Skip to main content

Full text of "Journal of theological studies"

See other formats 


Google 


This  is  a  digital  copy  of  a  book  that  was  preserved  for  generations  on  library  shelves  before  it  was  carefully  scanned  by  Google  as  part  of  a  project 
to  make  the  world's  books  discoverable  online. 

It  has  survived  long  enough  for  the  copyright  to  expire  and  the  book  to  enter  the  public  domain.  A  public  domain  book  is  one  that  was  never  subject 
to  copyright  or  whose  legal  copyright  term  has  expired.  Whether  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  may  vary  country  to  country.  Public  domain  books 
are  our  gateways  to  the  past,  representing  a  wealth  of  history,  culture  and  knowledge  that's  often  difficuk  to  discover. 

Marks,  notations  and  other  marginalia  present  in  the  original  volume  will  appear  in  this  file  -  a  reminder  of  this  book's  long  journey  from  the 
publisher  to  a  librai'y  and  finally  to  you. 

Usage  guidelines 

Google  is  proud  to  partner  with  libraries  to  digitize  public  domain  materials  and  make  them  widely  accessible.  Public  domain  books  belong  to  the 
public  and  we  are  merely  their  custodians.  Nevertheless,  this  work  is  expensive,  so  in  order  to  keep  providing  this  resource,  we  have  taken  steps  to 
prevent  abuse  by  commercial  parties,  including  placing  technical  restrictions  on  automated  querying. 

We  also  ask  that  you: 

+  Make  non-commercial  use  of  the  files  We  designed  Google  Book  Search  for  use  by  individuals,  and  we  request  that  you  use  these  files  for 
personal,  non-commercial  purposes. 

+  Refrain  from  automated  querying  Do  not  send  automated  queries  of  any  sort  to  Google's  system:  If  you  are  conducting  research  on  machine 
translation,  optical  character  recognition  or  other  areas  where  access  to  a  large  amount  of  text  is  helpful,  please  contact  us.  We  encourage  the 
use  of  public  domain  materials  for  these  purposes  and  may  be  able  to  help. 

+  Maintain  attribution  The  Google  "watermark"  you  see  on  each  file  is  essential  for  informing  people  about  this  project  and  helping  them  find 
additional  materials  through  Google  Book  Search.  Please  do  not  remove  it. 

+  Keep  it  legal  Whatever  your  use,  remember  that  you  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  what  you  are  doing  is  legal.  Do  not  assume  that  just 
because  we  believe  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  the  United  States,  that  the  work  is  also  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  other 
countries.  Whether  a  book  is  still  in  copyright  varies  from  country  to  country,  and  we  can't  offer  guidance  on  whether  any  specific  use  of 
any  specific  book  is  allowed.  Please  do  not  assume  that  a  book's  appearance  in  Google  Book  Search  means  it  can  be  used  in  any  manner 
anywhere  in  the  world.  Copyright  infringement  habihty  can  be  quite  severe. 

About  Google  Book  Search 

Google's  mission  is  to  organize  the  world's  information  and  to  make  it  universally  accessible  and  useful,  Google  Book  Search  helps  readers 
discover  the  world's  books  while  helping  authors  and  publishers  reach  new  audiences.  You  can  search  through  the  full  text  of  this  book  on  the  web 


at  http : //books . google . com/ 


The 
Journal  of  Theological  Studies 


VOLUME  VI 


HENRY  FROWDE,  HJL 

raiuuua  TO  m  innvBairnr  of  oxvout 

LONDON,  EDINBUKGH 

NEW   YORK  AND  TORONTO 


The  yournal 


of 


Theological  Studies 


VOLUME  VI 


OXFORD 

AT  THE  CLARENDON  PRESS 

1905 


I 


769459 


COMMITTEE  OF  DIRECTION: 


Rev.  Dr,  Ince,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swete,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr,  Driver,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Bigg,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Oxford. 

Rev,  Dr.  Barhes.  Hulsean  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge, 

F.  C.  Bl'rkitt,  University  Lecturer  in  Palaeography,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Heaulah,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

Rev.  Dr.  Kirkpatrick,  The  Lady  Margaret's  Reader  in  Divinity,  Cam- 
bridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Lock,  Dean  Ireland's  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Masom,  Master  of  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge. 

Very  Rev.  Dr.  J.  ARHrfAGE  RoBiKsoti,  Dean  of  Westminster;  late  Nor- 

risian  Profeflsor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Sanuav,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Staktom,  Ely  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Very  Rev.  Dr.  Strong,  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

C.  H.  Turner,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 


EDITORS: 

Rev.  J.  F.  Beth UKE- Baker,  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge. 
Rev.  F.  E.  Brightman,  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 


o«roiu:  ^imu  at  tio  cuibiikcxiii  ric« 

W  HOUCa  MUet,  MA.,  rUMTBB  To  TIU  UMIVtUITT 


INDEX  OF  WRITERS 

-PACE 

ALLEN,  Rev.  W.  C. 

A  Synopsis  oftht  Gospels  in  Greek  (A.  Wright)  .  .146 

BANNISTER,  Rev.  H.  M. 

An  ancient  Office  for  Holy  Saturday  ....    603 

BARNES,  Mgr.  A.  S. 

The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  ....    356 

Lent  and  Holy  Week  (H.  Thnrston) 475 

Studies  on  the  Gospels  (V.  Rose) 149 

Suggestions  on  the  Origin  of  the  Gospel  according 

to  St  Matthew 187 

Where  Believers  may  doubt  &*(.  (V.  J.  MoNabb)         .        .        .47° 

BARNES,  Rev.  W.  E.,  D.D. 

Christianity  in  Talmud  and  Afidrash  (R.  T.  Heiford)  .150 

Chronide  0/ Old  Testament 461 

The  Peshitta  Version  of  3  Kings 230 

The  Ten  Words  op  Exodus  xxxiv 557 

BARNS,  Rev.  T. 

The  Epistle  of  St  Jude:  A  Study  in  the  Marcosian 
Heresy 391 

BARTLET,  Rev.  V. 

The  Historical  Setting  of  the  Second  and  Third 

Epistles  of  St  John 204 

Mark,  the  '  Curt-finchred  '  Evangelist    .       .       .       .121 
BETHUNE-BAKER,  Rev.  j.  F.,  B.D. 

The   Genuine   Writings    of   Apollinarius    (Lietzmann 

ApoUinaris  von  Laodicea  und  seine  Schule)         .        .        .    619 

Chronicle  of  Hohiletics 474 

Chronicle  of  New  Testament 151 

History  of  Doctrine  and  Patristic  Texts      .  .    624 

Note  on  the  Authorship  of  the  centra  Marcellum  and 

THE  de  ecclesiastica  Theologia 5 '7 

Note  on  the  Cambridge  Septuagint  of  1665  and  1684    613 

BEVAN,  A  A. 

The  Beliefs  of  the  Early  Mohammedans  respecting 
A  Future  Existence 30 


VI 


INDEX   OF   WRITERS 


^ 


BIGG,  Rev.  C,  D.D. 

Notes  on  the  Dida£ke  HI 411 

S<>»ie   Di^culties  of  the   Second   and    Twtntuth    Centuries 

(F.  Jackson) 470 

BIKDLEY,  Rev.  T.  H.,  D.D. 

'Pontius  Pilate'  in  tub  Creed 112 

BRIGHTMAN,  Rev.  F.  E. 

Chronicle  of  Litukgica >9B 

BROOKE,  Rev.  A.  E.,  E.D. 

VivangiU  uttm  saint  Jean  (Th.  Calmes) 144 

BURKITT,  F.  C 

The  Palestinian  Svriac  Lectionarv 91 

TllE  SVRlAC  Psalter  [The  Peskitta  Psniter  accmding  to  the 

West  Syrian  text.    W.  E.  Barnes)        .....     286 
BURJJEY.  Rev.  C.  F.,  D.Litt. 

The  Thioiogy  of  the  Old  Testament  (A.  B.  Davidson)         .        .    464 
BURY,  J.  B. 

Ealetiae      Ocddentalis      Momunenta      luris      Antiquissima 

(C.  H.  Turner) 439 

BUTLER,  Rev.  E.  C,  O.S.B. 

Das  mmgenldndiscke  Monchtum  (S.  Schiwie(z)  ....    443 

The  so-called    Trmialus   Origtnis  and  other   writings 

ArrRiflUTED  TO  Novatian 587 

CHAPMAN,  Rev,  ;.,  O.S.B. 

St  Irenaeus  and  the  Dates  or  thb  Gospbls  .       .       .563 
CHASE,  Rev.  F.  H.,  D.H. 

The  Lord's  Command  to  Baptize  (.St  Malthcw  xxviii  19)    481 

Note  on  the  Authorship  of  the  contra  Marcellum  akd 

the  de  ecclesiastica  Tktologia 51a 

CONNOLLY,  Rev.  R.  H.,  O.S.B. 

Afhraates  and  MoNASncisH 522 

CONYBEARE,  F.  C. 

Euchelogia  (A.  Dmilrievskij) 133 

The  [dea  op  Sleep  in  thi:  '  Hvmn  ok  the  Solx'    .        .    609 
COOKE,  Rev.  G.  A. 

Sacred  Sites  of  the  Gcspeli{V{.  Ssxidxy) 145, 

CRUM,  W.  E. 

THE  Coptic  v4i/j  tf/y*«Mr/ (Carl  .Schmidt)       .       .       .       •    125 
DE  LA  HEY,  Rev.  E.  W.  M.  O. 

Critical  Questions I39 

DROOSTEN,  Rev.  P.  H. 

Proems  of  Liturgical  Lections  and  Gospels  ...     99 
GRANGER,  F. 

The  Insi'iration  of  the  Liturgy 37 

HERZ,  N. 

The  Etvmolocv  of  Bartholomew no 

HOWORTH,  Sir  H.  H. 

The  Coming  Cambridge  Septuacint:  a  plea  for  a  pure 

TEXT 435 


INDEX  OF  WRITERS  vii 

rAcs 
HUTTON,  Rev.  W.  H.,  B.D. 

Actus  BeaH  Frofuisci  et  Sociorum  eius  (P.  Sabatier)  132 

JACKSON,  the  late  Rev.  B. 

Note  on  Matt,  xx  33  and  Mark  x  40      .       ,  -337 

JAMES,  M.  R.,  LittJ). 

A  Note  on  the  Acta  PauH -344 

The  Acts  of  Titus  and  the  Acts  of  Paul      .       .       .    549 

Some  New  Coptic  Apocrypha 577 

JENKINS,  Rev.  C. 

The  ORiGEN-aTATioNs  IN  Cramer's  Catena  on 

I  Corinthians 113 

JOHNS,  Rev.  C.  H.  W. 

Chronicle  of  Assyriology 296 

Recent  Assyriology 390,  626 

JONES,  Rev.  A,  S.  Duncan 

ZwH  Gnostische  Hymn^n  (E.  Preiuchen)  ....    448 

KENNETT,  Rev.  R.  H. 

The  Origin  of  the  Aaronitx  Priesthood  .161 

LAKE,  Rev.  K. 

Further  Notes  on  the  MSS  of  Isidore  of  Pelusium  .    270 
LOCK,  Rev.  W.,  D.D. 

Notes  on  the  Gospel  according  to  St  John  .  -415 

St  PauJ's  EpistieiofAe  EpAesians  (j.  A.  Rohioson)  .  .     142 

St  Paul's  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  history  (Reach 

Der  Pauiinismus  und  die  I^gia  Jesu) 617 

Paulus,  sein  Leben  und  Wirken  (C.  Clemen)       ....     141 
LUPTON,  Rev.  J.  H.,  DJ>. 

A  FourteentkrCeniury  English  Biblical  VtrsUm  (A.  C.  Paues)  .    458 
MADAN,  Rev,  J.  R 

The  'AfTiria  ON  St  Paul's  Voyage 116 

MAYOR,  Rev.  J.  B. 

