  of  those  who  look  upon  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  chapter  as  an  anti-Pauline  polemic ;  some 
even  maintaining  that  the  Apostle  Paul  is  the  'vain 
man,'  who  needed  to  be  taught  that  faith  without  works 
is  dead;  though  such  language  is  so  little  fitted  to  the 
character  of  the  historical  James,  that  the  theory  that 
this  chapter  is  anti-Pauline  commonly  leads  to  the 
theory  that  the  Epistle  is  not  genuine,  but  is  the  late 
work  of  some  Jewish  Christian  opponent  of  Paulinism 
who  dignified  his  performance  with  the  name  of  the 
'  pillar  Apostle '  James.  In  fact,  to  a  disciple  of  Baur 
there   is   no   more    disappointing    document   than    this 


XXIII.]        Its  Doctrine  not  opposed  to  PauV s.  575 

Epistle  of  James.  Here,  if  anywhere  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, he  might  expect  to  find  some  evidence  of  anti- 
Pauline  rancour.  There  is  what  looks  like  flat  contra- 
diction between  this  Epistle  and  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul. 
St.  Paul  says  (Rom.  iii.  28),  'Therefore  we  conclude  that 
a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law.' 
St.  James  says  (ii.  24),  '  Ye  see  then  how  that  by  works 
a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only.'  Our  first  im- 
pression certainly  is  that  not  only  is  the  teaching  of  the 
two  Apostles  different,  but  that  the  one  wrote  with  the 
express  purpose  of  controverting  what  the  other  had 
said.  But  that  opposition  to  Paul  which,  on  a  super- 
ficial glance,  we  are  disposed  to  ascribe  to  the  Epistle 
of  James,  disappears  on  a  closer  examination. 

I  postpone  for  the  moment  the  question  whether  we 
can  suppose  that  James  intended  to  contradict  Paul ; 
but  whether  he  intended  it  or  not,  he  has  not  really  done 
so  ;  he  has  denied  nothing  that  Paul  has  asserted,  and 
asserted  nothing  that  a  disciple  of  Paul  would  care  to 
deny.  On  comparing  the  language  of  James  with  that 
of  Paul,  all  the  distinctive  expressions  of  the  latter  are 
found  to  be  absent  from  the  former.  St.  Paul's  thesis  is 
that  a  man  is  justified  not  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but 
by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ.  James  speaks  only  of 
works  without  any  mention  of  the  law,  and  of  faith 
without  any  mention  of  Jesus  Christ ;  the  example  of 
faith  which  he  considers  being  merely  the  belief  that 
there  is  one  God.  In  other  w^ords,  James  is  writing  not 
in  the  interests  of  Judaism,  but  of  morality.  Paul  had 
taught  that  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  was  able  to  justify  a 
man  uncircumcised,  and  unobservant  of  the  Mosaic  or- 
dinances. He  taught,  and  St.  Pe.ter  also  is  represented 
in  the  Acts  (xv.  1 1 )  as  teaching,  that  it  was  only  through 
the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  Jew  or  Gentile 


576  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

could  be  saved,  and  that  it  was  therefore  wrong  to  put 
on  the  necks  of  the  brethren  the  yoke  of  other  conditions 
asserted  to  be  necessary  to  salvation.  For  this  Pauline 
teaching  James  not  only  has  no  word  of  contradiction, 
but  he  gives  no  sign  of  ever  having  heard  of  the  contro- 
versy which,  according  to  Baur,  formed  the  most  striking 
feature  in  the  early  history  of  the  Church. 

On  the  other  hand,  no  disciple  of  Paul  would  wish  to 
contradict  what  James  does  say  as  to  the  worthlessness 
of  speculative  belief  that  bears  no  fruit  in  action.  Paul 
himself  had  said  the  same  things  in  other  words, 
*  Thou  art  called  a  Jew,  and  restest  in  the  law,  and 
makest  thy 'boast  of  God,  and  knowest  his  will,  and 
approvest  the  things  that  are  more  excellent,  being 
instructed  out  of  the  law ;  and  art  confident  that  thou 
thyself  art  a  guide  of  the  blind,  a  light  of  them  which 
are  in  darkness,  an  instructor  of  the  foolish,  a  teacher  of 
babes,  which  hast  the  form  of  knowledge,  and  of  the 
truth  in  the  law.  Thou,  therefore,  which  teachest  ano- 
ther, teachest  thou  not  thyself  ?  thou  that  preachest  a 
man  should  not  steal,  dost  thou  steal  ?  thou  that  sayest 
a  man  should  not  commit  adultery,  dost  thou  commit 
adultery  ?  thou  that  abhorrest  idols,  dost  thou  commit 
sacrilege  ?  thou  that  makest  thy  boast  in  the  law,  through 
breaking   the   law   dishonourest   thou  God  ?'  (Rom.  ii. 

17-23)- 

I  need  not  remind  you  what  controversies  there  have 
been  in  the  Christian  Church  on  the  subject  of  justifica- 
tion. Luther,  you  know,  at  one  time  regarded  the  dif- 
ference between  the  two  Apostles  as  irreconcilable,  and 
applied  a  disparaging  epithet  to  the  Epistle  of  James. 
But  whatever  embarrassment  the  apparent  disagreement 
between  the  Apostles  has  caused  to  orthodox  theolo- 
gians is  as  nothing  in  comparison  with  the  embarrass- 


XXIII.]      Silent  as  to  Disputes  of  PauP s  time.  577 

ment  caused  to  a  disciple  of  Baur  by  their  fundamental 
agreement.  For  the  disputes  on  the  subject  of  justification 
all  lie  in  the  region  of  speculative  theology,  but  about 
practical  duties  all  are  now  agreed.  Those  who  say  that 
a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  works  are  careful  to  say 
also  that  a  faith  which  does  not  bear  fruit  in  good  works 
is  ndt  a  genuine  faith.  Taking  their  doctrine  from  what 
they  conceive  to  be  the  teaching  of  Paul,  they  do  not 
dream  of  controverting  his  instructions  to  Titus  (iii.  8), 
*  I  will  that  thou  affirm  constantly  that  they  which  have 
believed  in  God  might  be  careful  to  maintain  good 
works.'  But  when  Paul  asserted  that  a  man  is  jus- 
tified by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law,  he  was 
not  dealing  merely  with  the  question  what  relation  to 
justification  was  borne  by  the  works  which  all  allowed 
ought  to  be  performed.  There  was  also  the  urgent 
practical  question  whether  certain  works  of  the  law 
needed  to  be  performed  or  not.  One  party  said  (Acts 
XV.  i),  'Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of 
Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved.'  Paul  himself  said  (Gal. 
V.  2),  *  Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that  if  ye  be  circum- 
cised, Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.'  This  was  no 
speculative  question,  but  one  that  affected  the  practice 
of  every  Gentile  convert.  As  long  as  controversy  on 
this  subject  was  raging,  it  is  inconceivable  that  anyone 
should  discuss  the  subject  of  justification,  and  be  ab- 
solutely silent  on  this  great  practical  question.  And 
therefore  the  fact  that  when  James  speaks  of  works,  he 
seems  to  have  only  in  his  mind  such  works  as  men  in 
all  ages  have  accounted  to  be  good,  and  makes  no  men- 
tion of  the  specially  Mosaic  ordinances,  is  convincing 
proof  that  he  wrote  either  before  the  controversy  con- 
cerning the  universal  obligation  of  these  ordinances  had 
arisen,  or  else  after  it  had  died  out. 

2  P 


578  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

Critics  of  the  sceptical  school  generally  choose  the 
alternative  of  assigning  a  late  date  to  the  Epistle,  but 
they  can  hardly  find  one  late  enough  to  bring  the  Epistle 
into  accordance  with  Baur's  history  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian Church.  For,  according  to  Baur,  at  the  time  the 
Epistles  to  the  Seven  Churches  were  written,  that  is  to 
say,  some  time  after  the  death  of  the  historical  Ja#ies, 
the  heads  of  Jewish  Christianity  regarded  Paul  as  an 
enemy  ;  and  hostility  to  Paul  survived  down  to  the  time 
of  publication  of  the  pseudo-Clementines.  But  as  long 
as  the  conflict  about  the  universal  obligation  of  Mosaism 
was  raging,  how  was  it  possible  that  a  Jewish  Christian 
should  so  completely  ignore  it  as  the  writer  of  this 
Epistle  does — a  writer  who  seems  to  have  no  thought 
of  ceremonial  observance,  and  whose  sole  interest  is  to 
maintain  that  speculative  belief  is  worthless,  if  it  do  not 
bear  fruit  in  holiness  of  life  ?  I  could  imagine  an  op- 
ponent of  Paul  affecting  to  believe  that  that  Apostle's 
denial  of  the  obligation  of  the  Mosaic  law  included  a 
denial  of  the  obligation  of  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue, 
and  insisting  on  these  precepts  with  the  controversial 
object  of  making  it  believed  that  his  adversary  was  op- 
posed to  them.  But  no  one  can  read  the  Epistle  of 
James  without  feeling  that  the  writer  has  no  arriere 
pensee  in  his  assertion  of  the  claims  of  practical  morality  ; 
for  he  never  makes  the  smallest  attempt,  under  cover  of 
establishing  the  obligation  of  the  moral  precepts  of  the 
law,  to  insinuate  the  duty  of  compliance  with  ceremonial 
ordinances. 

I  consider  that  the  proofs  that  the  Epistle  was  written 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  by  one  who  had 
personally  been  a  hearer  of  our  Lord,  and  who  lived 
while  his  second  coming  was  still  regarded  as  likely  to 
be  of  immediate  occurrence  (v.  8),  are  so  strong  as  to 


XXIII.]  Date  of  the  Epistle.  579 

force  us  to  reject  the  hypothesis  that  it  was  written  by 
someone  later  than  the  James  to  whom  it  has  been  tra- 
ditionally ascribed.  An  objection  to  his  authorship  has 
been  raised  on  account  of  the  goodness  of  the  Greek  in 
which  the  letter  is  written.  But  this  argument  is  of  no 
force.  For  though  we  should  not  beforehand  have  ex- 
pected James  to  write  in  such  good  Greek,  we  see  plainly 
that  the  letter  was  written  by  a  Jew ;  and  we  can  give 
no  reason  why  James  might  not  know  as  much  Greek 
as  another  Jew.  The  only  question  then  that  seems  to 
me  worth  discussing  is,  whether  it  was  written  late  or 
early  in  that  Apostle's  life.  As  I  hold  that  the  contro- 
versy concerning  the  obligation  of  circumcision  on  Gen- 
tiles was  one  of  very  short  duration,  I  could  admit  the 
Epistle  to  be  later  than  that  controversy,  and  yet  to 
have  been  written  by  James. 

The  date  we  assign  the  Epistle  depends  very  much 
on  our  determination  of  the  question  whether  or  not 
James  had  read  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  Several  critics  have 
held  that  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  we  are  considering 
lived  so  late  as  to  have  become  acquainted  with  an  entire 
collection  of  Pauline  Epistles,  and  with  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  besides.  I  have  already  said  that  it  seemed 
to  me  probable  that  this  last  Epistle  was  written  in  the 
lifetime  of  James,  so  that  his  acquaintance  with  it  in- 
volves no  impossibility.  But  the  main  proof  of  that 
acquaintance  consists  in  the  fact  that  in  both  letters 
Rahab  the  harlot  is  cited  as  an  example  of  faith ;  and 
though  the  coincidence  is  certainly  remarkable,  it  is 
scarcely  enough  to  establish  obligation  on  either  side, 
ignorant  as  we  are  of  the  examples  in  common  use  in 
the  theological  discussions  of  the  time.  In  fact  it  seems 
to  me  that  one  w^ho  had  read  Hebrews  xi.  would  have 
found   in   that   chapter   other   examples   of  faith  more 

2  P  2 


580  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

tempting  for  discussion  than  the  case  of  Rahab.  I 
think  also  that  if  James  had  read  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, there  would  have  been  some  reference  to  the  high 
priesthood  of  Christ,  which  is  so  copiously  dwelt  on  in 
that  letter.  And  in  every  respect  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  shows  signs  of  being  the  later  document  of  the 
two.  All  through  the  writer  shows  his  anxiety  lest  his 
readers  should  be  tempted  to  apostasy,  of  which  there 
evidently  had  been  examples  even  in  men  who  had  been 
partakers  of  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
(vi.  4) ;  but  the  persecution  suffered  by  those  whom 
James  addressed  appears  to  have  been  both  less  severe 
and  less  formal. 

The  coincidences*  alleged  to  prove  that  James  had 
read  the  Pauline  letters  seem  to  me  undeserving  of  at- 
tention, except  in  the  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
And  even  in  this  case  there  are  considerations  which 
make  us  hesitate  before  regarding  these  coincidences  as 
proofs  of  obligation.  If  James  had  read  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  I  think  he  would  have  avoided  the  appear- 
ance of  verbal  contradiction  to  a  letter  with  the  doctrine 
of  which  he  is  in  such  substantial  agreement.  It  is  not 
merely  that  he  is  silent  as  to  the  bearing  on  Gentile 
obligation  of  the   question  of  justification ;  but  on  the 

*  Thus  we  may  dismiss  the  case  for  i  Thess.,  which  rests  on  the  common 
use  of  one  word,  6\6K\ripos  (i  Thess.  v.  23,  James  i.  4) ;  for  Colossians,  also 
depending  on  one  word,  irapaXoyi^ecreat  (Col.  ii.  4,  James  i.  22) ;  and  for 
FhiUppians,  with  which  again  there  is  but  a  single  coincidence,  Kapirhs  Si/cot- 
o(Tvvr]s  (Phil.  i.  II,  James  iii.  18),  the  resemblance  here  being  much  closer 
between  James  and  Heb.  xii.  11.  I  do  not  think  any  stress  can  be  laid  on  the 
formulae  apparently  in  common  use,  viz.  fj.i)  ir\avaffde  (l  Cor.  vi.  9,  xv.  33, 
Gal.  vi.  7,  James  i.  16),  and  aA.A.'  ipei  ris  (i  Cor.  xv.  35,  James  ii.  18).  With 
Romans  again  the  following  coincidences  deserve  little  attention,  irapafiarns 
ydfjLov  (Rom.  ii.  25,  James  ii.  11),  vo/xof  reAeTy  (Rom.  ii.  27,  James  ii.  8),  the 
phrases  being  such  as  independent  writers  might  naturally  employ.    The  ques- 


XXIII.]     A greeinent  of  Doctrine  with  PauVs.  581 

general  theological  question  he  is  quite  in  unison  with 
St.  Paul. 

The  representations  of  James  are  as  unfavourable  as 
those  of  Paul  to  the  idea  of  a  man  being  able  to  claim 
salvation  as  earned  by  the  merit  of  his  good  works. 
*  What  hast  thou  that  thou  didst  not  receive  ? '  asks  Paul 
(i  Cor.  iv.  7) :  '  Every  good  gift  and  every  perfect  gift  is 
from  above'  is  the  doctrine  of  James  (i.  17).  The  latter 
Apostle  teaches  also  that  if  a  man  offend  in  one  point, 
he  can  claim  no  merit  even  though  he  have  fulfilled  all 
the  other  commandments  of  the  law  ;  the  breach  of  that 
one  precept  makes  him  guilty  of  all  (ii.  10).  It  is  not 
merely  the  sinful  act  which  brings  condemnation  ;  the 
sinful  desire  begins  a  course  which  ends  in  death  (i.  15). 
And  he  gives  the  name  of  sin  not  only  to  the  unlawful 
act,  not  only  to  the  desire  from  which  that  act  sprang, 
but  even  to  the  omission  to  use  an  opportunity  presented 
for  doing  good  (iv.  17).  When  James  describes  the 
law  whose  claims  he  enforces,  by  the  title  *  law  of 
liberty'  (ii.  12),  he  shows  himself  to  be  not  at  variance 
with  Paul.  There  is  then  such  a  real  identity  of  teaching 
between  Paul  and  James  that  I  am  disposed  to  believe 
that  if  James  had  known  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and 
Galatians,  he  would  have  guarded  against  the  semblance 

tion  of  justification  had  probably  been  discussed  in  the  Jewish  schools ;  and 
the  example  of  Abraham  was  one  likely  to  have  been  brought  forward.  So 
the  three  following  are  the  only  cases  which  suggest  to  me  that  the  verbal 
similarity  is  more  than  accidental : — 

1]  0\7\pis  virofjiov)]V  Karepyd^erai,  7)  Se  virofiovr]  SoKtfj.ijv  (Rom.  v.  3) ; 
rh  SoKifj-iov  vjJLoiv  rrjs  TriffTeois  Karepyd^erat  inro/j.ov7iv  (James  i.  3). 

vSijlov  iu  ro7s  /ueAecri  /llov,   avTicTTpar€v6fj.evov  (Rom.  vii.  23) ; 

Tajj/  7}^ovSiv  vfj,wi/  rutv  (TrpaTevofiivoiv  iv  to'is  fifAecrtv  vfiuv  (James  iv.  l). 

oh  yap  01  aKpoaral  v6/j.ov  S'lKaioi  aA\'  01  iroirjral  vSfiov  (Rom.  ii.  13)  ; 
yiveffdf  TTojTjraJ  \6you  koI  /ht)  fji.6vov  aKpoarai  (James  i.  22). 


582  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiir. 

of  opposition  even  in  words.  Yet  I  do  not  deny  that  he 
probably  had  an  indirect  knowledge  of  the  doctrines 
taught  by  Paul,  and  of  the  arguments  by  which  he  was 
wont  to  support  them.  For  the  doctrine  which  James 
refutes  has  a  certain  likeness  to  the  doctrine  taught  by 
Paul,  though  it  is  but  a  distortion  and  misrepresentation 
of  it.  We  know,  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (xv.  i), 
that  St.  Paul,  in  the  course  of  his  pastoral  labours, 
met  with  certain  who  came  down  from  James,  and  who 
professed  to  speak  by  his  authority,  and  who  yet  taught, 
concerning  the  absolute  necessity  of  circumcision  and 
other  legal  rites,  doctrines  which  St.  James  subse- 
quently denied  ever  to  have  emanated  from  him  [ih.  19). 
Were  the  men  who  at  Antioch  misrepresented  the  teach- 
ing of  James  likely  to  give  a  fair  report  of  the  teaching  of 
Paul  when  they  returned  to  Jerusalem  ?  And  very  pos- 
sibly it  may  have  been  true  that  there  were  some  who 
professed  to  speak  as  they  had  been  taught  by  Paul, 
and  who  yet  used  language  implying  that  a  barren  his- 
torical belief  was  sufficient  for  justification ;  and  that 
good  works  not  merely  were  to  be  excluded  from  the 
office  of  justifying,  but  might  without  injury  be  ab- 
sent in  him  who  is  justified.  We  might  expect  that 
such  teaching  would  be  strenuously  opposed  by  James, 
who  shows  that  he  had  so  carefully  treasured  up  his 
Master's  words,  and  who  probably  had  heard  him  declare, 
'Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the 
will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.'  But  we  need 
not  doubt  that  such  teaching  would  have  been  equally 
disowned  by  St.  Paul. 

If  I  am  right  in  thinking  that  the  Epistle  of  James  is 
to  be  regarded  as  a  document  belonging  to  a  very  early 
age  of  the  Christian  Church,  we  can  understand  why 


XXIII .  ]   Character  of  its  teach  ing  not  77ierely  J^udaic.    583 

specially  Christian  doctrine  appears  here  in  a  less  de- 
veloped form  than  in  later  inspired  writings,  and  why- 
its  teaching  has  more  affinity  with  that  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament prophets,*  and  with  the  teaching  of  our  Blessed 
Lord  himself,  than  with  that  of  the  letters  of  St.  Paul, 
or  even  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John.  Our  Lord  did  not, 
during  his  personal  ministry,  reveal  all  the  mysteries  of 
his  kingdom,  but  he  left  them  to  be  taught  to  his  Church 
by  the  Apostles  whom  his  Spirit  was  to  guide  into  all 
the  truth.  Paul  was  a  chosen  instrument  for  the  revela- 
tion of  Christ's  Gospel ;  and  it  might  well  be  that  there 
was  a  portion  of  the  truth,  the  need  for  dwelling  on 
which  was  not  so  much  felt  by  the  elder  Apostles  until 
brought  home  to  them  by  Paul's  teaching,  though  they 
readily  owned  it  when  proclaimed  by  him. 

But  before  we  disparage  the  amount  of  specially 
Christian  teaching  which  St.  James's  Epistle  contains, 
it  is  well  to  look  into  the  matter  a  little  more  closely. 
There  was  a  time  in  the  Apostle's  life  when  he  was  but 
a  pious  Jew.  It  appears  from  St.  John's  Gospel  that  in 
our  Lord's  lifetime  his  brethren  did  not  believe  in  him. 
No  prophet  has  honour  in  his  own  country,  and  the 
members  of  our  Lord's  family  would  naturally  be  the 
slowest  to  own  in  him  a  being  of  different  nature  from 
themselves.  But  St.  Paul  tells  us  (i  Cor.  xv.  7)  that  our 
Lord,  after  his  resurrection,  appeared  to  James  ;  and  it 
is  not  unnatural  to  ascribe  to  that  appearance  the  great 
change  which  ranged  James  among  those  who  owned 
the  risen  Saviour  as  the  great  object  of  their  faith.     In 

*  There  are  coincidences,  also,  with  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  but  they 
seem  to  me  not  enough,  to  furnish  a  decisive  proof  that  that  book  has  been 
used.  One  of  the  most  striking  is  Ecclus.  xv.  ii,  12  :  Mt;  ilirris  on  Sia  Kvpwv 
drreiTTTjj',  b.  yap  ifilffrjiTev  oh  noi{)(Tets.  M^  eJ^rps  on  ahr6s  fie  iir\a.vri<riv ,  ol 
yap  xpe»ov  fx*'  avSphs  aixaproiXov.     (Compare  James  i,  13.) 


584  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

the  inscription  of  his  Epistle  he  claims  no  honour  from 
his  human  relationship  with  his  Master,  but  describes 
himself  as  the  servant  of  God  and  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  What  a  change  is  it  that  where  once  he  might 
have  been  entitled  to  bear  the  name  of  brother,  now  he 
only  dares  to  call  himself  the  slave  ;  and  in  his  form  of 
expression  puts  this  new  Master  whom  he  owned,  on  the 
level  of  God,  'James,  of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  the  slave.'  Christ's  is  the  worthy  name  which  he 
is  proud  to  bear  (ii.  7)  ;  Christ  the  great  object  of  the 
faith  common  to  him  with  those  to  whom  he  writes, 
which  is  described  as  the  '  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ' 
(ii.  i).  He  is  the  'Lord  of  glory,'  and  his  second  com- 
ing the  longing  hope  of  his  Church.  They  must  be 
exhorted  to  wait  patiently  for  it  as  the  husbandman 
waits  patiently  for  the  precious  fruit  of  the  earth  (v.  7). 
The  purpose  of  that  coming,  as  expected  by  James  and  his 
readers  alike,  was  that  which  we  eKpress  in  the  words, 

*  We  believe  that  thou  shalt  come  to  be  our  judge.' 
'  The  judge  standeth  before  the  door,'  cries  St.  James. 

*  Stablish  your  hearts,  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord  draweth 
nigh  '  (v.  8,  9).  And  while  yet  separated  from  his  Church, 
Christ  is  still  its  Ruler  and  the  source  of  its  supernatural 
power.  Miracles  of  healing  were  looked  for,  but  it  was 
in  his  name  that  the  sick  were  to  be  anointed  ;  it  was  he 
who  should  raise  them  up,  and  through  whom  they  were 
to  obtain  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  (v.  14,  15).  The 
man  whose  faith  we  have  here  described  was  clearly  no 
mere  Jew,  but  one  whose  whole  religious  life'  had  Jesus 
for  its  centre  and  foundation. 

But  although  St.  James  was  very  much  more  than  a 
pious  Jew,  it  is  not  uninteresting  to  study  him  in  that 
character.  There  have  been  those  of  late  years,  both 
unbelievers  and  Christians,  who  have  written  lives   of 


xxiii.]  The  Character  of  its  Author.  585 

our  Lord,  and  have  striven  to  form  a  conception  of  that 
earthly  life  which,  if  Jesus  be  looked  on  only  as  an  his- 
torical character,  is  still  one  of  the  most  important  in  all 
its  results  for  the  human  race.  Well,  if  we  wish  to  know 
the  influences  under  which  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  brought 
up,  what  better  evidence  can  we  have  than  that  which 
can  be  drawn  from  the  character  of  another  member  of 
the  same  family,  brought  up  with  the  same  surroundings, 
a  character  which  we  know,  not  only  from  the  report  of 
others,  but  as  it  reveals  itself  in  his  own  writings  ?  The 
very  fact  that  there  is  less  of  distinctively  Christian 
doctrine  in  St,  James  than  in  the  other  Epistles  makes 
it  possible  for  us  to  see  in  him,  who  seems  to  have  been 
least  changed  by  his  Christianity,  a  type  of  what  those 
pious  men  were  among  the  Jews  who,  before  our  Lord's 
coming,  waited  for  the  consolation  of  Israel. 

We  see  then  in  James  a  man  of  few  words,  slow  to 
speak,  deeply  alive  to  the  guilt  of  sins  of  the  tongue, 
counting  the  religion  vain  of  the  man  who  cannot  bridle 
his  tongue,  meek,  slow  to  wrath,  humble,  a  hater  of  world- 
liness,  whose  sympathies  are  with  the  poor  of  this  world, 
and  whose  indignation  is  excited  when  they  are  scorned 
in  the  house  of  God,  a  man  of  prayer,  full  of  faith  in  the 
efficacy  of  a  righteous  man's  fervent  prayer,  zealous  for 
the  law,  yet  not  for  mere  ceremonial  observance,  imbued 
with  the  spirit  of  the  prophet's  maxim  that  God  will 
have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  and  holding  that  the  true 
OptfaKiia  is  to  visit  the  fatherless  and  widows  in  their 
affliction,  and  to  keep  oneself  unspotted  from  the  world. 
Before  we  disparage  the  teaching  of  such  a  man,  let  us 
beware  lest  we  disparage  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  him- 
self, with  whom  his  character  has  much  in  common,  and 
the  topics  of  whose  ordinary  discourses  seem  not  to  have 
been  very  different. 


586  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

If  any  are  inclined  to  think  that  too  much  of  the  Epistle 
of  James  is  occupied  with  moral  precepts,  and  that  by  tak- 
ing these  for  granted  the  space  they  fill  might  have  been 
gained  for  doctrinal  instruction,  such  persons  ought  to 
be  reminded  how  needful  this  moral  teaching  was  at  the 
time  when  the  Epistle  was  written,  and  how  much  of  the 
success  of  Christianity  was  due  to  the  pains  which  its 
teachers  took  in  inculcating  lessons  which  seem  to  us 
commonplace.  Some  Christian  apologists  have  perhaps 
stated  too  strongly  the  contrast  between  Christian  and 
heathen  morality ;  not  giving  due  credit  to  the  excel- 
lence of  some  virtuous  heathen,  and  too  literally  taking 
the  representations  of  satirists  as  fair  pictures  of  the 
general  condition  of  society.  Yet  the  historical  student 
must  own  that  since  the  publication  of  the  Gospel  the 
general  standard  of  morality  has  been  raised.  For  in 
heathen  times  a  man  would  have  been  regarded  as  of 
exceptional  goodness  if  he  practised  those  homely  duties 
which  an  ordinary  Christian  gentleman  would  now  count 
himself  disgraced  if  he  failed  in.  When  Pliny  set  him- 
self to  inquire  what  was  the  *  sacramentum'  adminis- 
tered to  Christians  at  their  meetings  before  daylight, 
the  information  given  him  no  doubt  truly  told  him  the 
nature  of  the  instructions  given  on  these  occasions. 
And  what  we  learn  that  the  disciples  then  pledged 
themselves  to  was,  what  seems  to  us  very  elementary 
morality,  viz.  that  they  were  not  to  rob  or  steal,  not 
to  commit  adultery,  not  to  break  their  word,  and  if 
the  money  of  others  were  entrusted  to  them  not  to  ap- 
propriate it  to  themselves.  It  was,  no  doubt,  a  pleasant 
exaggeration  of  Juvenal  to  represent  [Sat.  XIII.)  the 
faithful  return  of  a  friend's  deposit  as  in  his  time  such  a 
rarity,  that  its  occurrence  might  be  regarded  as  a  por- 
tentous event,  demanding  the  offering  of  an  expiatory 


XXIII.]  Moral  Effects  of  Christianity.  587 


sacrifice.  Yet  we  need  not  doubt  that  by  the  Christian 
discipline  the  honesty  of  the  disciples  was  raised  to  a 
marked  superiority  over  the  ordinary  heathen  level,  and 
that  a  Christian  came  to  be  known  as  one  whose  word 
was  as  good  as  another  man's  oath — who  would  not  lie, 
nor  cheat,  nor  take  an  unfair  advantage.  We  are  war- 
ranted in  thinking  this,  because  Justin  Martyr  {Apol.  i. 
16)  enumerates  among  the  common  causes  of  conver- 
sions to  Christianity  the  impression  which  the  honesty 
of  Christians  made  on  those  who  did  business  with 
them. 

We  have  further  evidence  of  the  low  state  of  heathen 
morality  in  another  class  of  precepts,  which  we  find 
much  dwelt  on  in  documents  later  than  the  Epistle  we 
are  considering.  In  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles 
{II,  2),  for  instance,  the  disciple  is  instructed  that  he 
must  neither  destroy  the  life  of  his  unborn  child  nor 
kill  it  after  birth  ;  and  that  he  must  not  practise  abomi- 
nations which  in  those  days  were  confessed  with- 
out shame,  but  which  we  now  loathe  to  speak  of.  I 
think  that  the  nearly  complete  absence  of  warnings 
against  sins  of  the  flesh  in  the  Epistle  of  James 
is  evidence  both  that  this  Epistle  was  addressed  to 
Jews,  and  that  in  such  matters  Jewish  morality  was 
higher  than  that  of  the  heathen  world,  St,  Paul,  in  his 
letters  addressed  to  Churches  in  which  Gentiles  predo- 
minated, finds  it  impossible  to  be  silent  on  such  topics. 
How  much  the  moral  standard  of  society  was  raised  by 
these  instructions,  and  by  the  Christian  rule  of  expelling 
as  a  disgrace  to  their  community  those  who  transgressed 
them,  we  have  evidence  in  the  fact  that  three  centuries 
later  the  Emperor  Julian  is  scandalized  by  the  revela- 
tion as  to  the  previous  character  of  Paul's  converts, 
made  in  the  confession  (i  Cor.  vi.  11)  'such  were  some 
of  you '  {see  Cyril.  Alex,  adv.  Jul.  Vll.j. 


588  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  [xxiii. 

In  our  times,  as  well  as  in  his  own,  sayings  of  St. 
Paul  have  been  caught  up  and  distorted.  It  has  been 
thought  as  needless  to  dwell  on  those  fruits  of  faith  on 
which  he  was  always  so  careful  to  enlarge,  as  if  expe- 
rience never  showed  us  the  possibility  that  there  might 
be  what  St.  James  called  a  '  dead  faith.'  Men  have  read 
with  impatience  St.  James's  inculcation  of  holiness, 
purity,  unworldliness,  meekness,  as  if  these  lessons  ob- 
scured the  teaching  of  that  which  was  really  important. 
But  no  true  disciple  of  Paul  can  be  offended  at  the  pro- 
portion which  practical  exhortation  occupies  in  the 
Epistle  of  James.  For  Paul  himself  put  the  production 
of  holy  living  in  the  place  of  pre-eminence,  as  the  end 
for  which  the  whole  system  was  devised :  '  Christ  gave 
himself  for  us  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity, 
and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people  zealous  of 
good  works'  (Tit.  ii.  14).  Christianity  gave  men  new 
motives  and  new  powers  for  attaining  holiness.  But  if 
they  did  not  attain  it,  they  had  learned  their  religion  in 
vain.* 

*  I  add  a  remark  on  the  fact  that  the  Epistle  of  James  is  everjn,vhere  found 
first  in  the  collection  of  Catholic  Epistles.  The  explanation  of  this  given  by 
the  Venerable  Bede  in  his  prologue  to  the  Catholic  Epistles,  printed  by  Cave 
{Hist.  Lit.  I.  614),  is  as  foUows :  '  In  quibus  ideo  prima  Epistola  Jacobi 
ponitur,  quia  ipse  lerosolymorum  regendam  suscepit  ecclesiam.  In  catalogo 
enim  apostolorum  priores  solent  nominari  Petrus  et  Johannes.  Verum  fons 
et  origo  evangehcse  praedicationis  incipiens  [ab  Hierosolyma]  per  orbem  dif- 
fusa est  universum.  Cujus  cathedrae  dignitatem  etiam  Paulus  apostolus  in  eo 
nominando  venerans  ait,  Jacobus,  Cephas  et  Johannes,  qui  videbantur  co- 
lumnae  ecclesise ;  vel  certe  quia  ipse  duodecim  tribubus  Israelis  quae  primae 
crediderunt  suam  epistolam  misit,  merito  prima  poni  debuit.'  It  is  curious 
that  the  Claromontane  list  places  the  Epistles  of  Peter  before  that  of  James  ; 
and  this  is  the  order  we  should  expect  to  have  found  if  the  collection  of  Ca- 
tholic Epistles  had  been  formed  in  the  West.  It  is  possible  that  the  cir- 
culation of  Peter's  Epistle  may  have  begun  in  the  place  to  which  it  was 
addressed,  not  in  tliat  where  it  was  written  ;  and  thus  that  it  came  from  Asia 
Minor  to  Rome. 


XXIV. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.   JUDE. 


IN  my  first  Lecture  I  said  (p.  15)  that  I  intended  my 
investigation  to  be  purely  historical,  and  that  I 
meant  to  discuss  the  evidence  as  to  the  authorship  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  same  way  that  I 
should  do  if  the  subject  of  inquiry  were  any  profane 
histories.  By  this  course  I  gained  the  advantage  of 
being  able  to  set  aside  objections  to  the  reception  of  our 
books  drawn  from  the  miraculous  character  of  their 
contents ;  but  I  debarred  myself  from  using  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church  in  fixing  the  Canon.  This  is  not 
the  time  for  discussing  some  very  important  questions 
of  principle,  such  as  whether  the  authority  of  Scripture 
depends  on  that  of  the  Church,  whether  the  Church  has 
made  any  determination  on  the  subject,  and  if  so,  when 
and  how ;  and  whether  it  is  possible  for  her  to  err  in 
siich  determination.  I  have  been  able  to  postpone  such 
questions,  because,  plainly,  if  the  decisions  of  the  Church 
be  correct,  they  will  not  be  opposed  to  the  results  ob- 
tained by  honest  historical  investigation.  But  I  wish  to 
point  out  that  there  is  an  important  difference  with  regard 
to  the  assent  we  give  when  we  adopt  a  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture merely  on  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and  when  we 
do  so  as  the  result  of  historical  inquiry.     In  the  former 


590  The  Epistle  of  St.  Jude.  [xxiv. 

case  all  the  books  of  the  Canon  have  equal  claims  on  our 
acceptance  ;  if  the  Church  have  decided  in  favour  of  Bel 
and  the  Dragon,  that  must  be  received  ex  animo  as 
much  as  the  book  of  Genesis ;  if  the  verse  of  the  Three 
heavenly  Witnesses  be  part  of  the  text  adopted  by  the 
Church,  it  has  the  same  authority  as  the  verse  *  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word.'  On  the  other  hand  historical 
inquiry  ordinarily  leads  to  results  which  we  hold  with 
unequal  confidence.  For  some  things  the  evidence  is  so 
convincing  as  to  draw  from  us  that  undoubting  assent 
to  which  we  commonly  give  the  name  of  certainty ; 
other  results  may  be  pronounced  highly  probable,  others 
probable  in  a  less  degree  ;  in  some  cases  our  verdict 
may  not  reach  beyond  a  '  Non  liquet.' 

Now  there  are  some  who  in  theory  reject  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  authority  of  Scripture  depends  on  that  of 
the  Church,  but  who  show  that  they  have  in  practice 
adopted  it,  by  their  reluctance  to  recognize  the  possi- 
bility that  there  may  be  inequality  in  the  claims  of 
different  books  which  we  have  been  accustomed  to  re- 
cognize alike  as  Scripture.  In  laying  before  you  the 
evidence  for  our  books,  I  cannot  but  feel  that  to  some 
of  you  it  will  be  a  disappointment  to  learn  that  in  the 
two  or  three  last  cases  we  have  to  examine,  the  testi- 
mony is  much  less  copious  than  in  those  which  pre- 
viously came  before  us ;  and  a  shock  to  discover  that 
in  any  case  it  can  be  such  as  to  leave  room  for  doubt. 
I  can  only  repeat  that  the  ordinary  condition  of  his- 
torical inquiry  is  to  arrive  at  results  which  must  be 
accepted  with  unequal  confidence.  The  Church  of  the 
nineteenth  century  has  no  reason  to  complain,  if  she  is 
not  better  off  in  this  respect  than  the  Church  of  the 
fourth  century.  Although  in  that  age  the  great  bulk  of 
the  books  of  our  New  Testament  Canon  were  received 


XXIV.]       The  Canon  in  the  Foui^th  Century.  591 

with  universal  assent,  there  were  a  few  about  which  the 
most  learned  men  then  hesitated.  I  have  already  told 
you  of  the  two  classes  into  which  Eusebius  divided  our 
New  Testament  books.  Whatever  doubts  Eusebius  en- 
tertained with  regard  to  his  '  antilegomena  '  are  repeated 
fifty  years  later  by  St.  Jerome ;  and  at  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century  St.  Augustine  still  puts  books  received 
only  by  some  Churches  into  a  different  category  from 
those  received  by  all.  For  he  says,  *In  judging  of  the 
canonical  Scriptures  the  student  will  hold  this  course, 
that  he  prefer  those  which  are  received  by  all  Catholic 
Churches  to  tliose  which  some  do  not  receive  ;  of  those 
again  which  are  not  received  by  all,  he  will  prefer  those 
which  more,  and  more  influential,  Churches  receive  to 
those  which  are  held  by  Churches  fewer  in  number  or 
inferior  in  authority '  [De  Doctr.  Chr.  ii.  12). 

Now  I  will  frankly  tell  you  my  own  opinion,  that 
since  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  no  new  revelation 
has  been  made  to  enlighten  the  Church  on  the  subject 
of  the  Canon  ;  and  therefore  that  we  can  have  no  in- 
fallible certainty  on  matters  about  which  learned  men 
of  that  age  thought  they  had  not  evidence  to  warrant  a 
confident  assertion.  On  the  other  hand,  when,  after  long 
discussion,  one  opinion  gains  the  victory,  and  estab- 
lishes itself  so  as  to  become  a  universally  accepted  be- 
lief, that  itself  is  a  fact  which  is  entitled  to  have  some 
weight.  And  in  som.e  cases  we  can  clearly  see  good 
reason  for  the  recognition  of  documents  questioned 
in  the  fourth  century.  Thus,  the  authority  of  the 
great  majority  of  the  books  of  our  canon,  resting,  as  it 
does,  on  a  general  consensus  of  historical  testimony, 
stands  on  a  much  firmer  basis  than  if  it  depended  on 
any  early  formal  decision  of  a  council,  concerning  which 
we  might  be  in  doubt  as  to  the  grounds  on  which  the 


592  The  Epistle  of  St.  y tide.  [xxiv. 

decision  was  made,  as  to  the  competence  of  the  men  who 
made  it,  and  as  to  possible  opposing  testimony  which 
that  interference  of  conciliar  authority  might  have  pre- 
vented from  reaching  us. 

In  the  case  of  the  two  Palestinian  documents  which 
have  come  before  us  in  the  last  and  in  this  Lecture,  we 
find  it  easy  to  explain  why  there  should  be  some  inferi- 
ority of  testimony.  If  it  had  not  been  for  the  calamities 
which  befel  the  Jewish  people,  it  is  quite  conceivable  that 
Christianity  might  have  developed  itself  in  some  form 
similar  to  that  in  which  the  pseudo-Clementines  pre- 
sent its  early  history,  and  that  the  head  of  the  parent 
Church  of  Jerusalem  might  have  been  generally  recog- 
nized as  the  ruler  and  lawgiver  of  Christendom.  But 
there  came  first  the  Jewish  rebellion,  ending  in  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus.  After  that,  there 
still  were  Jews  who  clung  to  the  site  of  the  ancient 
glories  of  their  nation,  and  Christianity  had  its  repre- 
sentatives among  them  in  a  line  of  Jewish  successors  to 
James.  But  then  came  the  terrible  insurrection  under 
Barcochba  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  on  the  suppression 
of  which  the  very  name  of  Jerusalem  was  abolished,  and 
Jews  were  forbidden  to  approach  the  spot ;  and  though 
Christians  were  to  be  found  in  the  new  city,  Aelia  Capi- 
tolina,  which  then  replaced  Jerusalem,  they  were  of  neces- 
sity governed  by  Gentile  rulers  (Euseb.  iv.  6).  We  learn 
from  Justin  Martyr  [Apol.  i.  31)  that  Barcochba  during 
his  possession  of  power  fanatical!}'  persecuted  the  Chris- 
tians, and  it  is  to  be  believed  that  after  his  death  there 
remained  great  exasperation  of  feeling,  indisposing  men 
of  Jewish  birth  to  embrace  Christianity.  Meanwhile  the 
Gentile  Churches  flourished  and  multiplied,  and  natu- 
rally were  thenceforward  little  influenced  by  Jewish 
Christianity  and  its  traditions.     So  we  have  no    cause 


XXIV.]  External  evidence  abundant.  593 

for  surprise  that  the  circulation  enjoyed  by  the  two 
Palestinian  letters,  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude, 
was  so  limited  as  it  appears  to  have  been. 

But  what  is  really  surprising  is,  that  of  these  two,  it 
is  the  letter  of  the  less  celebrated  man  which  seems  to 
have  been  the  better  known,  and  to  have  obtained  the 
wider  circulation.  The  external  testimony  to  the  Epistle 
of  James  is  comparatively  weak,  and  it  is  only  the 
excellence  of  the  internal  evidence  which  removes  all 
hesitation.  Now  the  case  is  just  the  reverse  with  regard 
to  Jude's  Epistle.  There  is  very  little  in  the  letter  itself 
to  enable  us  to  pronounce  a  confident  opinion  as  to  the 
date  of  composition ;  but  it  is  recognized  by  writers  who 
are  silent  with  respect  to  the  Epistle  of  James.  I  have 
given  (p.  560)  evidence  that  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
whose  knowledge  of  the  Epistle  of  James  is  disputable, 
used  that  of  Jude.  Besides  what  is  there  quoted  from  the 
Hypotyposeis,  Clement  cites  the  Epistle  elsewhere  {Paed. 
iii.  8,  p.  280,  Potter:  Strom,  iii,  2,  p.  515).  The  Mura- 
torian  Fragment  recognizes  it,  and  TertuUian  [De  cult, 
fern.  3),  labouring  to  establish  the  authority  of  the  book 
of  Enoch,  adds  as  a  crowning  argument  that  it  is  quoted 
by  *the  Apostle  Jude.'  We  may  infer  therefore  that 
Jude's  Epistle  was  an  unquestioned  part  of  Tertullian's 
canon.  Origen  repeatedly  quotes  the  Epistle,  though 
on  one  occasion  he  implies  that  it  was  not  universally 
received.*  I  have  quoted  (pp.  538,  559)  what  is  said  by 
Eusebius,  in  which  he  seems  scarcely  to  do  justice  to 
the  use  of  this  Epistle  by  his  predecessors.    Of  these,  in 

*  In  Matt.  torn.  x.  17  ;  xiii.  27  ;  xv.  27  ;  xvii.  30.  In  the  first  of  these  pas- 
sages he  calls  the  Epistle  one  of  few  lines,  but  full  of  powerful  words  of  hea- 
venly grace.  In  the  second  he  interprets  the  reTr]pr}fj.euois  in  v.  i,  of  the  work 
of  guardian  angels.  It  is  only  in  the  last  of  them  that  he  uses  the  fonr.tila 
'  if  any  receive  the  Epistle  of  Jude.' 

2  Q 


594  The  Epistle  of  St.  Jude.  [xxiv. 


addition  to  Clement  and  Origen,  may  be  named  Malchion, 
who,  in  a  passage  preserved  by  Eusebius  himself  (vii.  30), 
clearly  employs  the  Epistle.  It  is  included  in  the  list  of 
Athanasius  [Fest.  Ep.  39).  Lucifer  of  Cagliari  (about 
357)5  quoting  it,  describes  Jude  as  '  gloriosus  apostolus 
frater  Jacobi  apostoli '  (see  infra,  p.  601);  and  it,  as  well 
as  the  other  Catholic  Epistles,  was  commented  on  by 
Didymus  of  Alexandria,  who  died  towards  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century.  Didymus  mentions,  but  with  disap- 
proval, opposition  made  to  the  Epistle  on  account  of 
the  verse  about  the  body  of  Moses  (Galland.  vi.  294). 
Jerome  says,  'Jude,  the  brother  of  James,  has  left  a  short 
Epistle,  which  is  one  of  the  seven  Catholic.  And,  because 
in  it  he  draws  a  testimony  from  the  apocr3^phal  Book  of 
Enoch,  it  is  rejected  by  very  many.  However,  it  has 
now  gained  authority  by  antiquity  and  use,  and  is  counted 
among  the  sacred  Scriptures'  {De  Vir.  Illust.  4). 

It  is  plain  from  the  evidence  adduced  that  Jude's 
Epistle  early  obtained  a  currency  in  the  West,  which 
was  not  gained  until  a  later  period  by  the  Epistle  of 
James.  On  the  other  hand,  Jude's  Epistle  is  wanting 
in  the  Peshito.  Several  quotations  of  it  are  indeed 
found  in  the  works  of  Ephrem  Syrus,  but  only  in  those 
which  have  been  translated  into  Greek  (II.  pp.  153,  161 ; 
III.  p.  61),  and  there  is  room  for  doubt  whether  this  use 
of  Jude  was  made  by  Ephrem  himself,  or  introduced  by 
the  translator.* 

*  The  Peshito  list  only  containing  tliree  Catholic  Epistles  is  lefcncd  to  in 
the  Iambics  of  Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  who  died  about  395  (Galland.  vi. 

495)  :— 

KaOoKiKus  eiricrToXas 
Tives  filv  eTTTo.  (paffiv,   ot  Se  rpets  fi6vas 
^privai  Sexec^a',   t^v  'laKcifiov  filav, 
(liav  5e  neVpou,   t^v  t'  'liaavvov  fiiav. 
Tivis  8t  Tos  Tpeis,  Ka\  irphs  ahrais  tos  Sko 
Tlerpov  Se'xoJ'Tai,  r^u  'loi'Sa  5'  e0d6f/.riv. 


XXIV.]  Its  AutJioT-  one  of-  The  Lord's  Brethren'    595 


Notwithstanding  the  wide  circulation  of  Jude's  Epistle 
in  early  times,  I  find  no  reason  to  think  that  our  ear- 
liest authorities  knew  more  either  about  its  author  or 
the  occasion  of  its  composition  than  they  could  learn 
from  the  document  itself.  We  need  not  doubt  that  it  is 
a  real  relic  of  the  first  age  of  the  Church,  both  because 
there  is  no  trace  of  any  motive  such  as  might  inspire  a 
forgery,  and  also  because  a  forger  would  certainly  have 
inscribed  his  production  with  some  more  distinguished 
name.  The  letter  professes  to  come  from  *Jude,  a 
servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  brother  of  James.'  We 
may  regard  it  as  certain  that  the  James  here  intended 
is  the  well-known  James  who  presided  over  the  Church 
of  Jerusalem,  and  thus  that  the  Epistle  clearly  belongs 
to  the  Palestinian  section  of  the  Church.  This  James 
is  no  doubt  also  he  who  is  called  the  Lord's  brother 
(Gal.  i.  19).  Now  the  names  of  our  Lord's  brethren  are 
given  (Matt.  xiii.  55)  as  James,  Joseph,  Simon,  and 
Judas,  and  in  the  parallel  passage  of  Mark  (vi.  3)  as 
James,  Joses,  Judas,  and  Simon.  We  may  take  for 
granted  that  the  Judas  here  named  is  the  author  of 
our  Epistle.  We  may  also  believe  that  it  is  the  same 
Jude  who  is  mentioned  in  a  tradition  preserved  by  He- 
gesippus  (Euseb.  iii.  20),  that  informers  attempted  to 
excite  the  jealousy  of  Domitian  against  two  of  our  Lord's 
family,  'grandsons  of  Jude,  who  is  said  to  have  been  his 
brother  after  the  flesh.'  On  being  questioned  by  the  Em- 
peror as  to  their  property,  they  told  him  that  they  had  no 
money,  and  possessed  only  a  small  farm  which  they  owned 
in  common  and  cultivated  with  their  own  hands,  its  value 
not  being  more  than  9000  denarii.  Then  they  showed 
him  their  hands,  and  when  he  saw  them  horny  with 
continual  toil,  he  was  convinced  of  the  truth  of  their 
siory.     As  for  the  kingdom  which  they   were  accused  of 

2  Q  2 


596  The  Epistle  of  St.  Jude.  [xxiv. 


expecting,  they  assured  him  that  it  was  no  earthly  king- 
dom, but  a  heavenly  one ;  when  Christ  should  come  at  the 
end  of  the  world  to  judge  the  quick  and  dead.  On  this 
the  Emperor,  regarding  them  as  beneath  his  jealousy, 
dismissed  them ;  and  they  survived  to  the  reign  of  Trajan, 
held  in  honour  in  the  Churches,  both  on  account  of  this 
their  confession  and  of  their  kindred  to  our  Lord. 

There  is  a  Judas,  who  may  or  may  not  be  another, 
in  the  list  of  the  Apostles  as  given  by  St.  Luke  (vi.  1 6, 
Acts  i.  13),  and  recognized  by  St.  John  (xiv.  22).  This 
Judas  occupies  the  place  of  one  who  in  the  lists  of 
Matthew  (x.  3)  and  Mark  (iii.  18),  is  called  Lebbeus, 
or  Thaddeus.*  I  may  remind  you  in  passing  that  in 
the  Abgar  legend  (see  p.  412)  Thaddeus  is  represented 
not  as  an  Apostle,  but  as  one  of  the  seventy,  and  that  he 
is  not  called  Judas — a  name  which  is  treated  as  belonging 
to  Thomas.  St.  Luke  describes  the  Apostle  Judas  as 
'louSac  'laKwjSou,  and  though  the  natural  translation  of 
the  words  is  'Jude  the  son  of  James,'  the  Authorized 
Version  renders  Jude  the  brother  of  James,  no  doubt 
because  the  Apostle  was  identified  with  the  author  of 
our  Epistle.  But  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  this  iden- 
tification can  be  maintained.  The  author  of  the  Epistle 
not  only  does  not  call  himself  an  Apostle  in  his  inscrip- 
tion, but  seems  to  distinguish  himself  from  the  Apostles 
{v.  17). 

On  the  question,  what  we  are  to  understand  by  '  the 
brethren   of  our   Lord,*   you    ought   to   consult   Bishop 

*  There  is  a  question  of  reading  here  which  I  will  not  delay  to  discuss ; 
but  it  is  important  to  mention  that  in  Matt.  x.  3,  there  is  a  well-attested  old 
Latin  reading,  '  Judas  Zelotes,'  instead  of  Thaddasus,  and  that  our  Epistle  is 
described  as  '  Judse  Zelotis '  in  the  catalogue  of  canonical  books  commonly  as- 
cribed to  Gelasius,  but  which,  according  to  Thiel  {Epp.  Rom.  Po?tt.  p.  58),  is 
rather  to  be  referred  to  Pope  Damasus.  But  concerning  this  list,  see  West- 
cott  s  Bible  in  the  Church,  p.  195. 


XXIV.]  The  Brethren  of  our  Lord.  597 

Lightfoot's  Dissertation,  II.,  appended  to  his  Commen- 
tary on  Galatians.    We  have,  I  think,  to  choose  between 
the  hypotheses,  that  these  '  brethren  '  were  sons  of  Joseph 
by  a  former  wife,  or  that  they  were  near  kinsmen  who, 
according  to  Hebrew  usage,  might  be  called  brethren. 
I  think  it  is  always  best  to  confess  ignorance  when  we 
have  not  the  means  of  certain  knowledge,  and  it   does 
not  seem  to  me  that  we  have  it  in  this  instance.     I  be- 
lieve that  Epiphanius,   Jerome,    and   most  others,  who 
are  appealed  to  as  authorities,  had  no  more  means  of 
real  knowledge  than  ourselves.     The  arguments  on  both 
sides  which  seem   to  me   really  deserving  of  attention 
are   the  following:    (i)  The  manner  in  which  the  four 
brothers  are  mentioned  in  Matt.  xiii.  55,  would  scarcely 
be  natural  if  they  were  not  members  of  the  same  house- 
hold  as   our  Lord.     (2)  The  Protevangelium,   and  the 
Gospel  according  to  St.  Peter  (as  we  know  from  Origen's 
Commentary  on  Matt.  xiii.  55),  represent  these  brethren 
as  sons  of  Joseph  by  a  former  wife.      (3)  Hegesippus 
describing  Simeon,  the  second  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  as 
our  Lord's  cousin,  never  calls  him  brother  of  our  Lord, 
as    he    does  James    and  Jude.      These    being    second 
century   authorities,  may  be  supposed  likely  to   speak 
from  knowledge.     But  it  is  possible  that  all  three  may 
be  too  late  for  such  knowledge ;  and  a  difficulty  arises 
from  the  fact  of  Simeon's  election  as  second  bishop  of 
Jerusalem.     For  Jude's  Epistle  exhibits   much  greater 
corruption  of  morals  among  professing  Christians  than 
that  of  James,  so  that  it  is  natural  to  think  that  Jude 
survived  James ;    and   since   his   kinship   to   our   Lord 
appears  to  have  been  a  main  reason  for  the  choice  of 
Simeon,  the  question  arises,  If  Jude  were  known  as  a 
'  brother  of  our  Lord,'  and  Simeon  not,  would  not  the 
choice  have  fallen  on  Jude,  whose  Epistle  shows  him  to 


598  The  Epistle  of  St.  Jiide.  [xxiv. 


have  had,  besides  the  claims  of  birth,  those  also  of  piety 
and  ability  ?  On  the  other  hand  the  choice  of  Simeon 
would  be  intelligible  if  he  were  Jude's  elder  brother; 
and  we  know  (Matt.  xiii.  55)  that  Jude  had  a  brother 
called  Simon, 

Again,  we  find  (Matt,  xxvii.  56)  that  there  were  a 
James  and  Joses  who  were  not  the  sons  of  a  deceased 
wife  of  Joseph,  but  who  had  a  mother  living  at  the  time 
of  the  Crucifixion.  It  is,  no  doubt,  possible  that  the 
three  *  brethren  of  our  Lord,'  James,  Joses,  and  Simon, 
had  three  cousins — brothers  also — named  James,  Joses, 
and  Simon ;  but  the  more  natural  supposition  is  that 
the  same  James  and  Joses  are  spoken  of  in  both  places. 

Weighing  the  arguments  on  both  sides,  I  think  the 
preponderance  is  on  the  side  of  those  for  the  adoption  of 
the  theory  that  these  *  brethren '  were  sons  of  Joseph. 
This  is,  as  far  as  we  know,  the  older  opinion  ;  for  Light- 
foot  has  been  successful  in  showing  that  the  *  cousin ' 
theory  cannot  be  traced  higher  than  St.  Jerome.  At  the 
same  time  the  matter  appears  to  me  by  no  means  free 
from  doubt.  I  agree  with  Lightfoot  in  thinking  that 
neither  James  nor  Jude  was  among  the  Twelve. 

Concerning  the  date  of  the  Epistle,  our  determina- 
tion is  materially  affected  by  the  view  we  take  of  the 
persons  whose  immorality  and  contempt  of  dignities  the 
Apostle  censures.  I  have  already  mentioned  (p.  33) 
that  Renan  imagines  that  Jude  wished  his  readers  to 
understand  the  Apostle  Paul.  Renan  can  thus  date  the 
letter  as  early  as  54.  But  he  stands  alone  in  this  child- 
ish criticism.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  a  passage 
already  cited,  supposes  that  Jude  spoke  prophetically  of 
the  immoral  teaching  of  Carpocrates  ;  and  some  modern 
critics,  sharing  the  view  that  the  Epistle  is  directed 
against  this  form  of  Gnosticism,  consider  that  it  cannot  be 


XXIV. 3  Against  Whom  were  its  Censures  aimed!    599 


earlier  than  the  second  century.  I  have  already  had  oc- 
casion to  mention  (p.  420J  that  on  the  doctrine,  common  to 
the  Gnostic  sects,  of  the  essential  impurity  of  matter,  two 
opposite  rules  of  life  were  founded.  The  earliest  seems 
to  have  been  a  rigorously  ascetic  rule,  men  hoping  that 
by  mortifying  the  body  they  could  make  the  soul  more 
pure  and  more  vigorous.  But  before  long  there  were 
others  who  held  that  by  knowledge  the  soul  could  be  so 
elevated  as  to  suffer  no  detriment^from  the  deeds  of  the 
body,  however  gross  they  might  be.  Nay,  there  were 
some  who,  accepting  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, that  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  came  from 
him;  who  made  the  world,  but  believing  also  that  the 
creation  of  matter  had  been  a  bad  work,  inculcated  the 
violation  of  these  precepts  as  a  duty,  in  order  to  exhibit 
hostility  to  the  evil  Being  or  Beings  who  had  created  the 
world.  To  this  immoral  type  of  Gnosticism  the  teaching 
of  Carpocrates  belonged ;  but  I  see  no  warrant  for  assert- 
ing that  any  such  systematic  justification  of  immora- 
lity had  been  developed  when  our  Epistle  was  written. 
I  find  nothing  in  this  Epistle  to  prevent  our  assigning 
it  to  the  Apostolic  age  ;  for  other  Apostles  had  had 
cause  to  complain  of  impurity,  which  had  already 
crept  into  the  Church  (2  Cor.  xii.  21;  Phil.  iii.  19; 
Rev,  ii.  20-22).  Some  critics  [e.g.  Schenkel,  in  his 
Bible  Lexicon)  have  discovered  Gnostic  theories  in  v.  4, 
inferring  from  it  that  those  whom  Jude  opposed  did  not 
believe  in  the  unity  of  God,  and  defended  their  evil  prac- 
tices by  maintaining  the  duty  of  antagonism  to  the 
Creator.  But  I  consider  that  Jude's  words,  'denying 
our  only  Master  and  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,'  no  more  of 
necessity  imply  doctrinal  error  than  do  Paul's  words,  in 
the  passage  of  Philippians  just  cited,  '  enemies  of  the 
Cross  of  Christ.'     And  those  whom  Jude  in  the  same 


6oo  The  Epistle  of  St.  Jude.  f  xxiv.  ■ 

verse  describes  as  '  turning  the  grace  of  our  God  into 
lasciviousness '  seem  to  me  not  diiferent  from  those  who, 
having  been  called  unto  liberty,  used  liberty  for  an 
occasion  to  the  flesh  (Gal.  v.  13).  St.  Paul  in  the  be- 
ginning of  I  Cor.  X.  had  used  the  same  example  which 
St.  Jude  employs  in  warning  those  men  of  corrupt  hearts, 
who,  having  slipped  into  the  Church,  presumed  on  the 
grace  they  had  received.  Both  Apostles  remind  them 
of  the  fate  of  those  Israelites  of  old  who,  though  they 
had  escaped  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  yet  suffered  in  the 
wilderness  the  penalty  of  their  unbelief  and  disobe- 
dience. And  Jude  adds  the  further  example  that  even 
angels  fell.  On  the  whole,  I  conclude  that  the  evils 
under  which  Jude's  Epistle  reveals  the  Church  to  be 
suffering  are  not  essentially  different  from  those  the 
existence  of  which  we  learn  from  Paul's  Epistles ;  and 
therefore  that  we  are  not  forced  to  bring  the  authorship 
down  to  the  second  century.  Nothing  forbids  us  to 
give  it  the  date  it  must  have  had  if  really  written  by 
Jude  the  brother  of  James;  namely,  before  the  reign  of 
Domitian,  by  which  time  Hegesippus  gives  us  to  under- 
stand that  Jude  had  died. 

I  will  add,  that  there  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be 
sufficient  evidence  that  those  whom  Jude  condemns  were 
teachers  of  false  doctrine,  or  even  teachers  at  all.  I 
think  his  language  is  fully  satisfied  if  we  suppose  them 
to  be  private  members  of  the  Church,  who  lived  ungodly 
lives,  and  who  were  insubordinate  and  contumelious 
when  rebuked  by  their  spiritual  superiors.* 

*  The  Revised  Version  translates  a<p60ws  eavrovs  ■noifxaivovTfs  (v.  12),  '  shep- 
lierds  that  without  fear  feed  themselves,'  looking  on  the  passage  as  containing 
a  reference  to  Ezek.  xxxiv.  2,  '  Woe  be  to  the  shepherds  of  Israel  that  do  feed 
themselves.'  But  the  words  in  the  LXX.  there  are  fidaKovcriv  eavrovs,  and  Jude's 
words  convey  to  me  a  different  idea  ;  not  that  of  self-seeking  clerg)-,  but  of 


XXIV.]    lis  itse  of  Jewish  Apocryphal  Books.  60 1 

It  remains  to  say  something'  about  what  Jerome  states 
to  have  been  a  bar  to  the  reception  of  Jude's  Epistle, 
namely,  its  use  of  Jewish  apocryphal  literature.  Two 
passages  in  particular  demand  attention.  In  the  first 
place,  Origen  states  [De  Princtp.  ill.  2)  that  the  mention 
(z/.  9)  of  the  contest  for  the  body  of  Moses,  between  ^lichael 
the  Archangel  and  the  Devil,  is  derived  from  an  apocry- 
phal book  called  the  Assumption  of  Moses.  The  same 
thing  is  intimated  in  a  passage  of  Didymus,  already 
referred  to,  and  in  a  passage  of  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea 
preserved  in  a  catena.  This  book  of  the  Assumption  of 
Moses  appears  to  have  obtained  some  circulation  in  the 
Christian  Church.  It  is  cited  by  Clement  of  Alexandria 
{Strom.  VI.  15,  p.  806) ;  by  Origen  [m  Lib.  Jesu  Nav. 
Horn.  II.  i);  by  Evodius,  a  correspondent  of  Augustine's 
(Augustine,  Epist.  158,  opp.  II.  561) ;  and  by  Gelasius  of 
Cyzicus  [Acta  Syn.  Nic.  Mansi.  Concil.  II.  844,  858J.  It 
is  enumerated  among  Old  Testament  apocrypha  in  the 
synopsis  of  the  Pseudo- Athanasius ;  and  it  is  included 
in  the  stichometry  of  Nicephorus,  who  assigns  it  the 
same  length  (1400  ariyoi)  as  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John. 
Nevertheless  it  had  almost  entirely  perished,  when  in 
1 86 1  a  large  fragment  of  a  Latin  version  of  it  was  re- 
covered and  published  by  Ceriani,  from  a  palimpsest  in 
the  Ambrosian  Library  of  Milan.  From  what  we  learn 
from  Nicephorus  as  to  the  length  of  the  original,  we  know 
that  the  recovered  portion  is  not  more  than  one-third  of 
it ;  and  it  is  in  a  very  imperfect  state,  many  words  or 

schismatical  laity  who  separate  themselves  from  the  flock  of  Christ,  and  are  not 
afraid  to  be  their  own  shepherds.  Lucifer  iJDe  non  conven.  cum  hceret.  p.  794, 
Migne)  renders  '  semetipsos  regentes. '  Many  of  the  phrases  packed  together  in 
Jude's  Epistle  might  each  be  the  text  of  a  discourse ;  so  that  I  could  easily 
beUeve  that  we  had  in  this  Epistle  heads  of  topics  enlarged  on,  either  in  a 
longer  document,  or  by  the  Apostle  himself  in  viva  voce  addresses. 


6o2  The  Epistle  of  St.  Jude.  [xxiv. 

letters  being  obliterated.*  The  recovered  fragment  has 
been  edited  by  Hilgenfeld  in  his  Nov.  Test,  extra  Canon. 
recept.;  and  he  has  attempted  to  restore  the  Greek  in 
his  Messias  JudcBorum.  You  can  also  very  conveniently 
find  it  in  Fritzsche's  edition  of  the  Old  Testament 
apocryphal  books.  Critics  have  drawn  from  the  frag- 
ment different  theories  as  to  the  date  of  the  book ;  but 
it  appears  to  me  that  the  data  are  altogether  insufficient 
to  warrant  any  certain  conclusion.  The  fragment,  un- 
fortunately, breaks  off  before  the  death  of  Moses,  so  that 
we  have  not  the  means  of  verifying  that  the  work 
related  a  dispute  between  the  Devil  and  the  Archangel 
Michael,  But  I  do  not  think  we  are  warranted  in  reject- 
ing the  early  testimony  that  this  book  was  the  authority 
used  by  Jude,  since  what  he  refers  to  is  certainly  not 
found  in  the  canonical  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  second  passage  is  the  quotation  of  the  words  of 
Enoch  {v.  14).  I  have  already  said  that  Tertullian  men- 
tions a  Book  of  Enoch,  which  in  his  opinion  ought 
to  be  received,  notwithstanding  that  it  had  not  been 
admitted  into  the  canon  of  the  Jews,  who  reject  this, 
as  they  usually  do  what  speaks  of  Christ.  Among 
Christian  writers  Tertullian  stands  alone  in  this  ac- 
ceptance. Origen  {Horn,  in  Numer.  xxvili.  2)  and 
Augustine  [De  Civ.  Dei  xviii.  38,  a  passage  which  de- 
serves 10  be  consulted)  mention  without  disapproval  the 
rejection  of  it  by  the  Jews.  The  book  was  known  to 
Irenaeus  (iv.  xvi.  2),  Clement  of  Alexandria  [Eclog.  11. 
p.  990),  Anatolius  [Euseh.  Vll.  32),  Origen  [De  Princip. 
IV.  35,  Adv.  Cels.  V.  55),  see  also  Constt.  Apost.  vi.  30. 

*  The  recovered  fragment  wants  the  title  ;  but  this  citation  of  Gelasius 
enables  us  to  be  certain  in  identifying  it.  The  passage  cited  describes  Moses 
as  T^s  BtaB'fiKni  avrov  fiealrris,  a  phrase  which  it  is  interesting  to  compare  with 
Gal.  iii.  19,  Heb.  viii.  6. 


XXIV.]  The  Book  of  Enoch.  603 

Several  extracts  from  the  book  were  preserved  by 
Georgius  Syncellus,  a  monk  of  Constantinople  towards 
the  end  of  the  eighth  century.  In  these  passages  the 
story  is  told,  founded  on  Gen.  vi.  i,  of  a  descent  of 
angels  to  this  lower  world,  where  they  became  the 
parents  of  the  giants.  The  same  story  appears  in  Justin 
Martyr  [Apol.  II,  5),  and  in  both  forms  of  the  Pseudo- 
Clementines,  possibly  derived  from  this  source  ;  and  it 
may  also  be  referred  to  in  Jude  6. 

Beyond  the  extracts  just  mentioned  the  book  had 
been  completely  lost,  until  in  1773  the  traveller  Bruce 
brought  back  from  Abyssinia  copies  of  an  Ethiopic  ver- 
sion of  the  Book  of  Enoch.  Laurence,  Archbishop  of 
Cashel,  published  an  English  translation  of  this  in  1821, 
followed  by  the  Ethiopic  text  in  1838,  and  this  text 
has  been  re-edited  with  a  German  translation  by  Dillman 
in  1853.  It  would  be  out  of  place  here  if  I  were  to  give 
a  description  of  the  book,  or  to  enter  into  discussions  con- 
cerning its  date  or  its  unity  of  authorship.  .Suffice  it  to 
say  that  there  is  no  reason  for  doubting  that  the  book  is 
quite  old  enough  to  have  been  used  by  the  Apostle  Jude  ;* 
and  that  it  contains,  with  very  trifling  variations,  the  words 
quoted  by  Jude.  Some  respectable  divines  have  main- 
tained, notwithstanding,  that  Jude  did  not  derive  hence 
his  knowledge  of  Enoch's  prophecy,  but  that  it  had  been 
preserved  traditionally,  and  afterwards  incorporated  in 
the  Book  of  Enoch.  And  it  has  been  suggested  that 
the  words  now  found  in  the  Ethiopic  version  were  intro- 
duced from  Jude  by  the  translator,  or  had  previously 
been  interpolated  by  a  Christian  into  the  Greek.  I  do 
not  feel  that  I  can   with  candour  take   this  line.     We 

*  I  believe  this  to  be  the  opinion  of  all  critics  but  Volkmar,  who  assigns  a 
late  date  to  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  with  this  object  strives  to  push  down  both 
the  Assumption  of  Moses  and  the  Book  of  Enoch  to  the  reign  of  Hadrian. 


604  The  Epistle  of  St.  Jude.  [xxiv. 

can  feel  no  surprise  that  an  Apostle  should  be  acquainted 
with  the  Jewish  literature  current  in  his  age ;  but  it  is,  no 
doubt,  natural  to  us  to  think  that  God  would  superna- 
turally  enlighten  him  so  as  to  prevent  his  being  deceived 
by  a  falsely  ascribed  book ;  and  that  if  he  referred  to 
such  a  book  at  all,  he  would  take  care  to  make  it  plain 
to  his  readers  that  he  attributed  to  it  no  authority.  Yet 
we  follow  a  very  unsafe  method  if  we  begin  by  deciding 
in  what  way  it  seems  to  us  most  fitting  that  God  should 
guide  His  Church,  and  then  try  to  wrest  facts  into  con- 
formity with  our  pre-conceptions. 


XXV. 

THE   SECOND   EPISTLE  OF  ST.   PETER. 


WHEN  I  pointed  out,  at  the  beginning  of  the  last 
Lecture,  that  we  had  no  right  to  be  surprised  if 
it  should  appear  that,  in  respect  of  historical  attestation, 
all  the  books  of  our  Canon  do  not  stand  on  the  same 
level,  I  had  chiefly  in  my  mind  the  book  on  the  discus- 
sion of  which  we  are  now  about  to  enter — the  Second 
Epistle  of  Peter.  The  framers  of  the  Sixth  Article  of 
our  Church  use  language  which,  if  strictly  understood, 
implies  that  there  never  had  been  any  doubt  in  the 
Church  concerning  the  authority  of  any  of  the  books  of 
Old  or  New  Testament  which  they  admitted  into  their 
Canon.  Their  language  would  have  been  more  accurate 
if  they  had  said  that  they  rejected  those  books  concern- 
ing whose  authority  there  always  had  been  doubt  in  the 
Church,  They  had,  no  doubt,  principally  in  view  the 
apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament;  and  these 
books,  not  included  in  the  Jewish  Canon,  were  not  only 
rejected  by  many  learned  men  in  the  earliest  ages  of  the 
Church,  but  the  doubts  concerning  them  were  never  per- 
mitted to  be  forgotten  ;  for  Jerome's  prefaces,  which 
stated  their  inferiority  of  authority,  constantly  continued 
to  circulate  side  by  side  with  the  books  themselves.  At 
the  time  when  our  articles  were  drawn  up  there  was  no 


6o6  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.        [xxiv. 


serious  controversy  concerning  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  nor  had  there  been  any  for  some  centuries 
before.  But  you  will  have  seen  that  it  would  not  be  true 
to  assert  that  there  never  had  been  controversy.  Un- 
favourable opinions  with  respect  to  2  Peter  are  ex- 
pressed by  Eusebius  and  Jerome.*  There  were  four  of 
the  Catholic  Epistles  which  the  early  Syrian  Church  did 
not  receive  into  its  Canon,  and  a  fifth  which  was  not 
universally  received  elsewhere.  Traces  of  this  diversity 
of  opinion  are  to  be  found  for  some  time,  and  especially 
where  Syrian  influence  prevailed.  Chrysostom,  the 
great  preacher  of  Antioch,  never  uses  any  of  the  four 
Epistles  not  included  in  the  Peshito;t  and  I  believe  that 
the  same  may  be  said  of  Theodoret.  Just  towards  the 
close  of  the  first  half  of  the  sixth  century,  Junilius,  a 
high  legal  official  in  the  court  of  Justinian,  turned  into 
Latin,  for  the  benefit  of  some  African  bishops  J  who 
were  his  friends,  a  tract  on  the  Scriptures  by  Paulus,  a 
distinguished  teacher  of  Nisibis,  at  that  time  a  centre  of 

*  Tt);'  5e  (pepo/j.fvrji'  TleTpov  5evTepai>  ovk  ivSiaQriKov  /J.fv  elyai  7rapei\i](pafj.ev' 
ofMias  Se  TToWoTs  xP'h'^'-l^os  (pave^cra,  /xerh  -rSiv  &\Ka)v  ecrnovSacrOr]  ypacpwv  (Euseb. 
III.  3). 