The  Epistle  of  St  Jude  and  the  Marcosian  heresy   .    569 
MERCATI,  Mgr.  G.,  D.D. 

Lucas  or  Lucanus? 435 

MOBERLY,  W.  H. 

Robert  Campbell  Moberly x 

NESTLE,  E.,  D.D. 

TBS  Cambridge  Septuagint  of  1665  and  1684: 

a  bibuographical  query 611 

OESTERLEY,  Rev.  W.  O.  E.,  B.D. 

The  Old  Latin  Texts  of  the  Minor  Prophets  67, 217 

Codex  Taurinensis  (Y) 373 

PARSONS,  Rev.  W.  L.  E. 

Three  Bulwarks  of  the  Faith  (E.  H.  Archer-Shepherd)  .         .471 

Things  FundamtfUal  {Q.^l^fSsssaa) 471 

PASS,  H.  U 

De  Timotheo  I  Nesiorianorum  Patriarcha  (Labourt)  .    445 


vi'i  INDEX   or   WRITERS 

PACg 

PEILE.  Rev.  J.  H.  F. 

Cknslus  in  Ecdtsia  (H.  Rashdall)    ....         .        .    47a 

RAGG,  Rev.  U 

The  Mohammedak  'Gospel  of  Barnabas*  .       .    434 

ROBINSON,  Very  Rev.  J.  A.,  D.D. 

Recent  Work  ok  Euthalius       ....  .87 

ROGERS,  Rev.  C.  F. 

Baptism  bv  Affusion  in  the  early  Church    .       .       .    107 
st.  clair,  g. 

The  Book  or  ths  Dead 53 

SANDAY,  Kev.  W.,  D.D. 

Adam  Storey  Farras 540 

SCHNEIDER,  Rev.  G.  A. 

Softu  difficultiti  in  the  Life  0/ cur  I^ord  (G.  5.  Cockin)       .         .     473 

Die  rtti^ons^tsckiehlliche  AStthode  in  tier  Theologie  (C,  Clemen)     476 
SOUTER,  A. 

An   unknown  fragment  of   the  pseudo-Auoustikian 

Quaeslumes  Veieru  et  Ntmi  Ttsiamenti       ....      61 

The  Original  Home  of  Codex  Claromontanus  (D  p«««i)  .    240 

Notes  on  the  De  Lapm  Virxims  of  Niceta       .        .        -433 
SRAWLEY,  Rev.  J.  H.,  B.D. 

7'fu  Chrislian  Idea  of  the  Atmemenl  (T.  V.  Tymms)       .        .    6m 

The  Iloty  Communion  (D.  Stone) 138 

The  Early  History  of  the  Lord's  Suffer  (A.  Andersen) 
Doi  AbendmaJU  in  den  xwei  ersten  Jahrhunderten  nach 
Christus 136 

The  PenUcostat  Gift  (Scottish  Church  Society)  .  .140 

SWETE,  Rev.  H.  B..  D.D. 

The  Life  of  Christ  (W.  Sanday  Outlines  ef  the  Life  of 

Christ) 615 

TENNANT,  Rev.  F.  R.,  B.D. 

Chronicle  of  Philo.sophy  of  religion     ....    468 

Ideals  cf  Scieme  and  Faith  (T,  E.  Hand)  ....     453 

THACKERAY,  H.  Si  J. 

Rhythm  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom 231 

TURNER,  C.  H. 

The  Letters  of  St  Isidore  of  Pelusiuu  ....     70 

The  Lausiac  History  of  Palladius 331 

Prolegomena  to  the  TesUmonia  of  St  Cyprian       .       .    446 
WALPOLE,  Rev.  A.  S. 

HVMKB  ATFRIBUTED   TO  HILARY  OF   PomKRS  .  .  .     599 

WATSON,  Kev.  E.  W. 

L'Afrique  chr/tienne  {H.  Ledercq) 451 

The  Encash  Church  from  the  Accession  ef  Charles  /  tc  the 

Dtaik  iff  Anne  (W.  H.  Huttoo) I30 

WEBB,  C.  C.  J. 

Stlections  from  the  IMeraturt  of  TJuism  (A.  Caldecott  and 

H.  R.  Mackintosh) 12S 


INDEX    OF   WRITERS  jx 

PASB 

WILSON,  Rev.  H.  A. 

The  Metrical  Endings  of  the  Leonine  Sacramentary  II    381 
WINSTEDT,  E.  O. 

Notes  prom  Coshas  Indicopleustbs 283 

WOOD,  Rev.  W.  S. 

The  Miracle  of  Cana 438 

DE  ZWAAN,  J. 

The  Meaning  of  the  Leydbn  Graeco-Dehotic  Papyrus 
Anast.  65 418 


II 


INDEX  OF  ARTICLES 


PAOt 

Aaronite  Priesthood,  Thb  Origin  of  the.     By  ihe  Rev.  R.  H. 

KeDnen i6i 

AdaU  Storey  FaRRAB.  By  the  Rev.  W.  Sanday,  D.D.  .  .  .540 
Aphraates  and  Monasticism.  By  the  Re>-.  R,  H.  Connolly,  O.S.B.  522 
Baptize,  The  Lord's  Comhaxd  to  (Si  Matt,  ntviii  19).  By  the  Rev. 

F.  H.  Chase,  D.D 481 

Book  OF  THE  Dead,  The.    ByG.  St.  CLut 53 

CHRONICLE: 

AssYRiOLOGV.     By  the  Rev.  C.  H.  W.  Johns         ....    296 

LlTUBGlCA.     By  the  Rev.  F.  E.  Brightman 398 

New  Testament.    By  the  Rev.  W.  Lock,  D.D.,  and  othns        .    141 
Old  Testament.    By  the  Rev.  W.  E.  Bunes,  DJ).,  and  the 

Rev.  C.  F.  Bumey,  D.LitL 461 

PHiLosopHy  OF  Religion,  Apoujgetics,  and  Homiletics.    By 

the  Rev.  F.  R.  Tenoant,  and  others 46S 

DOCUMENTS: 

An  UNKNOWN  FRAGMENT  OF  THE  PSEUDO-AUGUSTINIAN  QuatJ' 

/iprus  Veteris  ei  Noui  Teitamtnti.     By  A.  Souler        .         .         .       61 
Codex  Taurine.nsi5  (Y).    By  the  Rev.  W.  O.  E.  Oesterley,  B.D.    372 

The  Acts  of  Titus  and  the  Acts  or  Paul.    By  M.  R. 
James,  LittD 549 

Epistles  of  St  John,  The  Historical  Setting  of  the  Second 

and  Third.    By  the  Rev.  V.  Banlet ......    204 

Future  ExiSTENCE.  Thk  Bbuets  of  the  Early  Mohammedans 

RESPECTING  A.     By  A.  A.  Bcvan ao 

Gospel  according  to  the   Hebrews,  The.     By  Mgr.  A.  S. 

Barnes 356 

Gospel  according  to  St  Matthew,  succestioks  on  the  Origin 

of  the.     By  Mgr.  A.  S.  Barnes 187 

Inspiration  of  the  Liturgy,  The.    By  F.  Granger        •       .       •  37 

Lausiac  History  of  Paluidius,  The.    By  C.  H,  Turner        .        .  3*1 

MOBERLY,  Robert  Campbell.    By  W.  H.  Moberly  .       .       .       .  i 


INDEX   OF   ARTICLES  xi 

PA6S 

NOTES  AND  STUDIES : 

ActaPauii,AiiOTROKTa&.  By  M.  R,  James,  LitLD.  .  .  344 
'Aairia  ON  St  Paul's  VOYAGE,  Tbe.  By  the  Rev.  J.  R.  Madan  .  116 
BAPnsu  BV  Affusion  in  the  Early  Church.    By  the  Rev. 

C.  F.  Rogers 107 

Barnabas,  The  Mohammedan  Gospel  of.    By  tbe  Rev.  L. 

RagK 424 

'Bartholomew',  The  Etymology  of.    By  N.  Hertx  .110 

Codex  Claromontahus,  The  Original  Home  of.    By  A. 

Sonter 240 

CosuAS  Indicopleustes,  Notes  from.  By  E.  O.  Winstedt  .  283 
Cyprian,  St,  Prolegomena  to  the  Testimonia  of.  By  C.  H. 

Tumer 346 

DiDACHE,  Notes  on  the,  III.  By  the  Rev.  C.  Bigg,  D.D.  .  41 1 
Euthalius,  Recent   Work   on.    By   the   Very   Rev.  J.  A, 

Robinson,  D.D 87 

Hilary  of  Poitiers,  Hymns  attributed  to.    By  the  Rev. 

A.  S.  Walpole,  B.D 599 

'Hymn  of  the  Soul*,  The  Idea  of  Sleep  in  the.     By 

F.  C.  Conybeare 609 

Irenaeus,  St,  on  the  Dates  of  the  Gospels.     By  Dotn  J. 

Chapman 563 

Isidore  of  Pelusium,  Saint,  The  Letters  of.    By  C.  H. 

Turner 70 

Isidore  of  Pelusium,  Further  Notes  on  the  MSS  of.    By 

the  Rev.  K.  Lake 370 

John,  St,  Notes  on  the  Gospel  according  to.    By  the  Rev. 

W.  Lock,  D.D 415 

JUDE,  St,  The  Epistle  of:  a  Study  in  the  Marcosian 

Heresy.    By  the  Rev.  T.  Bams 391 

Jude,  The  Epistle  op  St,  and  the  Makcosun  Heresy.    By 

the  Rev.  J.  B.  Mayor 569 

Lectionarv,  The  Palestinian  Syruc  By  F.  C.  Burlcitt  .  91 
Lections  and  Gospels,  Proems  of  Liturgical.    By  the  Rev. 

P.  H.  Droosten 99 

•      Leonine  Sacramentary,  The  Metrical  endings  of  the,  II. 

By  the  Rev.  H.  A.  Wilson 381 

Lucas  or  Lucanus.    By  Mgr.  G.  Mercati,  D.D 435 

Mark  the  '  Curt*fihgered  '  Evangelist.    By  the  Rev.  V. 

Bartlet 13I 

Matt,  xx  23  and  Mark  x  40,  Note  on.    By  the  late  Rev.  B. 

Jackson 337 

Minor  Prophets,  The  Old  Latin  Texts  of  the.    By  the 

Rev.  W.  O.  E.  Oesterley,  B.D 67,  217 

Miracle  of  Cana,  The.  By  the  Rev.  W.  S.  Wood  .  .  .438 
Niceta,  Notes  on  the  De  Lapsu  Virgims  or.  By  A  Soater  .  433 
Office  for  Holy  Saturday,  An  Ancient.  By  the  Rev.  H.  M. 

Bannister 603 


Xll 


INDEX    OF   ARTICLES 


PASI 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  {contiHued) : 

Old  Latin  Texts  of  the  Minor  Prophets,  The.     By  the 

Rev.  W.  O.  E.  Oesterley,  B.D 67,  217 

Origen-Citations.The,  IN  Cramer's  Catena  on  i  CoriHthiofis. 

By  the  Rev.  C.  Jenkins -113 

Palestinian  svriac  Lectionary,  The.    By  F.  C.  BurVitt       .     91 
Papvrus  Anast.  65,  The  Meaning  or  the  Lkydetj  Graeco- 

DEUOTIC.     By  J.  de  Zwaan 418 

Pauli,  A  Note  on  the  Acta.    By  M.  R.  James,  Litt.D.        .        .     244 

Peshitta  Version  of  3  Kings,  The.  By  the  Rev.  W.  E. 
Barnes,  D.D 330 

'Pontius  Pilate'  in  the  Ckeed.  By  the  Rev.  T.  H. 
Bindley,  D.D lis 

Septuagikt,  The  Coming  Cambridge;  a  Plea  for  a  pure 
text.     By  Sir  H.  H.  Howarth 436 

Septuagint  of  (66;  and  1684,  The  Cambridge:  a  biblio- 
graphical QUERY.  By  E.  Nestle,  D.D.,  and  the  Rev.  J.  F, 
Beihune-B alter,  B.D «:i 

Ten  Words  of  Exodus  xxxiv.  The.  By  the  Rev.  w.  E. 
Banes,  D.D 557 

Tesiimonia  ok  St  Cvprian,  Prolegomena  to  the.  By  C,  H. 
Turner 

TroiUtins  OrigeniSf  THE  SO-CALLED,  AND  OTHER  writings 
ATTRIBUTED  TO  NOVATIAN.     By  ihc  Rcv.  E.  C.  Butkr,  O.S.B. 