Simon  Petrus  .  .  .  scripsit  duas  Epistolas  qaas  canonicae  [Catholicae]  nomi- 
iiantur  ;  quarum  secunda  a  plerisque  ejus  esse  negatur,  propter  styli  cum  priore 
dissonantiam  (Hieron.  De  Vir,  Illust.  t). 

t  The  solitary  instance  adduced  to  prove  his  acquaintance  with  2  Pet.  ii. 
22,  eoiKev  r^  kvvI  irphs  rhv  'iSiov  e/xerov  iiraviSvri  (in  Joann.  Hoin,  XXXIV,  3), 
is  really  derived  from  Prov.  xxvi.  11,  the  word  in  2  Pet.  being  ^^epafia,  not 
e/j-fTov.  The  same  proverb,  also  with  e/nerov,  is  the  only  apparent  sign  of 
acquaintance  with  the  four  Epistles  I  find  in  the  index  to  Theodoret  {In 
Da7i.  iii.  1).  But  Chrysostom's  friend  Basil  uses  2  Pet.  {adv.  Eunom.  v.  l)  ; 
and  we  are  bound  to  remember  that  the  absence  of  quotations  may  be  explained 
by  the  fact  that  of  the  four  Epistles  in  question,  three  are  extremely  short,  and 
the  fourtii  not  very  long. 

X  Consequently,  Junilius  has  commonly  passed  for  an  African  bishop  himself, 
until  his  true  history  was  tracked  out  by  Kihn  (Theodor  van  HJopsuestia, 
1880). 


XXIV.]  Oiie  of  the  ^  Antilegomena.''  607 

Eastern  theological  education.  In  this  tract  books  are 
divided  into  three  classes,  'perfectse,'  *  mediae/  and  *nul- 
lius  auctoritatis ' ;  the  first  being  those  which  he  sets 
down  absolutely  as  canonical,  the  second  those  which  he 
states  'adjungi  a  pluribus.'  In  the  first  class  he  has 
fourteen  epistles  of  St.  Paul  (the  Hebrews  being  last 
mentioned),  *  beati  Petri  ad  gentes  prima,  et  beati  Johan- 
nis  prima.'  Then  in  the  second  class,  '  adjungunt  quam 
plurimi  quinque  alias,  id  est  Jacobi,  secundam  Petri/  &:c. 
Kihn  shows  that  the  exclusion  of  James,  as  well  as  of 
the  other  four,  was  derived  from  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia. 
Junilius  himself  (ii.  17)  quotes  2  Pet.  ii.  4  as  the  words  of 
blessed  Peter  without  any  sign  of  doubt.  The  tract  of 
Junilius  became  speedily  known  to  Cassiodorus,  and 
thenceforward  had  considerable  circulation  in  the  West. 
So  late  as  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century,  Ebed  Jesu, 
a  Nestorian  metropolitan  of  Nisibis,  has  only  three 
Catholic  Epistles  in  his  New  Testament  Canon  (Assemani. 
Bibl.  Orient.  III.  9). 

Notwithstanding  isolated  expressions  of  dissent,  the 
general  voice  of  the  Church  accepted  all  seven  Catholic 
Epistles  ;  and  this  verdict  remained  undisturbed  until 
the  revival  of  learning.  Then  Erasmus  on  the  one  hand, 
Calvin  on  the  other,  express  doubts  as  to  2  Peter.  The 
latter,  in  the  preface  to  his  commentary,  shows  himself 
much  impressed  by  what  Jerome  had  remarked  as  to 
difference  of  style  from  that  of  the  First  Epistle,  as  well 
as  by  other  considerations  leading  him  to  think  Peter  not 
the  author.  But  he  says  that,  if  the  Epistle  is  canonical 
at  alljPetrine  authorship  in  some  sense  must  be  acknow- 
ledged, since  the  Epistle  plainly  claims  it.  And  'since 
the  majesty  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  exhibits  itself  in  every 
part  of  the  Epistle,'  he  scruples  to  reject  it,  though 
not  recognizing  in   it  the   genuine  language   of  Peter. 


6o8  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.         [xxiv. 


He  is  therefore  disposed  to  believe  that  it  may  have  been 
written,  at  Peter's  command,  by  one  of  his  disciples. 
And  this  is  almost  precisely  the  line  taken  by  Erasmus. 
Later  critics  have  taken  even  a  more  unfavourable  view 
of  the  Epistle ;  and  at  the  present  day  it  is  generally 
rejected  even  by  the  less  extreme  critics  of  the  sceptical 
school,  while  its  cause  has  been  abandoned  by  some 
within  our  own  Church. 

I  am  not  prepared  to  condemn  those  who  do  not 
pretend  to  have  a  stronger  assurance  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  book  than  had  Eusebius  and  Jerome  ;  but  I  may 
point  out  that  its  authority  can  well  stand  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  these  eminent  critics  entertained  doubts 
of  it.  We  have  just  seen  that  to  have  been  subject  to 
early  doubts  is  a  lot  which  2  Peter  shares  in  common 
with  four  other  of  the  Catholic  Epistles ;  and  yet,  as  re- 
spects them,  we  have  found  reason  to  think,  not  that  the 
case  for  these  Epistles  was  bad,  but  that  the  scrutiny  to 
which  they  were  subjected  was  very  severe.  With  respect 
to  early  attestation,  the  case  for  the  Epistle  of  James  is 
little  stronger  than  that  for  2  Peter,  yet  I  count  that  its 
authority  cannot  be  reasonably  impugned.  I  feel  no 
doubt  that  the  two  minor  Epistles  of  St.  John  come  from 
the  same  hand  as  the  First ;  though  if  we  referred  the 
matter  to  the  judgment  of  early  critics  the  decision  might 
turn  out  the  other  way.  The  evidence  of  early  recogni- 
tion of  Peter's  Second  Epistle  is  certainly  weaker  than  in 
the  case  of  most  other  New  Testament  books.  Yet  it  is 
by  no  means  inconsiderable ;  and  at  the  beginning  of 
this  course  of  lectures  I  remarked  how  many  classical 
books  there  are  as  to  the  genuineness  of  which  we  feel  no 
doubt,  notwithstanding  the  impossibility  of  giving  proof 
of  early  recognition. 

By   the   fifth    century,    the    authority    of  the    seven 


XXV.]  External  Evidence.  609 

Catholic  Epistles,  including  2  Peter,  was  acknowledged 
throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  Christian  world  ;  and 
I  believe  this  to  be  true  of  the  fourth  century  also  ;  for  I 
think  that  Eusebius  and 'Jerome  only  express  the  closet 
doubts  of  learned  men,  and  not  popular  Church  opinion. 
In  Jerome's  case,  what  we  know  of  his  method  of  com- 
position gives  us  reason  to  believe  that  he  is  rather 
repeating  what  he  had  read  than  stating  the  belief  of  his 
own  time,  or  even  his  own  deliberate  opinion.  For  he 
elsewhere  speaks  of  the  Epistle  without  any  doubt  of  its 
authorship  [Ep.  53,  ad Paulin.  de  stud,  script.)'*  and  he 
offers  the  suggestion  that  the  difference  of  style  between 
the  two  Epistles  might  be  accounted  for  by  Peter's  hav- 
ing used  different  interpreters  t  [Epist.  120,  ad  Hedibiam 
QucEst.  XI.).  Jerome's  friend  Epiphanius  uses  the  Epistle 
without  doubt  %  [Haer.  LXVI.  65).  Didymus,  the  blind 
head  of  the  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria,  has  left  a 
commentary  on  the  Catholic  Epistles,  preserved  in  Latin 
by  Cassiodorus,  all  through  which  2  Peter  appears  to  be 
treated  as  possessing  full  canonical  authority,  until  in  the 
very  last  sentence  we  are  surprised  to  read,  'Non  est 
igitur  ignorandum,  praesentem  epistolam  esse  falsatam, 
quae  licet  publicetur,  non  tamen  in  canone  est.'  Some 
doubt  is  cast  on  this  clause  by  the  fact  that  in  the  work 
De  Trinitate^  which  appears  to  be  rightly  ascribed  to 
Didymus,  he  ten  times  quotes  our  Epistle  as  Peter's, 

*  The  prologue  to  the  Catholic  Epistles,  printed  as  Jerome's,  is  not  genuine. 

f  It  is  natural  to  set  down  Mark  as  one  of  them,  audit  has  been  conjectured 
that  Glaucias  may  have  been  the  other  ;  but  this  suggestion  is  derived  from  an 
authority  not  entitled  to  much  respect,  namely,  the  heretic  Basihdes,  who 
claimed  to  have  received  traditions  from  an  Interpreter  of  Peter  so  called 
(Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  Vll.  17). 

X  Quoting  it  with  the  formula  neVpos  kv  tt)  eVitTToXf),  which,  when  used  by 
earHer  writers  in  a  citation  from  the  First  Epistle,  is  commonly  taken  for  an 
implied  rejection  of  the  Second. 

2  R 


6 1  o  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

without  note  of  doubt  (see  i.  xv.  p.  303,  Migne,  and  the 
passages  referred  to  in  Mingarelli's  note).  But  the 
clause  has  all  the  marks  of  being  a  translation  from 
the  Greek.  'Non  est  ignorandum,  epistolam  esse  falsa- 
tam,'  probably  represents,  \arLov  wc  voOevaTai  rj  eTricTToXri 
{see  Eus.  ii.  2^),  and  merely  means  that  the  genuineness 
of  the  Epistle  was  disputed. 

That  the  opinion  of  Eusebius  was  unfavourable  can- 
not be  denied ;  but  I  believe  that  he,  too,  is  but  echo- 
ing the  doubts  of  predecessors.  We  have  every  reason 
to  think  that  in  his  own  time  the  current  of  opinion  ran 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  Epistle.  On  the  establishment 
of  Christianity  by  Constantine,  an  active  multiplication 
of  copies  of  the  Scriptures  became  necessary,  both  in 
order  to  repair  the  losses  suffered  under  the  Diocletian 
persecution,  and  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  the  many 
new  converts.  And  all  the  evidence  we  can  draw, 
whether  from  existing  MSS.,*  or  from  ancient  catalogues 
of  the  books  of  Scripture,  goes  to  make  it  probable  that, 
wherever  the  production  of  a  complete  Bible  was  in- 
tended, it  included  the  collection  of  seven  Catholic 
Epistles,  the  existence  of  which  Eusebius  himself  re- 
cognizes. These  seven  were  owned  as  canonical  by 
Athanasius  and  by  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  both  younger 
contemporaries  of  Eusebius. 

Among  the  predecessors  whose  opinion  had  most 
weight  with  Eusebius  was  Origen,  who  (in  a  passage 
cited  p.  334)  attests  both  that  the  book  was  known  in  his 

*  The  two  earliest  existing  MSS.,  which  probably  are  as  early  as  the  reig:i 
of  Constantine,  both  include  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles.  So  does  the  Claro- 
montane  list,  the  original  of  which  Westcott  believes  to  be  as  old  as  the  third 
century.  In  Codex  B  (where,  as  is  customary,  the  Catholic  Epistles  follow  the 
Acts),  there  is  a  twofold  division  of  sections,  an  older  and  a  later.  In  2  Peter 
alone  the  older  division  of  sections  is  wanting  ;  from  which  it  may  be  inferred 
that  this  Epistle  was  wanting  in  an  ancestor  of  the  Vatican  MS. 


XXV. J  External  Evidence.  6ii 

time,  and  that  its  genuineness  was  disputed.     I  have  re- 
marked that  Origen's  immediate  purpose  in  that  passage 
would  lead  him  to  present  the  least  favourable  view  of  the 
genuineness  of  disputed  books.     In  several  places  else- 
where Origen  quotes  2  Peter  without  expression  of  doubt. 
It  is  true  these  quotations  are  all  found  in  works  only 
known  to  us  through  the  Latin  translation  of  Rufinus, 
whose  faithfulness  cannot  be  depended  on  ;  but  on  ex- 
amination of  the  passages,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  likely 
that  Rufinus  could  have  invented  them  ;    and  I  believe 
the  truth  to  be,  that  Origen  in  popular  addresses  did  not 
think  it  necessary  to  speak  with  scientific  accuracy.     It 
is  implied  in  this  solution  that  Peter's  authorship  was 
the  popular  belief  of  Origen's  time ;    and  this  is  made 
probable  to  me  by  the  fact  that  Origen's  contemporary, 
Firmilian  of  Cappadocia,  writing  to  Cyprian  (Cyprian, 
Ep.  75),    speaks  of  Peter  as  having  execrated  heretics, 
and  warned  us  to  avoid  them,  words  which  can  only  refer 
to  the  Second  Epistle.     We  can  produce  no  evidence  of 
knowledge  of  the  Epistle  from  the  writings  of  Cyprian 
himself,  nor  from  those  of  his  predecessor  TertuUian.     I 
have  mentioned  (p.  542)  that  the  Muratorian  Fragment 
does  not  notice  the  Second  Epistle,  but  that  its  equal 
silence  concerning  the  First  makes  us  unable  to  build 
an  argument  on  this  omission.     But  that  2  Peter  did 
not  form  part  of  the  earliest  Canon  of  the  Latin  Church 
appears  probable  from  the  fact  that  it  was  not  translated 
by  the  same  hand  as  other  of  the  Catholic  Epistles.    The 
same  Greek  words  in  i  Peter  and  2  Peter  are  rendered 
differently ;  as  also  the  same  words  in  the  parallel  places 
of  2  Peter  and  Jude.* 

*  The  evidence  will  be  found  in  Westcott  [N.  T.  Canon,  p.  201).     We  have 
no  Latin   MSS.  containing  a  pre-Hieronymian  text  of  2  Peter ;    nor  indeed 

2  R  2 


6 1 2  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 


I  must  leave  it  undetermined  whether  or  not  Clement 
of  Alexandria  used  the  Epistle.  When  we  have  the 
testimony  of  Eusebius  and  of  Photius  (see  p.  560)  that 
Clement  wrote  comments  on  the  Catholic  Epistles,  we 
seem  to  have  no  warrant  for  treating  this  as  a  loose  way 
of  stating  that  he  commented  only  on  some  of  them. 
Accordingly,  Hilgenfeld  and  Davidson,  although  they 
both  reject  2  Peter,  yet  believe  that  Clement  commented 
on  it;  and  Davidson  suggests  that  Cassiodorus  may 
have  only  been  in  possession  of  extracts  from  Clement's 
Hypotyposeis.  But  since  I  find  in  Clement's  other  writ- 
ings no  proofs  of  acquaintance  with  the  two  Epistles 
which  Cassiodorus  leaves  out,  I  do  not  venture  to  assert 
positively  that  Clement's  comments  included  these  two 
Epistles. 

Irenaeus  makes  no  express  mention  of  2  Peter, 
and  he  seems  to  exclude  it  by  the  phrase  *in  epistola 
sua '  (IV.  ix.  2),  when  he  speaks  of  the  First  Epistle  ; 
but  he  has  one  or  two  coincidences  with  the  Second, 
which  require  examination.  And  first  we  have  twice 
'  The  day  of  the  Lord  is  as  it  were  a  thousand  years  ' 
(V.  xxiii.  2,  and  xxviii.  3),  words  which  recall  2  Peter 
iii.  8.  But  whatever  may  have  been  the  ultimate  source 
of  this  saying,  it  seems  to  me  that  in  neither  case 
was  Peter  the  immediate  source  from  which  Irenaeus 
took  it.  In  the  first  passage  Irenaeus  reproduces  an 
explanation  by  which  Justin  Martyr  {Trypho  81)  recon- 
ciles the  long  life  of  Adam  with  the  threat,  '  In  the  day 
that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die.'  The 
words   in  Irenaeus  are  exactly  the   same   as  in  Justin, 

of  any  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  except  James,  and  a  small  fragment  of  3  John. 
The  remark  above  apphes  to  the  Vulgate,  the  text  of  which  no  doubt  repre- 
sents an  earlier  translation  merely  revised  by  Jerome. 


XXV.]  External  Evidence.  613 

rifxipa  Kvpiov  wg  xiXia  eVjj,  not  as  in  Peter,  juia  i]fxipa  irapa 
Kvpidt)  wg  X'  ^''  '  ^rid  the  use  Irenaeus  makes  of  the  words 
being  the  same  as  in  Justin,  and  not  as  in  Peter,  the 
former  is  clearly  the  immediate  source  of  the  quotation. 
In  the  second  passage  Irenseus  expounds  the  statement 
in  Genesis  that  God  completed  his  works  in  six  days  as 
not  merely  a  history  of  the  past,  but  a  prophecy  of  the 
future,  intimating  that  the  world  was  to  last  6000  years, 
the  day  of  the  Lord  being  as  1000  years.  The  maxim  is 
quoted  in  Justin's  form,  but  the  exposition  had  already 
been  given  by  Barnabas  {c.  15);  and  on  comparing  the 
passages  it  seems  to  me  probable  that  it  was  to  Barna- 
bas Irenaeus  was  indebted  for  it.  But  though  this  maxim 
decides  nothing  as  to  Irenseus's  knowledge  of  2  Peter,  it 
would  be  still  more  to  the  point  if  it  showed  that  two 
earlier  writers  were  acquainted  with  the  Epistle.  There 
is  nothing  to  show  whence  Justin  derived  what  he  calls 
TO  ilpr^fxivov;*  but  Barnabas  enunciates  the  principle, 
*  a  day  with  him  is  a  thousand  years,'  not  as  a  quota- 
tion, but  as  a  maxim  of  his  own.  And  in  proof  of  it  he 
adduces  avrbg  Si  poi  fiaprvpH  Xijwv'  'iSoi/  aiipepov  ijju&pa 
£(T7-at  wg  X'  ^'-  This  is  clearly  meant  for  a  quotation  of 
Ps.  xc.  4  ;  so  that  I  fail  to  find  evidence  here  of  the 
antiquity  of  2  Peter.f  The  warnings  drawn  in  succession 
from  the  history  of  Noah,  and  from  that  of  Lot  in  Iren.  IV. 
xxxvi.  3,  have  been  thought  to  be  an  echo  of  2  Peter  ii. 

*  In  favour  of  the  Petrine  origin  may  be  noticed  that  in  the  next  chapter 
Justin  has  words  which  recall  2  Peter  ii.  i,  'dvirep  Se  rpoirov  kuI  \pevSuTrpo((>rJTai 
eTrl  ruv  irap'  v/xiv  yevo/j-evcau  ayiuiv  Trpo(j>7]Tciv  ■/jcrav,  koI  itap'  rjfjuv  vvv  iroWoi 
flffi  Ka\  \l/ev5o5i5d(TKa\oi. 

t  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Rabbinical  writers  (see  Schottgen,  Horce 
Heh.  et  Talmud,  i.  1052,  ii.  497)  have  both  the  interpretations  used  by  Barna- 
bas and  by  Justin.  We  have,  therefore,  to  choose  whether  we  shall  hold  that 
the  Jews  derived  these  from  the  Christian  Church,  or  shall  admit  that  Barna- 
bas may  have  derived  his  principle  from  a  source  different  from  2  Peter. 


6 14  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  [xxv. 

5-8  ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  Irenaeus  does  no  more  than 
comment  on  Luke  xvii.  26-31.  I  am  much  more  struck 
by  the  coincidence  that  in  speaking  of  the  death  of  Peter 
(ill.  i),  Irenaeus  uses  the  word  t^ohoq  employed  by  Peter 
himself  (2  Peter  i.  15).  Some  carry  the  argument 
further,  and  contend  that  the  author  of  2  Peter  is  proved 
to  be  the  Apostle  because,  when  speaking  of  the  Trans- 
figuration, he  uses  the  word  'tabernacle'  in  immediate 
connexion  with  £^oSoc  which  is  found  in  the  same  con- 
text (Luke  ix.  31,  33).  In  this  latter  part  of  the  argu- 
ment I  see  no  force,  for  it  might  as  well  be  adduced  to 
prove  that  the  author  of  2  Peter  derived  his  knowledge 
of  the  Transfiguration  from  having  read  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Luke.  It  is  not  certain  whether  in  the  passage  of 
Irenaeus  we  are  to  render  %^o^oq  '  decease '  or  '  departure  ' 
[from  Rome]  ;  but  undoubtedly  the  word  t^ocoq  came 
very  early  into  the  Christian  vocabulary,  expressing  as 
it  does  the  doctrine  that  death  is  no  more  than  removal 
to  another  scene.  We  have,  for  instance,  to.  /iiapTvpLa  rfjc 
iKoEov  avTiov  in  the  history  of  the  martyrdoms  at  Vienne 
and  Lyons  (Euseb.  v.  i) ;  and  further  on  ayaXXitvfxivri  eirl 
Tij  i^oSb),  and  iTriatppayLaajuLevog  avTwv  Sia  Ttjg  t^dSou  rj)v 
fiaQTvpiav.  The  word  'l^odog  occurs  in  the  same  sense  in 
one  of  the  best  known  passages  of  the  book  of  Wisdom 
(iii.  2) ;  it  is  used  in  the  same  way  both  by  Philo  and 
Josephus,  and  you  will  find  in  Wetstein's  notes  on  Luke 
ix.  31,  a  host  of  illustrations  of  the  use  of  the  word 
*  exitus '  for  death,  by  Latin  heathen  writers.  I  feel, 
therefore,  that  it  is  precarious  to  build  any  argument  on 
the  use  of  so  common  a  word ;  and,  consequently,  I  can- 
not rely  oii  any  of  the  proofs  that  have  been  supposed  to 
show  Irenaeus's  acquaintance  with  our  Epistle. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  passage  in  the  Cle- 
mentine Recognitions    (v.    12)  which  I  have   not  seen 


XXV.]  External  Evidence,  615 

noticed.     We  have  only  the  Latin  of  the  Recognitions  ; 
but  '  unusquisque  illius  fit  servus  cui  se  ipse  subjecerit,' 
looks  very  like  the  translation  of  w  ti?  t/ttjjtoj,  tovt^^  icai 
SsSovAwrat  (2    Peter  ii.    19).*     Rufinus  is  the  translator, 
and  in  one  of  his  translations  from  Origan  (/;;.  Exod. 
Horn.  1 2)  we  have  '  unusquisque  a  quo  vincitur,  huic  et 
servus  addicitur.'     The  difference  of  the  Latin  makes  it 
likely  that  in  both  cases  Rufinus  is  translating,  not  in- 
terpolating.!    Theophilus  of  Antioch,  who  died  a  little 
after    180,    has   a   coincidence   [ad  Autol.   ii.    13)    with 
Peter's   'light  shining  in  a  dark  place'   (i.   19).      The 
words   in  Theophilus  are,    6  X070C  ourou    <^aUmv  loairep 
\vXvoQ  Iv  ot(c7/juar(  avvexofJ^^vo^  ;  while  Peter  describes  the 
'prophetic  word'  as  Xv^vog  (l)aivwv  Ivavxiur^pc^  tottm;  and 
these   words   in   Peter   may   have    been    suggested   by 
2    Esdras    xii.    42.      '  Sicut   lucerna   in    loco    obscuro,' 
unless  the  obligation  is  the  other  way.     This  passage 
by   itself    would   yield   but    doubtful   evidence ;    but    I 
am  led  to  believe  that  it  indicates  a  use  of  Peter  by 
Theophilus,  because  close  at  hand  there  is  another  coin- 
cidence,   01    §£    TOV    QtOV    avQpWTTOL    TTVaVfXaTOipopOL    TrvSVfXaTOQ 

ajiov  Koi  7Tpo(priTai  yevofxevoi  [ad Autol.  ii.  9)  ;  utto  irviVfiaTOQ 
ayiov  (pepofxivoi  lAaArjaav  airb  Qsov  avdpioTTOi  (2  Peter  i.  2l). 
There  is  also  a  parallel  to  this  last  verse  in  Hippolytus 
[De  Antechristo  2),  but  the  resemblance  is  not  close 
enough  to  be  decisive. 

Passages  which  speak  of  the  future  burning  up 
of  the  world  are  quoted  from  a  Syriac  Apology  as- 
cribed to  the  second  century  writer  Melito  of  Sardis, 

*  The  words  are  much  nearer  to  Peter  than  either  to  John  viii.  34,  or 
Rom.  vi.  16. 

t  Dr.  Quarry  has  pomted  out  to  me  that  in  the  Clementine  Homilies 
(xxi.  20)  rowapriov  juarepoflu/xeT,  els  ^erdvoiav  /caAet  taken  in  connexion  with 
the  whole  context,  there  is  very  probably  a  use  of  2  Peter  iii.  9. 


6i6  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

and  from  Methodius,  commonly  called  of  Tyre,  but 
really  bishop  of  Patara  in  Lycia,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  fourth  century  [ap.  Epiphan.  Haer.  Ixiv.  31).  There 
is  no  coincidence  of  language  such  as  to  point  distinctly 
to  Peter's  Epistle ;  but  it  seems  probable  that  these 
writers  have  drawn  their  doctrine  from  2  Peter,  iii. 
10-12.  In  fact,  it  is  certain  that  before  the  end  of  the 
second  century  the  doctrine  of  the  future  destruction  of 
the  world  by  fire  had  become  an  established  and  noto- 
rious point  of  Christian  belief.  The  heathen  disputant 
in  Minucius  Felix  [c.  10)  says  of  the  Christians:  '  toto 
orbi  et  ipsi  mundo  cum  sideribus  suis  minantur  incen- 
dium.'  Tatian  [Or.  ad  Gr.  25)  contrasts  his  Christian 
belief  with  that  of  the  Stoics  ;  he  holding,  in  opposition 
to  them,  that  the  world  was  to  be  dissolved,  and  that  the 
iKTTvpwmg  was  to  take  place — not  Kara  Kaipovg,  but  tlaraTra^. 
Now  this  had  not  been  an  article  of  Jewish  belief;  for 
Philo,  in  his  treatise  '  De  Incorriiptibilitate  Mundi, 
argues  strongly  against  the  notion,  not  as  a  Jewish  but 
as  a  Stoic  one,  that  one  element  could  swallow  up  the 
other  three.  It  is  interesting,  then,  to  inquire  whence, 
except  from  2  Peter,  the  Christians  could  have  learned 
the  doctrine.  Other  parts  of  the  canonical  Scriptures 
speak  of  fire  as  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked ; 
but  I  do  not  remember  any  other  place  where  it  is  said 
that  the  whole  world  itself  shall  be  burned  up. 

It  is  right,  however,  to  mention  that  there  may  have 
been  something  on  the  subject  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter, 
which  we  know  (see  p.  268)  to  have  been  in  circulation  in 
the  second  century.  The  heathen  objector  in  Macarius 
Magnes  (see  p.  193)  selects  for  attack  (iv.  6)  a  saying  in 
that  Apocalypse — '  The  earth  shall  present  all  to  God  in 
the  Day  of  Judgment,  and  itself  shall  then  be  judged 
with  the  heaven  that  surrounds  it.'     Macarius,  in  reply. 


XXV.]  External  Evidence.  6 1 7 

remarks  that  it  will  not  avail  him  to  decline  the  authority 
of  that  Apocalypse,  the  same  doctrine  being  taught  in 
Is.  xxxiv,  4,  and  Matt.  xxiv.  35.  But  there  is  not 
evidence  that  this  Apocalypse*  said  anything  about 
fire. 

There  are  phrases  both  in  Clement  of  Rome  and  in 
Hermas  which  recall  2  Peter ;  but  in  neither  case  can 
we  be  sure  that  the  coincidence  is  more  than  acci- 
dental.f  On  a  review  of  the  whole  external  evidence 
we  find  clear  proof  that  2  Peter  was  in  use  early  in  the 
third  century.  With  regard  to  second  century  tes- 
timony, the  maintainers  and  the  opponents  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Epistle  make  it  a  drawn  battle. 
There  is  no  case  of  quotation  so  certain  as  to  constrain 
the  acknowledgment  of  an  opponent ;  but  there  are  pro- 
bable instances  of  the  use  of  the  Epistle  in  sufficient 

*  As  I  have  decided  on  not  printing  a  Lecture  treating  of  this  Apocalypse, 
as  well  as  of  some  other  early  Christian  books,  I  mention  here  that  the  only 
other  certain  remains  of  the  book  are  two  short  sentences,  quoted  as  Scripture 
by  Clem.  Alex.  {Eclog.  Proph.  41,  48),  the  puerile  character  of  which  consoles 
us  for  our  loss  of  the  rest.  It  appears  from  the  Claromontane  stichometry,  as 
well  as  from  that  of  Nicephorus,  that  in  length  this  Apocalypse  was  less  than 
a  quarter  of  that  of  St.  John.  Dr.  Scrivener  conjectured  {Crit.  Int.  p.  93)  that 
six  lost  leaves  of  the  Sinaitic  MS.,  which  had  come  between  the  end  of  Barna- 
bas and  the  beginning  of  Hermas,  might  have  contained  this  Apocalypse. 
But  Mr.  Rendel  Harris  has  shown  {Johns  Hopkins^  University  Circulars, 
1884,  p.  54)  by  ingenious  and,  in  my  opinion,  convincing  arguments,  that  it  is 
far  more  probable  that  what  had  filled  this  place  was  the  'Psalms  of  Solomon; ' 
which  followed  the  Clementine  Epistles  in  the  Alexandrian  manuscript. 

t  So  I  had  written,  but  probably  Dr.  Abbott  is  right  in  holding  (see 
Expositor,  Feb.  '82  :  I  do  not  quote  him  textually)  that  there  is  more  than 
accident  in  the  common  use  of  the  phrase  fieya\oTrpeirris  S6^a  (2  Peter  i.  17, 
Clem,  ix.),  the  adjective  being  rare  in  the  LXX.,  and  not  found  elsewhere 
N.  T.  He  points  out  another  coincidence  between  2  Peter  iii.  5-7,  and  Clem, 
xxvii.,  but  one  too  flimsy  to  be  made  the  basis  of  an  argument.  If  Dr. 
Abbott's  idea  that  2  Peter  used  Josephus  turns  out  to  be  a  delusion,  of  course 
his  theory  that  2  Peter  used  Clement  goes  with  it,  and  we  fall  back  on  the 
old  explanation  that  Clement  used  our  Epistle. 


6 1 8  Tlie  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

number  to  invalidate  any  argument  against  the  Epistle 
drawn  from  the  silence  of  early  writers.  But  on  compar- 
ing the  evidence  for  the  first  and  second  Epistles  we 
have  to  own,  however  we  are  to  account  for  it,  that  for  a 
considerable  time  the  latter  had  a  much  narrower  cir- 
culation than  the  former,  and  was  much  slower  in  ob- 
taining general  recognition. 

Grotius  suggested  as  an  explanation  of  this  difference 
that  our  Epistle  was  written,  not  by  Peter  the  Apostle, 
but  by  Symeon  who  succeeded  James  as  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem.    It  is  to  be  remarked  that,  whereas  the  First 
Epistle   begins  '  Peter,'    the    Second   begins    *  Symeon 
[or  Simon]  Peter.'     This  has  been  made  an  argument 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle ;  but  the  opposite 
inference  is  more  natural.     For  the  writer  of  the  Second 
Epistle  knew  of  the  First  (iii.  i)  ;  and  if  he  were  a  forger 
it  is  surprising  that  he  should  not  conform  to  the  model 
he  had  in  his  hands  ;  and  when  professing  to  write  to  the 
same  people,  should  neither  copy  the  address  of  the  former 
Epistle,  nor  even  write  the  Apostle's  name  the   same 
way.     This   point  deserves   to  be  borne  in  mind  when 
coincidences  between  the  two  Epistles  are  explained  as 
arising  from  designed  imitation  on  the  part  of  the  writer 
of  the  Second.     For  if  this  writer  were  a  forger,  he  was 
certainly  a  very  careless  one,  who  took  little  pains  to 
give  probability  to  his  work  by  imitation  of  the  genuine 
work  in  his  possession.     But,  to  return  to  the  conjecture 
of  Grotius.     This  cannot  be  upheld,  unless  we  combine 
it  with  arbitrary  and  unwarrantable  changes  in  the  text 
of  the  document  we  are  considering.     For  nothing  can 
be  plainer  than  that  the  document,  as  it  stands,  professes 
to  come  from  Peter  the  Apostle.     Not  merely  does  the 
author  call  himself  Peter  in  his  salutation  :  he  professes 
to  have  been  a  witness  to  the  Transfiguration  (i.  18);  he 


XXV. J  The  Author  claims  to  be  Peter.  619 

claims  to  be  the  author  of  the  First  Epistle  (iii.  i) ;  he 
sets  himself  on  a  level  with  Paul  (iii.  15) ;  and  he  refers 
(i.  14)  to  his  death  as  foretold  by  our  Lord,  this  being  pro- 
bably an  allusion  to  his  words  recorded  John  xxi.  18. 

It  has  been  made  an  objection  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  Epistle,  that  the  writer  should  betray  such  anxiety  to 
identify  himself  with  the  Apostle.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  has  been  replied  with  perfect  truth,  that  this  Epistle 
puts  nothing  into  the  mouth  of  Peter  which  the  Apostle 
might  not  naturally  have  said  in  a  real  letter.  I  am  dis- 
posed to  attribute  this  much  weight  to  the  objection  that, 
though  it  yields  no  argument  against  the  genuineness, 
it  deprives  us  of  an  argument  for  it.  In  the  case  of  most 
New  Testament  books,  when  we  test  by  internal  evidence 
the  traditional  account  of  their  authorship,  we  find  reason 
to  conclude  that  the  documents  are  both  like  what  might 
have  been  written  by  the  reputed  authors,  and  very  unlike 
the  work  of  a  forger.  In  the  present  case  we  must  own 
that  a  forger,  no  doubt,  would  be  likely  to  take  pains  to 
make  the  Petrine  authorship  plain ;  but  it  would  be 
absurd  to  deny  that  Peter  himself  might  also  leave  on 
his  work  plain  traces  of  his  authorship.  As  for  the 
reference  to  Paul :  since  we  have  seen  that  Peter  in  his 
First  Epistle  makes  silent  use  of  Pauline  letters,  there  is 
nothing  strange  in  his  mentioning  them  by  name  in  the 
Second. 

It  will  seem  to  many  that  at  the  point  at  which  we 
have  now  arrived  our  inquiry  may  well  close.  For  if  we 
proceed  we  are  brought  to  a  very  painful  alternative. 
In  the  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  can  treat 
its  authorship  as  an  open  question,  notwithstanding  that 
it  has  so  long  passed  in  the  Church  as  Paul's,  and  that 
the  Liturgy  of  our  own  Church  recognizes  the  claim.  But 
that  Epistle  itself  does  not  profess  to  be  Paul's,  so  that 


620  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 


we  can  believe  those  to  be  mistaken  who  took  the  work 
for  his,  and  yet  impute  no  dishonesty  to  the  author.  But 
here  we  have  only  the  choice  to  regard  the  Epistle  as  the 
■work  of  Peter,  or  else  as  the  production  of  a  forger,  who 
hoped  to  gain  credit  for  his  work  by  dishonestly  affixing 
to  it  the  Apostle's  name.  Some  who  impugn  the  Petrine 
authorship  desire  to  let  us  down  gently,  and  deprecate 
the  employment  of  the  word  '  forger,'  overtaxing  the 
resources  of  the  English  language  to  find  some  name, 
'pseudepigrapher,'  or  *  falsarius,'  which  shall  sound  less 
harshly.  But  I  must  call  a  spade  a  spade.  Macaulay  is 
not  to  be  called  a  forger,  though  he  gives  the  title  '  The 
prophecy  of  Capys '  to  a  prediction  which  Capys  never 
delivered.  But  where  there  is  intention  to  deceive,  for- 
gery is  the  proper  word.  I  do  not  deny  that  a  fault  may 
be  less  deserving  of  censure  if  committed  by  one  of  lower 
moral  culture.  The  man  who  thinks  a  pious  fraud  per- 
missible may  deserve  to  be  beaten  with  fewer  stripes 
than  he  who  acts  against  his  conscience  in  committing 
it.  Whoever  the  author  of  this  Epistle  was,  he  was 
clearly  a  pious  and  orthodox  man ;  and  if  he  was  a 
forger,  we  can  discern  no  motive  for  the  forgery  but  that 
of  supporting  the  disciples  under  the  trial  to  their  faith 
caused  by  the  delay  of  their  Master's  promised  coming. 
In  the  case  supposed,  therefore,  we  can  judge  with  all 
leniency  of  the  author ;  but  I  am  sure  he  would  have 
been  much  ashamed  if  he  had  been  found  out  at  the 
time,  and  would  have  fared  no  better  than  the  presbyter 
who  was  deposed  for  forging  the  Acts  of  Paul  and 
Thecla  (seep.  414.)  The  use  of  gentle  language,  then, 
will  do  little  to  mitigate  the  pain  we  must  feel,  if  what 
we  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  as  the  utterances 
of  an  inspired  Apostle  should  turn  out  to  be  the  work 
of  one  for  whom  our  merciful  consideration  must  be  im- 


XXA-.]   Discussion  of  Authorship  not  to  be  evaded.     621 


plored,  on  account   of  his  imperfect  knowledge  of  the 
Christian  duty  of  absolute  truthfulness. 