Wisdom,  Rhythm  in  the  Book  op.    By  H.  St  j.  Thackeray    . 
REVIEWS: 

Das  Aben4*itahl  in  dan  swei  erslen  Jahrhundarten  nock  CAris/us 

(A.  Andersen).     By  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Srawley        .... 

Acfa  Pau/i  (C.  Schm'iAt).     By  W.  E,  Crum 

LAfrique  chritienne  (H.  Leclercq).     By  the  Rev.  E.  W.  Watson 
Apollinarit  van  Laadtcea  utui  seine  SchuU  (H.  Lietimann).     By 

the  Rev.  J.  F.  Bethunc-Baker,  U.D 619 

AssYRlOLOGY,  RECENT.     By  thc  Rcv.  C.  H.  W.  Johns  290,  628 

Atonement,  The  Ckristian  hUa  <(T.  V.  Tymma).     By  the  Rev. 

J.  H.  Srawley 622 

Christ,  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  {"W.  Sunday).     By  thc  Rcv.  H.  B. 

Sweie,  D.D 617 

DioHjfsius  of  Alexandria^    The  JMters    and  other   Rfmains    of 

(C.  L.  Feltoe).     By  the  Rev.  J.  F.  Bethune-B.ikcr,  B.U.     .        .    626 
Zifigmei,  Histoire  d<s,  I.  J.a   Thiologie  eintenicienne  (J,  Tixcront). 

By  the  Rev.  J.  F.  Bcthune- Baker,  B.D 634 

EtcUsiat-    occidentalis    mt^nnmenta    iuris    antiquissitMa    (C.    H. 

Turner).     By  J.  B.  Bury 

The  EngUik  Church  from  the  aictssion  of  Charles  I  to  the  death 

of  Anne  (W.  H.  Hutton),     By  the  Rev.  E.  W.  Watson      . 
Euehologia  (A.  Dmiirievikij).     By  F.  C.  Conybeare 
Framisci  et  Sodtirum   eius.  Actus  beati  (P.  Sabalier).     By  the 

Rev.  W.  H.  Hutton,  B.D 13a 


246 

587 
332 


136 
125 

451 


439 

130 
«33 


INDEX   OF   ARTICLES  xii'i 

PAGC 

REVIEWS  {continuai) : 

Gnestischs  Hymnen,  Zwet  (E.  PFeuscben).     By  the  Rev.  A.  S.  D. 

Jones 448 

Ideals  of  Science  and  Faith  (ed.  T.  E.  Hand).     By  the  Rev.  F.  R. 

Tennant,  B.D 453 

JusHh:  Apologies  (L.  Pautigny).     By  the  Rev.  J.  F.  Bethune- 

Baker,  B.D 626 

Miscellanea.    By  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Srawley  and  E.  W.  M.  O. 

de  la  Hey 13S 

Mencktum,  Das  morgenldndiscke  (S.  Schtwietz).    By  Dom  E.  C. 

Butler 443 

Paulinismus,  Der,  und  die  Logia  Jesu  (A.  Resch).     By  the  Rev. 

W.  Lock,  D.D 617 

Peskitta  Psalter^  The,  according  to  the  West  Syrian  text  (W.  E. 

Barnes).    By  F.  C.  Burkitt 286 

Religion,  Die,  Badyloniens  und  Assyriens  (M.  Jastrow).     By  the 

Rev.  C.  H.  W.  Johns 633 

Theism,  Selections  from  the  Literature  o/{Pl.  Caldecott  and  H.  R. 

Mackintosh).    ByC.  C.J.  Webb 128 

Timotkeo  I  Nestorianorum  patriarcha,  De  (H.   Labourt).     By 

H.  L  Pass 445 

Version,  A  Fourteenth-Century  Biblical  English  (A.  C.  Paues). 

By  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Lupton,  D.D 458 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS 
REVIEWED,    NOTICED,    OR    DISCUSSED 

PAOB 

Abbott,  E.    From  Ltlttr  to  Spirit 15s 

Paradads 159 

Attm  PmH IJ5,  14J,  344,  £49 

„    PoMUttThHku 553 

„    Pttri 136 

M    K/.* 57*,  581 

„    SaHctomm ^jg 

.•3^'* 549 

AdJai,  DocthtH  </ sSS 

'Am  IBM  Zaid 31 

jtgtnda  o/JVaumburg 306 

Al-Aswad  IBM  Ya'pur 38 

Alcuin  Cli*b  Coi}t<titm» 301 

AMiLiKCAU  M!>MuintHfspoitrsmiiraCMisloirtiUp£gyp^f^nHtHMt     .         333,  335 

Amelli,  A.      Guiiionii  muntuhi  ArtttMi  MicrologHS 311 

Anak-Isiio.     Paratliu 359 

Akdchbck,  a,     />iw  AtmuimaU  in  tint  awti  tniett  JthrhundtrUH  Hnek 

Ckrittut 136 

Aphraatex.     HomJiu 389,  490,  533  sqq. 

Apocalypai  0/  Battholomtw 581 

ApefilMtgtHata  paimm 331  sqq. 

L'Ap^ibJala  della  musintrul  Ufoloxx 311 

Ap(nto!it  Cotiaitutiims   ...  j|6,  301,  304 

Archer-Shi PHtBO,  E.  H.     TJirn  Dutwar^s  o/tk*  Faith      ....         471 

AasEHAM,  J.  A.     Cotltx  lilwrgirvt 308 

Assemani,  J.  S.     Bibliolhnu  onentaHa 308 

AuumptioH  c^  Moats ,  394  jq, 

AxcuuY,  C.      Tht  Paritk  Ctttk  and  his  right  to  nad  the  titMrgiail  Epistle  301 

Som*  rtmarkt  cn  tht  £dutardian  Praytr-Book 301 

Atiiamasius,  S.    Fatai  Lilltra 139,  iSt 

Vita  Antomii 33^ 

AvcuVTiNi,  S.      Quatsiiotus  v*ieris  il  nam  Ttiianimti 61  sqq. 

Baxxr,  a      In  NtvAtry  llottu  Magaatu      •■.>>..         27S 

Baluxk.     Nova  CoUfclto        . 71 

BANNtSTER,  H,  M.     Ill  English  Hisiorital Rtvifw i^g 

Iq  Cat alogo  sonitnario  dfUa  tfposiMotu  Crtgmana       .         .         ,  ,  31J 

Barokmiicwer.    Patrvtop't -        •        .        .  83,  58S 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS        xv 

FAGK 
Buns,  W.  £.     Aft  appanhtt  critiati  to  Chromicia  m  tJu  Ptskttlu  vtrsaw    .         Jio 

Tht  PahiUtt  PmIUt lao,  186,  539 

BartSohmitt,  Apoealypm  of 58 1 

Qfotiimae/ 583 

BjI7I?tol,  P.     \a  B-UtitH  Jt  imiratHrt  tttiitiastupia 387 

In  Rtvtir  Miifnt gtj 

BAirinTAJiK,  A.     Liiurgia  rvmana  t  Uhtrgia  lUt  nanalo       ....         30$ 

In  Omtts  rhristiattHs 309 

Bm,  J.  L.      CoHtnunttit  tvrsMMj  in  Haaiin{p  Dtftionary  of  Ike  BiUt  I  jt 

Bdjait.    yfdd  Jtf«*ffrum  «r5(n*cA>'i4M 334,  556 

BmtdifHonmt 30*,  306 

Bnwm,  H.     In  MuaUmmta  £  $toria  a  atltHnt  taimaatua    ....        604 

BctneBiDGE.     Pandttt 446 

BnOLD,  C.      Kmn^JasaUr  UtUiVkk  ahtr  dit  iMbyioMudf^uaj/riteJu  LittmtHr         196 

^iliothtta  Csuimmxs 7><  ^5 

BoiUiCTKiu     Id  ThttA)g%xht  QHurtalsdtrifi (89 

BnxniBBcs  ard  Jmazmua.     Untrrgang  Nmevtha S93 

BtLu,  J.     S,  Jaidori  Ptltaiatae  epistoiamm  .  .  .  lihn  tna       ....  78 

BmDtxv,  T.  H.     Ofeu»tuma>l DatfmtMfi id 

BiscHAa.  J,     MH6fmtit3 99 

Snuof,  E.      ITf  gtmma  of  iJi»  RamoM  Ritt 307 

Bujs.     Gramtmahk  da  nmtasfl.  Grmhistk  ......         131,  138 

A<im  Ap««loiamm 564 

BonrANTC     L*  Leggi  di  Harnmurabi >97  *q< 

BoniiT,  H.    AtUmpostohmm  epoayflta 448 

Book  of  thi  Dfod (3  MK). 

BfltcAWiN.  S.  C.     73w  /Tnf  o/Empint 398 

Bhtrht.     Oi  S.  isidaro  Prluxtala  lihri  Ira 376 

Boevr,  E.  L.  A.     D*  S.  lauiora  PHusiola  h'bri  trfs J^i  B3 

ftmajijim  ilo*9Uitnn*m 317 

Seamut.    Sec  Fkeishkk,  J. 

BunHT,  W.     ApofOtM  FaUura 71 

Bwnni.  L.  E.  O.     Se*  FnEur,  W.  H. 

BciKac,  E.  A.  W.     ConUttJingt  of  th*  ApouUx ^tfi 

Ajro  KiKC.     y^Mno/*  of  tha  Kings  <^  A$3yri«i 194 

ftmo,  F.     WnvTttlamanttimae'laiiMiliafsDictiotwryofrktBibU       .  t(t 

BVKiiAiiL    ^hik 31.  }Si  3^ 

BtiKDTT.  F.  C      Tht  tarly  Churth  and  tht  SynopHe  Goap^  ,         .         ,         .         lai 

Ttxta  amd  ymioHS  in  Eney<lopiudia  Bifitdai  IV 151 

Eariy  Christiattty  ottttida  of  Roman  Empira gas 

Earfy  EasterH  CAnstiaHily £3i 

BiTmn.  A.  £.     Kitta  ofRttntsiana .         433 

BtmxK,  E  C     T**  LatuMc  Hiaiory  of  PaSadiut  .    88,  331  aqc|.,  £37 

On  Tka  TrattiUut  Origtttit Sfl7  sqc;. 

CaSIIOl,  F.     [hrtioHttairr  J'ArdtMogit  ctirttunn*  rt  da  Lifurgia     ,         .  1 09,  303 

AMD  M.  LKCI.CRCV.     MonHHuttta  ndaiiaa  Ht^rgtca        ....         303 
CauiacoTr,  A.,  aks  MACStKtoaa,  H.  R.    SdtOioHa  from  IMa  Liitraiitn  of 

TkaUm tsS 

CAunm,  T.     V SvmngUa  stion  aaini  Jtan 144 

Giro,  N.     Stujt  italicni  di  FSohgia  dasvea 75)  ^3 

I,  J.  E.,  AMD  Harjokd.     CompoaiHom  of  Iha  HamUmh         .        .         357 


I 


XVl  INDEX    OF    AUTHORS    AND    BOOKS 

PAGE 

Cauuil     tnsHtnla  and  Caiiatiomi JS9 

CkmkHom,  Ada  of 86 

Chai-san,  J.     Tfu  Hiatorieat  sttHng  of  tht  Sttond  and  ThinI  EfiiaiUs  of 

St  Jakt\ )04 

Chaslss,  R.  II.     Axxttn\pti<iH  of  Mosf3  ......        294 

Chiymk,  T.  K.     In  Enrytlopiudta  liiUtca  IV 151 

Chkysostoh,  S.  John 383,  487.  491,  497 

Chunk  Qnaritrly  Revifw       .........      3  9qq-.  619 

Clemen,  C.     Paulus,  sein  I^bnt  umt  tVifriitn 141 

Die  rrligtonsgfscktrMlluht  Mtthodt  in  dtr  Tlwlogit       ....         476 

Clmikt  Qr  Alkxanoria 113,371,  399,410 

CUnuMiuu  HomiiUs aSj),  3D3 

CUmet/me  Reeogtiitionit ,         344 

CocKiK,  G.  S.     Scfn*  Difficulties  in  tht  Ufi  of  our  iMrd       ....         47a 

C&mntoH  Pmytr,  Book  of lOt,  307 

CoKUAMIK,  A.     LtLivrtifIs*U 46} 

Contbkare,  F.  C     In  ZtiUthr,  f&r  dit  mttttsl.  iVissenadiaft        .        .  Sj),  483,  £i] 

In  Hibberi  Jonmal 4839qq. 

CoortR.  J.      The  Book  of  Comm<^n  Prayrr  of  l6y;         .....         307 
CoorcR-FticARo,  R.     Alt  ExpaaiioH  o/tht  Churth  CalnMum       ,        .        .        475 

Co&HAs  Indicoplcustxs 381  sqq. 

CousTAWT,  p. 61,  (99 

CowLXY.  A.  E.     Sadduofts  in  ErtcydofnuJia  Dil-licit  tV  ....         15s 

Ckaxer.     Calttuit gratcomm  palntm  m  Novum  TaHamm/um     ,  .         I13 

Critital  QMntiom  . 139 

Crowfoot,  J.  W.     In  Strzvcowsxi  KtgiHOsitn,  an  Nniia*id  dtr  Kunat- 

geschieit/e toQ 

Cttriah,  S 340,  146  iqq.,  405,  435 

Dalhan.     Words  <ifjtsus goa 

Davidson,  A.  B.     Tht  Thrology  of  Ikt  Old  Ttitament 464 

Deabusr,  P.     Dal  Botxhen  vander  MCisfit 301 

Tht  Altar  and  lis  fumiturr •         .  .         307 

Church  Vr3ttn*nts  ..>>....  307 

DuuHAMM.    Bibtt  Studitt jox 

DiaitisaroH ^</j 

Dkrihsom,  E.     Muaie  in  tht  HiatMy  of  tht  Westtm  Churth .         .  .         311 

JXdacht  Afiostolorun 107,  411  aqq. 

DtCTTRiCU,  G.     Die  ntstortanisrht  Taiifjilurgit 30B 

DtoHYSiuit  UAR  Saubi.     Exfontto  kluTgiot 308 

DiipHtt  of  Christ  tvith  Salon 584 

DiioN,  M.  L.     Saying  Grtxa  hiatoricaHy  amsidend 310 

Dmitrcjewsxij.     Eufhohgia 93,  I33 

VON  DoRSCiiifTZ,  £1,     Euthaimam  Havcs.  Jitaitu^cJofddie  ....  87 

DOUCHTY,  C.     Aratia  destrta 3a 

Dx&UKC     ApaUinarius       . 619 

Driver,  S.  R.     Tht  Booh  ofGeutsis 461 

DvCHUNK,  1_     Ongintf  du  cuUt  (hrtlitH 300 

Edwards.  C.     The  t/autmumbi  Code 398 

EcERTON-WARBaRToH,  G.     Chna/iaH  Lift 474 

Fieycitiptedi/t  Bibiua 151,  ifi^,  177,  14a,  393 

Emch,  Book  of 39;,  404 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS 


XVII 


Pi: 


Ephi*di  Sntos,  S,     Cttnm'n^ /fisibtm ji 

EpiPHAJium.  S jjj,  jpj,  3^ 

£j^A>Ii  Wmtnonu  W  Tkto{ihiltim ^a- 

Eiutnvs  ajl 

Eiatin«  or  Ca«ajiia ao»,  3+6,  358.  31,3,  484,  494 

CttMtm  MarztHum jiasqq. 

^tfcifer,  Tht 39iU)<7> 

n'EYXAr.Dis.  B.     Lts  Ptamms  Iraduitt  dt  I'htbntt 463 

Ficmors  07  HMtniAjt* 71 

Jauum.   a.   S.     a   CrUiai  liiatmy  of  Fnr   TiMgAt  in  n/tremr  to  ih* 

CJirisiiau  RfUgion 5^1,  546 

SofHCt  in  'ilt^oieigy j^j,  ^^ii 

Ruuuit,  F.  W.     In  Sfiratfr's  Comwt»lnry 133 

LTOS,  C.  L.      Tkt  LtUtrs  and  othfr  ReitvuHS  0/ DioHyaiiti  of  AttxoHdha     .         616 

Satranteniiirium  LtotdanutH 381 

lOTtK,  M.    Lt  Lihrr  OrdinufH en  usage daiurEglis4  tVistgalAifiUt/  SittamU         304 

In  Rrvu^  dts  iputtioMa  Aiilon^MfS 33S 

\  Praytr  Book  c^  King  Edward  yi,  Tht 307 

FosasT,  C     Mtnttd  d'Asayriologit        ...         .....         J97 

t,  A.     Dms  RUmUe  ven  St  Ftorian  aus  dtm  mSlfitH  Jakrkundtrt .  306 

lAsn,  R.     Sf  Rose,  V. 

«,J.     httmHcit  LtHCOf^HU,  Brroiarium  Scannst,  StattuaU  Aboenst     .  305  sq. 
,W.  H.,  akdG.  W.  Hart.     Tht  Chnrdt  0/ our  Fathtn  {Rotk)  ,  306 

AKD  L.  E.  G.  Bhovvm.     The  litnjord  Bnviary 301 

I,  F.  X.     In  Tktoing.  Quarlaiuhrifl 309,  597,  Aao 

iroMs  T.     Eustba  PampfiiJi contra  ...  MnrttJ/uiit  KM ,  ;i8 

T,  F.  J.      T/i*  Lordof  H'tmaniiy  :  or  tht  ttfUmony  0/ kutHan  anmOHsuftt         474 

From  oiir  dead  itivts  to  hightr  things 474 

Carvcci.     Storia  diiP  arU  erishaiia 4,1$ 

Catti.     BttUettino  dtila  eotttruiiuioMe  archenlogica  tCimutMh  di  Routa      .  43J 

CtsstS,  P.     tn  IdMti  0/ Stitnet  and  Faith 455 

GiuiUT  VAM  Dta  CoMBiL.    Dai  Bot^fM  vander  Misstn         .        .         .         .         30I 
Gonis.    ^vn'  tciditigt  bishrr  UMtrirltitt  biMiaht  Frxtgnt  sum  rratenmit 

Srandlieh  beantworitt 557 

VON  oca  GoLTz.     Ignatiut  (Tcxtc  u.  UnterSL  xii} 136 

Id  Tht^ogitth*  LiltratHrttilfMg 445 

GeoBsruD,  E.  J.     EpislU  of  Ftlagia j55 

Gsaucch,  F.      Tkt  Soul  a/a  Chri^ian  ...  ■         •         •  37 

GftAVC.  G.     Sdittbtwuss/^n  und  IViUfns/rtiiuU  ......         46S 

fgoriana,  Cotahgo  tommario  JtUa  /spimmofu    .  ■         3  >  ■ 

iftAiL    IJ  tttoro  dft  Cav.  Ro*si  ....  loi^ 

HiKLL,  S.     t*$  iM0*iiinteMt3  aHtiqtws  dt  FAIgrrit   .  109 

*iii»rdian .  87,  543 

GwATxiK,  H.  M.     StMdits  IN  AritiHism 333,  gat 

GwTWN.     Afi/iraales Jia 

Hnmntttrabt,  Cod*  0/     ....,,,■••         •         397 

IIano.  T.  E.     Jdtaii  o/Siima  and  Ftut/t 453 

HAKroKO,  G ,  AMD  J.  K.  Cakpexter.     Competition  oflht  Htxattud*  5J7 


Iarkacx,  A     History  0/ Dogttta +0,45,451 

CkroMotoff' 116,  39't  397Wiq<  S^Ti  S97 

Mit$ton  Mnd  Atts&Ttitung 40S 

\0h.  VI.  b 


I 


xviii  INDEX   OF   AUTHORS   AND   BOOKS 

PACE 

Harper,  R.  F.    jlssyriai*  and  BabyloHtati  LrUan         ....        291,618 
HARr,  G.  W.,  AKD  W.  H.  Frlhe.     TJW  CAureh  0/ out  Faihm  (Rock) .  yah 

Hartel.     Pnulittus  353 

Mastings.     DiitioHaty  of  tht  BAU,  suppkineot 151 

IISADLAM,  A.  H.     In  Cniimi  Qatsftcms I39 

HriM.  K.     Da.i  It^liMtidtr  7.uki„yfl 468 

HuNBoy,  H.  H.      Tht  VoIm  oftbt  BiUe  am/  other  SrtmoHS  ....         474 
HutPORD.  R.  T-     Chrintiauity  in  Talmud  atui  Midntik  ....  ijO 

ffibttrt  JoHntat 4Sssqq. 

tlientrgia  Anglinttia 307 

HiJtoria  Mtimat/iurum  m  Argyfia jsisqq.,  444 

HutorienI  Rtvitw,  Engfish to8 

HoLDl!!*,  H.  W.      Thr  Um'ty  of  tht  Spirit 474 

HoLSTUi.  1-     CoHtx  RtgittarutH 316 

HoRT.  A.  F.  AND  M.  D.     Tht  Casftl  aaotdutg  to  Si  Mart   ....         154 

HitnzN{-,  Tttl  TdiiMMtk *9f    M 

Hcrrox,  W.  H      Tin  Etglish  ChHr<h/romtJu  AtoMtoHofChaHtf  t  to  Uu  ■ 

Dniho/Annt >30    I 

Ikkmael's,  S iOi,  J07,  358,  39J,  563  sqq.     I 

Iresaiiti.     Tra^otdia . 7' 

Isidore  or  rELvtivM,  S Tosqq.,  aToaqq. 

Jackson.  F.   Somt  ChriitiaH  Oifficultits  vftht  Steond  and  Tu>mtitth  CtHlmria        470 

jAMRk,  M.  R.     ApoftyfAa  Anttdola  .        . f49 

Jastrciw,  M.     Die  RtHgion  Bahyloniens  und  Auynmt         ....         633 

JlPTlRSON.  C.  E.     Things  JuttdamtnlftI 471 

JnEHiAS.  A.     Oat  a!ti  T*$tamttit  im  Litkn  dtt  aittn  OriiHit  .        396     ■ 

JraSHlAS,  BllXlltBtCK  AND.     UnttrgaMg  iVinn'i/u 993     H 

JnoHR,  S.     yita  Pauli 3*3    I 

Johns,  C.  H.  W.     Assyrian  aid  Battyloniait /.aws 198     I 

In  Etttyriofttedia  Dibiica  CoHtratts.  and  Lttltn 193     I 

Jordan.    Oh  Thtolo^it  dtr  ruutnldtchttn  Pridtgtin  Sovatiam  5^7  ^q-     I 

JuTTiN  Marttr,  S 489 

KcsroN,  F.  H.     Fapyriin  HAsnNOS  Diethnary  t^tht  Bihk         .        .  151 

Kino,  L.  W.     Tht  Rtigti  af  Tukulii.Ninifi  I n>o*qq. 