To  many  the  question  will  seem  to  be  settled  by  a 
reductio  ad  absurdtim,  when  it  has  been  pointed  out  that 
the  rejection  of  the  Petrine  authorship  .obliges  us  to 
believe  that  the  Church  has  been  for  centuries  deceived 
by  a  false  pretence  to  inspiration.  But  as  I  have  under- 
taken to  make  a  historical  investigation,  in  the  same 
manner  as  if  we  were  making  a  critical  inquiry  into  the 
authorship  of  any  classical  writings,  my  plan  precludes 
me  from  assuming  that  the  Church  could  make  no  mistake 
in  such  a  matter.  And  indeed  it  would  evidently  require 
longer  discussions  than  can  be  here  entered  into  before 
we  could  establish  the  principle  proposed  to  be  assumed 
or  ascertain  its  necessary  limitations.  Anyone  who 
uses  the  Revised  New  Testament  must  reject  a  great 
deal  of  what  has  been  long  accepted  as  inspired.  To 
many  good  men  of  old  it  seemed  a  shocking  thing  when 
the  divine  inspiration  was  denied  of  the  Greek  Old  Tes- 
tament, which  the  Apostles  had  committed  to  the  Church. 
We  do  not  receive  the  decisions  on  the  Canon  made  at 
Carthage  or  at  Trent,  not  believing  that  the  opinions  as 
to  the  authority  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  books,  expressed 
by  men  who  had  little  or  no  knowledge  of  the  languages 
in  which  they  were  written,  can  become  binding  on  us  by 
the  fact  that  they  have  been  accepted  by  men  equally 
unlearned.  And  our  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the 
Apocalypse  does  not  depend  on  our  ascertaining  whether 
or  not  the  book  was  included  in  the  Canon  of  Laodicea. 
If  it  seem  to  us  that  God  must  have  miraculously  inter- 
fered in  the  fifth  century,  had  it  been  then  necessary,  in 
order  to  prevent  an  uninspired  book  from  being  accepted 
as  inspired,  there  seems  an  equal  necessity  for  miracu- 
lous interference  in  the  two  previous  centuries  to  prevent 


62  2  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

an  inspired  book  from  being  rejected  as  spurious,  by  men 
whose  souls  were  as  dear  to  God  as  those  of  their  pos- 
terity. I  confess  my  inability  to  find  out  by  the  '  high 
priori  road'  in  what  way  God  must  deal  with  His  Church; 
and  I  have  faith  to  believe  that  the  course  by  which  He 
has  actually  guided  her  will  prove  to  be  right,  even 
though  it  do  not  agree  with  our  pre-conceptions. 

Proceeding  then  with  the  inquiry,  we  have  to  notice 
the  use  made  of  Jude's  Epistle.  The  coincidences  be- 
tween the  second  chapter  of  2  Peter  and  the  Epistle  of 
Jude  are  so  numerous,  that  it  is  beyond  dispute  that  the 
one  writer  used  the  work  of  the  other.  I  have  carefully 
read  the  very  able  argument  by  which  Professor  Lumby, 
in  the  Speaker's  Commentary^  maintains  the  priority  of 
Peter's  Epistle.  But  I  am  unconvinced  by  it,  and 
adhere  to  the  opinion  of  the  great  majority  of  critics, 
that  the  priority  rests  with  Jude.  To  take  but  one  ex- 
ample :  instead  of  regarding  the  verse  in  which  Jude 
speaks  about  the  body  of  Moses  to  be,  as  Professor 
Lumby  holds,  an  expansion  of  the  corresponding  verse 
in  Peter,  I  think  the  latter  verse  is  scarcely  intelligible 
if  we  had  not  in  Jude  the  explanation  what  was  referred 
to.  But  is  there  anything  inadmissible  in  the  supposi- 
tion that  one  Apostle  should  use  the  book  of  another  ? 
I  have  already  observed  that  Peter  in  his  First  Epistle 
certainly  uses  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  a  work  which 
we  need  not  doubt  was  in  his  readers'  hands.  Why  should 
he  not  here  make  still  larger  employment  of  Jude's  Epis- 
tle, a  work  which  (as  we  may  infer  from  the  copiousness 
of  his  use)  he  judged  to  be  not  likely  to  be  known  to  his 
readers.  In  early  times  there  was  far  less  scruple  about 
unacknowledged  borrowing  than  at  the  present  day.  At 
the  present  day,  indeed,  in  addresses  not  intended  to  go 
beyond  the  immediate  audience,  a  speaker  has  not  much 


XXV.]  Relation  to  Jiide's  Epistle.  623 


scruple  in  using  words  not  his  own  if  they  best  express 
his  ideas,  and  if  they  are  not  likely  to  be  familiar  to  his 
hearers.  Before  the  invention  of  printing,  each  writer 
must  have  felt  himself  to  be  addressing  a  circle  nearly 
as  limited  as  that  addressed  by  a  preacher  of  the  present 
day,  and  could  not  count  that  things  he  had  read  himself 
would  be  likely  to  be  known  to  his  readers  also.  And 
since  an  Apostle's  letters  were  not  prompted  by  vanity 
of  authorship,  but  by  anxiety  to  impress  certain  lessons 
on  his  readers,  I  do  not  see  why  he  should  have  thought 
himself  bound  to  abstain  from  using  the  words  of  another, 
if  they  seemed  to  him  most  likely  to  make  the  impres- 
sion he  desired.*  But  what  strikes  me  as  really  remark- 
able is  the  great  freedom  with  which  Peter  uses  the  work 
of  his  predecessor.  In  some  places  we  might  imagine  that 
the  two  writers  were  translating  independently  from  the 
same  Aramaic,  if  the  coincidences  in  the  Greek  of  other 
places  did  not  exclude  that  supposition.  The  variations 
are  at  times  so  considerable  as  to  make  us  doubt  whether 
Peter  could  have  had  Jude's  Epistle  before  him  when  he 
was  writing.  And  the  idea  even  occurs  whether  it  may 
not  possibly  be  that  Peter  was  writing  from  recollection, 
not  of  what  he  had  read,  but  of  what  he  had  heard.  I 
may  mention  one  difference  between  the  parallel  pas- 
sages in  Jude  and  in  2  Peter,  that  whereas  in  the  latter 
the  censures  are  plainly  directed  against  false  teachers, 
this  is  not  clearly  so  in  Jude,  where,  for  all  that  appears, 
the  objects  of  censure  may  be  only  men  of  corrupt  heart 
who  somehow  had  found  their  way  into  the  Church,  but 
whose  immoral  lives  showed  that  they  ought  never  to 
have  been  admitted  (see  p.  600). 

I   come   now  to   the   objection   noticed   by  Jerome, 

*  The  identity  of  certain  portions  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  and  of  Micah 
is  a  fact  of  the  same  land. 


624  The  Seco7id  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

founded  on  the  diiference  of  style  between  the  two 
Petrine  Epistles.  And  it  must  be  admitted  that  such 
a  difference  exists.  It  does  not  count  for  much  that 
the  Second  Epistle  contains  many  unusual  words,  for  it 
has  not  more  than  its  fair  proportion  of  a-rral,  X^yofxeva. 
Leusden*  counts  1686  in  the  whole  N.  T.,  or  about  one 
word  in  three ;  for  he  computes  the  whole  vocabulary 
as  limited  to  4956  words.  Of  these  aira^  Xs-yojueva,  there 
are  fifty-eight  in  i  Peter,  and  forty-eight  in  2  Peter, 
numbers  which  fairly  correspond  to  the  lengths  of  the 
two  Epistles.  But  the  following  points  of  dissimilarity 
have  been  noted :  [a]  the  Second  Epistle  differs  from  the 
first  in  fondness  for  repetitions  of  words  and  phrases : 
thus,  Sajpiojuai,  i.  3,  4;  cnrwXeia,  ii.  I  (bis),  3,  iii.  7,  16;  diKatogy 
i.  13,  ii.  7,  8  (bis);  (jiOopa,  (pdeipnvy  i.  4,  ii.  i2(ter),  19; 
irpoadoKav,  iii.  12,  13,  14;  ctttouS//,  oTTovSaZeiv,  i.  5,  lO, 
15,  iii.  14;  fiKjOoQ  aBiKiag,  ii.  13,  15.  [d]  The  particles 
connecting  the  sentences  are  different,  particles  such 
as  "va,  oTi,  ovv,  fiiv,  which  are  common  in  the  First 
being  rare  in  the  Second,  in  which  we  find  instead 
sentences  introduced  with  tovto,  or  Tavra :  see  i.  8, 
10;  iii.  II,  14.  (^)  A  use  of  wc>  which  is  common 
in  the  First  Epistle  (i.  14,  ig,  ii.  2,  &c.),  is  rare  in  the 
Second  ;  where  on  the  other  hand  we  have  a  common 
formation  of  a  subordinate  clause  with  the  preposition 
Iv  and  a  substantive  [e.g.  t^c  £i^  iTnOvfxia  ^dopag,  i.-  4)  of 
which  there  is  but  one  doubtful  instance  (i.  14)  in  the 
First  Epistle,  (d)  The  First  Epistle  makes  much  more  use 
of  the  Old  Testament  language.  In  Westcott  and  Hort's 
table  (ii.  180)  are  enumerated  thirty-one  O.  T.  quotations 
in  I  Pet.,  but  only  five  in  2  Pet.,  and  these  disputable. 
[e]  "SiioTvp  is  frequently  used  in  2  Pet.  as  a  title  of  our  Lord, 
irapovaia,  of  his  second  coming,  the  w^ord  eTriyvwaig  is  com- 

*  Compendium  Grcecum.  N.  T.  (preface). 


XXV.]    Its  Coincidences  with  the  First  Epistle.         625 

mon,  he. ;  none  of  which  words  occurs  in  i  Peter.  But 
in  these  instances  the  usage  of  2  Pet.  well  agrees  with 
that  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  we  have  seen  that  the 
use  of  Pauline  diction  is  a  characteristic  of  the  First 
Epistle.  With  respect  to  the  paucity  of  Old  Testament 
quotations,  it  may  be  observed  that  there  are  no  such 
quotations  in  St.  John's  First  Epistle,  though  it  is  ad- 
mittedly by  the  same  hand  as  the  Gospel,  which  quotes 
the  Old  Testament  largely. 

On  the  other  hand.  Professor  Lumby  brings  out  with 
great  ability,  in  an  argument  which  will  not  bear  abridg- 
ment, the  features  of  resemblance  between  the  two 
Epistles  [Speaker's  Coinmentary^  p.  228)  ;  see  also  David- 
son ii.  462,  from  whose  list  of  coincidences  I  take  the 
following:  apsr//,  of  God  (i  Pet.  ii.  9 ;  2  Pet.  i,  3); 
a7ro0£(7te  (l  Pet.  iii.  21;  2  Pet.  i.  14);  aainXog  koL 
aixuifioq  (i  Pet.  i.  19 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  14 :  see  also  2  Pet.  ii.  13); 
£7ro7rr£V£tv,  tTTOTrrjjc  (i  Pet.  ii.  12,  iii.  2;  2  Pet.  i.  16); 
iriiravTai  afiapriag  (i  Pet.  iv.  i  ;  c/.  2  Pet.  ii.  14).  None 
of  the  above  words  or  combinations  occurs  elsewhere  in 
N.  T.*  When  it  is  proposed  to  account  for  these  resem- 
blances by  the  fact  that  the  author  of  the  Second  Epistle 
was  confessedly  acquainted  with  the  First,  we  must  bear 
in  mind  what  has  been  already  said  as  to  his  little  soli- 
citude about  designed  imitation.  It  is  to  be  remarked 
also  that  these  resemblances  are  not  conspicuous,  or 
associated  with  repetitions  in  2  Peter  of  the  ideas  of 
I  Peter,  as  they  would  be  if  produced  by  design.  And  if  it 
is  urged  that  the  resemblances  are  few,  there  remains  St. 

*  In  addition  to  the  above,  the  salutation  xap«s  i^^tiv  koI  elp-fjvr}  ir\7]dvv9ei7} 
is  common  to  the  two  Petrine  Epistles.  Jude  alone  has  vKTiOwdeiri  in  the 
salutation ;  and,  if  we  were  forced  to  choose  between  the  explanations,  that 
the  author  of  I  Peter  used  Jude,  or  that  Jude  used  2  Peter,  the  latter  explana- 
tion seems  the  more  probable, 

2  S 


626  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.         [xxv. 

Jerome's  way  of  accounting  for  the  absence  of  greater 
similarity  of  style  between  the  two  letters,  viz.  that 
Peter  might  have  employed  a  different  secretary  on  each 
occasion. 

In  this  connexion  I  mention  some  of  the  coincidences 
noted  by  Professor  Lumby  (p.  226)  between  2  Pet.  and 
Peter's  speeches  in  the  Acts  :  \ayxavhi,  for  '  to  obtain ' 
(Acts  i.  17;  2  Pet.  i.  i) ;  ivak^ua^  in  a  peculiar  sense 
(Acts  iii.  12  ;  2  Pet.  i.  7) ;  euo-ejS/jg  (Acts  x.  27  ;  2  Pet.  ii. 
9);  avo/xa,  of  things  (Acts  ii.  23  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  8);  (pOiyyofiai, 
*to  speak'  (Acts  iv.  18;  2  Pet.  ii.  16,  18);  ij^lpa  Kvpiov 
(Acts  ii.  20  ;  2  Pet.  iii.  10) ;  fiiadbg  tTiq  a^tKiag  (Acts  i.  18  ; 
2  Pet.  ii.  13,  15);  iTrayeiv  (Acts  v.  28  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  i,  5); 
KoXa^eaOaL  (Acts  iv.  21 ;  2  Pet.  ii.  9).  None  of  the  above 
occurs  elsewhere  in  N.  T.  I  add  as  an  indication  of 
early  date  another  coincidence  with  the  Acts — the  fre- 
quent metaphorical  use  of  n  6d6g  (Acts  xviii.  25,  xix. 
9,  &c. ;  2  Pet.  ii.  2,  15,  21). 

Dr.  Edwin  Abbott  has  founded  [Expositor^  1882,  ill. 
204)  on  the  style  of  2  Pet.,  a  new  argument  against  its 
Petrine  origin.  He  contends  that  the  style  is  not  only 
unlike  that  of  the  First  Epistle,  but  also  in  itself  so 
ignoble  as  to  be  unworthy  of  an  Apostle.  Dr.  Abbott 
prints  from  an  Indian  newspaper  some  choice  specimens 
of  '  Baboo '  English ;  and  indeed  it  may  be  thought  that 
the  pleasure  of  giving  greater  publicity  to  these  had  some 
share  in  the  production  of  Dr.  Abbott's  paper.  A  few 
lines  are  enough  to  exhibit  the  character  of  the  English 
of  the  passages  cited  :  '  The  not  uncommon  hand  of 
death  has  distilled  with  febrile  wings  from  amongst  a 
debris  of  bereaved  relatives,  friends,  and  submissive 
subjects,  into  the  interminable  azure  of  the  past,  an  un- 
exceptionably  finished  politician  and  philanthropist  of  the 
highest  specific  gravity,'  &c.     Dr.  Abbott's  idea  is  that 


XXV.]  Its  alleged  Faults  of  Style.  627 


2  Peter  is  written  in  '  Baboo '  Greeks  the  author  aiming 
at  the  use  of  very  fine  words,  but  making  himself  ridicu- 
lous in  the  attempt  by  a  constant  violation  of  the  usages 
of  the  language.  And  to  make  his  meaning  plain, 
Dr.  Abbott  translates  portions  of  the  Epistle  into  such 
English  as  in  his  opinion  fairly  represents  the  style  of 
the  Greek.  Again  a  few  specimens  must  suffice  :  '  Set- 
ting baits  to  catch  souls  unconfirmed,  having  a  heart 
practised  of  greediness,  and  children  of  curse,  having 
left  the  straight  way,  they  went  astray,  having  followed 
after  the  way  of  Balaam,  the  son  of  Bosor,  who  loved 
the  wages  of  iniquity,  but  had  the  refutation  of  his  own 
law-breaking ;  a  dumb  beast  of  burden  with  the  voice  of 
a  man  uttering  a  sound,  hindered  the  maddishness  of 
the  prophet'  (ii.  14-15):  'The  dog  having  returned  to 
his  own  evacuation,  and  the  sow  having  bathed  to  her 
wallowance'  (ii.  22) ;  'The  day  of  the  Lord  shall  come 
as  a  thief  wherein  the  heavens  with  a  whirr  shall  pass 
away,  and  elements  with  fever  heat  shall  be  dissolved, 
and  earth  and  things  wrought  thereon  shall  be  burned 
up'  (iii,  10). 

If  Dr.  Abbott  intended  to  render  2  Peter  into  Baboo 
English,  what  he  has  actually  done  is  quite  a  different 
thing.  His  real  model  is,  what  he  must  be  well  ac- 
quainted with,  the  translation  of  a  dull  but  diligent 
lower-school  boy,  who  plods  doggedly  on,  setting  down 
for  each  word  the  first  meaning  he  finds  in  his  dictionary, 
regardless  whether  he  makes  sense  or  nonsense  of  the 
passage.  Mr.  Raven,  in  his  Diversions  of  a  Pedagogue 
(Macmillan's  Magazine,  Dec.  1875),  has  given  many 
amusing  specimens  of  what  he  calls  the  '  stupid  good ' 
style  of  translation.  Dr.  Abbott's  aroix^'ia  Kavaovfxtva, 
*  elements  in  fever  heat,'  may  very  well  pair  off  with 
Mr.  Raven's  aaXiny^Lv  avXovvTeg,  'playing  the  flute  on 

2  S2 


628  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.         [xxv» 

trumpets/     It  is  quite  true  that  outside  the  N.  T.  the 
word  Kavaov/ieva  is  now  only  known  as  used  by  medical 
writers.     But  it  is  manifest  that  fever  is  not  the  primary 
signification  of  the  word,  which  is  akin  to  the  Kavcrtov  used 
of  the  sun's  heat  (Matt.  xx.  12),  and  of  a  scorching  wind 
(Luke  xii.  55).     It  is  ridiculous  to  fancy  that  when  a 
medical  writer  uses  a  word  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  he 
thenceforward  acquires  an  exclusive  property  in  it,  and 
can  oust  the  original  meaning.      It  might  as   well  be 
contended  that  no  one  can  legitimately  use  the  word 
*  inflame,'    except  in   a   medical   sense.      So   again,   in 
KaTcipag  tIkvu,  '  children  of  curse,'  we  recognize  the  school- 
boy's hand.     There  is  no  classical  author  who  could  not 
be  made  ridiculous  by  a  similar  style  of  literal  transla- 
tion.    And,  certainly,  there  are  other  N.  T.  writers  who 
are  as  open  to  Dr.  Abbott's  ridicule  as  2  Peter.     When 
he  translates  SeXta^oi/Tfc,  '  setting  baits  to  catch,'  he  ap- 
parently forgets  that  SeXta^w  is  used  in  the  same  way  by 
St.  James  (i.  14),  who  of  all  the  N.  T.  writers  least  de- 
serves to  be  accused  of  Babooism,  and  whose  letter  we 
have  already  seen  was  known  to  Peter.     So  likewise. 
Dr.  Abbott's  censure  of  the  way  in  which  ^Beyyofiai  is 
used  (ii.  16,  18)  equally  affects  St.  Luke  (see  Acts  iv.  18); 
and  I  find  the  word  employed  in  the  same  way  in  a  pas- 
sage which  I  have  just  had  occasion  to  refer  to  for  another 
purpose  (Ps.-Clem.  Horn.  xvi.  20).     Besides,  Peter  might 
use  the  word  of  an  ass  speaking,  with  as  much  propriety 
as  Herodotus  of  doves  speaking  (ii.  15). 

However,  it  is  no  business  of  mine  to  defend  the  pro- 
priety of  Peter's  Greek.  What  I  am  concerned  with  is 
the  allegation  that  the  Epistle  displays  such  '  ignobility 
of  thought '  as  to  be  unworthy  an  Apostle ;  and  this  is 
sufficiently  refuted  by  the  fact  that,  in  order  to  make  the 
Epistle  contemptible.  Dr.  Abbott  finds  it  necessary  to 


XXV.]  Its  alleged  Faults  of  Style.  tiic^ 


make  a  new  version  of  it.  We  thus  see  that  its  faults,  if 
faults  there  are,  lie  in  the  language,  not  in  the  thoughts. 
Done  into  such  English  as  that  of  the  Authorized  Version, 
we  all  feel  its  grandeur  and  power.  But  no  translation 
could  confer  these  qualities  on  it  if  it  were  the  poor  stuff 
Dr.  Abbott  thinks  it. 

But  with  regard  to  the  epithet  *  Baboo,'  I  must 
remark  that  the  choice  of  an  Indian  example  gives 
to  the  assailants  of  our  Epistle  a  rhetorical  advan- 
tage to  which,  in  my  opinion,  they  are  not  fairly  entitled. 
Everyone  writing  a  language  that  is  not  his  own  is 
liable  to  make  mistakes.  When  he  has  attained  so 
much  proficiency  as  to  be  able  to  avoid  offences  against 
grammar,  a  foreigner  will  still  betray  himself  by  a  wrong 
vocabulary,  from  time  to  time  using  words  in  a  way  that 
a  native  would  not  employ  them.  If  we  were  shown  a 
piece  of  queer  English  written  by  a  German  we  might 
smile,  but  we  should  feel  no  contempt.  But  I  fear  there 
is  some  little  national  pride  which  is  offended  when  one 
of  a  conquered  race  puts  himself  on  a  level  with  his 
masters,  and  aims  at  a  superior  style  of  English  com- 
position. So  that  we  are  not  altogether  displeased  when 
his  vaulting  ambition  overleaps  itself,  and  he  topples 
over  from  the  sublime  into  the  ridiculous.  But  we  are 
not  justified  in  transferring  to  the  present  case  any  of 
the  scornful  feelings  which  '  Baboo '  English  excites  in 
us  ;  and  we  must  simply  regard  Dr.  Abbott's  specimens 
as  illustrating  that  strange  mistakes  will  be  made  by 
men  who,  as  a  literary  tour  de  force^  attempt  to  write  in 
a  language  which  they  have  only  learned  from  books, 
and  in  which  they  have  had  no  conversational  inter- 
course with  natives. 

And  this  suggests  that,  if  Dr.  Abbott  has  rightly 
characterized  the  Greek  of  2  Peter,  the  inference  ought 


630  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

to  be  precisely  the  opposite  of  that  which  he  draws. 
In  the  Apostolic  times  there  were  Jews  scattered  all 
over  the  world,  and  known  to  their  brethren  in  Pales- 
tine as  Hellenists,  from  the  fact  that  Greek  was  the  lan- 
guage in  which  they  thought  and  conversed.  These 
people  had  little  or  no  Aramaic ;  and  when  they  used 
the  sacred  books  of  their  nation,  they  did  so  through  the 
medium  of  a  Greek  translation.  No  doubt,  the  Greek  they 
spoke  was  not  of  what  grammarians  would  count  the 
purest  type  ;  but  still  to  them  it  was  not  a  foreign  lan- 
guage, but  the  language  of  their  daily  life.  If,  then,  it 
be  really  the  case  that  the  Greek  of  2  Peter  is  not  merely 
disfigured  by  what  may  be  called  provincialisms,  but 
is  utterly  unlike  the  composition  of  one  accustomed  to 
think  and  speak  the  language,  it  follows  this  can  be  the 
w^ork  of  no  Hellenist.  It  must  have  been  written  by  one 
imperfectly  habituated  to  the  literary  use  of  Greek ;  who 
also  shows  the  poverty  of  his  vocabulary  by  his  constant 
repetitions  of  words,  being  anxious  to  get  as  much  ser- 
vice as  he  can  out  of  the  few  phrases  he  has  got  hold  of.* 
If  we  are  thus  led  to  regard  the  writer  as  a  Palestinian 
Aramaic-speaking  Jew,  it  is  natural  to  think  he  must 
be  Peter  himself,  who  may  have  employed  the  ser- 
vices of  a  secretary  in  writing  the  First  Epistle,  but 
dispensed  with  any  assistance  in  writing  the  Second. 

I  think,  then,  that  our  decision  as  to  the  character  of 
the  Greek  of  2  Peter  need  not  be  affected  by  the  opinion 
we  may  form  as  to  its  genuineness.  Those  who  believe 
it  not  to  be  Peter's  may  still  enquire  whether  the  forger 

*  It  may  be  doubted,  however,  whether  this  repetition  of  words  is  more 
than  a  trick  of  style  ;  for  it  must  be  noticed  that  if  the  author  copies  Jude,  he 
constantly  refuses  to  avail  himself  of  Jude's  vocabulary,  but  substitutes  words 

of  his  own.     Instances  of  what  Dr.  Abbott  calls  'inane'  repetition  in  2  Pet. 

may  be  found  even  in  St.  Paul,  e.g.  Eph.  vi.  1 1,  13. 


XXV.]  Its  alleged  Faults  of  Style.  63  i 

were  one  to  whom  Greek  was  quite  a  foreign  lan- 
guage, or  one  who  habitually  spoke  Greek,  though  not 
of  the  purest  kind.  Those  who  accept  it  as  Peter's 
have  no  cause  for  offence  if  evidence  should  be  offered 
them  showing  that  the  Apostle's  knowledge  of  Greek 
was  limited,  and  that  he  expressed  himself  ill  when  he 
had  not  the  help  of  a  Hellenistic  interpreter.  But 
the  question  we  are  called  on  to  decide  is  by  no 
means  an  easy  one.  It  is  comparatively  simple  to  de- 
termine whether  grammatical  rules  are  violated  in  the 
Apocalypse ;  but  here  the  question  is  not  merely  con- 
cerning trangressions  of  more  subtle  proprieties  of  lan- 
guage, but  also  as  to  the  amount  of  such  transgressions. 
One  may  readily  acknowledge  that  2  Peter  offends  at 
times  against  the  proprieties  of  Greek  speech,*  without 
being  convinced  that  his  style  is  fairly  represented  in 
the  English  of  Dr.  Abbott's  translations.  Now,  in  re- 
spect of  Greek,  we  are  all  more  or  less  Baboos — I  sus- 
pect there  are  few  of  our  prize  copies  of  Greek  prose  or 
verse  to  which  a  Greek  of  the  age  of  Pericles  would 
apply  a  more  gentle  epithet — so  that  if  2  Peter  be  written 
in  Baboo  Greek,  it  is  odd  that  it  should  have  been  left 
for  a  Baboo  to  find  it  out.  Of  the  Greek  fathers — whether 
of  those  who  accepted  the  Epistle  like  Athanasius,  or 
those  who  rejected  it  like  Eusebius — none  seems  to  have 
made  the  remark  that  its  Greek  is  absolutely  grotesque 
and  ridiculous. 

I  should  not  use  an  epithet  which  may  seem  to  dis- 
parage Dr.  Abbott's  judgment  if  the  question  concerned 
the  Greek  with  which  he  is  presumably  most  familiar — 
that  of  the  period  four  or  five  centuries  before  Christ. 

*  As,  for  example  :  /SAeVMan  koX  aKoy  (ii.  8),  napacppovia  (ii.  i6),  if  that  be 
the  right  reading,  and  not  irapacppoa-wri,  found  in  six  manuscripts,  A  scribe 
may  have  been  misled  by  the  adjacent  irapavofxia. 


63  2  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

But  in  the  course  of  centuries  languages  are  liable  to 
suffer  change ;  and  judgments  founded  on  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  one  period  may  be  quite  inapplicable  to 
another.  A  critic  whose  knowledge  of  English  had 
been  derived  from  a  study  of  Addison  and  Swift  might, 
if  he  met  a  page  of  Carlyle's,  or  a  poem  of  Brown- 
ing's, confidently  pronounce  it  to  be  the  work  of  a 
foreigner.  And  the  same  style  of  criticism  which  Dr. 
Abbott  applies  to  the  Greek  of  2  Peter  would  equally 
prove  that  TertuUian  had  no  vernacular  knowledge  of 
Latin,  and  used  a  vocabulary  consisting  partly  of  words 
of  his  own  invention,  partly  of  phrases  pedantically  in- 
troduced from  little  read  authors. 

It  is  plain  that  the  Greek  of  2  Peter*  can  only  be 
fairly  judged  of  by  comparison  with  that  in  use  in  his 
own  period,  and  among  his  own  countrymen  ;  and  of  this 
later  Greek  Dr.  Abbott  apparently  does  not  claim  to 
possess  any  special  knowledge.  At  least  I  perceive 
that  he  generally  contents  himself  with  referring  to 
a  dictionary,  and  if  he  find  there  no  authority  for 
forms  used  by  2  Peter,  passes  sentence  of  condemnation. 
But  here  the  double  doubt  occurs,  whether  the  dictionary 
adequately  represents  the  extant  remains  of  later  Greek ; 
and  whether  these  remains  present  us  with  the  whole 
vocabulary  of  the  time  when  they  were  written.  Dr. 
Abbott  seems  conscious  himself  that  it  is  possible 
that  the  authorities  whom  he  consults  may  not  give 
him  adequate  information  as  to  the  Greek  of  the  period 
in   question  ;    but   he    declares   that,    even   if    authori- 

*  I  find  it  convenient  to  use  this  abbreviation  when  I  desire  to  speak  of  the 
writer  of  the  Second  Epistle,  without  making  any  assumption  as  to  whether 
or  not  he  was  identical  with  the  writer  of  the  First ;  and  whether  he  was  St. 
Peter  himself,  or  a  secretary,  or  some  person  who  unlawfully  used  the  Apostle's 
name. 


XXV.]  Its  alleged  Faults  of  Style.  633 

ties  can  be  found  in  little  read  authors  for  some  of  the 
words  he  had  imagined  to  have  been  used  by  2  Peter 
without  any  authority  at  all,  it  will  still  have  been  gross 
pedantry  to  introduce  so  many  out-of-the-way  words  into 
so  short  a  letter ;  and  that  the  writer  betrays  himself, 
'  not  as  one  of  the  Apostles  of  Christ  who  had  received 
from  their  Master  the  precept,  "Be  not  anxious  before- 
hand what  ye  shall  speak,"  but  as  a  collector  and  stitcher 
together  of  antiquarian  word-scraps'  (p.  211). 

I  have  already  had  occasion  to  remark  (see  p.  95)  that 
Dr.  Abbott  is  singularly  wanting  in  the  faculty  of  histori- 
cal imagination,  and  seems  unable  to  judge  the  men  of 
former  days  by  any  other  standard  than  that  of  his  own 
age.  This  defect  shows  itself  to  a  surprising  degree  in 
his  whole  criticism  of  the  Greek  of  our  Epistle.  Thus, 
a  scholar  of  the  present  day  might,  perhaps,  lay  himself 
open  to  the  charge  of  '  pedantry '  if  he  took  pains  to 
show  that  he  was  not  only  familiar  with  the  great  writers 
whose  works  are  the  ordinary  subjects  of  study,  but  also 
was  well  read  in  the  less  known  authors  who  wrote  since 
the  birth  of  Christ.  But,  if  Peter  used  the  vocabu- 
lary of  his  own  time  instead  of  employing  that  of  the 
great  writers  who  had  lived  four  or  five  centuries  before, 
antiquarian  research  is  the  last  fault  that  can  be  imputed 
to  him.  Dr.  Abbott's  whole  tone  is  amusingly  like  that  of 
one  correcting  a  schoolboy's  exercises;  and  he  constantly 
assumes  that  his  author  could  have  got  up  his  Greek  in 
no  other  way  than  that  by  which  his  own  pupils  acquire 
the  language,  namely,  the  use  of  lexicons  and  the  study 
of  ancient  authors.  Thus  (p.  211),  he  censures  2  Peter 
for  using  a  word  not  recognized  by  Liddell  and  Scott ; 
though  surely  this  writer's  want  of  acquaintance  with 
that  excellent  book  may  be  excused  as  his  misfortune. 


634  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

not  his  fault.*  Again,  when  authorities  are  produced  for 
words  imagined  to  have  been  coined  by  2  Peter,  he 
seems  to  think  it  intended  that  Peter  got  the  words  by 
consulting  these  authorities.  Thus,  when  Dr.  Abbott 
supposes  it  to  be  urged  that  one  of  the  words  objected  to 
is  found  in  Dioscorides,t  he  replies  (p.  212)  thatDioscor- 
ides  flourished  about  A.  D.  60,  and  that  his  works  would 
probably  not  have  been  well  known  for  some  years  after 
that  date.  Another  of  the  words  censured  is  found  in 
Theodotion  ;  on  which  Dr.  Abbott  points  out  (p.  211) 
that  Theodotion  was  too  late  to  have  been  read  by  St. 
Peter,  but  that  the  author  of  our  Epistle  may  have  been 
late  enough  to  make  use  of  him. J  I  must  therefore  ex- 
plain, though  I  should  really  have  thought  the  explana- 
tion unnecessary,  that,  if  we  offer  a  citation  to  justify  St. 
Peter's  use  of  a  word,  we  do  not  mean  that  the  author 
cited  was  the  source  whence  St.  Peter  got  the  word,  but 
only  intend  to  offer  proof  that  the  word  belonged 
to  the  current  Greek  of  later  times,  and  therefore  that 
it  is  not  one  on  which  a  charge  of  '  Babooism '  can  be 
founded. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  we  are  only  concerned 
with  the  character  of  the  Greek  of  the  Epistle  as  far  as 
it  affects  the  question  of  authorship;  and  that  we  are  not 
entitled  to  infer  that  St.  Peter  did  not  write  the  Epistle, 
even  though  we  find  in  it  what  a  teacher  might  properly 
censure  as  faults,  if  he  were  correcting  it  as  a  piece  of 

*  Perhaps  the  lexicon  used  by  Peter  was  Rost  and  Palm,  or  the  Paris 
Thesaurus,  both  of  which  give  the  word  in  question. 

t  Wahl,  however,  refers  to  Dioscorides,  not  for  the  word  in  question,  but 
for  the  cognate  verb. 

X  Dr.  Abbott  evidently  did  not  refer  to  the  passage  in  Theodotion  ;  or  he 
would  have  seen  that  the  word  is  used  in  so  different  a  sense  that  borrowing 
cannot  be  imagined. 


XXV.]  Its  alleged  Faults  of  Style,  635 

Greek  composition.  Dr.  Abbott  forgets  this  when 
he  remarks :  '  The  word  "i^ioq,  private^  ought  not  to 
be  used  where  there  is  no  antithesis  between  what 
is  one's  own  and  another's ;  but  the  author  is  so  fond 
of  the  abuse  of  this  word  that,  even  in  quoting  Prov. 
xxvi.  II,  he  substitutes  \Ziov  for  the  LXX.  kavjov.' 
But  this  very  use  or  misuse  of  t'Sioe  furnishes  one  of  the 
arguments  by  which  Alford  tries  to  prove  the  common 
authorship  of  the  two  Petrine  Epistles,*  the  word  being 
used  in  the  same  way  i  Pet.  iii.  1,5;  though,  really,  this 
is  no  Petrine  peculiarity  (see  Matt.  xxii.  5,  xxv.  14 ;  John 
i.  42  ;  Eph.  v.  22  ;  Tit.  ii.  9).  And  I  may  add  that  St.  Chry- 
sostom,  in  a  passage  already  cited,  also  quotes  Prov.  xxvi. 
1 1  with  \liov  instead  of  icwTov,  although  I  believe  him  to 
be  quoting  Proverbs  directly,  and  not  using  2  Peter. 

Another  of  Dr.  Abbott's  censures  is  founded  on  the 
improper  use  of  Xovaafiivri  (2  Pet.  ii.  22).  He  may  be 
quite  right  to  teach  his  pupils  to  use  XoveaOai  of  the 
bathing  of  men,  and  not  of  the  washing  of  animals ; 
but  if  he  supposes  that  Greek  writers  invariably 
conform  to  this  rule,  he  is  mistaken.  I  need  not 
mention  Homer's  use  of  the  word  with  respect  to  a 
horse  (//.  vi.  508),  because  Wetstein  furnishes  two  illus- 
trations exactly  in  point,  one  from  Aristotle,  the  other 
from  ^lian,  the  washing  of  swine  being  spoken  of  in 
both  places.  The  latter  passage  is,  Trax^vEo-^at  Se  tov  avv 
OKOVb)  firj  XovOfjLivov  fxctXioTa,  a\X  iv  tio  ftop^opi^  BiaTpi(5ovTd 
T£  KOI  o-TjOf^Ojuevov  [Hist.   VaY .  45). 

Regarding,  as  I  have  said,  the  discussion  of  the 
Greek  of  the  Epistle  to  be  in  a  great  measure  irrelevant 
to  our  inquiry,  I  make  no  use  of  several  illustrations 
with  which  my  friend  Dr.  Gwynn  has  furnished  me,  of 

*  Alford,  in  the  same  place,  mentions  omission  of  the  article  as  a  feature 
common  to  the  two  Epistles. 


636  The  Seco7id  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

the  use  in  later  Greek  of  words  objected  to  in  2  Peter 
by  Dr.  Abbott.  I  merely  remark  that  no  authority 
is  necessary  to  justify  the  use  of  a  word  formed 
according  to  Greek  analogy.  Thus,  whether  anyone 
else  has  used  the  word  raQTaQoio  or  not,  the  employ- 
ment of  such  a  verb  does  not  prove  a  man  to  be  a 
foreigner,  if  he  is  acquainted  with  the  noun  Ta^ra^oq.  If 
Dr.  Abbott  is  right  in  translating  raprapwo-ac,  *  helling,' 
the  next  time  he  meets  Oavarwaag  he  ought  to  translate 
it  'deathing.'  So  again,  l^tpafia  is  a  noun  formed  with 
perfect  regularity  from  a  sufficiently  authenticated  verb, 
fsfpaw.  Dr.  Abbott's  translation  '  evacuation '  is  cer- 
tainly not  fair.  It  is  true  that  '  evacuate '  and  ll,epa(o  are 
both  general  words,  meaning  no  more  than  'to  empty'; 
but  usage  limits  the  English  word  to  evacuation  by  purge, 
and  the  Greek  one  to  evacuation  by  vomit.  Hippocrates, 
describing  a  disease,  mentions  as  two  of  the  symptoms 
that  the  patient  l^^pa,  and  that  his  bowels  are  confined 
[De  Morb.  iv.  507).  There  was  then  no  reason  why 
2  Peter  should  not  render  the  i^p.  of  Prov.  xxvi.  11, 
by  ll^i^aixa.,  as  Aquila  does  the  corresponding  verb  by 
l^ipdhi  in  Lev.  xviii.  28. 

It  is  an  interesting  question,  however,  why  2  Peter 
deviates  from  the  LXX.  translation  iinrov  ;  and  I  will 
not  venture  to  say  which  of  the  three  following  answers 
is  the  right  one.  (i)  St.  Peter  did  not  use  a  Greek  Bible 
at  all,  but  a  Hebrew  one,  of  which  he  made  his  own 
translation  ;  (2)  he  cited  the  LXX.  from  memory,  and 
inadvertently  substituted  an  equivalent  word  ;  (3)  he  was 
not  directly  quoting  the  book  of  Proverbs,  but  a  Greek 
popular  saying  derived  from  it.  Many  have  thought 
that  they  recognized  in  uq  KvXiaina  (or  kv\i(tij.6v]  /SopjSopou, 
the  end  of  a  pair  of  iambic  lines ;  and  some  have 
attempted  to  restore  them.     It  might  merely  have  hap- 


XXV.  j]  Its  alleged  Faults  of  Style.  637 


pened  that  the  versifier  found  that  ll,i^a^ia  fitted  better 
than  'ifxeTov  into  his  metre, 

I  have  noticed  that  in  the  verse  of  2  Pet.  under  con- 
sideration there  is  a  various  reading,  Kv\i(Tf.ia  being  read 
by  K,  A,  K,  L,  and  kvXktiulov  by  B  and  C.     This  is  one  of 
several  instances  where,  there  being  good  MS.  author- 
ity on   both    sides,    Dr.    Abbott    invariably    refuses    to 
give  our  author  the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  and   always 
attributes  to  him  the   reading  least   creditable   to   his 
knowledge  of  the  language.     There  is  no  N.  T.  book 
in  which   I  think  we  can  be  less  confident  about  our 
readings  than  2  Peter.     On  one  difficult  case  (iii.    10) 
M.  Van  Sittart  {JoiLrnal  of  Philology,  iii.  356;  see  also 
Westcott  and  Hort,  ii.  279)  founded  an  ingenious  specu- 
lation that  our  earliest  authorities  for  the  text  of  this 
Epistle,  which  in  early  times  had  very  limited  circula- 
tion, may  have  been  ultimately  derived  from  a  single 
copy,  of  which  some  letters  had  become  illegible.    How- 
ever this  may  be,  I  am  disposed  to  be  a  good  deal  more 
timid  than  Dr.  Abbott  in  arguing  as  if  we  were  quite 
certain  of  our  text.     In  particular,  it  is  hard  to  believe 
that  the  man  who  uses  the  Greek  article  so  correctly  in 
cJi.  I,  should  make  the  gross  and  unmeaning  mistakes 
charged  against  him  in  ch.  2  and  cli.  3.*  But  accepting  the 
reading  KuXto-^ov,  I  will  not  delay  to   enquire  whether 
it  is  not  the  better  word  of  the  two  ;  but  suppose  it  to 
be  mistakenly  used,  and  put  the  mistake  at  its  worst,  it 
is  matched  by  St.  Paul's  use  of  apirajijiog  for  apirajixa  (Phil. 
ii,  6) ;  and  if  we  are  to  translate  the  one  word  *  wallow- 
ance,'  we  ought  to  translate  the  other  '  seizance.' 

I  think  I  have  said  more  than  enough  on  the  ques- 
tion concerning  the  style  of  this  Epistle.     Some  things 

*  I  ought,  perhaps,  to  have  examined  the  question,  Supposing  the  author 
not  to  be  Peter,  might  not  his  native  language  have  been  Latin.? 


638  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

would  lead  me  to  look  on  the  author  as  not  a  Hellenist, 
such  as  his  limited  employment  of  connecting  particles, 
and  his  small  use  of  the  Greek  Bible.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  employs  Greek  words  with  the  boldness  of  one 
born  to  the  use  of  the  language,  preserving  for  us 
several  words  which  but  for  him  might  have  been  lost 
to  us,  I  must  reject  as  absolutely  opposed  to  historic 
probability  Dr.  Abbott's  account  of  the  matter,  that 
we  have  here  innovations  '  very  natural  for  one  who 
has  acquired  a  language  in  great  measure  by  reading, 
and  who  is  fond  of  airing  the  varied  treasures  of  his 
vocabulary.'  The  author  was  not  a  Bengalee  trying  to 
write  the  language  spoken  in  an  island  some  thousands 
of  miles  distant.  No  one  supposes  that  he  wrote  in  Pales- 
tine, Whoever  he  was,  he  must  have  lived  where  all 
about  him,  including  his  most  intimate  friends,  were 
using  Greek  as  the  language  of  their  daily  life.  It  is 
ludicrous  to  imagine  that  he  shut  himself  up  with  Greek 
books  in  his  study,  and  there  concocted  a  production  in 
a  style  meant  to  be  very  fine,  but  really  so  barbarous  as 
to  be  almost  unintelligible,* 

It  remains  to  examine  a  much  more  serious  assault 
by  Dr.  Abbott  on  the  Epistle.  He  undertook  to  prove 
[Expositor y  Jan.  '§2)  that  the  writer  borrowed  from  the 
Antiquities  of  Josephus,  a  work  only  published  A.  D,  93  ; 

*  Among  the  valuable  materials  given  me  by  my  friend  Dr.  Gw5ain  for  my 
use  in  this  lecture  is  a  list  of  rare  words  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  of 
wliich  he  made  a  special  study  when  writing  on  it  for  the  Speaker's  Commentary. 
It  wiU  be  seen  that  anyone  who  chooses  to  assume,  as  Dr.  Abbott  does,  that 
the  resources  of  the  Greek  language  are  represented  in  our  dictionaries  with 
absolute  completeness,  would  find  it  as  easy  to  establish  a  charge  against 
St.  Paul  as  against  2  Peter,  of  the  pedantic  use  of  out-of-the-way  words. 
'AKatpe7(r9at,  nowhere  else  (a.Kaipe7i',  once  in  Diod.  Sic):  apiray/j.6s,  in  no  author 
B.  C,  and  after  Christ  only  in  Plutarch,  and  in  a  different  sense  :  i^avdffraffis 
in  other  Greek  comes  from  i^aviffrri/jii  (act.),  and  means  'the  act  of  causing 
another  to  get  up  and  out';  from  i^avlffrajxai  (neut.),  except  in  St.  Paul  only 


XXV.]  Its  alleged  Obligations  to  Josephus.  639 

and,  if  so,  it  is  clear  that  the  borrower  could  not  be  St. 
Peter.  I  can  honestly  say  that  I  am  conscious  of  no 
prejudice  such  as  would  preclude  me  from  giving-  a  can- 
did consideration  to  Dr.  Abbott's  proofs.  I  had  no  such 
stubborn  belief  in  the  Petrine  authorship  of  the  Epistle 
as  would  render  me  incapable  of  giving  a  fair  hearing  to 
opposing  evidence.  Though  each  of  the  objections 
brought  against  the  Petrine  authorship  admitted  of  an 
answer,  yet  their  combined  effect  produced  a  sensible 
impression  on  me ;  and  one  difficulty  in  particular  I  felt 
very  much.  If  I  am  right  in  thinking  that  the  First 
Epistle  was  written  after  the  breaking  out  of  the  Nero- 
nian  persecution,  and  if  St.  Peter  died  during  the  reign 
of  the  same  emperor,  no  very  great  interval  of  time  could 
have  separated  the  two  Epistles.  How  is  it,  then,  that 
the  Second  should  not  only  differ  a  good  deal  from  the 
First  in  its  style  and  in  its  topics — the  perils  of  the 
Church  at  the  time  of  the  First  Epistle  seeming  to  be 
mainly  threatened  by  persecution  from  without ;  at  that 
of  the  Second,  by  corruption  from  within — but,  though 
addressed  to  the  same  people,  should  differ  also  in  the 
fate  of  its  reception  ;  the  First  becoming  rapidly  known 
all  over  the  Christian  world,  the  Second  so  little  circu- 
lated as  apparently  to   run  some  risk  of  suppression  ? 

in  Hippocrates,  where  it  means  'getting  out  of  bed  to  go  to  stool.'  We  can 
imagine  how  tliis  word  would  have  appeared  in  Dr.  Abbott's  translation  had 
he  found  it  in  2  Peter.  "S.tzi-k6Qi\tos,  in  no  writer  ;b.  c.  ;  afterwards  only  in 
Appian  :  KaraTOfi-f],  not  used  in  the  sense  of  mutilation  by  any  secular  writer  : 
irapa^oKaveadai,  not  elsewhere ;  only  preserved  by  »?  and  B,  and  by  Hesych, 
(alsoZa^.  Vet.  'parabolatus') — so  strange  a  word  that  it  was  lost  even  to  Greek 
fathers,  and  forgotten  for  centuries  :  <tkot:6s,  '  goal,'  everywhere  else  '  target ' 
or  '  scout ' :  <rvfifji.i/jt.riTr]s,  <rvfji.fi.op<p-6w,  or  -tfa>,  avfixj/uxos ;  none  of  these  else- 
where :  a-waQXeTf,  only  in  Diod.  Sic,  and  there  in  a  different  sense.  I  have 
not  room  to  add  to  this  Ust  of  words,  gleaned  from  one  short  Epistle,  a  list  of 
other  rare  Pauline  words. 


640  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

We  can  give  conjectural  answers  to  this  question  ;  but 
there  remained  enough  of  doubt  as  to  their  correctnes 
to  make  me  willing  to  sympathize  with  Olshausen, 
who  says :  '  Sentio  profecto  certis  argumentis  nee  genui- 
nam  nee  adulterinam  originem  epistolse  posse  demon- 
strari.  Rationibus  autem  subjectivis  fultus  authentiam 
epistolae  persuasum  habeo.'  But  subjective  reasons  must 
give  way  to  proofs ;  and  Olshausen  properly  adds  '  nisi 
res  novae  ex  historia  vel  ex  indole  epistolce  inveniantur  ad 
litem  dirimendam  aptiores  quam  hucusque  proponeban- 
tur.'  Such  *  res  novae '  seemed  to  be  offered  by  Dr. 
Abbott;  and  if  his  arguments  forced  me  to  give  up  a 
long  cherished  belief,  I  should  at  least  have  the  satis- 
faction of  seeing  clear  light  cast  on  a  much  disputed 
question.  I,  therefore,  read  Dr.  Abbott's  paper  without 
having  made  up  my  mind  beforehand  that  he  must  be 
wrong  ;  and  I  was  much  impressed  by  the  case  he 
seemed  to  make  out  of  a  borrowing  from  Josephus  on 
the  part  of  the  writer  of  our  Epistle.  It  was  not  until  I 
carefully  examined  the  matter  for  myself  that  I  arrived 
at  the  conviction  that  Dr.  Abbott's  discovery  was  merely 
that  of  a  mare's  nest. 

Archdeacon  Farrar,  indeed,  says  [Expository  III.  403) 
that  Dr.  Abbott  has  proved  '  beyond  all  shadow  of  doubt 
that  Josephus  and  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  could  not 
have  written  independently  of  each  other ' ;  and  that  *  it 
would  be  impossible  for  him  to  feel  respect  for  the  judg- 
ment of  any  critic  who  asserted  that  the  resemblances 
between  the  two  writers  were  purely  fortuitous ' ;  and 
that,  *  were  the  question  unconnected  with  theology,  no 
critic  could  set  aside  the  facts  adduced  without  being 
charged  with  a  total  absence  of  the  critical  faculty.'  So 
he  leaves  us,  as  the  only  way  of  maintaining  the  Petrine 
origin  of  our  Epistle,  the  not  very  hopeful  line  of  defence 


XXV.]         Its  alleged  Obligations  to  Josephus.  64 1 


that  Josephus  borrowed  from  2  Peter.  It  really  requires 
some  courage,*  in  the  face  of  so  magisterial  a  decision, 
to  give  utterance  to  the  opposite  conclusion  at  which  I 
myself  arrived  ;  but  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  the 
Archdeacon  would  have  expressed  himself  less  confi- 
dently, if  he  had  acted  on  Routh's  golden  rule,  '  Always 
verify  your  references.'  For  anyone  who  merely  looks 
at  the  coincidences  as  set  forth,  in  the  clever  way  in 
which  Dr.  Abbott  has  arranged  them,  will  easily  arrive 
at  Archdeacon  Farrar's  conclusion,  that  there  has  been 
borrowing  on  one  side  or  the  other ;  but,  if  he  goes  to 
Josephus  and  looks  at  the  passages  in  situ,  he  finds  that 
one  might  read  them  over  a  dozen  times,  as  for  centuries 
so  many  have  done,  without  ever  being  reminded  of 
2  Peter. 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  one  on  a  comparison  of 
the  passages  is  that  the  alleged  coincidences  relate  en- 
tirely to  words,  and  not  at  all  to  the  thoughts.  Josephus 
and  2  Peter  have  quite  different  ideas  to  express,  and 
what  is  asserted  is,  that  in  doing  so  they  manage  to 
employ  several  identical  words.  Now  the  case  is  just 
the  reverse,  where  we  have  real  literary  obligation,  as 

*  The  question  is  one  which  must  be  decided  by  arguments,  not  by  autho- 
rities ;  but  I  may  mention  that  I  have  never  had  the  discomfort  of  feeling 
myself  quite  alone  in  my  opinion.  In  the  first  place,  the  two  or  three  most 
striliing  coincidences  adduced  by  Dr.  Abbott  are  stock  quotations  from  Jose- 
phus, used  for  the  illustration  of  2  Peter  by  commentators,  who  never  thought 
of  founding  on  them  a  charge  of  borrowing.  Next,  I  have  been  allowed  to 
use  an  unpublished  criticism  of  Dr.  Abbott's  Paper,  by  Dr.  Quarry,  who  takes 
the  same  view  of  it  that  I  have  done.  And  he  states  that  his  opinion  was 
shared  by  the  late  Bishop  Fitz  Gerald.  Through  the  kindness  of  Dr.  Sanday, 
I  have  become  acquainted  with  an  able  American  criticism  of  Dr.  Abbott's 
Paper,  by  Dr.  Warfield,  which  appeared  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review. 
And  lastly,  Dr.  Gw^yim,  who  was  kind  enough  to  examine  into  this  matter  for 
my  assistance,  arrived  independently  at  the  same  conclusions  as  I  had  done  ; 
and  has  given  me  many  additional  reasons  for  holding  them. 

2  T 


642  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Pdcr.         [xxv. 


in  the  instance  of  2  Peter  and  Jude.  There  the  imitation 
is  shown  chiefly  in  matter  ;  in  words  very  much  less. 

But  Archdeacon  Farrar  states  that  the  two  docu- 
ments have  in  common  '  words  in  some  instances  not 
only  unusual  but  startling,  words  which  are  in  some 
instances  hapax  legomena^  occurring  together  in  much 
the  same  sequence  and  connexion  in  passages  of  brief 
compass.'     On  all  these  points  I  take  issue  with  him. 

(i)  They  do  not  occur  in  passages  of  what  I  should  call 
*  brief  compass.'  The  words  common  which  come  so  close 
together  in  Dr.  Abbott's  report  of  the  evidence  lie  well 
apart  in  the  respective  authors.  Dr.  Abbott  gives  a  list 
of  thirteen  words  common ;  but  these  are  taken  from  a 
folio  page  of  Josephus,  and  range  from  i.  3,  to  iii,  16,  in 
2  Peter. 

(2)  They  are  not  '  in  the  same  sequence  and  con- 
nexion.' The  words  common  which  Dr.  Abbott  letters 
from  a  to  //,  appear  in  Josephus  in  the  order,  a,  g,  f^  b, 
hy  c,  d,  e ;  in  2  Peter  in  the  order,  g,  c,  d,  b,  h,  e,f,  a.  The 
case  then  is  as  if  one  finding  two  pieces  of  stuff  of  dif- 
ferent patterns  and  material,  should  fix  on  some  flowers 
or  the  like,  occurring  here  and  there  in  each  ;  should  cut 
up  both  into  scraps,  construct  a  patchwork  out  of  each, 
and  then  say,  How  like  these  pieces  are  to  each  other. 

(3)  But  the  most  important  point  of  all  is  that  the 
words  common  are  not  '  unusual  or  startling,'  or  such  as 
can  fairly  be  called  '■Jiapax  legomcna.''  I  cannot  but  think 
that  Archdeacon  Farrar,  not  having  looked  into  the  mat- 
ter for  himself,  jumbled  up  in  his  mind  the  two  counts  of 
Dr.  Abbott's  indictment,  that  2  Peter  employs  unusual  and 
startling  words,  and  that  he  copied  from  Josephus.  Dr. 
Abbott  himself  confesses  with  the  utmost  naivete  (p.  211) 
that  in  those  parts  of  2  Peter,  where  the  unusual  and 


XXV.]         Its  alleged  Obligations  to  Joscphiis.  643 

startling  words  are  found,  there  is  not  a  trace  of  obliga- 
tion to  Josephus  ;  in  other  words,  that  if  we  find  in 
2  Peter  a  word  likely  to  have  fastened  itself  on  anyone's 
memory,  it  was  not  from  Josephus  he  got  it.  And  this 
is  not  at  all  surprising,  for  Josephus  is  a  commonplace 
writer,  in  whom  many  startling  and  unusual  words  are 
not  to  be  found.  In  the  case  of  real  borrowing  between 
Peter  and  Jude,  some  of  the  words  which  are  common 
are  very  striking  ones. 

Now,  when  we  are  examining  whether  one  writer  is 
under  literary  obligation  to  another,  everything  turns  on 
whether  the  phrases  common  are  unusual,  or  such  as 
two  writers  might  independently  employ.  What  first 
roused  my  distrust  of  Dr.  Abbott's  argument  was  the 
total  want  of  discrimination  with  which  he  swells  his 
list  of  proofs  with  instances,  which  prove  no  more  than 
that  the  writers  compared  both  wrote  in  Greek.  He  asks 
us  (p.  54)  to  accept  as  a  proof  that  one  writer  copied 
from  another  that,  in  speaking  of  the  rising  of  a  hea- 
venly body,  both  use  the  verb  avariXKtD.  And  (p.  57)  in 
considering  whether  2  Peter  copied  Josephus,  he  asks 
us  to  give  weight  to  the  fact  that  in  speaking  of  the 
Divine  power  both  employ  the  word  Svvajnig.  This  re- 
minds us  of  the  charge  (see  p.  407)  that  Luke  was  in- 
debted to  Josephus  for  his  knowledge  of  the  words  tvwtu) 
and  irdig.  It  is  clear  that  if  we  are  to  arrive  at  any 
trustworthy  conclusions,  we  must  begin  by  weeding  out 
from  Dr.  Abbott's  lists  words  too  common  to  afford  any 
proof  of  literary  connexion. 

But  in  deciding  what  words  are  to  be  so  regarded, 
there  is  a  question  of  principle  to  be  settled.  Dr.  Abbott 
allows  that  if  words  common  to  Josephus  and  Peter  are 
also  found  in  the  LXX.,  we  cannot  treat  them  as  unusual 
words,  being  bound  to  acknowledge  that  if  Peter  bor- 

2  T  2 


644  ^J^li^  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 


rowed  them  at  all,  he  may  have  taken  them  from  the 
LXX.  and  not  from  Josephus.  Dr.  Abbott  then  pro- 
ceeds to  argue :  Since  if  one  of  these  common  words  is 
found  in  the  LXX.,  we  cannot  build  an  argument  on  it, 
therefore,  if  it  be  not  found  in  the  LXX.,  we  can.  And 
accordingly  he  classes  such  a  common  Greek  word  as 
roioo-Se  as  an  unusual  word,  because  not  found  in  the 
LXX.  This  argument  might  well  be  transferred  to  a 
book  on  Logic,  as  an  illustration  for  a  chapter  on 
fallacies.  In  order  to  make  the  logic  good,  we  must 
supply  a  suppressed  premiss,  which  Dr.  Abbott  will 
scarcely  venture  to  assert,  viz.  that  the  only  two 
sources  whence  2  Peter  could  have  drawn  his  Greek 
were  the  LXX.  and  Josephus,  so  that  whatever  he  did 
not  get  from  the  one  must  have  been  taken  from  the 
other.  But  everyone  of  the  New  Testament  writers  was 
using  Greek  every  day  of  his  life ;  and  it  is  absurd  to 
suppose  that  the  men  of  that  day  limited  their  vocabu- 
lary to  that  of  the  LXX.,  any  more  than  in  our  daily 
conversation  we  limit  ours  to  that  of  the  English  Bible. 
There  is  none  of  the  New  Testament  writers  who  does 
not  more  or  less  frequently  step  outside  the  Biblical 
limits,  and  enter  into  those  of  secular,  and. even  classical 
Greek.  But  if  the  charge  of  Babooism  brought  against 
2  Peter  be  well  founded,  he,  of  all  others,  might  be  ex- 
pected to  be  least  likely  to  confine  himself  to  Biblical 
limits.  For  in  the  sense  of  our  discussion  a  Baboo 
means  one  with  an  extensive  literary  and  very  little 
practical  knowledge  of  a  language.  2  Peter  is  supposed 
to  have  got  up  his  Greek  from  solitary  reading ;  he  is 
censured  for  the  number  of  words  he  uses,  which  are 
neither  found  in  the  O.  T.  nor  in  Josephus  ;  so  that  Dr. 
Abbott  is  the  last  who  ought  to  ask  us  to  believe  that  it 
was  to  these  two  books  he  confined  his  studies. 


XXV.]        Its  alleged  Obligations  to  yosephus.  645 

But,  indeed,  I  must  give  up  the  attempt  to  save  Dr. 
Abbott's  logic  ;  for  he  does  not  himself  pretend  that 
2  Peter's  reading  was  limited  to  the  books  just  named  : 
part  of  his  indictment  being  that  our  author  was  also  in- 
debted to  Philo.  Dr.  Abbott,  indeed,  has  worked  this 
vein  rather  superficially  ;  for  there  is  a  whole  host  of 
2  Peter's  rare  words  in  Philo — 6  Trpo^rjrticoc  Xoyog,  lirlXvcrig 
i/xTTopivo/iai,  viroSiiyiLia,  aOsafxog,  aXwaig  and  irapavojiin  in 
close  neighbourhood  [De  Mas.  i.  127);  \vT^v(^av,  ^o^og, 
VTTipoyKa,  BsXtat^tiv,  (XTOixtia,  pot^og,  ctfAaSia,  lerorifxoQ  [Dc 
Sac.  Ah.  et  Cam,  p.  165;  as  in  2  Pet.,  'equal  in  value,' 
not,  as  in  Josephus,  to  whom  Dr.  Abbott  refers  the 
word,  'equal  in  privilege'),  and,  if  anyone  thinks  it  im- 
portant to  add  it,  roiocrSe. 

For  my  purpose  it  is  immaterial  to  discuss  whether 
the  possession  of  a  common  vocabulary  proves  that 
2  Peter  copied  Philo.  There  is  no  reason  why  the 
Apostle  Peter  might  not  have  been  indebted  to  Philo. 
Eusebius  (ii.  17)  repeats  a  story  that  had  reached  him, 
that,  in  the  reign  of  Claudius,  Peter  and  Philo  had  been 
at  Rome  at  the  same  time,  and  had  conversed  with  each 
other.  Eusebius  accepts  the  story  as  true,  and  believes 
that  Philo  then  learned  from  Peter  many  things  about 
Christianity.  I  do  not  myself  believe  that  Peter  visited 
Rome  at  so  early  a  time ;  but  Philo's  embassy  to  Cali- 
gula is  a  historical  fact.  It  is  rational  to  believe  that 
Philo,  on  his  visit  to  Rome,  had  much  intercourse  with 
the  Jewish  colony  in  that  city;  and  that  his  writings 
would  thenceforward,  if  not  before,  be  well  known  to  the 
Jews  in  Rome ;  and  might,  to  a  certain  extent,  influence 
their  vocabulary.  But  when  we  find  Philonic  words  in 
N.  T.  writers  we  are  not  bound  to  believe  either  that 
they  took  them  directly  from  Philo,  or  even  that  Philo 
was   the   first  to    use    these    words.      I   have    already 


646  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.         [xxv. 

protested  against  Dr.  Abbott's  tacit  assumption  that 
the  'linguistic  sphere'  of  the  contemporaries  of  2  Peter 
is  adequately  represented  by  the  meagre  remains  still 
extant  in  the  LXX.,  even  including  the  Apocryphal 
books.  To  understand  that  sphere  we  must  include  the 
works  of  Philo,  which  are  a  most  valuable  addition  to  our 
knowledge  of  the  theological  language  of  the  Jews  of 
the  Apostolic  age.  But,  though  Philo  may  have  enlarged 
that  language,  he  did  not  create  it.  It  follows  that  co- 
incidences of  a  New  Testament  writer  with  Philo  are 
not  necessarily  proofs  of  borrowing. 

But  I  have  no  interest  now  in  contesting  that  point ; 
for  I  am  surprised  that  Dr.  Abbott  had  not  acuteness  to 
see  that,  in  endeavouring  to  establish  2  Peter's  obliga- 
tion to  Philo,  he  was  doing  his  best  to  demolish  his  own 
case.*  Josephus  admired  Philo,  and  notoriously  copied 
him  [Did.  Chr.  Biog.  III.  452).  The  preface  to  the  Anti- 
quities of  Josephus,  which  Dr.  Abbott  supposes  to  have 
served  as  a  model  to  2  Peter,  is  itself  derived  from  the 
opening  of  De  Opif.  Mund.  of  Philo.  When  we  turn  to 
the  latter  passage,  among  the  first  things  to  catch  the 
eye  is  one  of  the  phrases  Peter  is  accused  of  borrowing 
from  Josephus.  The  TrAoffroTc  Aoyotc  of  2  Pet.  ii.  3,  is 
alleged  to  b^e  derived  from  the  TrAaa/iarwi;  of  Josephus  : 

*  Dr.  Abbott's  idea  is  that  the  theory  that  2  Peter  had  borrowed  from 
Josephus  would  become  more  probable  if  it  could  be  proved  that  this  author 
was  a  habitual  borrower,  destitute  of  all  originality.  It  is  scarcely  a  paradox 
to  say  that,  on  the  contrary,  this  author  was  so  original,  that  he  hardly  knew 
how  to  borrow  when  he  tried.  If  he  were  not  Peter,  it  was  his  business  to 
borrow  from  the  First  Epistle  ;  but  he  scarcely  makes  an  attempt.  He  knew 
the  Old  Testament  history,  yet  he  has  extremely  little  of  Old  Testament 
language.  He  had  read  St.  Paul's  letters;  but  we  should  not  have  been  able 
to  prove  it  if  he  had  not  told  us ;  and  yet  we  can  distinctly  trace  the  use  ot 
Paul's  writings  in  the  First  Epistle,  though  it  does  not  mention  Paul.  And, 
if  he  used  Jude's  Epistle,  he  exercises  great  freedom  in  departing  from  his 
original. 


XXV.]        Its  alleged  Obligations  to  Josephus.  647 


but,  in  the  corresponding  passage  of  Philo,  we  have 
fwdtKotg  7rXa(Tjua(rtv,  and  within  a  few  lines  fivOovg  7rAa(7a/ut- 
vog.  It  is  not  clear  to  me  that  Peter's  phrase  was  de- 
rived either  from  Josephus  or  Philo  ;  but,  in  any  case,  if 
Josephus  steals  from  Philo,  how  can  he  claim  exclusive 
rights  of  proprietorship  as  against  Peter  ?  Why  are  we 
to  suppose  that  Peter  took  from  the  stream,  when  he 
could  as  easily  have  drawn  from  the  fountain  head  ? 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  deal  with  Dr.  Abbott's 
list  of  coincidences.  We  first  strike  out  coincidences 
in  commonplace  words ;  for  the  whole  force  of  the 
argument  from  coincidences  depends  on  the  rarity  of 
the  words  employed.  Dr.  Abbott  begins  by  inducing 
his  readers  to  grant  that  two  writers,  who  both  employ 
the  phrase  '  golden  sleep,'  probably  do  not  so  indepen- 
dently. On  the  strength  of  that  concession,  he  assumes 
that,  if  two  writers  both  happen  to  say  '  I  think  it  right,' 
one  must  have  borrowed  from  the  other.  We  next 
strike  out  of  Dr.  Abbott's  lists  words  that  occur  else- 
where N.  T.,  or  LXX. ;  for  even  one  such  occurrence 
proves  that  the  word  lay  in  Peter's  '  linguistic  sphere,' 
and  therefore  that  his  use  of  it  needs  no  explanation. 
Such  words  are  t^oSoc  for  decease  (Luke  ix.  3 1  :  not  used 
in  Josephus  absolutely,  but  with  the  addition  of  tov  iiyv) ; 
jUEyaAetornc  (Luke  ix.  43 :  see  also  Acts  xix.  27  ;  Jer.  xxxiii. 
(xl.)  9) ;  l(p'  odov  (according  to  Dr.  Abbott,  not  elsewhere 
N.  T.,  but  actually  in  precisely  the  same  way  Matt.  ix. 
15 ;  not  as  in  Josephus  with  the  addition  of  xp^vov,  but 
so  three  times  by  St.  Paul) ;  fiiiOog  (four  times  in  the  Pas- 
toral Epistles;  common  in  Philo)  ;  Ouog  (nine  times 
in  LXX.);  /ulXXw  (in  the  jitXXriau)  of  2  Pet.  i.  12,  there 
is  a  difficulty,  both  of  reading  and  interpretation ;  in  the 
ou  fxiWu)  of  Josephus,  a  common  Greek  word  is  used  in 


648  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

the  most  commonplace  way).  I  think  it  needless  to  give 
references  for  ivai^ua,  Kara^povew,  Trajowv,  or  Evvanig  (!) 

The  combinations  of  words  on  which  Dr.  Abbott  lays 
stress  are  also  of  the  most  commonplace  character.  One 
of  the  most  remarkable  is  J  koXwc  iroiuTe  Trpoalxoi'rtc,  to 
which  there  is  a  parallel  in  Josephus,  But  KaXwc  Trotctv, 
with  a  participle,  is  common  N.  T.  (Acts  x.  33  ;  Phil.  iv. 
14;  3  John  6);  and  Trpoo-E'xw  is  also  a  common  word; 
and  that  two  common  words  should  happen  to  be  com- 
bined is  a  matter  calling  for  no  remark.  So  also  fxvOoig 
l^aKoXovOijaavTSQ.  i^aKoXovOtu)  occurs  four  times  in  the 
LXX.,  and  seems  to  be  a  favourite  with  our  author,  who 
uses  it  three  times ;  and  we  have  seen  that  it  is  a  mis- 
take to  treat  javdog  as  an  uncommon  word.  In  Josephus 
there  are  two  various  readings,  and  it  is  not  certain  that 
t^aKo\ovdew  is  his  word  at  all.  I  count  it  needless  to 
discuss  jivh)(JKBLv  oTi  or  EiKaiov  riyiiaQai.  Nor  need  I 
notice  alleged  coincidences  in  which  there  is  no  resem- 
blance. Thus,  Dr.  Abbott  swells  his  list  by  pointing 
out  that  Josephus  has  the  word  ei^aXwrot,  2  Peter  in 
quite  a  different  sense,  and  context  dg  aXwmv.  Another 
case,  in  which  2  Peter  certainly  took  singular  pains  to 
disguise  his  theft,  is  that,  in  Dr.  Abbott's  opinion,  he 
derived  ddag  kolvwvoI  (pixrsujg  (i.  4)  from  fxaKpag  koiviovoi 
TaXaiTTwpiag  in  Josephus.  But  if  2  Pet.  was  incapable  of 
constructing  such  a  clause  for  himself,  he  had  a  much 
nearer  model  in  Philo's  XoyiKng  KSKoivujvyjKaai  ^vasiog 
[De  Somn.  i.  p.  647). 

When  Dr.  Abbott's  lists  have  been  thus  weeded  of 
futilities,  and  I  come  to  inquire  what  Archdeacon  Farrar 
refers  to  as  '  startling  and  unusual  words,'  or,  as  he  calls 
them,  *  hapax  legomena^  found  in  two  authors,  I  can 
think  but  of  two  cases — that  2  Peter  uses  aptrjj  concern- 


XXV. J        Its  alleged  Obligations  to  Josephiis.  649 

ing"  the  excellence  of  God ;  and  that  he  speaks  of  the 
divine  'nature'  0a'o  <pv(ng.  But  we  have  rag  aptrag  con- 
cerning God  in  the  First  Epistle  (ii.  9)  ;  and  if  it  had  been 
Dr.  Abbott's  object  to  prove  that  it  was  thence  2  Pet.  de- 
rived the  word,  he  would,  no  doubt,  have  laid  stress  on 
the  fact  that  in  both  places  it  occurs  in  immediate  con- 
nexion with  the  verb  KaAsw,  used  concerning  God's  call  of 
his  people.  The  word  is  similarly  used  O.  T.,  Is.  xlii. 
8,  12,  xliii.  21,  on  which  latter  passage  that  of  i  Peter 
is  based;  and  in  the  singular,  Hab.  iii.  3.  But  in  Philo 
the  word,  both  singular  and  plural,  is  repeatedly  used  of 
God.  Thus  :  tte/oi  deov  kcu  twv  apsTiov  avTov  [Qicis  Rer. 
Div.  Hccr.  p.  488) :  and  in  the  same  page,  rrig  deiag  aperfig 
rrjv  aiCjOorrjra  :  and  to  /.lijiOog  Trig  apsTrjg  tov  /.isyaXov  Oeov 
[De  Sonin.  p.  635).  The  word,  then,  plainly  lay  within 
Peter's  'linguistic  sphere,'  and  there  is  no  pretence  for 
saying  that  he  needed  to  go  to  Josephus  to  learn  it. 
And  the  same  thing  may  be  said  about  Geov  (pvaig,  which 
is  also  a  Philonic  phrase  :  i^dei  yap  ttjv  (pvaiv  tov  Oeov  [De 
Mas.  II.  p.  143  :  see  also  De  Spec.  Legg.  p.  343). 