Koran >3  iq^. 

KkUoul      \a  GAttingiafha gtUhrit  AMttigtM &94*q- 

Labourt,  J.     Diouysiut  bar  Saiibt :  Exfositio  Ltlurgiof        ....         308 

Df  Titnolhe-i  I  NfHonatxomm  Palfianha >*        4I45 

Lf  ChrUtiaHiiiw  dans  r£mpirr  Ptrst.         .         -  ,         ,         .         536 

Lacau,  p.     Fragments  iT apoeryfken  mflta S77 

Laoeuze  :  Cmnbtliitfu  PakhatHttn  ,,....  •         .         444 

Laprassc,  p.  M.     Eiitdf  sur  la  liturgn  dam  rana'em  diodst  dt  CfnoM  306 

Lake,  K.    Inaug-rat  Lnlun       ....,.,.         484*504 

latmac  Hittory 311  aqq.,  444,  537 

Ltttioiiary,  PalsstiniaH  Syriae .        .91  sqq. 

I.XCLERCO,  H.     L^Afri^M  f/inlifHW 451 

I.itnrgit  ifAltxatdht  in  Dicfionnatn  d'Arrhtvlogit      ....         305 
AKD  F,  Cabrol.    Mtmuirtrnla  tatetiat  UtHtgica  .        ....         303 

Lecc,  J.  W.     TAt  Cltri's  B<wi gaa 

Trofts  OH  tht  Mast 303 

On  souit  Anfitul  Liturgical  Ctatoms  »\ov>failmg  into  disMar  .         yXJ 


INDEX  or  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS 


XIX 


n 


. —           ,.  .                  .  p*''^ 

LEirOLDT.       SfJttMMlt  ttWi  Alttf^ jj.     j.. 

LljA'i  P-     rf^»»»ii»»»a«  /?»Cr  in  DietiottHairr  it/trr/i^iogie      ....  305 

\a  BfiUttH  critiqitt jo£ 

Lu^nrs.     TodUntttc/t ** 

LinuASM.  H.    ApoiliMarit  itOH  LaoJiwi  MnJ  atinr  SckuU .                 .        ,  619 

Lnn>     2^  «f^>tryfihtn  Afxuttigtuhithttn .         .          .....  448 

lODGt.  O.    la  Idtmis  o/Scwm  and  Feilk     .         .        ^        .         .        .        .  4;4 

'«"'A- 137. '44 

Lnesnox,  V.    In  Enuiaa 78)  S3 

LtUTOM,  J.  H.     EnglahVtniontiaHhSXWOiDuliotuuyo/ttuBAIt.        .  tgi 

.ere*.  C.     Ad  EpittiinHtn  foHahum  variomnt  fiiUrxtm  rfisUiiat  .         .         .  71 

^(Ao&i  <i  Moteu  ad  vahorum  ftatnuH  rputalaa 7  r 

ImMUmmdi 4144.,  I40 

H«cnvTosu.  H.  R.     5m- G^LDtcOTr,  A. 

IcCajitmv,  B.     TAi  Stou^^  Mimd 301 

McClurc,  11.  L.     Christian  tVorakip,  its  origin  and  evo/ulion       .         .        .  300 

HcGimar.     Thessalottiatu,  Efiiilltt  to  in  En^y^opatdia  Bdn'ifa  IV     .  I51 

Nakii,  v.  J.    H^Afrr  BtfifV4rs  maydoubt:  orStudia  in Bibliail /HtfimHon  470 

NciLK,  A.  H.     JnlrvdMftwn  Iv  EccUiiaslts 463 

}»<ity^i-Kkard 33 

VAX  Uakcx.       Romt    {Ckurck)   and    Romans    (EfiiaHt)   in    EnryitofMudia 

Biblitaiy 153 

Xamk.     Concilia 7)1  Sti 

Uamnalt.     Srt  FiuisCK,  J. 

Hui&ouotrTH,  G.     Th€  Liturgy  vftht  Ndt .  911  tjg 

ll»M5K*i,i.,  J.  T.    RttMarktihU  Rtadinga  in  ikt  PaUstitian  Syriae  Ltetiottary 

O-T.S.vp.43;) 9l3(]q. 

Mmtifrimm  Pauti 145,  5^4 

XiMzns.     Go^ri  acttrnhng  to  Htbmtit  in  f{A%Tinan  Dittionary  of  i/u  Bihft  .  151 

MiRCATi,  G.     Cfalctini  nitovi  Misiidi  fir  la  eritica  dei  I/Ho  diS.  Ciprimto      ,  364 

■«YiB,  W.     Das  turinrr  BnteMstucIt  drr  a/ttittu  iriuhtn  Liturgif         .        .  381 

HOBOILT,  R.  C 4*Vt- 

Hon  AT,  J.     Tin  Trmptation,  Timothy  and  Titns  {Efnstitt),  Strnitm  on  tht 

Mount,  and  Sitphtn  in  Etuydofiaedia  Biblica  IV       ...        .  131  sq. 

MoxTTAOcoK,  B. 9B3 

XoiAKKSTiRK,  \.     SchcJia  0/ Barhettiatus  in  i  Kings          ....  3>l 

Moms,  G.     Anetdota  Martdsvlana  HI JI7,  378 

L'ongint  dn  Qnatrt-ltmf^!, 301 

Uturgia  mmana  t  liturgta  dtlV  ttan/Mo  (Baiimststrk)                 .        .  305 

Traetatus  Origtnis §90 

Ml'tLSa,  D.      Oirr  di/ Gn^M  HamntttrMt 197 

MmtHEAb.     Id  Idnda  ofStimet  and  faith 435 

MuKftAT,  }.  O.  F.     Ttxtual  Critiasm  0/  thi  /ino  Tatamail  in  Hasiuks 

Dietianafy  0/ the  BibU ijt 

HtwuH.     Sm^th 3^1  34 

Htlxi,  R.'S.     Tki  Tmi  Crottnd  0/ Faith 474 

.Haviu^     See  Boob  ojtht  Dtad. 

Ktsru,  E.     tht  Fan/la'tnng  im  Wt'k  dts  Fapins  undim  mttn  Evangrhum  t88 

Kkam,  Canons  0/ 86 

N KKouoit,  £.  B,     7jW  Gwful  atcording  to  tk»  Hthmva        ....  367 

KniiAYBa.     Dt  Isidori  Pttusiolat  vita  striptii  tt  doctrina       .        .        .        .  76,  8  J 

b  2 


XX         INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS 

PACE 

NiKEi,  J.    Gmmtsis  mhJ  KtilsdirififonckMmg 196 

Obimji I13XPI-1 5*7 

Omxt,  51.  R.     Tht  Book  0/Jimak  tutoring  to  tkt  Stptmismt    .  463 

FMograpkn  mtuuaU }li 

Paujuhis 3"  >q<)-  354.  S4fi 

Papias 1*8  sq^  307,  371 

pAKKV,  R.  St  J.     A  DianunOHo/Ou  G*mrtti  Efn*tU  of  St  Jamn  153 

PaL'SS,  A.C.     A  Jomrlttnlh-anlii'y  Ett^iiM  BAtiral  Vtrnom  458 

Pault,  Martynutn  .         ,         .........         '45?  554 

PALI^HCS  or  NOLA,  & Jft 

PAcnomr,  L.    JmUm  :  Apotogits 636 

PXAXK.A.S.     T/uPnMtm<^Siifiru^iMAt<Mr*shimmt      ...        461 

PusER,  F.  £. J97 

PfTtgrinatio  SSoim J38,  J53 

Ptshitta jtoaqq.,  1S6 

Pixoin,  T.  G.      TkeOU  TtOamtMl  in  tit  ti^t  «/  Iht  Rmvrda  of  Assyria 

and  Bai^Kta 198 

PmUHEa,  A.      77m  SttomJ  E^istit  to  Htt  CorittliiaHs 154 

PxrciCirtH.  E.     PaUadius  laui  RttfintiA 3jtt,  444 

Zttti  gnostisdtt  ffynttun 448,  (09 

pKtKCL    Srrtbti  and  P/iaru*tt  in  Et*tyH.  BAl.  IV 1  ja 

PtULIH,  F.  W.      Tht  AnoiMling  0/ /fit  Sifi 3I0 

Ramsat,  W.   M.      Roads    and    Tnvd  and   KKmben  £'c    in    Hastings 

Diaiottary  of  tht  Bible 151 

RAtHi>ALL.  H.     CMnstHS  ft  Ealftia       .,.....■         473 

RtgtdaAnlomi 3)6  K)> 

Rbmacdot,  E. 198  sqq. 

Rbbch,  a.     Drr  Paulitdsmus  tatddit  Lcgia  Jtm 617 

RSTTREIIG.      Marfttliatta $17 

RtviLloUT.     L'Swtg^it  d*i  DvuKt  Af^rti  rtrrmmtnl  lUmtivtrt .         .  ^8f 

In  Comfits  rrndtts  dt  tAmd.  ttt^  lust,  tt  Bdltt-itttrts  .         ,  5SJ 

RtfHARDSON,  A.  K.      Ckurrh  Iditsk  i.Huidbooks  Tor  Uic  Qcrgy).         .         .         313 

Tkt  PioJttu  :  iJttir  Structure  ami  MtUKol  Stttittg        ....         313 

RieoKWSACH.    Drr  Thntlariju-At  Tau/btfii! 484 

RnRKSMuws,  C     S.  liidon  PtiusdoltBt  dt  inttrpnlaliont  dmrtrnt  Kri^tmnu 

tpistolarutn  lAri  n 79  *!■ 

RitttaU  of  CologH* 306 

RoutitOH,  F.     Coptic  Apocryphal  Gospth 577 

RoBiHftoN,  J.  A.    St  Paut s  EpiatU  to  tht  EpknioMa 143 

In  Enrytiop**dia  BAftca  1 508 

Rock,  D.     TJit  CAtrrdi  qf  our  Eatfttn 306 

RocKRS,  C.  F.      BapiistH  and  Chrixtian  ArHiatoio^     ....  107,   nog 

Ropts.     Agntpha  IB  VI AtrtJiCi  DulioHarytf  tht  BAle Ifit 

Rose,  V.    Simditt  on  tht  G^ipeh 149 

RoswETD.     yUat  paimm 33>)  .13t 

RorixuB.      Hittoria  mottaehorvm 331 

RosuLL,  B.     In  tdtals  ifSeienet  and  Faith 456 

RvAK,  C.  J.     Tht  GoaptU  of  tht  Sundays  amd  FtsHvals         ....         155 

Sabatibs,  P.     Afts  btati  Fntnciati  tt  lociomtH  titts 133 

SANriAT,  W.      Fntihtr  rtttarth  on  tht  Histwy  of  tht  Crrtd  (J-  T.  S.  iii  p.  t)  .  1 1  a 

TV  t^iiyrw  fifrrt  (Critical  Questions'! 139 


INDEX  OP  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS 


xx! 


PACK 
iV,  W.     SafTtttSitis  oflhi  Gosfitta 1^5 

Ou/liMts  o/lfu  Li/tq/Cknat        .          .                    filg 

Saniifa,  Canons  of 86 

ScKAirz.     Gts(kkhH  Jtr  riinnKhm  LiUmtmr 5a; 

ScHBiL.     \a  Mtmoim  tU  ia  Duration  tn  Perst  \l 302 

/.M  Im  lit  HanttMottrabi      ■■.......  jM 

ScHiWltm,  S.      Das  tnorgtnlSHdistlu  At6n(kti4ni ^^ 

ScuxiDT,  C.     Arta  Fault laj,  345 

Dit  altm  Pitruaaktttt 136 

Schmidt,  N.     Son  o/GoduidSo»  o/Atan  in  Eiwyfiopatdia  BibUca  IV  151 

ScHHiEDEu     Rtsumrtionlfc.  in  Eneydopatdia  Bibika  ]V    .                  .  i^j 

ScHttHrxixER.  A.     Liturgitctie  Bibliat/iti  I 306 

ScHorr,  A.     S.  fsiJoh  Ptiuniolar  rpiataia*  AacUtiui  meditat  .         .                   .  79  sq. 