Thus  Dr.  Abbott  has  completely  failed  to  establish 
his  theory :  but  I  must  add  that  it  is  a  theory  which  it 
was  never  rational  to  try  to  establish.  For  what  are 
the  ways  in  which  an  author  exhibits  his  use  of  another? 
(i)  He  may  take  his  ideas  from  another,  following  out  the 
same  arguments,  and  using  the  same  illustrations:  (2)  he 
may  derive  from  his  predecessor  some  word  or  combina- 
tion of  words,  such  as  two  writers  would  not  be  likely  to 
employ  independently  :  (3)  he  may  resemble  his  prede- 
cessor generally  in  his  phraseology ;  and  such  resem- 
blance of  vocabulary  Vv^ould,  of  course,  not  be  confined  to 
one  particular  passage  of  his  author.  But,  in  this  case, 
what  we  are  asked  to  believe  is,  that  2  Peter  prepared 
himself  for  his  task  by  studying  one  page  of  Josephus, 


650  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

and  then  tried  how  many  words  out  of  that  page  he 
could  manage  to  introduce  when  writing  on  quite  diffe- 
rent topics.  Did  ever  forger  proceed  in  such  a  way  ?  If 
he  did,  he  surely  took  for  his  model  the  author  for  whom 
he  desired  to  pass,  and  not  one  his  knowledge  of  whom 
it  was  his  interest  to  conceal.  I  must,  therefore,  estimate 
Dr.  Abbott's  speculation  at  the  same  value  as  the  inge- 
nious proofs  that  have  been  given  that  the  plays  of 
Shakspeare  were  written  by  Lord  Bacon,  or  the  Epistles 
of  Clement  of  Rome  by  Henry  Stephens.* 

It  may  seem  that,  however  successful  we  are  in  re- 
futing the  charge  that  2  Peter  copied  from  Josephus,  by 
showing  that  his  obligations  are  more  likely  to  have 
been  to  Philo,  yet  this  very  characteristic  of  the 
Second  Epistle  makes  it  improbable  that  it  could  have 
the  same  author  as  the  First.  I  own  that  I  felt  some 
surprise  on  being  taught  by  Dr.  Gwynn  that  affinity 
with  Philo  is  a  point  of  likeness,  not  of  unlikeness,  be- 
tween the  two  Petrine  Epistles.  I  give  some  of  his  proofs. 
The  references  here  and  above  are  to  the  pages  of  Man- 
gey's  edition,  (i)  The  word  ava~^ivvaui  seems  to  have  been 
introduced  into  Christian  theology  by  1  Peter ;  it  does  not 

*  I  refer  here  to  the  Proteus  Peregrbius  of  Mr.  Cotterill,  a  writer  after 
Dr.  Abbott's  own  heart,  who  employs  the  same  methods,  but  with  greater 
audacity.  He  shows  that,  not  only  the  Epistles  of  Clement,  but  the  tract  of 
Lucian  De  Morte  Peregrini,  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  large  portions  of  the 
Bibliotlieca  of  Photius,  and  several  other  works  supposed  to  be  ancient,  are  all 
modern  forgeries.  When  it  is  objected  to  him  that  the  Epistles  of  Clement 
are  found  in  the  Alexandrian  MS.,  in  the  MS.  lately  found  at  Constantinople, 
and  in  a  Syriac  translation,  he  owns  that  these  facts  do  present  a  certain  diffi- 
culty ;  but  declares  that  if  the  difficulty  were  ten  times  as  great,  it  would  not 
be  as  great  as  the  improbability  that  tlie  coincidences  he  has  pointed  out  could 
be  accidental  (p.  318).  Reversing  his  argument,  I  draw  from  his  book  a  con- 
firmation of  my  view,  that  coincidences  as  close  as  any  Dr.  Abbott  instances, 
and  far  more  numerous,  are  found  in  cases  where  borrowing  is  demonstrably 
impossible. 


XXV.]         Its  alleged  Obligatiofis  to  Josephus.  65 1 

occur  in  any  previous  Greek  author,  but  must  have  been 
known  to  Philo,  who  uses  ava->iivvx\oiq  {De  Mund.  In- 
corrup.  404  ;  De  Mund  11 58).  (2)  Again,  compare  the 
vocabulary  of  the  following  two  passages  in  i  Pet. :  to 
SoKifiiov  T^c  7riOT£a>c  TToXvTifxoTSpov  \pvaiov  Tov  awoA- 
AujttEvou  dta  TTvpoQ  8e  doKifxa^ofjiivnv  (i.  7)  I  to  XoyiKOv  aoo- 
Xov  ya\a  (ii.  2;  ciSoAoc,  here  only  N.  T. ;  Xojikoq,  only 
Rom.  xii.  i) ;  with  Philo  [Alleg.  i.  59,  in  immediate  con- 
nexion with  TO  XoyiKOv),  77  <^p6vT(\aiq  y]v  i'lKaak  \pvis'ii<^ 
a^oXw  KOI  KaOapq.  Koi  TTiirvptopivt^  koi  czcoKLpaapivr^ 
Koi  Tifxifj.  <j)V(Tsi.  Closely  following,  in  Philo,  we  find 
two  other  Petrine  words,  a^OapTog  and  airovipw,  the 
latter  here  only  N.  T.  (3)  ov  (pOapTolg,  apyvpic^  rj  xpvaii,^ 
(l  Pet.  i.  18)  ;  Bnaavpov  ovk  Iv  (^  y^pvGOQ  koi  apyvpog  ovaiai 
^dapToi  KUTaKSivTai  [DeCheruh.l.  147).  (4)  fTri  TOV  iTriaKOTTOv 
TU)v  -ipvxiov  (ii.  25,  here  only  in  this  application  N.  T.) ;  but 
in  Philo  {De  Somn.  I.  634)  we  have  [0£(i»]  rtJ  rwv  oAwv 
tTTto-KOTTfj) ;  and  it  may  be  added  that  in  the  same  place 
Philo  calls  God  twp  oAwv  Kriarrjc,  this  title  being  given 
to  the  Almighty  by  i  Peter  (iv.  19),  who  alone  of  N.  T. 
writers  uses  the  word.  (5)  An  O.  T.  citation  is  made  with 
the  formula  Trtptlx"  only  N.  T.,  in  i  Pet.  ii.  6  ;  but  also  in 
Philo,  De  Abr.  ii.  I.  (6)  ottwc  rag  apSTug  i^ayyiiXrfTE  (ii. 
9) ;  here  only  N.  T.  The  verb  in  the  corresponding  place 
in  the  LXX.  Isaiah  is  dinyovfiai;  but  Philo  [De  Plant. 
Noej  348)  has  oc  rag  \tmv  tov  0£oD  £p7a>v]  vTTepjSoXag 
.  .  .  l^ayyiXeX.  (7)  The  rare  word  avaxvaig  (i  Pet.  iv.  4) 
occurs  De  Mund.   Incorr.  507,   and  elsewhere. 

It  is  plain  that,  if  there  be  evidence  to  prove  that 
2  Peter  copied  from  Philo,  there  is  abundance  of  like 
evidence  available  for  the  conviction  of  i  Peter.  I  will 
not  undertake  to  say  whether  in  either  case  direct  obliga- 
tion can  be  proved  ;  and  possibly  some  things  which  we 
might  suppose  to  be  peculiar  to  Philo,  had  previously 


652  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  [xxv. 

formed  part  of  current  theological  language.  But,  at 
the  time  the  First  Epistle  was  written,  Philo  is  likely  to 
have  been,  for  a  dozen  years,  the  author  most  read  by 
educated  Jews  at  Rome;  and,  therefore,  one  who  mixed 
in  that  circle,  and  engaged  in  its  discussions,  could 
hardly  escape  at  least  indirect  influence  from  Philo. 
This  may,  perhaps,  afford  the  simplest  explanation  of 
the  Philonic  colouring  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
And  Dr.  Gwynn  has  noticed  that  even  Paul's  letters, 
written  from  Rome,  present  coincidences  with  Philo.* 

I  do  not  think  it  worth  while  to  add  some  proofs  with 
which  Dr.  Gwynn  has  furnished  me,  that  the  charge  of 
copying  from  Josephus  might  be  made  with  as  much 
plausibility  against  the  First  Epistle  as  against  the 
Second.  But,  certainly,  the  result  of  an  examination  of 
Dr.  Abbott's  argument  has  been  to  emphasize  many 
points  of  latent  resemblance  between  the  two  Epistles. 
If  the  Second  Epistle  copies  from  Jude,  so  does  the  First 
from  St.  Paul  and  St.  James.  Both  letters  have  a  good 
deal  in  common  with  the  diction  of  the  Grseco-Jewish 

*  (l).  Philipp.  iii.  12  :  ovx  (irifjSri  .  .  .  rere  A.6ia)/uo£,  Sicomw  5e  .  .  .  els  rh 
3pa0e7ov. 

=  Philo,  Alleg.  iii.  loi  :  orav  reXeicadfiS  koI  ^pajSeiwv  Kal  (Trecpdi/cav 
a^tteOys  (both  of  death). 

(2).   lb.  111.  20 :   T\fxoiV  yap  rb  TroA'iTevfjLa  iv  ovpavols  inrdpxei. 

=  Philo,  De  Con/.  Lingg.  416 :  [the  souls  of  the  wise]  kiravipxovTai  iKeiffi 
viXiv  '69fV  0)pii7)Qr)(Tav,  TrarpiSa  /xhv  rhv  ovpdviov  x''>pov  eu  (^  Tro\irevovTai, 
i,evov  5e  rhv  irepiyeiou  iv  ^  irap<fiKr]<Tav,  vofii^ovixai. 

Also  £>e  jfoseph,  51  •  e(j>i€fj.evos  iyypa<peiaQai  iu  t^  /xeyicTTCj)  koI  aplffTtp 
iroKirevfiaTi  TovSe  rov  K6a/xov. 

(3).  Coloss.  i.  15  :  '6s  eanv  eiKwv  roxj  ©eoD  tov  aopdrov,  irpurSroKos  irdffTfS 
Krifffcas. 

=  Philo,  De  Mundi  Opt/.,  6  :  rhv  Se  k6paTov  koI  vo-rirhv  6i7ov  \6yov, 
(iK6va  Xeyet  Qeov. 

To  which  add  De  Soinn.  I.  653  :  .  .  .  6  /coVyuoj  eV  <^  apx^epevs,  .  .  .  o  irpa)T6- 
yovos  avTOv  duos  x6yos.      Cf.  Heb.  i.  6,  ii.  IJ. 


XXV.]         Its  alleged  Obligations  to  Josephus.  653 


literature  represented  for  us  by  Philo  and  Josephus. 
They  have  peculiarities  of  language  in  common,  includ- 
ing some  objected  to  by  Dr,  Abbott  as  if  only  found  in 
2  Peter.  And,  as  Dr.  Lumby  has  well  shown,  it  is 
characteristic  of  both  to  use  striking  and  even  startling 
expressions,  and  to  introduce  unusual  and  mysterious 
topics.  On  the  whole,  Dr.  Abbott's  Paper  only  serves  to 
show  how  an  able  and  accomplished  scholar  may  go 
astray,  when,  on  the  strength  of  a  comparative  study  of 
one  New  Testament  book,  and  a  few  pages  of  one  secu- 
lar author,  he  attempts  to  draw  conclusions  which  could 
not  be  safely  maintained  unless  they  had  been  founded 
on  a  thorough  investigation  of  a  much  wider  subject — 
the  relations  of  New  Testament  Greek  to  the  written 
and  spoken  Greek  of  the  Apostolic  age. 


654  Note  on  Hermas  and  Theodotion. 


Note  on  Hermas  and  Theodotion. 

Having  decided  not  to  include  in  this  volume  another 
Lecture  on  non-canonical  books,  I  must  refer  to  my 
article  '  Hermas/  in  Smithes  Dictionary  of  Christian 
Biography,  for  my  reasons  for  holding-  'The  Shepherd' 
to  be  a  work  of  the  beginning,  not  the  middle,  of  the 
second  century.  But  I  add  a  note  here  on  a  point  of 
evidence  which  has  come  to  light  since  that  article  was 
published.  In  the  visions  of  Hermas  ( Vis.  iv.  ii.  4),  he 
sees  a  terrible  wild  beast,  from  which  he  is  delivered  by 
the  protection  *  of  the  angel  who  is  over  the  beasts, 
whose  name  is  Thegri.'  This  Thegri,  of  whom  no  one 
else  makes  mention,  had  been  a  puzzle  to  commentators 
until  not  long  since,  when  the  solution  was  obtained 
by  Mr.  Rendel  Harris  [Johns  Hopkins'  University  Cir- 
culars, III.  75).  He  compares  the  words  in  Hermas, 
()  KVpiOQ  airicTTiiXev  tov  ayjiXov  avTOv,  tov  IttX  twv  dripiwv 
ovra,  ov  to  ovojulo.  tori  Qsypi,  koI  Ivicppa^sv  to  aTOfia  avTov, 
'iva  pri  (re  Xvpavy,  with  the  words  of  Daniel  vi.  22,  6  dtog 
pov  cnreaTeiXi  tov  ayyeXov  avTOV,  koX  cvl^pa^c  to.  aT6p.aTa  tu)v 
XtovTwv,  Koi  owk:  iXvprjvavTo  pe,  when  the  use  of  Daniel  by 
Hermas  is  seen  beyond  mistake.  But,  in  the  original, 
the  verb  corresponding  to  ivicppa^sv  is  ")JD  ;  and  it  be- 
comes apparent  that  we  must  correct  Qeypi  into  Qtypiy 
and  understand  '  the  angel  who  stops  the  mouths  of  the 
beasts.' 

This  remark  of  Mr.  Harris  suggests  several  inferences, 
of  which  I  am  only  here  concerned  with  one  drawn  by 
Dr.  Hort.  St.  Jerome  states  repeatedly  that  the  Chris- 
tian Church  used,  not  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  but  that  of  Theodotion.  For  example, 
in  his  Preface  to  his  translation  of  the  Book  of  Daniel, 
he  says  :  'Danielem  Prophetam  juxta  LXX.  interpretes. 


The  two  Greek  Versions  of  Daniel.  655 


Domini  Salvatoris  Ecclesiae  non  legunt,  utentes  Theodo- 
tionis  editione ;  et  hoc  cur  accident,  nescio.  Sive  quia 
sermo  Chaldaicus  est,  et  quibusdam  proprietatibus  a 
nostro  eloquio  discrepat,  noluerunt  LXX.  interpretes 
easdem  linguae  lineas  in  translatione  servare ;  sive  sub 
nomine  eorum  ab  alio,  nescio  quo,  non  satis  Chaldaeam 
linguam  sciente,  editus  est  liber;  sive  aliud  quid  causse 
extiterit  ignorans,  hoc  unum  affirmare  possum,  quod 
multum  a  veritate  discordet  et  recto  judicio  repudiatus 
sit'  (see  also  the  Preface  to  the  Commentary  on  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  the  Prologue  to  Joshua,  and  Apol.  cont.  Ruf. 
II.  33).  Thus  it  appears  that  Jerome,  who  was  ac- 
quainted with  the  Hexapla  of  Origen,  took  notice  that 
the  version  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  in  use  in  the  Church  of 
his  day  was  that  given  in  the  Hexapla,  not  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  column,  but  in  the  column  which  presented  the 
version  of  Theodotion.  Jerome  is  a  perfectly  competent 
witness  to  this  matter  of  fact,  though  he  professes  him- 
self unable  to  offer  any  but  conjectural  explanations  of 
it.  It  would  appear  that  Origen  said  nothing  to  throw 
light  on  it ;  though  Jerome  quotes  him  as  having,  at 
least  on  one  occasion,  given  by  his  example  his  counte- 
nance to  the  desertion  of  the  Septuagint  for  Theodotion. 
*  Judicio  magistrorum  ecclesiae  editio  eorum  (LXX.)  in 
hoc  volumine  repudiata  est,  et  Theodotionis  vulgo  legitur; 
quae  et  Hebraeo  et  ceteris  translatoribus  congruit,  unde 
et  Origenes  in  nono  Stromatum  volumine  asserit  se  quae 
sequuntur  ab  hoc  loco  in  Propheta  Daniele,  non  juxta 
LXX.,  qui  multum  ab  Hebraica  veritate  discordant,  sed 
juxta  Theodotionis  editionem  disserere'  [in  Dan.  iv.  ^). 
The  version  which  stood  in  the  Septuagint  column  of 
Origen's  Tetrapla  has  been  recovered  from  a  single  MS., 
preserved  in  the  Chigi  Library,  and  was  printed  at 
Rome  in  1772.     It  will  be  found  appended  to  Tischen- 


656  Note  071  Hernias  and  Theodotio7i . 

dorf  s  second  and  subsequent  editions  of  the  Septuagint. 
An  extant  Syriac  version,  and  the  citations  of  Jerome, 
fully  establish  its  claim  to  be  Origen's  Septuagint. 
Now  Dr.  Hort  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  {Johns 
Hopkins'  University  Circulars,  iv.  2^^),  that  the  strong 
coincidence  which  has  been  pointed  out  between  Hermas 
and  the  book  of  Daniel  only  exists  when  Theodotion's 
version  is  used.  The  corresponding  verse  in  the  LXX. 
merely  has  crto-wKl  jue  6  B^hq  airo  twv  X^ovtlov.  In  another 
place,  indeed,  it  has  6  diog  aneKXeiae  ra  aTO/nara  riov  Xaov- 
T(i)v  ;  but  it  neither  has  lvi(ppa^tv,  nor  does  it  use  the  verb 
Xv/iaivoiuiai.  Dr.  Hort  infers,  then,  that  Hermas  used  not 
the  LXX.  version  of  Daniel,  but  that  of  Theodotion ; 
and  that  therefore  we  have  got  to  take  it  as  a  fixed  point 
in  our  discussions  about  the  date  of  Hermas,  that  he  is 
later  than  Theodotion. 

According  to  some  accounts  of  the  date  of  Theodo- 
tion, this  conclusion  can  no  more  be  reconciled  with  the 
Muratorian  statement  that  Hermas  wrote  in  the  Episco- 
pate of  Pius,  than  with  my  opinion  that  he  was  a  younger 
contemporary  of  Clement  of  Rome.  For  some  place 
Theodotion  at  the  very  end  of  the  second  century  ;  and 
Harvey,  for  example  (on  Irenseus,  HI.  xxi.),  states  that 
the  version  of  Theodotion  was  put  forth  in  the  year  A.  D. 
181.  But  here  Harvey  followed  a  most  untrustworthy 
authority,  Epiphanius,  who  in  the  passage  referred  to 
[De  Mens,  et  Po7id.  17)  has  done  his  best  to  warn  off  stu- 
dents from  taking  him  as  a  historical  guide.  His  story 
is,  that  the  version  of  Aquila  was  made  in  the  reign  of 
Hadrian,  that  Hadrian  was  succeeded  by  Antoninus 
Pius,  who  reigned  twenty-two  years  ;  that  he  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Caracalla,  also  called  Geta,  also  called  Mar- 
cus Aurelius,  who  reigned  seven  years.  In  his  times 
Lucius  Aurelius  Commodus  reigned  for  the  same  seven 


Date  of  Thcodotion  uncertain.  657 


years.  Pertinax  reigned  six  months ;  then  Severus  for 
eighteen  years ;  and  in  his  reign  the  version  of  Symma- 
chus  was  made.  And  after  him,  in  the  reign  of  the 
second  Commodus,  the  version  of  Theodotion  was  made. 
Harvey  gets  his  date  i8i,  by  taking  Epiphanius  to  say 
*the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Commodus';  for  181  is 
the  second  year  of  the  real  Commodus ;  but  what  Epi- 
phanius says  is  'in  the  reign  of  the  second  Commodus,' 
which,  since  a  successor  of  Severus  is  intended,  would 
give  us  a  date  later  than  211.  However,  in  the  next 
chapter  Epiphanius  makes  a  new  trial  at  giving  the  suc- 
cession of  Roman  Emperors,  in  which  he  corrects*  some 
of  his  former  blunders,  and  makes  some  new  ones.  But 
in  this  chapter  Theodotion  is  made  to  write  in  the  reign 
of  a  Commodus  who  reigned  before  Pertinax,  and  there- 
fore apparently  is  the  real  Commodus.  Accordingly, 
the  Paschal  Chronicle,  giving  Epiphanius  as  its  au- 
thority, places  the  publication  of  Theodotion's  version 
in  the  consulship  of  Marcellus  and  ^lianus,  that  is  in 
the  year  184.  I  need  not  inquire  how  many  of  the 
blunders  of  Epiphanius  arose  from  erroneous  information, 
how  many  from  a  habit  of  supplying  by  invention  the 
defects  of  his  information.  In  the  present  case  the  latter 
cause  seems  to  have  been  largely  in  operation.  In  Ori- 
gen's  columns  the  versions  stood  in  the  order,  Aquila, 
Symmachus,  LXX.,  Theodotion,  from  which  Epiphanius 
jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  Aquila,  Symmachus,  The- 
odotion, was  the  chronological  order  ;  and  placing  Sym- 
machus, perhaps  correctly,  in  the  reign  of  Severus,  put 
Theodotion  in  the  reign  of  his  successor,  whom,  ac- 
cording to  his  lights,  he  called  Commodus. 

*  It  is  therefore  charitable  to  beUeve  that  Epiphanius  has  suffered  some- 
thing at  the  hands  of  transcribers  ;  but  no  probable  correction  of  the  text  will 
clear  him  of  the  charge  of  strange  blundering. 

2    U 


658  Note  on  Hermas  and  Theodotion. 

We  find  additional  reason  for  distrusting  Epipha- 
nius  when  we  read  what  he  goes  on  to  tell  about  Theo- 
dotion, who,  according  to  his  account,  was  a  native  of 
Pontus,  and  had  been  a  disciple  of  Marcion  until  he 
became  a  proselyte  to  Judaism,  when  he  learned  the 
Hebrew  language.  But  we  learn  from  Irenaeus  that 
Theodotion  was  really  an  Ephesian  ;  and  we  can  have 
little  doubt  that  Epiphanius  has  mixed  up  Theodotion 
with  another  translator  of  the  Old  Testament,  Aquila, 
who  was  a  native  of  Pontus,  and  of  whom  also  the  story 
is  told  that  he  had  been  a  Christian  before  he  became  a 
proselyte  to  Judaism.  And  it  would  seem  to  be  for  no 
better  reason  than  because  he  has  placed  Theodotion  at 
Pontus,  that  Epiphanius  makes  him  a  disciple  of  the 
great  Pontic  heresiarch  Marcion.  We  must  then  dis- 
miss Epiphanius's  whole  account  of  Theodotion  as  being 
absolutely  without  historical  value.  It  may  not  be  all 
pure  invention  ;  but  we  have  no  means  of  disentangling 
the  grains  of  truth  it  may  possibly  contain. 

With  respect  to  the  date  of  Theodotion,  we  can  say, 
with  certainty,  that  Epiphanius  has  placed  it  too  late, 
in  naming  the  reign  of  Commodus.  For  Irenaeus,  who 
wrote  in  the  beginning  of  that  reign,  speaks  (iii.  21)  of 
the  versions  of  Aquila  and  Theodotion,  and  as  we  shall 
presently  see,  his  use  of  the  latter  translation  is  such  as 
to  show  that  it  could  not  then  have  been  recent.  Irenaeus 
does  not  mention  Symmachus  ;  and  so  it  is  probable  that 
he,  and  not  Theodotion,  was  the  latest  of  the  three  trans- 
lators just  named. 

When  we  have  rejected  the  testimony  of  Epiphanius, 
we  are  left  without  any  precise  information  as  to  the 
date  of  Theodotion,  so  that  it  seems  to  me  we  are  on 
much  firmer  ground  if  we  use  Hermas  to  determine  the 
date  of  Theodotion,  than  vice  versa.     For  in  the  case  of 


Theodotioii  s  Daniel  in  use  before  Origen.      659 

Hermas  we  have  in  our  hands  a  whole  book,  containing 
many  notes  of  time ;  while  as  to  the  publication  of  the 
version  of  Theodotion  we  have  only  vague  or  untrust- 
worthy reports. 

Though  it  is  only  within  very  wide  limits  we  can  tell 
when  Theodotion  lived,  we  can  go  much  nearer  to  de-. 
fining  the  time  when  his  version  of  the  book  of  Daniel 
superseded  the  LXX.  in  the  use  of  the  Christian 
Church.  This  change  was  not  due,  as  some  have 
supposed,  to  the  influence  of  Origen,  but  had  taken 
1)1  ace  in  the  previous  century.  Overbeck  has  carefully 
examined  [QiiCEst.  Hippol.  Specimen^  p.  105)  the  quota- 
tions from  Daniel  made  by  Irenseus  in  his  great  work  on 
heresies,  with  the  result  of  finding  that  Irenseus  habitu- 
ally uses  the  version  of  Theodotion,  not  that  of  the  LXX. 
Since  we  know  the  greater  part  of  Irenaeus  only  through 
the  medium  of  a  Latin  translation,  it  might  be  objected 
that  the  quotations  only  inform  us  as  to  the  version  in 
use  in  the  time  of  the  translator,  and  not  that  used  by 
Irenseus  himself.  Overbeck,  therefore,  has  pointed  out 
three  passages  in  particular  where  the  argument  of 
Irenseus  turns  on  words  peculiar  to  Theodotion's  ver- 
sion. These  are  the  quotations  of  Dan.  xii.  7,  in  IV. 
xxvi.  I  ;  of  Dan.  ii.  44,  in  V.  xx.  i,  and  V.  xxvi.  2.  In  a 
citation  of  Dan.  xii.  9,  10,  which  Irenseus  (1.  xvi.)  reports 
as  made  by  the  Marcosians,  there  is  a  conflation  of  the 
two  versions.  Overbeck  has  also  studied  the  citations 
in  the  work  of  Hippolytus  on  Antichrist,  and  finds,  as 
might  be  expected  from  the  fact  that  Hippolytus  was  a 
hearer  of  Irenaeus,  that  he  also  used  the  version  of  Theo- 
t  lotion.  This  result  is  confirmed  by  Bardenhewer's  study 
of  the  remains  of  the  work  of  Hippolytus  on  Daniel,  his 
report  being  that  Hippolytus  not  only  used  the  version 
of  Theodotion,  but  seems  ignorant   of  any  other,    and 

2  u  2 


66o  Note  on  Hernias  and  Thcodotion. 


that   his  interpretation   sometimes  directly   contradicts 
the  Septuagint  version. 

Archbishop  Ussher,  in  his  Syntagma  de  LXX.  Inter- 
pret. Verswne,  prints  Justin  Martyr's  quotations  from 
Dan,  vii.,  and  the  quotations  of  Tertullian  and  of  Cle- 
ipent  of  Alexandria  from  Dan.  ix.  On  examining  these 
passages,  I  found  that  Justin's  quotations  were  taken 
from  the  LXX.,  the  variations  not  being  greater  than 
are  found  on  comparing  with  that  version  Justin's  cita- 
tions from  other  books  of  Scripture,  but  those  of  Ter- 
tullian and  Clement  from  Theodotion.  And  in  this 
result,  as  far  as  regards  Clement,  Overbeck  agrees.  But 
the  case  of  Tertullian  is  curious.  Ussher's  citations  are 
taken  from  the  work,  Adv.  JzidcBos,  of  which  chap,  g,  and 
those  following,  have  been  suspected  by  Neander  to  be 
spurious.*  But  in  his  other  writings  his  citations  are 
from  the  Septuagint.  A  single  example  will  suffice  as 
illustration.  The  words  (Dan.  x.  ii)  translated  in  our 
version,  *  O  Daniel,  a  man  greatly  beloved,'  are  ren- 
dered in  the  LXX.,  AavtT/X,  avdpwiroQ  kXaeivog  ti  ;  but  by 
Theodotion,  avrjp  liriOvfiiwv.  Now  in  De  Jejim.  9,  the 
passage  is  quoted  in  the  form,  '  Daniel  homo  es  mise- 
rabilis '  ;  but  in  Adv.  Judceos  q,  'Vir  desideriorum  tu 
es.'     The  treatise  against  the  Jews,  if  written  by  Tertul- 

*  Neander' s  main  ground  for  suspicion  [Antignosticus,  ii.  530,  Bohn)  is  that 
the  treatise  against  the  Jews  has  several  passages  in  common  with  the  third  book 
against  Marcion,  which  cohere  with  the  context  in  the  latter  work,  not  in  the 
former.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  author  of  the  former  treatise  borrowed 
these  passages ;  but  I  hesitate  to  say  that  we  can  thence  infer  he  was  not  Ter- 
tullian ;  for  it  is  common  with  voluminous  writers  to  save  themselves  trouble 
by  turning  to  new  account  what  they  had  written  on  a  former  occasion.  I 
have  myself  pointed  out  [Hermathetta,  i.  103)  that  the  use  made  (chap.  8)  of 
the  chronology  of  Hippolytus  proves  that  the  treatise  against  the  Jews  cannot 
be  much  earlier  than  A.  D.  230,  a  time  however  when,  there  is  reason  to  be- 
lieve, Tertullian  was  still  in  literary  activity. 


Early  Latin  Version  made  from  LXX.        66 1 

Han,  must  have  been  one  of  his  latest  works,  and  full 
forty  years  later  than  the  treatise  of  Irenaeus.  It  might 
seem  more  likely  than  not  that  in  that  interval  of  time 
Theodotion's  Daniel,  which  was  habitually  used  by  Ire- 
naeus, should  have  been  made  by  translation  accessible 
to  Latin-speaking  Christians.  Cyprian  shows  acquaint- 
ance with  both  versions,  using,  for  instance,  the  LXX. 
form  of  Dan  ii.  35,  Test.  ii.  17  ;  but  ordinarily  Theodotion: 
see,  for  example,  Dan.  xii.  4,  in  Test.  i.  4.  In  any  case, 
it  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the  so-called 
Septuagint  Daniel  was  accepted  as  such  at  the  time  that 
the  early  Latin  translation,  used  in  Africa,  was  made  ; 
and  that  it  was  during  the  interval  between  Justin 
Martyr  and  Irenaeus  that  it  came  to  be  superseded  in 
the  Christian  Church  by  Theodotion's  version.  That 
version  could  scarcely  have  been  very  modern  when 
it  achieved  so  great  a  success  ;  but  how  much  older  it 
was  we  are  unable  to  say. 

But  in  the  case  of  Hermas,  what  we  are  concerned 
with  is  the  existence  of  the  version,  not  the  amount  of 
authority  attributed  to  it  by  the  Church.  There  are 
some  Church  writers  whose  usage  is  determined  for  us 
when  we  know  what  was  the  current  usage  of  the  Church 
of  their  day.  But  Hermas  stands  quite  by  himself,  tak- 
ing on  many  points  a  distinct  line  of  his  own.  We  know 
next  to  nothing  of  the  influences  under  which  he  was 
trained.  But  his  knowledge  of  the  word  Segri  shows 
that  if  he  could  not  read  Hebrew  or  Chaldee  for  himself, 
as  most  probably  he  could  not,  he  must  at  least  have 
mixed  with  those  who  could  ;  and  therefore  that  if  we 
even  knew  with  certainty  what  version  was  most  fa- 
voured in  the  Christian  Church  of  his  day,  we  still  could 
not  be  sure  that  this  was  the  one  he  employed,  if  a  dif- 
ferent one  were  in  use  in  some  Jewish  circles. 


662  Note  on  Her7nas  and  Theodotion. 

Now  the  question  at  what  date  Theodotion  made  his 
translation  is,  for  our  present  purpose,  subordinate  to 
the  question,  what  previous  versions  there  had  been. 
For  we  evidently  could  not  infer  from  coincidence  in  a 
single  verse  that  Hermas  was  later  than  Theodotion,  if 
it  is  possible  that  in  that  verse  Theodotion  followed  the 
lines  of  an  older  translator.  When  Origen  formed  his 
Tetrapla  he  certainly  was  unable  to  find  more  than  four 
Greek  versions  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  his  subse- 
quent chance  discovery  of  other  versions  shows  that 
these  had  not  been  the  only  Greek  translations.  And 
we  must  admit  the  possibility  that  versions  of  the  book 
of  Daniel,  which  had  been  current  in  the  first  century, 
had  perished  before  Origen's  time,  having  been  super- 
seded by  the  translations  which  he  has  preserved. 

I  think  there  is  evidence  that  what  has  been  here 
thrown  out  as  a  possibility  may  be  asserted  as  probably 
a  fact.  When  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
uses  the  phrase  (xi.  33),  '  Stopped  the  mouths  of  lions,' 
we  can  scarcely  doubt  that  he  had  Dan.  vi.  22,  in  his 
mind.  We  may  also  take  it  as  certain  that  he  used  a 
Greek,  not  a  Hebrew  Bible.  But  if  he  used  the  LXX. 
of  Daniel,  how  is  it  that  he  stumbles  on  the  word 
i^^al^av,  instead  of  the  aTriKXeio-e  of  the  LXX.  ?  We  have 
a  wider  basis  for  argument  in  the  Apocalypse,  a  book 
in  which  the  book  of  Daniel  is  more  copiously  employed 
than  in  any  other  part  of  the  N.  T.  Dr.  Gwynn  has 
furnished  me  with  a  table  in  which  all  the  citations  of 
Daniel  in  the  Apocalypse  are  compared  with  the  cor- 
respondmg  renderings  in  the  LXX.  and  in  Theodotion. 
And  the  result  of  the  comparison  is,  that  there  are  se- 
veral passages  in  which  St.  John  does  not  use  the  LXX., 
and  does  approach  nearer  to  Theodotion  ;  and  that  there 
is  nothing  very  decisive  the  other  way.     So  that  I  ac- 


What  Version  nscd  by  N.  T.  writers  ?  663 

tually  find  in  the  Apocalypse  no  clear  evidence  that  St. 
John  had  ever  seen  the  so-called  LXX.  version.  The 
following  are  some  of  the  passages  in  question  : — 

(1)  Rev.  ix.  20:  TO  aSwAa  TCL  XQvaa  koX  to.  apjvpa  Kai  to 
XuXko.  Koi  TO.  XiOiva  Kal  to.  ^vXiva  a  ovrt  (iXiireiv  SvvavraL  ourt 
a/couE/i;  ovre  TrepnraTHv.  There  is  not  a  word  of  this  in  the 
LXX. ;  but  Theodotion  has,  Dan.  v,  23,  roue  Oeovg  rovg 
\i)V(rovg  (cai  cipjvpovg  Koi  ^(^uXKOvg  kol  Gi^r)povQ  kuX  ^vXivovg 
Kill  XiOivovg,  o'i  ov  [iXiwovm  kuI  01  ovk  uKOVovai. 

(2)  Rev.  X.  5  :  wfioatv  Iv  Tuj  Kojvti.  So  Theod.  Dan.  xii. 
7  ;   but  LXX.,  lopoae  tov  ^Uivra. 

(3)  Rev.  xii.  7  :  MtY"*?-^  •  •  •  '''^^  TroXifxt)(Tai.  Iheod. 
has  also  tov  TroXtpri<rai  (Dan.  x.  20)  ;   but  LXX.,  ^lapa- 

XfOrOat,   without  TOV. 

(4)  Rev.  xiii.  7  :  iroXifiov  piTo.  tCjv  ayiojv.  So 
Theod.  (Dan.  vii.  21)  ;  but  LXX.  irphg  Tovg  aylovg. 

(5)  Rev.  xix.  6  :  (jiujvri  oxXou.  So  Theod.  (Dan.  x. 
6) ;  but  LXX.,  (pojvi)  Qopv^ov. 

(6)  Rev.  XX.  4,  and  Dan.  vii.  9.  Apoc.  and  Theod. 
have  KpXpa  :    LXX.,  K^iaig. 

(7)  Rev.  XX.  1 1  :  TOTTog  ovk  evptOr)  avroTg.  So  Theod. 
(Dan.  ii.  35);  but  LXX.,  locrTS  pn^lv  KaTuXti^Oiivai  l^  avTwv. 

If  the  first  or  the  last  of  these  examples  had  been 
found  in  Hermas,  instead  of  in  the  Apocalypse,  it  would 
certainly  have  been  regarded  as  affording  positive  proof 
that  Hermas  used  Theodotion.  In  the  present  case  it 
may  be  said  that  St.  John  was  not  under  the  necessity  of 
using  any  version,  and  could  have  translated  for  himself 
from  the  Chaldee.  And  so,  no  doubt,  he  could.  And 
yet,  I  think  nothing  but  a  strong  preconceived  opinion 
that  there  was  no  other  version  than  the  LXX.  which 
St.  John  could  have  used,  would  prevent  the  conclusion 
from  being  drawn  that  he  actually  does  use  a  different 
version.  The  author  of  the  Apocalypse  did  not  write 
Greek  with  such  facility  that  he  should  scorn  to  use  the 


664  Note  on  Hennas  and  Theodotion. 

help  of  a  Greek  translation  ;  and  in  fact,  in  the  case 
of  other  books  of  Scripture,  he  shows  himself  ac- 
quainted with  the  Greek  Bible.  I  think  that  some  of 
the  coincidences  noted  above,  between  St.  John  and 
Theodotion,  especially  the  row  TroXf/xJjo-ai  of  No.  (3),  are 
more  than  accidental ;  but  that  St.  John  used  a  transla- 
tion of  some  kind  appears'fmore  clearly  from  the  very 
numerous  passages  where  Theodotion  and  LXX.  agree, 
and  St.  John  agrees  "with  both — a  thing  not  likely  to 
happen  so  often  if  he  was  translating  independently. 
But  if  St.  John  used  a  translation,  that  translation  was 
not  the  LXX.,  with  which  he  gives  no  clear  sign  of 
agreement.  I  find  instances  which  may  induce  us  to 
think  that  the  version  employed  by  St.  John  was  not 
identical  with  Theodotion's,  but  scarcely  anything  to 
show  that  it  was  the  Septuagint.  I  only  notice  two 
cases  where,  on  a  comparison  of  the  Apocalypse  with 
the  LXX.  and  Theodotion,  the  advantage  seems  to  be 
on  the  side  of  the  LXX.     These  passages  are  : — 

(1)  Rev.  i.  14  :  17  Kf^aXrj  avTOV  Kor  ax  T^iyi.q  XfUKai  wc 
spiov  XtVKOv,  OJQ  X'^'^^y  '^"^  ^'  600aAjuot  avrov  wg  (pXo^TTvpoq  kuX 
01  TToSec  avTOv  ofxoioi  ^^aXicoAtjSavtjt.  Dan.  vii.  9,  (LXX.) 
txiov  7repi(5oXrjv  loasl  \t6va  Ka\  to  rpixivfia  Trjg  Kt^aXijc  avrov 
wo-fi  epiov  XevKOV  KaOapov'  (Theod.)  to  evEvfxa  avTov  Xeukov 
(jj(TH  X""J^'>  '^"^  ''I  ^pi-^  ■'"^/C  K£(j>aXriQ  avTOV  wcral  epiov  KuOapov. 
Dan.  X.  6,  (LXX.)  ot  ocpdaXfxol  avTOv  waCi  XaiunraSsg  irvpog 
.  .  .  KOI  01  TToSeg  ojatl  ^^aXicoc  e^aaTpcnrTwv'  (Theod.j  ot 
6^0aX/uoi  avTOv  waeX  Xafxira^ag  irvpog  .  .  .  kuI  to.  (TKeXr)  wg 
6pa(Tig  x^Xkov  (TriXjSovTOC. 

(2)  Rev.  xix.  16,  (damXivg  (SaniXiiov  koi  Kvpiog  KVpi(i>v. 
So  LXX.  (Dan.  iv.  31),  Oebg  tCjv  Oeivv  kqI  Kvpiog  tiov 
Kvpiwv  Koi  fdaaiXtiig  tCjv  (SatnXiwv,  to  which  there  is 
nothing  corresponding  in  Chaldee  or  Theodotion.  The 
former  example  proves,  if  proof  were  necessary,  that 
St.  John  was  not  dependent  on  Theodotion's  version  ; 


What  Version  used  in  First  Century  ?        665 


but  does  not  prove  that  he  used  the  LXX.  I  do  not 
know  that  any  stronger  proof  of  that  can  be  given  than 
whatever  the  latter  example  affords. 

Dr.  Gwynn  has  also  examined  the  use  made 
of  Daniel  in  other  N.  T.  books,  and  still  with  the 
result  that  that  use  cannot  be  accounted  for  on 
the  supposition  that  the  N.  T.  writers  used  only  the 
Septuagint  version  of  Daniel.  For  example,  the  words 
KaTa(SKr\vovv  and  \v  toXq  kXclBoiq^  which  occur  Matt.  xiii. 
2,2,  are  found  in  Theodotion's  version  of  Dan.  iv.  7  ; 
but  not  in  the  LXX.,  which  instead  of  KaTi<TKiivovv  has 

£J/0(TCr£UOV. 

Again,  Clement  of  Rome  [c.  34)  quotes  Dan.  viii.  10: 
'  Ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  stood  before  him,  and 
thousand  thousands  ministered  unto  him ' ;  and  for 
*  ministered'  he  has  Theodotion's  word  iXnTovp'^ovVi  not 
the  LXX.  lOiQair^vov. 

Further,  the  Apocryphal  Book  of  Baruch  contains 
several  verses  taken  from  Dan.  ix. ;  Baruch  i.  15-18, 
being  nearly  identical  with  Dan.  ix.  7-10,  and  Baruch 
ii.  11-16,  with  Dan.  ix.  15-18.  Some  critics  bring  down 
this  book  as  late  as  the  reign  of  Vespasian,  but  none 
bring  it  later.  Now,  on  comparing  the  passages,  Baruch 
is  found  to  be  considerably  nearer  Theodotion  than  the 
LXX.  Thus,  taking  the  latter  passage : — 
Bar.  ii.  11.  oq  l^iiyayeg  tov  Xaov  aov  ek  yrig  Alyvirrov. 
So  Theod,      But  LXX.,    6    l^ayaywv   TOV   Xaov   <JOV    £K   yrjg 

AlyVTTTOV. 

Bar.  iTToiriaag  (teuvtio  ovofxa  wg  r}  rifxepa  avrr]. 

So  Theod.      But  LXX.,  kutu  riiv  riixspav  TavTr}v. 

Bar.  ii.  14.     ilaaKovcjov   Kvpie.      So   Theod.      But  LXX., 

EiraKovcTOV    SicnroTa. 
Bar.  ii.  i6.     kXIvov  to  ovg  aov.     So  Theod.     But  LXX., 

7rpo<TX£C>  instead  of  KXtvov. 


666  Note  on  Hernias  and  Theodotmi. 

The  instances  adduced  not  only  clearly  prove  all  I 
want  to  establish,  namely,  that  coincidences  with  Theo- 
dotion's  version  do  not  prove  that  a  document  is  not  as 
early  as  the  first  century ;  but  they  seem  to  point  dis- 
tinctly to  the  existence  in  that  century  of  a  version  of 
the  Book  of  Daniel  having  closer  affinities  with  Theodo- 
tion's  than  with  the  LXX. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  is  nothing  a 
priori  improbable  in  the  supposition  that  the  Septuagint 
was  not  the  only  medium  through  which,  until  a  century 
after  Christ,  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  known  to  those  who 
spoke  only  Greek.  The  version  of  Daniel  so  called  is 
rather  a  free  reproduction  than  a  translation,  bearing  to 
Theodotion's  version  the  same  relation  that  the  Apocry- 
phal First  Book  of  Esdras  bears  to  the  corresponding 
portions  of  the  Canonical  Scriptures.*  The  wonder  is, 
not  that  it  should  ultimately  come  to  be  superseded 
by  a  different  version,  but  that  it  should  ever  have  been 
known  among  Christians  by  the  honoured  title  of  the 
Septuagint  ;  since  nobody  now  supposes  it  to  have  been 
the  work  of  the  same  hands  as  those  by  which  any  of 
the  other  books  of  Scripture  were  rendered. 

But  I  have  my  doubts  whether,  instead  of  propound- 
ing the  question  when  and  how  the  Septuagint  version  of 
Daniel  came  to  be  superseded  by  Theodotion's,  we  ought 
not  rather  to  inquire  how,  when,  and  where  the  Chigi 
version  came  to  be  taken  for  the  Septuagint.  In  fact, 
the  received  opinion  of  a  silent  rejection  of  the  LXX. 
version  is  attended  with  great  difficulties.  The  interval 
between  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  does  not  put  much 
more  than  thirty  years  at  our  disposal  in  accounting  for 
the  change.     Irenseus  (III.  xxi.)   believed  in  the  divine 

*  This  book  has  one  remarkable  coincidence  with  the  LXX.  Daniel  : 
a.ir7]pei(xaT0    avra  iv  Tij3  eiSaiAeio)  avTov  (l  Esd.  ii.  10;  Dan.  i.  2). 


Was  the  Chigi  Daniel  always  taken  for  the  LXX?  667 

inspiration  of  the  Seventy  interpreters.  Does  it  seem 
likely  that  he  would  cast  away  a  portion  of  what  he 
believed  to  be  their  work  without  a  word  of  explanation? 
Is  it  not  strange,  too,  that  the  upstart  version  should 
meet  as  much  acceptance  in  Alexandria  as  in  Gaul  ? 
And  is  it  not  strange,  too,  that  it  should  be  Theodotion, 
who  of  all  the  ancient  interpreters  followed  most  closely 
the  lines  of  the  LXX.,  and  is  supposed  to  have  been 
least  acquainted  with  Hebrew  or  Chaldee,  who  should 
have  cast  the  LXX.  completely  aside,  and  made  a 
totally  independent  translation  r  I  am  therefore  dis- 
posed to  believe  that  Theodotion  followed  the  lines  of 
an  older  version,*  and  that  this  was  the  one  used  by 
Irenaeus.  A  temporary  and  partial  currency  of  the 
Chigi  version  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  Justin 
Martyr  was  led  to  regard  it  as  due  to  the  labours  of  the 
Seventy  interpreters.  In  that  belief  he  would,  no  doubt, 
exclusively  use  it ;  and  it  may  have  been  from  him  that 
the  Latin  Church  imbibed  the  same  belief;  but  the  fact 
that  this  alleged  LXX.  version  failed  to  obtain  universal 
adoption  in  the  Church  seems  most  simply  accounted  for 
by  the  supposition  that  another  version  had  had  prior 
possession  too  strong  to  be  disturbed. 

If  this  supposition  be  thought  too  bold ;  and  if  the 
LXX.  version  be  believed  to  be  the  earliest  translation 
of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  it  is  still  hard  to  believe  that 

*  Dr.  Gwynn  has  noted  a  verse  (x.  6)  in  the  LXX.  Daniel,  which  affords 
ground  for  a  suspicion  that  it  was  based  on  a  foniier  version,  in  points  at  least 
approaching  to  Theodotion's.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Hebrew  corresponding 
to  tJ)  (TTiiyito  avTov  wtrei  daXdcrarjs ;  but  this  rendering  might  be  accounted  for  as 
an  editorial  re-writing  of  tJ»  ffwixa  avrov  oxrel  daptris,  a  literal  rendering  of  the 
Hebrew  preserved  by  Theodotion.  The  rendering  of  Tharshish  by  Qa,\a,a<ra, 
though  quite  exceptional  in  the  LXX.,  is  found  once,  Is.  ii.  i6,  and  has 
rabbinical  authority ;  see  also  Jerome's  Commentary  in  loc. ;  but  it  seems 
impossible  to  account  for  aroiJ-a,  except  as  a  corruption  of  aoifxa. 


668  Note  on  Hernias  and  Theodotion. 

it  could  long  have  remained  the  only  one.  If  this 
was  the  only  translation  known  to  St.  John,  he  must 
have  deliberately  rejected  it,  and  preferred  to  render  for 
himself  And  such  a  course  would  certainly  be  adopted 
by  any  Jew  who  was  able  to  read  the  original,  and 
who  at  all  valued  faithfulness  of  translation.  Is  it  then 
intrinsically  probable  that  for  centuries  every  Jew  com- 
petent to  ascertain  the  fact  kept  to  himself  his  know- 
ledge of  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  current  version  ;  and 
that  none  had  the  charity  to  make  a  better  version  for 
the  use  of  his  Greek-speaking  brethren  ?  On  the  other 
hand,  is  it  very  improbable  that  such  a  version,  if  made, 
should  now  only  live  for  us  in  its  successors,  as  Tyndale's 
translation  lives  for  us  in  the  Authorized  English  version  ? 
It  is  not  necessary  for  my  purpose  that  we  should 
arrive  at  any  certain  conclusion,  as  to  whether  or  not 
there  existed  in  the  first  Christian  century  any  transla- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Daniel  but  the  Septuagint.  All  I 
want  is  to  establish  that  we  really  know  very  little  on 
the  subject  of  first  century  Greek  translations.  If,  then, 
it  can  be  established  on  other  grounds  that  the  Book  of 
Hermas  belongs  to  the  early  part  of  the  second  century, 
no  reason  for  rejecting  that  date  is  afforded  by  the  fact 
that  we  find  in  the  book  a  verse  of  Daniel  quoted  in  a 
form  for  which  the  Septuagint  will  not  account. 


INDEX 


PERSONS     AND     SUBJECTS. 


Abbot,  Ezra,  Dr.,  73,  86,  90,  94,  101.* 

Abbott,  Edwin  A.,  Dr.,  on  Fourth  Gos- 
pel, 94 ;  on  Encratism,  97 ;  on  Synoptic 
Gospels,  173,  177-180  ;  on  2  Peter, 
617,  626-652. 

Abgar  legend,  238,  411-414,  596. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles  ;  see  Contents, 
Lecture  xviii. 

Adams,  Professor,  316. 

Addai,  99,  411,  435. 

Adulteress,  pericope  of,  116,  196. 

^non,  321. 

African  Church  ;  its  language,  54. 

Alexandria,  530. 

Alford,  Dean,  159,  168,  398,  635. 

Alogi,  271. 

Ambrose,  415. 

Amen,  the  Christian,  429. 

Ammonius,  harmony  of,  100. 

Amphilochius,  594. 

'AvayevuTiiTis,  358,  650. 

'Avd\v(ris,  495. 

Anastasitis  Sinaita,  314. 

Anatolius,  602. 

Andrew,  Acts  of,  439. 

Anger,  131,  218. 

Anicetus,  310. 

Anne,  mother  of  Virgin,  229. 

Antitheses  of  Marcion,  242. 

Apelles,  Gnostic,  209. 


Apocalypse  of  John  ;  see  Contents,  Lec- 
tures III.,  XII.,  XIII.,  XIV. ;  and  for  its 
use  of  Daniel,  p.  662,  663. 

ofFeter,  268,  616,  617. 

of  Baruch,  269. 

Apocryphal  Gospels,  44,  143,  195,  Lec- 
ture XI. 

Acts,  Lect.  XIX. 

Apocrypha,  Jewish,  601. 

Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis,  313. 

of  Laodicea,  368,  601. 

Apolloniiis,  424. 

Apollos,  88,  527,  533. 

Apostles,  false,  38. 

Apostolic  Constitutions,  427,  602. 

Aquila,  636,  656-658. 

Aramaic,  140,  170,  194,  630. 

Archippiis,  468,  469. 

'Aperrj,  648. 

Aringhi,  549. 

Aristarchtis,  468,  507. 

Aristion,  108,  331. 

Arnold,  Matthew,  73. 

Artemon,  66. 

Ascension  of  our  Lord;  believed  Ly 
early  Church,  193  ;  recognized  in 
Fourth  Gospel,  345,  358  ;  in  the 
Apocalypse,  359 ;  previous  relation 
of,  known  to  St.  John,  361. 

Assumption  B.  V.  31.,  446. 

of  Moses,  601. 


Since  these  pages  were  printed,  Dr.  Abbot  has  died. 


670 


Index  to  Persons  and  Subjects. 


Athanasius,  515,  594,  610. 

Pscudo-,  337,  601. 

Athenagoras,  95. 

Augustine,  152,  185,  210,  252,415,  424, 

445,  519,  591,  601,  602. 
Autoptic    touches    in   Mark,    185  ;    in 

Fourth  Gospel,  328. 

B. 

liabooism,  626-638. 

Babylon,  the  name  how  used,  546,  550. 

Balaam,  alleged  nickname  for  St.  Paul, 

33. 
Baptism,  not  directly  mentioned  by  St. 

John,  358;   female,  414;   lay,  418; 

Gnostic  administration  of,  428. 
Baptist,  prominent  in  Fourth  Gospel 

327. 
Barcoehba,  592. 
I'ardenhewer,  659. 
Barnabas,  383,  386,  518,  527-534. 

Epistle  of,  129,  537,  539,  613. 

Barsalibi,  100,  101. 
Jlartholomew,  197- 
Baruch,  Book  of,  665. 

Apocalypse  of,  269. 

Bisil,  464,  606. 

Busilides,  69,  73,  125,  490,  541,  609. 

liiiur,  10,  16 ;  his  Canon,  29,  148,  260, 

263,  264;    on  Mark,   186;  on  Acts, 

395 ;    on  Paschal  disputes,  304  ;    on 

Pauline  Epistles,  456-8,  465-9,  477, 

489. 
Baur's  theory  of  early  Church  History, 

Lect.  II.,  381-7,  434,  481,  489,  523, 

534,  556,  574-8. 
Binst,  of  Apocalypse,  32,  267,  290-1. 
Beasts,  foiu',  47. 
miracles    on,   in   Gnostic   Acts, 

430. 


Bede,  588. 

Senary,  291. 

Bentley,  5,  8. 

Beroea,  198. 

Birthplace  of  our  Lord,  342. 

Bishops  and  Beacons,  466. 

Blastiis,  314. 

Bonnet,  408. 

Borrowing,  literary,  160,  622. 

Boycotting,  298. 

Brethren  of  our  Lord,  595. 

Bruce,  603. 

Bugs,  story  of,  442. 

Bunsen,  59. 

Burgon,*  Dean,  103. 

Byrrhus,  445. 

Byzantium,  439. 


C. 

Gaiaphas,  320,  348. 

C«iMs,of  Rome,  60,  62,  65-67,270,  392, 

438,  516,  549. 

of  3rd  John,  337. 

Calvin,  512,  521,  607. 

Gano72,   how  formed,  144,   150,  227, 

589-592,  605,  610,  621. 
Garpocrates,  598. 
Garthage,  Coimcil  of,  519,  621. 
Gaspari,  317. 

Gassiodorus,  561,  607,  609,  612. 
Gataeombs,  53,  438,  549. 
Gatholic  Ghureh,  485-488. 
Gatholic  Epistles,  559. 
Gave,  our  Lord's  birth  in  a,  85,  230. 
Gephas,  345. 
Geriani,  269,  601. 
Cerinthiis,  34,  270-3. 
Ghagigah,  306. 
Gherubim  and  the  Gospels,  47. 
Ghigi  version  of  Daniel,  656-668. 


■^  I  did  not  name  Dean  Burgon,  p.  igo,  in  connexion  with  the  last  twelve  verses  of  St. 
Mark,  because  so  many  make  the  view  they  hold  on  that  subject  a  mere  question  of 
authority,  that  I  was  desirous  to  state  arguments  only,  avoiding,  as  much  as  possible,  the 
mention  of  names. 


Index  to  Persons  and  Subjects. 


671 


Chiliasm,  270,  272. 

Ghristology,  of  Fourth  Gospel,  256  ;  of 
Synoptic  Gospels,  258  ;  of  Apocalypse, 
261,  278  ;  of  St.  Paul,  264,  471  ;  of 
St  James,  584. 

Chrysostom,  305,  415,  500,  606,  635. 

Church  (see  Catholic). 

Circumcision,  a  title  of  honour  with  St. 
Paul,  37. 

dement  of  Alexandria,  50,  61,  53,  58, 
72,  111,  132,209,  232,  239-241,252, 
305,  333,  366,  392,  424,  432-434, 
440-1,  460,  465-7,  475,  488,  490, 
513,  520,  540-542,  548,  560,  561, 
565,  593,  598,  601-2,  609,  612,  617, 
660. 

of  Rome,  25,  39,  53,  105,  127, 

367,  389,  460,  475,  489,  500,  508, 
513,  516,  520,  540-1,  563,  617,  650, 
665. 

his    second  Epistle,   so  called, 

242,  475,  488. 

Clementines, '2s,QM(!iO-,  17-24,  91,  93,  204, 
424,  434,  530,  544,  564,  578,  603, 
614,  628 ;  their  N.  T.  quotations, 
207-209. 

Codex  >ii,  191,  351,  365,  366,  464,  610, 
617,  637,  639. 

A,  617,  637,  650. 

B,  191,  365,  366,  464,  519,  610, 

637,  639. 

C,  365,  637. 

D,  373. 

L,  193,  637. 

Augiensis,  537. 

Aureus,  446. 

CMsianus,  656. 

Claromontanus,  537,  610,  617. 

Coincidences,  John  and  Synoptics,  360. 

John  and  Paul,  487. 

Acts  and  Epistles,  396,  402, 

557. 

Peter  and  Paul,  551. 

Peter  and  James,  556. 

Luke  and  Josephus,  406,  407. 


Coincidences,  2  Peter  and  Josephus,  639- 
652, 

N.  T.  and  Philo,  645-652. 

Colossians,  467-480. 

Commentary,  earliest  N.  T.,  72. 

Contradictions  between  Fourth  Gospel 
and  Synoptics,  341  ;  do  not  disprove 
early  date,  306. 

Controversies,  dying  out  of,  482. 

Cony  bear  e,  452. 

Corinthians,  Epistles  to,  401. 

Corrections  of  N.  T.  text  in  third  cen- 
tury, 67. 

Cotterill,  Mr.,  650. 

Cross,  Gnostic  cult  of,  441. 

Cross-references  in  Acts,  375. 

Croion  of  Life,  263,  570. 

Cumming,  Dr.,  296. 

Cureton,  223. 

Cyprian,  190,  439,  611,  661 ;  Pseudo-^ 
433. 

Cyprus,  403,  530. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  587. 

of  Jerusalem,  426-8,  610. 

Cythnos,  289. 

D. 

Damasus,  549,  596. 

Davidson,  Dr.,  8,  250,  280,  366,  369, 
377,  379,  387,  396,  450,  456-458, 
465,  467,  472-4,  477,  483,  495,  503, 
512,  612. 

Decretal  Epistles,  8,  323. 

Bemas,  416,  467,  506. 

Be  Morgan,  Professor,  315. 

Berenbourg,  571. 

Be  Rossi,  549. 

Berry,  Bishop  of,  249,  466. 

Bevelopment  of  doctrine,  583. 

Be  Wette,  342,  380,  478. 

Biatessaron,  96,  99-103,  414. 

Bidache,  335,  587. 

Bidymus,  594,  601,  609. 

Billmann,  603. 


672 


Index  to  Persons  and  Subjects. 


Biodorus,  103. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  32,  266,  272- 
277,  331,  515,  540. 

of  Corinth,  267,  368,  549. 

Barsalibi,  100. 

Dioscorides,  634. 
DiotrepAes,  337. 
Dismas  a>id  Gestas,  239. 
Dinpet'sioii,  what,  550,  567. 
Discourses  of  our  Lord  unique,  136. 
Divinity   of   our  Lord,    taught  by  St. 

John,  256  ;  asserted  hy  himself,  258, 

355. 
Docetism,  232,  234,  337,  431,  441. 
*  Domine  quo  vadis,''  437. 
Dressel,  92. 
Drummond,  89,  94. 
Duchesne,  549. 

E. 

Easter  contvoversics,  308. 

Ebed  Jesu,  607. 

Ebionites,  meaning  of  word,  203,  672 ; 

two  kinds,  22;    their  Gospel,   203; 

their  Acts,  433  ;  opposed  by  St.  John, 

444. 
Edersheim,  304. 
Edessa,  20,  99,  411,432. 
Edinburgh  Revietv,  290,  294. 
Egyptians,    Gospel    according  to,    51, 

240-1. 
Eichhorn,  176. 
Ekutherus,  474. 
Elkcsai,  23,  203,  474. 
EUicott,  Bishop,  452. 
Encratism,  97,  240-1,  410,  415,  430-2, 

442,  490. 
Enoch,  594,  602. 
Eothen,  373. 
Epaphras,  467. 
Epaphroditus,  466. 
Ep/icsHs,  33,  275,  416-8. 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to,  464,  475-488. 
Ephraem  Syras,  100,  101,  564,  594. 


'ETrlyvaiffis,  495. 
'EirioiKTios,  214. 

Epiphanitis,  20,  178, 198,  203-7,  231-2, 
238,  243,   271,   294,  415,   445,  597, 

609,  656. 
'Eirt(pa,veia,  495. 
Episcopacy,  337,  466,  510. 
Episenwn,  300. 
Erasmus,  512,  607-8. 

Eucharist,  institution  not  recorded  by 
St.  John,  353;  Christian  belief  in, 
355  ;  evidential  value  of,  354  ;  Gnos- 
tic rites,  428. 

Eusebius,  60,  100,  105,  113,  190,  202, 
214,  271,  330,  411,  415,  489,  538- 
540,  547,  559,   560,  562,  593,  606, 

610,  645. 
Evodius,  601. 
Ewald,  503. 
'E^epafia,  636. 
"E^oSos,  614,  647. 
Ez)iig,  541. 

F. 

Eabricius,  408. 

i^«jT«?-,  Archdeacon,  290-291,  294,  301, 

452,  640. 
Feasts,  Jewish,  in  John's  Gospel,  318. 
Firmilian,  473,  Oil. 
FitzGerald,  Bishop,  82,  206,  300,  399, 

641. 
Florinus,  45. 
Forgery,  620. 
Friend  of  God,  563. 
Fritzsche,  269,  291,  602. 
Furueauz,  6. 

G. 

Galatians,  Epistle  to,  400. 
Galen,  407,  414. 
Gamaliel,  435. 
Gelasius,  Pope,  596. 

of  Cyzicus,  601. 

Genealogies  omitted  by  Tatian,  100. 


Index  to  Persons  and  Subjects. 


673 


Gentiles,  their  admission  iuto  the  Church, 
385,  483. 

Gieseler,  252. 

Glaucias,  609. 

Gnosticism  ;  date  of  commencement, 
472-3;  two  types  of,  420,  599  ;  Gnos- 
tic use  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  95 ;  cult 
of  cross,  441  ;  Acts,  410,  419;  mira- 
cles, 442  ;  tale  about  Hades,  641  ; 
story  of  death  of  Zacharias,  232. 

Gobar,  Stephen,  517. 

Godet,  187,  301. 

Gospels,  why  four,  46;  meaning  of 
word,  148;  'according- to,'  131;  lost 
Gospel  80  ;  genesis  of,  155  ;  their 
publication  prehistorical,  147  ;  see 
Apocryphal. 

Greek,  the  language  of  early  Roman 
Church,  53,  65 ;  whether  spoken  in 
Holy  Land,  221  ;  of  N.  T.,  283,  579, 
631,  653. 

Gregory  the  Great,  549. 

'—  Nazianzen,  415. 

Nyssen,  231,  415. 

Grotius,  456,  618. 

Giindaphorns,  424. 

Giitschmid,  421,  424. 

Gtvynn,  Dr.,  351,  405,  495,  635,  638, 
641,  650,  652,  662,  665,  667. 


H. 

Hades,  238,  412,  541-2. 

Hapax  legomena,  624,  642,  648. 

Harmony  of  Gospels,  99-101,  123. 

Harnack,  102,  109,  127,  530. 

Harris,  Rvndel,  Mr.,  617,  654. 

Harvey,  656. 

Hausrath,  503. 

Hebrew,  alleged  original  language  of  St. 
Matthew,  110,  111,  194-226;  words 
preserved  by  St.  Mark  only,  83. 

Hebrews,  Gospel  according  to,  539  ; 
Lect.  X. 

Epistle  to,  619  ;  Lect.  xxi. 


HegcsippHs,  59,  220,  473-4,  489,  565, 
573,  695-7. 

Hell ;  see  Hades. 

Hellenists,  53,  530,  630. 

Heracleon,  T2,  98,  431-2. 

Heretic,  493. 

Heretical  testimony  to  Gospels,  68  ; 
Gospels,  226,  &c. 

Hernias,  53,  58,  136,  367,  476,  487,  518, 
539,  541-2,  562,  617,  654-668. 

Hermogenes,  416. 

Herodotus,  428,  628. 

Heumann,  301. 

Hilgenfeld,  84,  92,  122,  129,  212,  220, 
228,  233,  350,  406,  434,  450,  468, 
465-7,  480,  512,  554,  602,  612. 

Hippocrates,  407,  636. 

Hippolytus,  62,  65,  67-71,  236,  238-9, 
242,  270,  305,  316,  437,  486,  617, 
541,  564,  615,  659. 

Hitzig,  291. 

Hohart,  Dr.,  173,  406. 

Holsten,  454. 

Holtzmann,  406,  479,  480,  552. 

Holy  Ghost,  the  name  feminine  in  Ara- 
maic, 211-12. 

Hone,  226. 

Hooykaas,  339,  370,  373. 

Hope,  Apostle  of,  557. 

Hort,  Dr.,  73,  76,  190,  530,  654,  656. 

Hospitality  of  Christians,  335. 

Howson,  Dean,  452. 

Hug,  252,  566. 

Hugo,  Victor,  293,  689. 

Hystaspes,  434. 


Iconium,  405,  415. 

Iconoclasts,  440. 

"iStos,  635. 

Ignatius,  25,  113,  219,  220,  355,  367, 

445,  460,  476. 
Inaccuracy  of  quotations,  82,  160. 


2  X 


674 


Index  to  PersoJis  and  Subjects. 


Inspiration  of  Scripture,  2,  3,  46,  65, 
67,  72,  153,  604. 

Irenceus,  44-50,  58,  63-5,  78,  82,  95-6, 
106,  109,  132,  236,  240,  252,  267, 
293-4,  299,  300,  310,  333,  366,  429, 
436,  460,  467,  475,  486-8,  508,  517, 
540-1,  564,  602,  612,  658,  659. 

Irish  Revisers,  C.  P.,  90. 

Irony  of  St.  John,  347. 


J. 

James,  the  Lord's  brother,  210,  400, 
435,  565,  574,  585,  595. 

Epistle  of ;  Lect.  xxiii. 

— -  Gospel  of,  143,  229-233. 

Jeremiah,  Pseudo-,  542. 

Jerome,  103,  152,  198,  215,  217,  219, 
232,  271,  334,  393,  419,  429,  444, 
462,  490,  518,  559,  594,  597-8,  601, 
605-6,  609,  626,  654. 

Pseudo-,  410. 

Jerusalem,  how  often  visited  by  our 
Lord,  362-5  ;  its  bishop,  565,  592. 

Jews,  the  phrase,  28,  320,  455 ;  its  use 
by  St.  Paul,  37. 

Jewish  Christians  fraternized  with  un- 
converted brethren,  311. 

Jeivish  hostility  to  Chi'istians,  38,  592. 

Joachim,  229. 

John  the  Baptist  (see  Baptist). 

John  the  Apostle,  not  mentioned  in 
Fourth  Gospel,  74,  332  ;  whether 
visited  Asia,  333  ;  whether  visited 
Rome,  302,  338;  knew  of  other 
Gospels,  351 ;  John  and  the  robber, 
440. 

John,  Gospel  according  to,  see  Lectures 

XII.-XVII. 

the  First  Epistle,  249-252,  625. 

the  Second  and  Third,  333-340. 

Acts  of  John,  440-446. 

John  the  Elder,  109,  274,  330-334. 
Jortin,  T21. 


Josephus,  170,  222,  305,  308,  320,  323, 
406-7,  546,  567,  571,  614,  638-652. 

Judas  Iscariot,  368. 

Thomas,  412,  423,  432. 

Jude,  Epistle  of,  Lect.  xxiv. 

Julian,  Emperor,  587. 

the  Pelagian,  210. 

Junilius,  606. 

Justin  Martijr,  69,  76-97,  111,  122, 
132,  187,  232,  236-7-9,  246,  266, 
356,  358,  429,  434-436,  467,  473, 
513,  542,  567,  587,  592,  603,  612, 
660,  667. 

Justus  Barsahas,  368,  445. 

Juvenal,  111,  686. 


K. 

Kaiffuv,  566,  628. 

Keble,  278. 
Keim,  218,  333,  544. 
Kihn,  606. 
Klostermann,  187. 
Krenhel,  407. 


L. 

Lactantius,  434. 

Lamb,  as  title  of  our  Lord,  278. 

Laodicea,  Paschal  disputes  at,  312. 

Council  of,  621. 

Laodiceans,  Epistle  to,  244,  462,  465. 
Latin  translation  N.  T.,  52. 

words  in  St.  Mark.  53. 

Laurence,  Archbishop,  603. 

Leathes,  Stanley,  Dr.,  281. 

Lee,  Archdeacon,  263. 

Lee's  "  Theophaneia,"  214. 

Lekebusch,  396. 

Leucius  Charinus,  295,  422,   440,  445, 

449. 
Leusden,  624. 
Leioin,  Mr.,  452. 


Index  to  Persons  and  Subjects, 


675 


Lightfoot,    Bishop,   12,    22,    62,    101, 

105,    108,   110,    116,  121,  124,  126, 

214,   252,   337,  404,  452,  462,  465, 

472,  480,  551,  597-8. 

Linus,  508. 

lipsius,  44,   178,  218,   238,  408,  413, 

439,  449,  530,  546. 
Liturgical  use  of  Gospels,  112. 
Liturgy  of  Eome,  53. 
Logia  of  St.  Matthew,  114-119. 
Logos,  55,  86-8,  96,  278. 
Loman,  450. 
Longinus,  82. 

soldier,  239. 

Lost  Gospel,  80. 

Epistles,  461. 

Lots  drawn  by  Apostles,  423. 
Lucian,  522,  550. 
Lucifer  of  Cagliari,  594,  601. 
Lucina,  438. 

Luke,  his  literary  skill,  376 ;  his  medi- 
cal knowledge,  173  ;  his  principles  of 
selection,  391  ;  Luke  and  Philip,  392  ; 
his  means  of  information,  394  ;  shows 
no  knowledge  of  Paul's  Epistles,  400 ; 
not  named  in  mss.  as  author  of  Acts, 
372. 
Luke's    Gospel   not    anti-Jewish,    28  ; 

whether  known  to  Papias,  121. 
Lumby,  Dr.,  622,  625-6,  653. 
Luther,  295,  512,  521,  527,  576. 
Lydia,  465. 
Lyotis  (see  Vienne.) 


M. 

Macarius  Magnes,  193,  616. 
M'^GUllan,  Mr.,  304,  316. 
Mahaffy,  Professor,  98,  160,  470. 
Mahomet,  237. 
Mai,  214. 
Mulchion,  594. 


Man  of  Sin,  458,  460. 
Manichceans,  422,  424. 
Marcion,  20,  24,  72,  243-248,  367,  460, 

462,  465,  467,  475,  490,  516,  658. 
Marcus,  heretic,  429  ;  Marcosians,  659. 
Mark''s  Gospel,  not  an  abridgment  of 
Matthew's,  185;  its  relation  to  Peter, 
110,  183,  548;  its  Aramaic  words, 
83 ;  its  Latin  words,  53 ;  its  sup- 
posed original,  114;  its  autoptic 
touches,  184;  occasion  of  composi- 
tion, 547;  its  accuracy  asserted  by 
Papias,    119. 

Last  twelve  verses  of,   188- 

193. 
Marsh,  Bishop,  176. 
Martin  of  Tours,  9. 
Martyrdom  of  Paul,  389,  437,  438;  of 

Peter,  549. 
Masoretic  text,  65. 