SchOrcr,  £,     Diaspora  \a  \ijiAJiK<''*  Diilionary  0/ tht  Biblt           .                   ,  151 

SCQTTMH   CHimCH  SOCIBTY.       Thf  PflltKOStol  Gift X\K> 

Skllim.     TtU  Ta'atttuk 3c^7 

StptuagiHt     ............         On  ««i«]. 

SllAHRiUTAMt 33  ^■ 

SuxPHEAaD,  H.  B.     Tht PatahU  cff  Man  and  o/Goii 469 

SlKMOHU,  J. 71 

SixTu^  ScNENsis 77i  79 

Smith,  P.     OM  Tta/ammt  f/istory 4G1 

SooiATEs 336,  35t 

V(ui  SoDSH.     Dir  Sthri/im  lUsN.T.X 89 

SozoMEN 33)  xq. 

Spiller.  G.     Th4  jViW  o/MaH 43 

Staixt,  V.     LibrOfy  0/ LUtirgiotogy  and  Eccifite^ogy 306 


Steukjku,  J,  F.     Diaftaaroit  in  Hastikcs  DittioHary  of  tfu  BAU 
SroMEt  [^-      T^*  Holy  CommitnioH         ...... 

Stveane.     Jaus  Ckrixl  m  iht  Talmud  (re.  (Dnlman  and  Latblc) 
Snuvcowsxi.     KitiH-AsitMj  tin  Nittlattd  d*r  KunUgntkiftth 

Dtr  Dotn  su  Aathnt 

Siudia  Biblim  rt  Paltislim 

SuLPicnrs  SrvcRcs 

..Swrra,  H.  B.     Tfit  Gosptl actording  ic  St  Mark  .... 

In  Critical  Qi*titiOHa 

Tkr  Old  TtslamtuI  in  Gmk 

TARHkii,  G- E.    Modem  Philosophers  and  the  Pir  Quern      .... 
Tasxu.     Apocryphal  GosptU  in  Hastings  Dictionary  0/ tite  Bdtlf 

TiLOWl.     Ltlkmtura  Asaint 

TltAU^CEr.     In  U'iMntatho/lUck*  MuUHnngm  ana  Botnitn 

ThiU).     Ada  Thomae 

TdowrsoN,  E.  H.    Customary  t^tht  BeHidiitine  Monasteria  t^ St  AngmsHtu, 

Canttrhury,  and  St  Peter,  IVealitnnster 

TiMlirsOK.      CuM/ifonn  Texts  front  Baiytottian  Toilets         .... 

Thomsom,  J- A.      la  Ideaia  of  Mitit*  ami  Pai lit 

TnuRSToy,  H.     Z^  nl  and  Holy  Wttk  . 

TllLSJfoxT.     Memairrs  .......... 

TtxiROin',  J.     HiiUtirt  dea  Dofstnes  I 

TuKKEf,  C.  H.      Grttli  Patriftic  Commentarita  on  tin  PauHnt  Epiattta  in 

HA&Tisci  Dithonary  tf  ike  Bible 90i  ^51 


igl 
.  138 
ijo 
109 
109 
107,309 

•  S»9«I. 

laasq.,  338 

"39 
457 
474 
151 
ag6 

■35 
449 


301 
991 
45j 

47! 

334  s<l* 

624 


1 


xxii  INDEX    OF    AUTHORS    AND    BOOKS 

PACS 

TUMMKR,  C.  H.     Ecdtsia*  OeddnUaKs  MoHttrntnlm  luris  Anh'passima .  439 

Tthms,  T.  V.     Tht  CJinstiam  Idta  of  Atonttimti 613 

Umghad.    Zur  Syntmx  drr  Gtattat  HammMrabis 198 

ViLUKM,  A.     VA^  EmHm  Rntatdot 398 

V^  Aniomi 324 

„    Pmrkotmi 335 

M    /Wi 445 

VoisiM,  G.     VAfotlmmriamu 620 

VoTAW.     Sfnmem  cm  tk*  Motmt  in  Hastikgs  Dictiomaiy  i^tiu  Biblt  i  j;i 

Wagcstt.  p.     Thi  ChHnk  ma  sttn/rom  OKtsidt  Id  Idials  ofSriemn  mnd  FaUh  4^7 

Waller,  G.     Tkt  BMitml  Hrv  <^tlu  Somt 15^ 

Ward,  W.     In  Idimis  ofScittm  mud  Fmtk ^^^ 

Wkimgartkn.     Dtr  L'rsprung  As  MlSttekhnms 333 

MdHcktum  in  Hkrzoc*s  RtaUmykiopiJie 332 

WsLLHAL*ssi(.  J.     Rfsit  ambisck€K  Htidtntmms 11 

C»mfof'li»H  dfs  /ifxmtrtttks f;t,> 

WkrklSf  P.     Tkf  BfgtMMimgs  t^  Ckristiattily ^-i 

WwtcoJT,  B.  F.     Somf  Itssams  ofthr  RtvisttI  fmiom  oftkt  Knp  Ttstantmt  500 

Whitr,    Btm^UoM  Ltctmtws  ^i^'^^"' 434 

WiExn,  H.  M.    Sttuiks  m  BAtkai  Lam j^S 

WlLTCRT.     DU  MaU'tim  4tr  Km»»kon»^tn  Rcmts loS 

WitsoK.  H.A.     TIU  BnuAtiomal  0/ AniiUiMcf  Robtrt      ....  302 

WlKCKLSR.     Dif  G^srtat  HmmHmrmiis  m  Vmackrift  mtJ  t'tterattna^  .  J97 

WoBBXRKiX    EmtkmNi  Cft/faaw go 

Wright,  A.      TIW  Gw^  tunning  ta  St  Lukt 105 

A  S'€mofsi»  «f  tkft  GoafHs  im  Gntk  ^'C±  3)  ,  >4^  1S7,  365 

WricMt.  W.    AfJknmlts 231.531 

Afo<vyf*,Mt  Att$  iftkt  Afwtla ^S 

Zahx.  T.     la  .Yam  hr-.JuKik  Z^ttsHtriji ^ 

M^nltus  tVM  Amcyrm cig 

ZiNHnu,  H.     Kf-OMxin^im  tmi  BiM        ...                 ...  396 

ZoCVLXm      EK<tgrmS  /iMtte'V 3^- 


The  Journal 

of 

Theological    Studies 


O0T0B£B,    1904 


ROBERT  CAMPBELL  MOBERLY 

My  Father  used,  not  infrequently,  to  discuss  the  merits  of  two 
different  ways  of  judging  a  man.  Take,  he  would  say,  the  case 
of  h.  great  statesman,  set  up  on  high  before  the  world  ;  the 
object  both  of  hatred  and  of  love.  If  we  rule  out  of  court 
the  view  of  enemies,  there  remain  two  different  possibilities. 
^K  There  is  first  the  view  of  the  '  impartial '  historian.  He  looks 
^1  oc  the  statesman  in  the  perspective  of  history,  weighs — from 
^H  outside  as  it  were — the  merits  or  shortcomings  of  the  statesman's 
^H  policy;  and  pronounces  a  weighty  verdict,  in  which,  probably, 
^^  praise  and  cehsurc  have  each  a  considerable  place.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  is  the  view  of  the  wife  or  the  devoted  private 
Kcretary.  They  have  lived  with  the  statesman  through  public 
crises.  They  have  seen  into  his  mind  with  peculiar  intimacy. 
The>'  may  be  lacking  in  knowledge,  lacking  in  power,  lacking  in 
impartiality ;  but  they  have  seen,  with  the  insight  of  sympathy 
and  of  love,  right  into  the  inwardness  of  the  great  man's  actions, 
I  ss  thsy  appeared  to  khnself. 
^H  According  to  the  offhand  opinion  of  the  *  man  in  the  street ', 
^Vtbc  first  of  these  is  the  true  view,  and  the  second  is  partial  or 
^■-prejudiced.  In  this  opinion  my  Father  did  not  share ;  and 
^Blhave  often  heard  him  dwelling  on  the  merits  of  the  'inside' 
^^view.  Now,  whatever  may  be  their  first  hasty  opinion,  most 
men  would  admit,  on  reflection,  that  both  these  views  have  their 
I^itimate  place  in  the  rounded  fullness  of  truth  ;  and  that  neither 
can  be  ignored  without  loss.  Put  it  is  the  former  alone  which 
^^s  most  usually  given  to  the  world.  It  must  therefore  be  a  matter 
Wk    VOL.  VL  B 


THE"  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


of  concern  to  those  who  have  been  dose  to  a  man  and  a  thinker 
in  his  lifetime,  that  the  *  intimate'  point  of  view  may  also  be 
represented. 

In  the  Church  Quarterly  Rii^iew  of  April  1904,  there  appeared 
an  article,  entitled  '  Robert  Campbell  Mobcrly ',  which  is  an 
excellent  example  of  what  we  may  call, — without  meaning  to 
disparage  it — the  '  external  *  point  of  view.  It  seems  worth  while 
to  attempt  to  give  some  idea  of  what  seem  to  be  its  omissions 
and  misunderstandings  to  those  who  approach  the  matter  from 
the  other  side.  I  wish  to  make  it  quite  clear  at  the  outset  that 
this  is  the  object  of  this  paper ;  and  that  it  makes  no  claim  to 
be  of  the  nature  of  a  final  judgement.  For  such  a  judgement  far 
greater  knowledge  and  ability,  and — perhaps — a  different  temper 
would  be  necessary.  But  to  represent  the  more  humble  point 
of  view,  which  is  here  claimed,  I  believe  that  I  have  some  right; 
in  that,  during  the  last  three  years  of  his  life,  I  was  continually  ia 
the  closest  association  with  my  Father,  who  spoke  freely  to  me 
of  his  philosophical  and  theological  views.  I  may  therefore  be 
said  to  have  been  familiar  with  the  thinker  'in  his  shirtsleeves'. 
I  hope  therefore  that  I  may  now  proceed  to  give  my  personal 
impressions  of  the  Church  Quarttrly  article,  without  appearing 
absurdly  presumptuous. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  evident  that  the  reviewer  does  approach 
the  subject  from  outside.  For  his  account  of  the  personality^ 
which  accoxmt,  though  slight,  is  extremely  appreciative  and  feir — 
he  makes  it  clear  that  he  is  largely,  though  not  entirely,  indebted 
to  others.  And  the  main  theme  of  the  article  is  an  attempt  to 
construct  a  theory  of  my  Father's  developemcnt  from  his  books, 
and  quite  apart  from  a  persona!  knowledge  of  his  mental  history. 
Such  a  knowledge  would,  I  believe,  have  inevitably  modified  the 
reviewer's  theory. 

But,  though  it  is  obvious  that  the  review  belongs  to  the  first 
of  the  two  classes  mentioned  above,  it  is,  in  many  waj'S,  marked 
by  unusual  insight  Tims  the  reviewer  recognizes,  on  the  first 
page,  the  fact  that  the  explanation  of  many  of  the  peculiarities 
in  my  Father's  books  must  be  sought  tn  his  character.  Again, 
oa  p.  76,  '  Most  scholars  spend  their  leisure  time  in  reading, 
Moberly  scen«  to  have  spent  his  in  thinking.  The  range  of 
book  knowledge  displa>*ed  in  his  writings  is  surprisii^ly  narrow/ 


I 
I 
I 


ROBERT  CAMPBELL  MOBERLY 


This  is  essential ;  and  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the 

trait  are  well  pointed  out.    On  the  one  hand,  there  are  the 

inconveniences  of  a  new  terminology  and  the  likelihood   that 

ihe  pioneer  will  often  waste  much  time  m  forcing  his  way  through 

dense  forests,  when,  if  he  only  knew  it,  a  clear  path  has  long 

igo  been  cut.     On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  'half-digested 

erudition  ;    Moberly's  books  are  all  his  own  '.     Again,  on  p.  80, 

my  Father's  attitude  towards  the  logical  intellect  Is  dealt  with. 

'He  was  ne\'er  content  to  discuss  a  particular  problem  without 

first  considering  the  presuppositions  on  which  both  sides  based 

their  arguments.     And  if  he  protests  against  assuming  a  purely 

intcUccIual  basis  for  religious  faith,  it  is  not  in  order  to  degrade 

the  intellect  into  the  position  of  an  advocate  retained  by  the  will, 

but  because  he  was  convinced  that  faith  must  be  a  matter  of  thft 

whole  personality  acting  in  harmony,  and  that  the  truth  when 

fully  knou'n,  must  satisfy  both  our  mora]  and  our  intellectual 

facuhies.'     And  on  p.  93,  in  the  final  summing  up,  the  reviewer 

speaks  of  him  as  a  representative  of 'the  tendency  towards  G^r^'i?^, 

and  especially  Platonic,  methods  of  thought,  towards  a  theology 

definitely  Johannine   and    Pauline,  and   a    religious    philosophy 

strongly   anti-deistic   and    anti-individualist'.      With  rej^ard   to 

these  and  many  other  passages,  one  can  only  feel  thankful  for 

the  clear  expression  of  such  illuminating  thoughts. 

It  is  most  pleasant  to  dwell  on  points  of  harmony.  But  it  is 
more  profitable  for  one  who  comes  after  to  dwell  on  the  points  on. 
which  he  thinks  he  can  either  supplement  or  criticize.  A  dis- 
proportionate length  allotted  to  criticism  need  not  therefore  be 
taken  to  mean  that  one  disagrees  with  the  article  criticized, 
as  a  whole.  It  will  be  best  then  to  proceed  to  challenge  points, 
on  which  the  reviewer  seems  to  shew  a  less  complete  insight. 
The  main  thread  of  his  article  appears  to  consist  in  a  theory  of 
devclopement.  He  holds  that  my  Father,  at  the  beginning  of  his 
career  as  a  theologian,  was  inclined  to  insLst  chiefly  on  a  blind 
obedience  to  tradition  and  authority;  and  that,  from  that  time 
onwards,  he  yvzs  more  and  more  inclined,  in  each  new  book, 
to  shift  the  centre  of  gravity  from  authority  to  experience. 
The  further  inference  is  drawn,  that — had  he  survived — he  would 
have  progressed  yet  further  'ia  the  direction  of  Mysticism', 
The  object  of  this  paper  is  to  suggest  tliat  the  theory  of  devclope- 


4  THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

mcnt  is — at  least — considerably  exaggerated  ;  and  that  the 
exaggeration  is  based,  partly  on  an  ignorance  of  my  Father's 
actual  psychological  history,  and  [jartly  on  an  inadequate  insight 
into  the  religious  philosophy  of  his  books. 

First,  as  regards  his  psychological  history.  In  his  later  years, 
he  might  have  been  correctly  described  as  a  Liberal  H^h 
Churchman.  Now  there  would  be  some  truth,  but  not,  I  think, 
very  much,  in  saying  that  his  High  Churchmanship  was  born 
with  hicn,  while  his  Liberalism  was  a  gradual  growth.  It  is  true, 
as  has  been  beautifully  said,  that  he  was  brought  up  under  the 
shadow  of  the  Tractarian  movement,  and  among  those  whose 
motto  was  *Hc  shall  not  strive  nor  cry'.  But  the  instincts 
which  developed  into  a  kind  of  Liberalism  were  there  from 
the  first,  especially  an  earnest  belief  in  the  essential  reason- 
ableness of  all  Truth.  And  It  must  be  remembered  that  his 
father,  Bishop  Moberly,  stood  in  a  somewhat  independent 
position  towards  the  older  Tractarians  ;  e.  g.  he  entered  into 
a  controversy  with  Dr.  Pusey  In  the  early  seventies  on  the 
Athanasian  Creed.  Of  course,  I  cannot  speak  of  personal  know- 
ledge of  the  earlier  years,  but  I  believe  that  my  Father's  most 
intimate  friends,  whilst  unanimous  in  declaring  that  there  was 
a  remarkable  dcvclopcmcnt  right  up  to  the  end,  would  say  that 
it  was  rather  a  dcvclopcmcnt  in  force  and  in  power  of  articulate 
expression,  than  a  developement  from  one  position  and  to  another. 
It  is  possible  that,  at  the  time  of  the  Lux  Mundi  essay,  he  may 
have  been  inclined  to  lay  more  exclusive  emphasis  on  obedience 
to  tradition  than  he  was  at  a  later  stage.  But,  in  making  so 
great  a  contrast  between  this  essay  and  the  later  pronouncements, 
the  reviewer  gives  the  impression  that  he  is  selecting,  out  of 
a  rather  complex  thought,  one  aspect  in  one  book  and  one  in 
another,  and  so  creating  a  somewhat  artiBcial  antithesis.  That 
this  is  so  in  the  contrast  which  he  tries  to  make  between  the 
teaching  of  Ministerial  Priestkood  and  the  teaching  of  Atom- 
m€nt  and  Personality^  I  am  certain.  There  was  an  interval  of 
only  two  and  a  half  years  between  the  time  when  Ministerial 
Priesthood  was  off  my  Father's  hands  and  the  completion  of 
Atonement  and  Personality.  He  was  a  slow  worker ;  and  he 
did  not  touch  the  books  in  term  time.  Practically  the  whole 
interval  was  taken  up  with  the  actual  writing  <>{  Atonement  and 


ROBERT  CAMPBELL  MOBERLY 


* 


The  thought  was  not  new  to  him,  and  the  thinking 
:  in  that  short  time.  The  book  was,  in  a  sense,  his 
life  work.  The  main  ideas  had  been  simmering  in  his  head 
for  years  before  he  began  Mtnisteriai  Priesthood.  Much  of  the 
book  is  based  on  sermons  preached  many  years  earlier.  He 
himself  was  conscious  of  no  change  of  opinion  on  the  great 
question  of  the  relation  of  inward  and  outward,  during  these 
last  years.  He  thought  that  he  had  one  consistent  and  wide- 
reaching  theory  on  the  subject. 

It  is  possible  that  there  may  be  a  slight  difference  of  emphasis 
in  the  two  books.  But  this  may  be  easily  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  the  earlier  book  is  written  chiefly  in  antithcjsis  to 
Bishop  Lightfoot  and  others,  who  insisted  somewhat  exclusively 
on  the  importance  of  the  Inward ;  while  the  later  one,  so  far 
is  it  is  polemical  at  alt,  is  written  in  antithesis  to  Dr.  Dale, 
whose  insistence  is  upon  the  objective  aspect  of  the  Atonement. 

My  first  contention  then  is,  that  the  reviewer's  theory  of 
developement  docs  not  fit  the  facts  of  my  Father's  life,  as  known 
to  bis  more  intimate  friends ;  and  that  some  of  the  aspects  of 
fats  work,  which  incline  the  reviewer  to  that  theory,  are  to  be 
explained  otherwise.  On  the  other  hand,  I  should  wish  to  guard 
myself  from  seeming  to  deny  that  there  was  any  truth  in  the 
theory  at  all. 

But  it  is  time  to  turn  to  what  is  more  important,  my  Father's 

religious  philosophy.     Now  it  is  very  true,  as  the  reviewer  and 

others  have  pointed  out,  that  his  iirst-hand  acquaintance  with  the 

Writings  of  philosophers,  and  especially  of  modern  philosophers, 

was  exceedingly  scanty.     No  one  can  regret  this  more  than  he 

did  himself.     And  yet  there  was  one  modern  philosopher,  Hegel, 

with  whose  spirit   he  was  very  closely  in  sympathy.    And   a 

recognition  of  this  fact,  and  of  all  that  it  implies,  might  have 

afforded  some  critics  a  certain  illumination,  of  which  they  stood 

much  in  need. 

Hegel's  famous  dictum, '  The  rational  is  the  real ',  is  very  near 
the  heart  of  my  Father's  philosophy.  It  may  all  be  said  to  hang 
from  this  central  identification  of  fact  and  idea,  as  twin  aspects 
of  a  single  whole.  To  the  '  common  sense '  point  of  view,  this 
attitude  is  like  a  fairy  story.  It  resembles  nothing  so  much  as 
a  continual  attempt   to  stand  on  one's  head.     At  any  rate, — 


I 


6  THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

whatever  else  may  be  said  about  it — audacity  must  be  reckoned 
one  of  its  most  strongly  marked  characteristics.  To  understand 
fny  Father's  philosophy,  it  is  essential  to  realize  that  this  audacity 
was  his  also.  Again  and  again,  critics  seem  to  misunderstand 
him,  simply  because  they  cannot  credit  the  full  extent  of  that 
audacity. 

I  ought  perhaps  here  to  guard  myself  against  a  misunderstand- 
ing. My  Father  was  not  a  II<^eIian  pure  and  simple.  The 
weakness  of  Hcgclianism,  to  his  mind,  was  that  it  was  throughout 
too  intellectualistic.  In  making  thought  or  mind  the  centre 
of  the  universe,  he  considered  that  it  gave  too  little  place  to 
will  and  emotion ;  and  that,  consequently,  a  certain  amount 
of  abstraction  ran  through  the  whole  system.  This  abstraction 
he  would  have  remedied  by  making  the  pivot  of  the  system,  not 
thought,  but  personality:  i.e.  the  concrete  whole,  in  which 
thought,  will,  and  emotion  are  equally  blended. 

This  boldness,  on  which  it  is  necessary  to  insist,  was  manifested 
at  least  as  much  in  the  application,  as  in  the  original  grasp,  of 
the  principle.  It  has  been  truly  said,  that  my  Father's  method 
of  thought  was  deductive  rather  than  inductive  ;  i.  e.  that  it  was 
his  habit  to  argue  downwards  from  principles  to  facts,  rather 
than  upwards  from  facts  to  principles.  In  any  case,  every  one 
would  acknowledge  that,  when  a  principle  is  once  obtained, 
it  is  necessary  to  re-interpret  the  facts  in  the  light  of  it.  This 
was  the  case  with  my  Father.  He  believed  in  the  general 
principle  that,  in  the  light  of  absolute  truth,  the  real  and  the 
ideal  are  one ;  i.  e.  hewas  an  optimist  on  the  grandest  possible 
scale.  It  results  from  this,  that,  at  every  point,  judgements  of 
value  and  judgements  of  reality  coincide.  This  carries  him  far 
indeed  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  ordinary  man.  But  he 
applied  this  principle  unflinchingly.  It  is  therefore  necessary  for 
all  criticism — favourable  or  unfavourable — to  recognize  this  fact, 
if  it  is  to  fulfil  its  first  duty  of  understanding.  The  principle  acts 
as  a  most  powerful  solvent  to  all  ordinary  ideas  and  standards. 
And  so  a  criticism  which  simply  criticises  on  the  ba.sis  of  the 
ordinary  standards,  without  going  b.ick  to  first  principles,  is 
simply  moving  in  another  world,  and  never  gets  into  touch  with 
him  at  all.  But,  before  going  on  to  shew  some  instances  of  this 
in  the  concrete,  it  is  necessary  to  say  something  on  another  points 


nhich  has  given  rise  to  misunderstanding ;  vh.  my  Father's  view 
of  the  relation  between  the  philosophy  which  is  based  on 
experience,  and  the  theology  which  is  based  on  revealed  truth. 