Mattheiv's  Gospel,  not  anti-Pauline,  27  ; 
independent  of  Luke's,  167  ;  its  sup- 
posed original,  118;  whether  written 
in  Hebrew,  Lect.  x. 
Matthew,  Pseudo-,  233. 
Mayerhoff,  479. 
Melito   of  Sardis,  312,  314,   431,  615. 

Pseudo-,  410,  449. 

Memoriter  quotations,  129. 

Menander,  heretic,  436. 

Methodius,  415,  616. 

Meyer,  168. 

Michael,  Archangel,  601. 

Michaelis,  176. 

Milan,  530. 

Millennarianism,  272. 

Minucius  Felix,  616. 

Miracles,  7,  95,  180,  379. 

Moesinger,  101. 

Mommsen,  438. 

Money-changers,  Be  j'e  good,   23,  209, 

219,  451. 
Montanism,  60,  62,  517. 
Morality,  Christian,  686. 
Jfoscs,  Assumption  of,  601. 


2  'K  2 


676 


Index  to  Persons  and  Subjects. 


Muratorian  Fragment,  57-64,  252,  268, 
366-7,  390-1,  443,  460,  475,  488, 
.')00,  542,  564,  593,  611,  656. 

Mnrphy,  J.  J.,  Mr.,  265. 


N. 

Nazarenes,  204. 
Neander,  472,  660. 
Nepos,  273. 

Nero,  288-302,  437,  500. 
Niccea,  Council  of,  227. 

second  Council,  440. 

Mcephorus,  210,  236,  422,  601,  617. 
mcodemm,  Gospel  of,  143,  237,  412. 
Nicholson,  209,  220. 
Nieolaus,  33. 


Oil,  427,  444. 

Olshausen,  640. 

Omissions  of  Fourtli  Gospel,  75,  341- 
362. 

Onesimus,  467. 

Onesiphorus,  415,  509. 

Ophites,  487. 

Orlgen,  58,  72,  203,  211,  213-14,  220, 
231,  236,  272,  333,  423,  439,  444, 
464,  514,  526,  541,  560,  593,  597, 
601-2,  610,  615,  655,  659,  662. 

Oi^erheck,  380,  659. 


I',ifesfuic,  known  to  Fourtli  Evangelist, 

321. 
Paley,  22,  452,  477,  524. 
I'autcenus,  50,  197,  514. 
I'.rplas,  74,  96,  104-126,  132,  141,  190, 

194,  190,  252,  267,  269,  330,  368,  392, 

445,  541,  547-8. 
J'lirallel  between  Peter  and  Paul,  387. 
r,irthia,  289. 


Parthians,  Epistle  to,  252. 

Paschal  Chronicle,  108,  305,  313,  657. 

Controversies,  308. 

Passover,  whether  eaten  at  Last  Supper, 
304-317. 

Pastoral  Epistles,  244,  488-511. 

Paul  the  Apostle,  his  personal  appear- 
ance, 416  ;  report  of  his  speeches  in 
the  Acts  395-8  ;  whether  released 
from  Roman  imprisonment,  499 
martyrdom,  day  of,  437,  438,  549 ; 
Paul  and  Simon  Magus,  19;  Paul 
and  John,  265 ;  Paul  and  Peter, 
387. 

Pauline  Epistles,  41,  450-511 ;  whether 
known  to  Luke,  400. 

Paulinisfs  and  anti-Paulinists,  20,  401 
(see  Baiir's  theory). 

Paulinism,  of  Apocalypse,  32-39,  276  ; 
of  Peter,  545. 

Paul  of  Nisibis,  606. 

Paulus,  13,  179. 

Pearce,  Bishop,  82. 

Peregrinus,  522,  6.30. 

Peshito,  270,  334,  515,  564,  568,  594, 
606. 

Peter  of  Alexandria,  231. 

Peter  the  Apostle,  his  character,  545 ; 
his  speeches  reported  in  the  Acts, 
402,  626  ;  his  Roman  episcopate,  19  ; 
his  martyrdom,  548. 

Jfe^er,  and  Mark,  110,  183,  548;  and 
John,   279,   338;    and   Paul,    387. 

the  First  Epistle,  110  ;  Lect.  xxii. 

the  Second  Epistle,  35  ;  Lect.  xxv. 

Peter,  Gospel  of,  231,  597. 

Acts  of,  432-440. 

Preaching  of,  23,  220,  424,  433. 

Apocalypse  of,  268,  617. 

Pfleiderer,  465,  503,  544. 
Pharisees,  in  Acts,  376. 
Philaster,  178,  271,  430. 
Philemon,  467-469. 
Philip,  392  ;  Acts  of,  432. 
Philippi,  399. 


Index  to  Persons  and  Subjects 


677 


ThiUppians,  Epistle  to,  465,  466. 

Millips,  Dr.,  99,  413. 

Fhilo,  88,  118,  305,  525,  546,  563,  567, 

614,616;  his  influence  on  N.T.Greek, 

645-652. 
Thotius,  210,  421,  430,  517,  560,  650. 
Fhrynichus,  173. 
Tilate,  Acts  of,  237. 
Fistis  Sophia,  443. 
Pius  I.,  of  Eome,  59. 
Flitiy,  404,  543,  586. 
Flumptre,  304,  526. 
Foison,  445. 
Folemo,  421. 
Folycarp,  25,  38,  45,  48,  96,  251,  310, 

333,  368,  438,   460,  476,  488,  513, 

540. 
Folycrates,  314,  392. 
Forphyry,  9,  241. 
Fothinus,  45. 
FreacJiing  Christ,  134. 
Froclus,  392. 
Froconsuls,  403. 
Frophet,  False  of  Revelation,  32,  291, 

298. 
Frotevmujelimn,  229-233,  597. 
Frotonice,  413. 
Frudentius,  437. 
Furists,  283. 


Q. 

Quarry,  Dr.,  414,  551,  615,  641. 
Quartodecimans,  303-315. 
Quotations,  0.  T.,  82,  175,  624,  662. 


R. 

Rahab,  579. 
Eaven,  Mr.,  627. 
Reeves,  Dean,  414. 
Regeneration,  89,  358,  050. 


Renan,  10,  30,  33,  92,  94,  97,  114-5, 
131,  135,  184,  218,  223,  234,  253, 
260,  278,  288-290,  317,  321,  33R, 
341-2,  349,  351-3,  356,  359,  362, 
366,  378,  416,  450,  452,  463-5-7, 
475-6-8,  488,  496,  500-2,  511,  531- 
2,  544-6,  652,  572,  598. 

Revelation  (see  Apocalypse). 

Reuss,  166,  291,  465,  498. 

Roberts,  222. 

Romans,  Epistle  to,  465  ;  its  use  in 
Hebrews,  525 ;  in  1  Peter,  551  ; 
whether  in  James,  581. 

Routh,  641. 

Royal  Law,  561. 

Rufinus,  18,  432,  560,  611,  615. 

Rushbrooke,  177. 


S. 

Sacrifices  and  Elkesaites,  22,  25,  205. 

Sadducees,  376,  571. 

Sadler,  Rev.  M.  F.,  80,  166. 

Sagaris,  313. 

Salome,  230,  241. 

Samaria,  436. 

Sanday,  Dr.,  82,  245,  304,  317,  320,  641. 

Satan,  495. 

Saturnimts,  240. 

Schenkel,  465,  699. 

Schleiermacher,  114,  166,  218. 

Schisms,  healing  of,  24. 

Schottgen,  613. 

Scholten,  130,  170,  251,  333,  339,*  450. 

Scriptures,  the  word  how  used,  46. 

Scrivener,  Dr.,  617. 

Seal,  418,  427. 

Second  Coming,  251,  297,  459. 

Septuagint,  318,  525,  636,  644,  654-668. 

Serapion,  231. 

Sergius  Paulus,  403. 

Sermon  on  the  Mount,  79,  166. 


*  Scholten  ought  to  have  been  named  in  connexion  with  the  theory  described  on  this  page. 


678 


Index  to  Persons  and  Subjects. 


Setliites,  541. 

Seufert,  552,  554. 

Sibyl,  289,  434. 

Silas,  371. 

Silence  of  tradition  as  to  publication  of 
Gospels,  146  ;  of  St.  John,  343  ;  of 
Fourth  Gospel  as  to  John,  74,  332  ; 
of  Acts  as  to  Paul's  Epistles,  401  ;  as 
to  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul,  367, 
389;  of  Eusebius,  104,  113. 

Simon  Magus,  19,  433-436,  473. 

Sinaitic  ms.  (see  Codex  ^). 

Sixtus  of  Rome,  439. 

lKd(t>r],  428. 

Smiifi  of  Jordan  Hill,  8,  159. 

Solecisms  of  Apocalypse,  282. 

Solomon,  Psalms  of,  617. 

Sophronius,  217. 

Soter  of  Eome,  310. 

SpeaTcer's  Commentary,  249,  302,  305, 
452,  466,  622,  625,  638. 

Stanley,  Dean,  290,  321. 

Stichometry,  210,  236,  537,  617. 

Stoicism,  397,  561,  616. 

Stone,  /.  487. 

Strauss,  10, 14,43,  91,  120,  218,  255-7, 
353. 

Sulpicius  Severus,  9. 

•Supernatural  Religion,''  11,  49,  92,  104, 
245,  405. 

Symeon  of  Jerusalem,  565,  597,  618. 

Symmachus,  657. 

Syncellus,  603. 

Synoptic  Gospels,  258,  360-365;  Lect. 

VIII.,  IX. 

Synopticon,  Rushbrooke's,  177. 
Syriac  version,  294,  540  (see  Peshito). 


T. 


Tacitus,  6,  288. 
Talmud,  305,  613. 
Tarsus,  397. 


Tatian,  95-104,  431,  490,  616. 

Taylor,  Jer.,  90. 

Teaching    of    Twelve    Apostles,    335, 

587. 
Tendency  School,  16. 
Tennyson,  126,  284. 
Terence,  76,  347. 
Tertullian,  52-55,   72,   190,   232,  237, 

242,  252,    366,   414,   443,  460,  462, 

467,  475,  488,   517,   540,   542,  549, 

564,  593,  602,  611,  632,   660. 

Pseudo-,  178. 

Thaddcsus,  238,  411-12,  596. 

Thamyris,  416. 

Tharshish,  667. 

Thebaic  version,  519. 

Thecla,  405,  414-421,  620. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  210,  462,  607. 

Theodoret,  95,  99,  606. 

Theodotion,  634,  655,  668. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch,  74,  93,  95,  103, 

106,  151,  270,  467,  488,  615. 
Theophylact,  294-5. 
Thessalonians,  Epistles  to,  453-461. 
Thessalonica,  404. 
Thiel,  596. 
Thilo,  408. 
Thirlwall,  11,  347. 
Thoma,  86. 
Thomas,  Gospel  of,  234-236 ;  Acts  of, 

412,  421-432,  449. 
Thucydides,  160. 
Tillemont,  446. 
Timothy,     371,     522     (see     Pastoral 

Epistles). 
Tischendorf,  143,  237,  351,  408,  436. 
Titus,  371  (sec  Pastoral  Epistles). 
Tradition,  triple,  180. 

sUence  of,  147. 

Trajan,  543. 
Tregelles,  192,  351. 
Tryphcena  418,  421. 
Tiibingen  School  (see  Baur) . 
Turibius,  427. 
Tychicus,  477. 


Index  to  Persons  and  Subjects. 


679 


TJ. 

Unleavened  bread,  312. 
JJr-Marhus,  114. 
Ussher,  464,  660. 


Valentinus,  69-73,  486. 

T'alerian,  Emperor,  439,  549. 

Van  Sittart,  637. 

Variations  of  independent   translators, 

140;  of  Evangelists,  161. 
Various  readings,  argument  from,   52, 

66,  84. 
Vatican,  438. 

— —  Council,  447. 

Manuscript  (see  Codex  B) . 

Vegetarianism,  241. 

Velleius  Faferculus,  5. 

Veronica,  239. 

Versions,  use  of,  68  ;   old  Latin,  540, 

661. 
Vespasian,  298. 
T'ictor  of  Capua,  102,  414. 

of  Rome,  53,  314. 

J'ienne  and  Lyons,  45,  299,  367,  488, 

540,  614. 
Virgin,  marriage  of,  229 ;   assumption 

of,  446. 
Virginitij  of  Mary,  229  ;  of  John,  443. 
Vocabularg,  changes  in,  470,  494,  632. 
Volkmar,  32,  218,  244,  291,  434,  603. 


W. 

Wace,  Dr.,  102. 

Warfield,  641. 

'  We'  sections  of  Acts,  369-372. 

Weisse,  503. 

JVeizsdcker,  544. 

Westcott,  Canon,  12,  73,  81,  118,  208» 
210,  239,  249,  271,  285,  302,  304, 
315,  317,  320,  367,  538,  542,  596, 
610,   611,  637. 

Wetstein,  614,  635. 

Whately,  Archbishop,  89. 

Wieseler,  304,  316. 

Wisdom,  description  of,  Prov.  viii.,  55. 

Book  of,  526. 

Wordsworth,  Bishop,  524. 

Works,  good,  bTJ. 

Wright,  W.,  408,  447. 

Wurm,  316. 


Xenophon,  470. 


Zacharias,  death  of,  230. 
Zahn,  101,  220,  440-46. 
Zeller,  263,  380. 
Zephyrinus,  60. 


INDEX 


PASSAGES    OF    SCRIPTURE    CITED, 


I.  — OLD    TESTAMENT. 


PAGE 

Genesis  iv.  15 118 

vi.  1   603 

XV.  6   118 

xviii.  17 563 

xxii.  7   347 

Exodus  iii.  14 283 

xii.  6 308 

46 304 

xxiv.  8   354 

Lev.  xviii.  — 636 

Num.  ix.  12 304 

xi.  8   206 

Deut.  X.  9   118 

xi.  14 666 

xviii.  22 296 

xxi.  23 567 

xxviii.  25 567 

XXX.  4   567 

Joshua  X.  20 455 

XV.  25 365 

'iChron.xii.  12 456 

XX.  7   563 

xxxi.  1    455 

Nehemiah  i.  9   567 

Psalms  iv.  5  476 

viii.  — 524 

xxii.  6    541 

xxiii.  4   542 

xxxiv.  20 304 

xl.  6   525 


PAGE 

Psalms  xli.  9    318 

Ixxxvi.  13 542 

xc.  4   613 

xcvji.  7   525 

cxviii.  22 402,554 

cxlvi'.  2    567 

Proverbs  iii.  34 556 

viii.  12,  &c ", 55 

X.  12 556 

xxvi.  11 606,  635-6 

Isaiah  i.  1    276 

ii.  1    276 

vi.  1    276 

9,  10 318 

vii.  4,  8 36 

14 81 

viii.  14 551 

xi.  2   215 

10 262 

xxviii.  16 551,  554 

xxxiv.  4    617 

xli.  8   563 

xlii.  8    048 

xliii.  21 648 

Hi.  15 412 

liv.  5   486 

Ixi.  10 486 

Jer.  iii.  14 489 

XV.  4,  10 211 

xxxiii.  9   647 


Index  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


68 1 


PAGE 

Jer.  xl.  9   647 

Ezekiel  viii.  3  212 

xvii.  10 567 

xviii.  — 239 

7   215 

xxxiv.  2   600 

Daniel  i.  2   666 

6   276 

7-10 665 

ii,  35 663 

44 659 

iv,  5   655 

7   665 

31 665 

V.  3   665 

23 663,665 

vi.  22 654,  662 


PAGE 

Daniel  vii.  — 660 

1,  2 276 

9   663-4 

15 276 

21 663 

viii.  10 665 

19 455 

ix.  — 660,665 

15-18    665 

X.  6    663-4,667 

11 660 

20 663 

xi.  36 455 

xii.  7,  9,  10 659,  663 

Hab.  iii.  2   233 

3   649 

Zee.  xii.  10 318 


IL  — APOCRYPHA. 


1  Esdras  ii.  10 666 

2  Esdras  ii.  31 542 

xii.  42 615 

"Wisdom  ii.  17 526 

iii.  2 614 

vii.  22,  26 526 

vii.  27 563 

xii.  10    526 


Wisdom  xvi.  21    526 

Ecclus.  XV.  11,  12 583 

Judith  V.  19 567 

.    2  Macci.  27 567 

Baruchi.  15-18   665 

ii.  11 665-6 

Bel  and  the  Dragon 212 


III.  — NEW    TESTAMENT. 


Matthew  i.  3,  23    81,  199 

18 46 

ii.  1    27,81 


6,  18,  22 

iii.  4    

iv.  1    , 

5,  10.... 
V.  20 

37 

42 


81 
174 
212 
175 
561 
569 

79 


Matthew  v.  48 570 

vi.  16 200 

19,  25,  33  79 

24 396 

vii.  1  569 

5  175 

7  570 

21 582 

22,  23 26 

26 569 


682 


Index  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


PAGE 

Matthew  viii.  5,  16  27,  169 

ix.  6,  12 162,  172 

14-17  174 

15 647 

X.  3  596 

27 27 

32,  33,40 259,  263 

xi.  10 175 

15 263 

27-29 242,  259 

xii.  13 140,  213 

40 542 

50 211 

xiii.  14 318 

32 665 

55 186,  595,  597 

57 360 

xiv.  1  164 

5  327 

20,  25  13 

33 189 

36 172 

XV.  8,  9 175 

xvi.  27 263 

xviii.  3  91 

25 172 

xix.  — 213 

23,  24 172,  174 

XX.  12 628 

23 444 

30 261 

xxi  9,  15  261 

10,  11 364 

25 328 

33 141 

41 200 

42,43 28,  554 

44 174 

xxii.  5  635 

23 199 

43 262 

xxiii.  12 569 

35 231,  232 

37 365 


PAGB 

Matthew  xxiv.  13,  30,  42 26a 

22 174 

30,  31 259,  263,  459 

35 617 

XXV.  14 635 

31 259 

xxvi.  17 305 

xxvii.  8,  15,  33,  46  199 

19,  24,  25  2S 

49 loa 

56 598 

65 260 

xxviii.  15,  19  28,  199 

18,  20 259 

Marki.  — 183 

2  47,  175 

6  171 

29 126,  187 

30 122 

32 169 

ii.  3  172 

4  173 

10 162 

17 172 

18-22  174 

iii.  5  140,186,  189 

7  222 

17 83,  111 

18 596 

V.  7  162,  173 

23,  41 173 

vi.  3  81,  186,  595 

6  189 

14 164 

19 172 

20 327 

27 53 

37 361 

39 185 

41 174 

52 189 

vii.  6,  7 175 

ix.  14,  36 185 

47 173 


Index  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


683 


PAGE 

Markx.  16,  17 185-6 

23,  25 172-4 

xi.  15 173 

23 570 

31 328 

xii.  1  141 

38 140 

42 53 

xiii.  20 175 

xiv.  5  361 

12 303 

62 260 

65 173 

XV.  15 53,  174 

39,  44 53 

43 173 

xvi.  17-19 193,361,  445 

9-20 188-193 

Luke  i.  — 103 

1-5  143-146 

4  151 

ii.  46 236 

iii.  2,  21,  23 206 

19 164 

iv.  8,  9 175 

40 169 

44 364 

V.  18,  31 172 

24 162 

33-39  174 

vi.  — 166 

10 140 

16 596 

20 569 

24-5 570 

42 175 

vii.  5  28 

27 175 

viii.  28 162 

ix.  7  164 

16 174 

31,  33 614,  647 

43 647 

X.  8  401 


PAGE 

Luke  X.  18 122 

20 264 

xi.  — 166 

xii.  — 166 

3  27 

55 628 

54,  57 567 

xiii.  — 166 

26 26 

xiv.  — 166,  196 

XY.  — 214 

xvi.  — 167 

13 396 

xvii.  26-31  614 

xviii.  24 174 

XX.  5,  6 327,  328 

9  141 

18 ; 174 

46 140 

xxi.  — 116 

15 259 

xxii.  3  361 

12 174 

15 206,303 

43,  44 84 

60 260 

xxiii.  51 365 

28 28 

xxiv.  12 361 

39 219 

49,  51 361-2 

John  i.  1-3 86,  98,  265 

11 246,  326 

13 279 

14 249,280,  325 

17,  22 326 

25 319 

28 321 

29 265,  278,  327 

32,  40,  43  345-6 

33 206 

34 350 

42 635 

44 126,  321,  328 


684 


Index  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


PAGE 

John  i.  45,  46 322,  342 

ii.  — 97 

1,11 321 

6  319 

11,  17,  22,  23....  326,  330 

13,  23 318 

16 247 

20 323,  348 

24 360 

iii.  3  90 

4  348 

6  279 

13,  15 265,  345,  358 

14 247 

17 249 

23 321 

24 345 

25.- 319 

29 280 

35 265 

iv.  6  328 

9  319 

11 321 

15 348 

22 247,  320 

24 98 

27,  33 319,  330 

35 321 

42 249 

44 360 

46 321 

52 328 

V.  1  318 

18,  23 263,  265 

24 249 

28 251 

32,  33 328 

39,  46 247 

vi.  — 357 

2,  4 318,  357 

7,  9,  11  ....328,  350,  361 

23 359 

32 247,  279 

41 321 


FA6B 

John  V.  42 345 

47,  51,  53  265 

52 348 

55 356 

62 265,  345,  358 

70 345 

71 360 

vii.  1  320 

15 319 

22 73 

24 280 

27 73,  325 

31 325 

35,  36 319,  348,  567 

37 279,  318 

41,  42 322,  325,  342 

49-52 323,  343,  350 

viii.  15 116 

20 328 

34 615 

39 278 

48 319 

51-55  280 

56 247 

58 265 

ix.  1-3 92,  208 

2  J.  319 

X.  7  91 

11 279 

14,17 265 

16 36 

22,  23 318,  328 

27 91 

xi.  2  350 

16 328,  330 

18 321,  350 

25 265 

44 280 

48 324 

49-52 278,320,348 

54 321,  330 

55 319 

xii.  2,  5 361 

16 327 


Index  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


685 


PAGE 

John  i.  21 328 

34 325 

36 249 

40 318,  327 

41 247,279 

xiii  1  304,  318 

3,  8  280 

17 569 

18 318 

22,  23,24 330,  338 

27 361 

29 304,  330 

xiv.  5,  8  328 

6,  10,  14,  20  265 

23 265,  280 

22 328,  596 

XV.  5,  9,  20 265,  280 

xvi.  7  361 

17 330 

20 249 

33 279 

xvii  3  249,  265 

5,  10  265 

6  280 

xviii.  2  330 

10 328 

13 320 

14 350 

15 330,  338 

16 346 

28 304,  318,  319 

xix.  12 325 

13 89,  320 

21 349 

26 330 

31 319 

35 325,  350-1,  360 

36-37 247,  304,  318 

39 350 

XX.  2,  3 328,  330,  338 

17 345,  358 

19,  25 330 

28,  29 265,  412 

31 157,265,  369 


PAGE 

John  V.  xxi.  — 103 

2  321 

3,  7 330,  338 

8,9 350 

15-17  280 

16 279 

18 619 

19 338,  549 

20,  22 251,  330,  350 

24  ....  325,  330,  350,  351 

25 334,  351 

Acts  i.  5  375 

13 596 

17,  18 626 

21 145 

23 423 

ii.  20 626 

23 402,  626 

24 368 

32 557 

42,  46 355 

iii.  1  338 

12 626 

15,  18 557 

iv.  1  376 

11 402,  554 

12 367 

18 626,  628 

21 626 

28 402 

35 528 

V.  17,  28 376,626 

30 557 

39 377 

42 134 

vi.  — 530 

1  531 

5  375 

vii.  38 117 

58 375 

viii.  — 21,  391,  434 

1  375 

14 338 

18 21 


686 


Index  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


PAGE 

Acts  viii.  40 375 

58 528 

ix.  7  161 

27 383,  528 

30 375 

X.  27 626 

33 647 

38 139 

39 557 

41 367 

42 402,  557 

43 557 

47 375 

xi.  16,  19 375 

20 134,  530 

22,  25 375,  383 

28 373 

xii.  2  330 

12 529 

13 378 

17 565 

xiii.  5  381 

7  403 

13 375,  405 

39 386 

46 382 

51 405 

xiv.  6  405 

12 528 

XV.  — 565,574 

1  577,  582 

5,  8 375-6 

11 575 

19 582 

20,  25,  29  35 

28,  38 375 

ivi.  4  35,  375 

9  372 

12,20  405 

15 335 

xvii.  — 396-398,  453 

5  335 

6  404 

14 375 


PAGE 

Acts  xvii.  19-34  396-8 

xviii.  1,  19  567 

5  375,  399,  453 

6  396 

12 404 

14 543 

20 363 

24 527 

25 327,  626 

xix.  3  327 

9  626 

27 647 

38 404 

XX.  4,  5 . . 371-372, 375, 404, 455 

6  311 

16 363,  374 

17 373 

19-35  396 

25 390,  501 

28 466,  510 

29 367 

34 466 

35 128,  367 

xxi.  — 391,  534 

4,10 373 

8,  16 335,  375 

18 373,  565 

20 376 

21 534 

24,  25 35,  383 

26 375 

29 375,  493 

38 407 

xxii.  20 375 

xxiii.  9  376 

26 378 

xxiv.  18 375 

XXV.  11 375 

25 499 

xxvi.  18 386 

32 ...375,  499 

xxvii.  — 372 

2  455 

xxviii.  3-9  8 


Index  to  Passa^rcs  of  Scripture  cited. 


687 


PAGE 

Acts  xxviii.  16 373 

Romans  i.  4  398 

8  456 

17 525 

ii.  13 581 

16 132 

17-23 576 

25,  27 580 

28 38 

iii.  2  117 

22,  24 265 

28 575 

iv.  19 525 

V.  1,9, 10 265 

3  581 

vi.  7  552 

10 556 

16 615 

vii.  23 581 

viii.  17,  18 265,  552 

29 525 

34 193 

ix.  3  384 

5  265 

25,  33 550-1 

xii.  — 552 

1  651 

9  524 

10,  18,19 525,  552 

13-16 338,  525,  552 

xiii.  — 291 

1,  3,  4 543,  551-2 

xiv.  9  265 

19 525 

XV.  10 525 

12 262 

19 334 

33 463,  525 

xvi.  — 53,  463 

3  567 

20-27  463 

21 455 

23 335,  337 

25 132 


PAGE 

1  Cor.  i.  12 345 

ii.  4  456 

6  525 

iii.  2  456,  525 

22 265,  345 

iv.  7  581 

9  536 

14 457 

V.  7  265,  312 

9,  11 457,462 

vi.  4  89 

9  580 

11 587 

viii.  6  265 

ix.  5  345 

15 466 

20 384 

X.  — 600 

1  118 

27 401 

xi.  1  456 

8  117 

20 355 

23 401 

xiv.  16 429 

33 457 

XV.  3,  5,  7  43,  345 

6,  7 210,400,  583 

9  484 

25 265 

26,  27 524 

33,  35 580 

52 459 

xvi.  7  525 

8  311 

13 396 

19,  20 535,  552 

2  Cor.  ii.  17 456 

iv.  5  134 

vi.  2,  16 525 

vii.  2  456 

viii.  9  265 

24 525 

xi.  2  486 


688 


Index  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


PAGE 

2Cor.  xi.  3   118 

9,  10 399,456,466 

13 39 

22 531 

24,  25 401,  455 

xii.  21 599 

xiii.  1    525 

5,  14     265 

11 457 

Galatians  i.  1   265 

6   457 

19 565,  595 

ii.  9   34,  345,  565 

12 396,  565 

16,  20 265 

iii.  13 265,  557 

16 526 

19 525,602 

27 265 

iv.  21 118 

26 37 

v..  2,  3 393,  577 

10 457 

13 552,  600 

20 493 

vi.  7   580 

9   457 

13 38 

Eph.  i.  — 479,487 

3-14 479,  553 

7   265 

10 495 

20-22  . .   89,  193,  265,  554 
23 486 

ii.  2-9 265,  495 

11 37,  485 

18 265,  554 

19 482 

20-22 479,  486,  554 

iii.  1-9  . .  476-481,  484,  486-7 

9-11 553 

16-20 479,487,  554 

iv.  — 475,  476,479 

1   480 


PAGE 

Eph.  iv.  8-10 525,  542,  564 

13,27 495 

16,  25 486 

17 396 

V.  6   265 

14 525 

15-25   ...479 

22 635 

25,  29 476 

vi.  11 495 

13 630 

21,  22 477 

23 495 

PMl.  i.  1    466,  510 

11 580 

15 134 

18 466 

19,  25-26 499,  502 

ii.  6,  7,  10 265,  637 

5-11 471 

10-19   466 

24 499 

iii.  2   38 

5  376,  531 

9   387 

12 652 

19 599 

20 652 

iv.  3   264,  466 

14 648 

16 399,454 

Colossians  i. — 88 

1-26 479 

7  468 

9,  10 495 

15 467,652 

15-18 264-5,  487 

ii.  2  479,  496 

4  479,  580 

8,  7,  19  479 

11 37 

21 240 

iii.  1-16 193,  479 

4.  10  496 


Index  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


689 


PAGE 

Colossians  iv.  5-8 477,  479 

10-13 455,  468,  629 

14.....^ 172,  371 

16 .* 462,  469  479 

1  Thess.  i.  1-3   454 

1,  5,  6,  8 456 

9   455 

ii.  4,  5,  6,  7 456 

9   456-7,  466 

14-16 320,  455 

iii.  6,  11 265,  453 

iv.  11,  12  457 

13-lS 453,  459 

T.  2   568 

6   552 

8   495 

12 466 

21 209 

23 580 

2  Thess.  ii.  — 459 

1-12 458 

2-11 457 

8   495 

14 132 

iii.  3   466 

4,8,  10,  12,  13,  16....  457 

17 461 

iv.  14 457 

1  Tim.  i.  1,  14    495 

17 489 

ii.  4,  5 265,  495 

14 118 

iii.  2   335,  510 

iv.  3   240 

12 495,  501 

V.  10. 335 

vi..  11 495 

20 474 

2  Tim.  i.  10 523 

13 495 

15-18   503 

17 416,  493 

ii.  8   132 

22,  25 496 

2 


PAGB 

2  Tim.  iii.  7    495 

iv.  1    557 

6-8 264,  495 

9-22 603,  507 

11 371,  507 

16 500,  522 

19 567 

20 493 

Titus  i.  1,  7 495,  510 

8,  14    335,  492 

ii,  9   635 

14 588 

iii.  8   577 

10 493 

Philemon  22 499 

24 374,  455 

Hebrews  i.  1    526 

2   514,  526 

3   193,  513,  526 

4,  6,  7,  13  ..  513,525,651 
ii.  2   525 

3   521,  634 

8,  14     524 

9,  17    514,  652 

iii.  1    513 

iv.  12 88 

V.  12,  14 117,  525,  534 

vi.  3,  10 525,  532 

4    580 

16 514 

viii.  1,  6 193,  602 

10 525 

ix.  28 556 

X.  — 535 

12 198 

5,  28,  38 525 

33-37 521,  536-7 

xi.  — 579 

12,  13 525,  551 

33 662 

xii.  — 536 

2-4 193,  532,  537 

11 580 

14-17   525-6 


690 


Lidcx  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


PAGE 

Hebrews  xii.  20 396 

xiii.  1,  2 525 

2,  3  ....... .  335,  532,  536 

5,  7 524,  526 

20 525 

23... 531 

24 535 

Jaim^s  i.  3  556,  581 

4  556,  570,  580 

6  570 

6  666 

7,  8 263,  562 

11 556,  566 

12 263,  570 

13 583 

14 628 

15-17  580-1 

22 569,  580-1 

25 569 

26 563 

27 562 

ii.  — 573 

1  684 

2  562,568 

5  ..569 

6  562 

7  263,  563,568,  584 

8  561,  580 

10-12  580-1 

13 564 

18 580 

21 568 

23 564 

24 575 

25 568 

26 263 

iii.  2  563 

4  566 

5  263 

11 567 

12 564 

15-18 562,  580 

iv.  1  581 

1-9 656,  563-584 


PAGE 

James  iv.  10 669 

11,  12 563,  569 

13 564 

16 564 

17 581 

V.  1-6  562 

4,  10  568 

7,  8,  9 566,  584 

11,  12 563,  569 

13 567 

14,  15 584 

17 567-8 

1  Peter  i.  2  402 

3-12 553,  558 

7  279,  556,  651 

10 279,557 

13 '.  ..  279 

14 550-2,624 

18 279,  651 

19 279,  624-5 

20 402,  653 

22 279 

23 279,  558 

24 556 

ii.  2  624,651 

4-7 402,  554 

5  279,  552 

6-8  551,  651 

9-10 279,  650,  625-6, 

649,  651 

12 625 

13,  14,  16 551-2 

20 543,  551 

24... ; 557 

25 651 

iii.  1-5 618,  635 

2  625 

4  554 

18 279,  554,  566 

19 541,  554,  558 

20 554 

211 558,  625 

22 193,  554 

iv.  1  552,  625 


Index  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


691 


PAGE 

1  Peter  iv.  3  550 

4  651 

5  557 

9  335 

10,  11,  13  117,. 552 

12 558 

16 543 

19 651 

V.  1  338,  552,  557 

2,  3 279,  558 

4,  5 264,  396,  556 

8  552 

9  558 

13..  110,  279,338,545,548 
14 552 

2  Peter  i.  1  626 

3-5  624-5,  648 

7  626 

8,  9 624 

10-16  624-5 

12 615-6,  G48 

15 614,624-5 

17 617 

18 618 

19,  21 615,  624 

ii.  1-3 613,624,  626,  646 

4,  5  ... .  396,  607,  614,  626 

7-9 624-6,  631,  648 

12 624 

13-15 35,  619,  624-8 

16,  18  ... .  624-6,  628,  631 

17 645 

19 615,  624 

21,  22 606,  626-7,  635 

iii.  1  541,  619 

5-7 617,  624 

9  .'615 

10....  569,616,626-7,  637 

11,  12,  14 616,624-5 

15 35,  619 

16 624 

1  John  i.  1  307,  325 

3-5  96 

4  249 


PAGE 

1  John  i.  7  265 

ii.  2,  5 265,  280 

11-13 249,  279 

18,  28 251 

iii.  1  94 

3-9 265,  279 

12-14 261,  279,  280 

iv.  3  337 

4  279 

9,14 249 

13 265 

V.  4  279 

6  250 

15-20  351 

24 249 

2  John  — 279,  335-338 

3  John— 334,  337,  338 

6  648 

12 351 

Jude  1,4,  17.. 593,  596,  599,  625 

6  603 

8  34 

9 601,  622 

11 33 

12 600 

14 602 

20 396 

Apoc.  i.  1,  6,  9 276,  279 

5  487 

7  263,  279 

8,  17 262 

14 664 

16 280 

ii.  2  33,  454 

4,  5 39 

10 263 

7,  11,  17 279 

9  32 

14,  15 33 

20-22  599 

iii.— 261-3 

3  569 

5  264,  279 

8-10 32,  280 


692 


Index  to  Passages  of  Scripture  cited. 


PAGE 

Apoc.  iii.  12 282 

14,  21 261,278,487 

18 279 

20 280 

V.  5  262 

6,  9 37,  261,278,  280 

•  12,  13 261,  278,  280 

vi.  4,  9 280 

9,  10  302 

vii.  4-8  36 

14,  15 280 

ix.  20 663,  665 

X.  6  663 

7  334,  487 

xi.  2  298 

3  299 

8  37 

12 359 

xii.  7  663 

11,  12 279,  280 

xiii.  7  663 

3,  6,  8,  12,  14 280,  289 

11 291 

xiv.  8,  12 279,  282 

xvi.  12 289 

15 569 


PAGE 

Apoc.  xvii.  5  279 

6 302,  536 

10,  11 288,  289 

16,  17 291,  298 

xviii.  20,  24 280,  302 

xix.  6  663 

7  280,  487 

13 278,664 

16 261 

20 291 

XX.  2  282 

4  663 

6  263,  280 

11 663 

xxi.  2  37,  276,  280,  487 

3  280 

6  298 

7  279 

9,  14 487 

xxii.  1,3  263 

2  276 

7,  9 280 

13,  16 262 

17 279,  280,  487 

18,  19 267 


THE  END. 


0' 


1B9B1YB, 

09-04-03  32180 


39! 

MS 


BS2361  .S17 

A  historical  introduction  to  the  study 

Princeton  Tlieological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00052  4431