It  has  often  been  said, — and  it  is  said  in  the  Church  Quarterly 
article — that  'modern  men  trained  in  other  sciences',  or  even 
those  accustomed   to  modern   Philosophy  and   Theolc^y,   fee] 
themselves  in  a  strange  atmosphere,  as  soon  as  they  take  up  one 
of  my  Father's  books.     They  seem  to  be  quitting  the  light  of  the 
sun,  and  to  be  plunging  into  some  strange  mediaeval  cloister. 
The  terminology  is  unusual,  and  seems  lu  them  to  be  hopelessly 
out  of  date.     There  is  an  impression  that  he  wished  to  begin  by 
the  uncritical  acceptance  of  certain  revealed  truths,  or  to  confine 
his  philosophy  to  deductions  from  them.     He  was  thus  supposed 
to  be  returning  to  the  methods  of  the  Schoolmen,  and  to  be 
degrading  reason  to  the  position  of  a  mere  'ancilla  fide! '.    The 
Church  Quarterly  reviewer  indeed  sees  that  this  is  far  from  true 
of  the  later  writings.     Yet  he  speaks  of  my  Father  as  *  starting 
^^  from  the  assumption  that  the  dogmas  themselves  are  exempted 
^■£x>m  criticism '.    And  at  the  time  of  the  Lux  Mundi  essay,  it  had 
^^  not  yet  occurred  to  him  that  dogmatic  symbols  contain  certain 
^^  words  which  cannot  have  a  rigid  connotation,  and  which  therefore 
^■xnust  be  interpreted  as  well  as  'accepted'.    Of  the  Lux  Mundi 
'essay  I  cannot  speak  of  my  own  knowledge.     But  this  would  be 
a  ludicrous  travesty  of  his   mind  at  tlie  time  at   which  I  had 
contact  with  it ;   and  I  am  sure  that  he  did  not  believe  himself 
to  have  changed  so  fundamentally.     His  general  attitude  may 
be  described  as  follows.     Experience  is  the  ultimate  test  and 
criterion :    this  he  acknowledged  most  fully.    All  the  revealed 
truths  of  religion,  first  principles  as  well  as  details,  stand  or  fall 
ultimately  according  as  they  are,  or  are  not,  capable  of  satisfying 
the  demands  of  experience  ;   under  which  head  arc  included  the 
demands  of  reason.     In  so  far  as  the  merely  logical  understanding 
b   depreciated,  it   is  only  with    a  view  to   replacing   it  by  tho 
higher  reason,  which  represents  the  whole  personality.     But  the 
philosophy  of  experience,  in  so  far  as  it  takes  no  heed  of  revelation, 
is  unreasonable.     It  seemed  to  him  to  end  in  certain  demands 
and  questions,  the  answers  to  which  it  failed  to  supply.     In 
Hegelian  phraseology,  it  ends  in  unreduced  difference.     But  to 
tjJcc  no  heed  of  Revelation  is  unreasonable.    It  is  there.    It  is» 


B  THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

in  a  sense,  within  experience;  and  it  clamours  to  be  correlated 
with  the  rciit  of  experience.  But,  when  the  philosopher,  starting 
from  experience  in  contradistinction  to  revelation — which  ex- 
perience is  after  al!  a  mutilated  form  of  experience — has  Tiiled  to 
get  satisfactory  results  ;  he  will,  if  he  brings  in  the  truths  of 
revelation,  find  that  they  supply  the  key  to  the  enigma.  They 
supply  what  is  wanting.  Apart  from  experience,  they  arc  nothing. 
But,  when  brought  within  experience  they  supply  the  missing 
link.  They  are  like  the  sun  which  illuminates  a  whole  country. 
So  at  least  it  seemed  to  my  Father.  And  it  alwa}*^  used  to 
puzzle  him  that  a  philosopher  like  T.  H .  Green,  in  whose  philosophy 
he  believed  as  philosophy,  stopped  just  short  of  the  central 
Christian  verities,  such  as  the  Incarnation.  For  these  verities 
seemed  to  him  exactly  what  that  philosophy  required  to  make 
it  intelHgible.  Hence  sentences  which  alienated  many  because 
they  seemed  intolerably  reactionary  and  narroWjC.  g.  A.  and  P. 
p.  243,  'Vainly  to  the  end  of  time  .  .  .  will  philosophy,  otherwise 
than  in  conscious  dependence  upon  Christian  theological  truth, 
attempt  to  read  the  riddle  of  existence,  whether  in  external 
phenomena,  or  in  man,  or  in  God '. 

'  Revelation ',  says  the  reviewer,  '  is  regarded  as  something  so 
purely  external  that  it  may  be  said  to  transcend  experience 
absolutely.'  This  is  precisely  one  of  those  attempts  on  the  part 
of  the  critic,  to  dot  an  author's  I's,  as  the  author  himself  does  not 
dot  them,  which  give  a  wrong  turn  to  the  whole.  The  word 
'external',  and  the  word  '  absolutely  '  which  the  reviewer  italicizes, 
are  words  which  my  Father  would  have  repudiated,  for  they 
would  have  been  fatal  to  his  philosophy  of  religion. 

With  r^ard  to  the  question  of  terminology^  the  language  of 
religion  appeared  to  him  to  be  concrete,  where  that  of  technical 
philosophy  was  needlessly  abstract ;  e.g.  in  the  word  'God'  he 
meant  to  include  all  that  the  philosopher  includes  in  the  idea  of  the 
ab.solute,but  the  former  seemed  to  him  more  concrete  and  helpful. 

I  have  spoken  of  my  Father  as  sharing  with  Hegct  the  central 
principle  of  the  identity  of  the  real  and  the  ideal.  This  is  the 
Omega,  which  was  to  become  the  Alpha,  of  both  their  philosophies. 
But  he  is  also  like  Hegel,  when  viewed — as  it  were — from  below. 
When  faced  with  a  concrete  difficulty,  it  is  always  his  efTort,  not 
to  reject  wholly  either  of  two  alternatives,  but  to  pierce  to  a  unity 


ROBERT  CAMPBELL  MOBERLY 


^ 


teid  the  differences.     He  attempts  to  play  the  part  of  a  judge 

ratlier  than  of  an  advocate  ;  and  of  a  judge  who  believes  that 

then  is  some,  though  not  necessarily  equal,  truth  on  both  sides. 

Here  then  it  may  be  seen  why  his  general  principle  acts  so 

much  as  a  solvent.     If  he  Is  successful  in  piercing  to  a  unity 

behiftd  two  seemingly  contrary  alternatives,  neither  of  those 

alternatives   can    be    left    in   its   former   independent    liard    and 

iastness.     They  are  seen  to  be  mutually  dependent   fragments 

of  a  whole.     Thus,  in  his   philosophy,    human    personality    as 

a  whole,  and  the  faculties  of  human  frce-wiU,  human  reason,  and 

bunian  love,  are  robbed  of  the  independence  and  completeness 

iphidi  arc  usually  attributed  to  them.     The  n^ative  and  in- 

coiDplete  character  of  the  human  continually  drives  us  on  to  the 

Divine.     When  we  have  reached  this,  wc  can  turn  round  and  see 

I       that  such  positive  meaning  as  the  human  has,  arises  solely  from 

^fe  its  being  a  part— albeit  an  infinttcsimal  part — of  a  larger  whole, 

^m  which  is  Divine.    This  prevailing  tendency  of  my  Father's  position 

H   is  well  illustrated  by  a  few  playful  .sentences  at  the  end  of  the 

sipplemcntary  chapter  in  A  UniemeMt  and  Personaiityt  in  reference 

lo  Archdeacon  Wilson's  Hulsean  Lectures.     He  considered  that 

the  Archdeacon  had  minimized  unduly  the  objective  aspect  of 

the  Atonement.     *  Yet,'  he  says,  '  if  I  rightly  understand  him, 

r  fancy  that  I  can  sympathize  with  every  single  thing  which 

affirmatively  he  cither  means  or  desires.  .  .  .  This  then  is  the 

cffronter>-  of  my  audacity  ;   that,  thouf;h  whilst  rejoicing  in  his 

spirit,  I  am  unable  to  accept  his  exposition  as  it  stands,  I  do  not 

see  why  he  should  hesitate  to  accept  mine.' 

Now  Ministerial  Priesthood  is,  as  the  reviewer  recognizesj  just 
such  an  attempt  at  synthesis.  It  finds  two  rival  theories  of  the 
priesthood  in  possessioji  of  the  field  ;  the  Roman  and  the  Pro- 
testant. It  attempts  to  exhibit  the  Anglican  theory,  as  one  which 
docs  justice  both  to  inward  and  to  outward,  which  pierces  to  the 
unity  behind  '  the  unqualified  sacerdotalism  of  modern  Roman 
Catholicism  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  theory  of  simple  delegation 
adopted  by  English  Nonconformity  an  the  other'.  It  was  an 
attempt  to  get  beyond  the  ordinary  partisan  lines  of  demarcation. 
My  Father  hoped  accordingly  that  it  would  be  viewed  as  an 
tirenicon  \  and  was  correspondingly  disappointed,  when  the  critics 
of  all  complexions  simply  treated  it  as  a  High  Church  manifesto. 


10 


THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


This  was  far  more  markedly  the  case  with  the  greater  work, 
Atonement  ami  Personality.  This  book  may  almost  be  said  to 
contain  a  philosophy  of  religion.  That  philosophy  was,  to  the 
mind  of  its  author  and  of  those  who  agreed  with  him^  a  unity 
behind — and  containing — the  different  aspects  which  are  usually 
insisted  on  as  contraries  by  different  parties.  In  going  behind 
the  ordinary  shibboleths  and  standards,  it  at  once  renders  them 
Inadequate.  Thus  minds  which  are  still  moving  within  the  circle 
of  the  ordinary  presuppositions  must  fail  to  grasp  it.  Now  many 
of  the  criticisms  of  my  Father's  philosophy — among  which,  I  fear, 
the  Church  Quarterly  article  must  to  some  extent  be  included — 
make  a  curious  impression  on  one  who  views  the  matter  from  the 
author's  standpoint.  They  remind  one  of  the  contemporary 
criticisms  of  Kant.  Kant's  philosophy  was  one  which  went  behind 
and  transformed  all  ordinary  landmarks  ;  so  his  contemporaries 
did  not  know  what  to  make  of  him.  They  kept  trying  feebly  to 
classify  him  by  standards  which  he  had  transcended.  So  with 
my  Father.  When  the  reviewer  raises  the  question  of  his  view 
of  the  relation  of  tradition  to  experience, — and  raises  it,  as  ^ 
appears,  on  the  old  basis  that  they  are  two  contradictory 
opposites^and  when  he  goes  on  to  suggest  that  my  Father  was 
gradually  changing  from  one  position  to  the  other ;  the  whole 
discussion  seems  beside  the  mark  to  one  who  believes  that  his 
exposition  transcends  these  ordinary'  differences,  and  that  within 
it  each  side  finds  a  place.  It  is,  of  course,  open  to  any  one  to 
suggest  that  the  attempted  s>'ntliesis  is  a  failure,  either  wholly  or 
in  part ;  and  to  hold  that  it  was  completely  successful  and 
beyond  the  possibility  of  correction  would  be  to  hold  that  he  was 
superhuman.  But  a  criticism  which  simply  bases  itself  upon  the 
old  distinctions,  as  though  nothing  had  happened,  and  ignores 
the  vital  fact  that  the  book,  and  the  philosophy  which  it 
contains,  attempt  to  transcend  those  distinctions,  can  hardly  be 
veiy  valuable  or  illuminating  as  criticism.  I  ^lould  not  wish  to 
suggest — what  I  do  not  believe  to  be  true — that  the  reviewer 
wbolly  fails  to  rcalixe  this :  but  I  do  suggest  that  there  ts  a  good 
deal  in  ihe  article  which  could  not  have  been  theic.  if  the  reviewer 
bad  had  anything  Uke  a  full  con^rdkeosioa  of  tbe  real  aim  of 
the  philosophy  which  be  b  criticizing. 

This  kind  of  misappcebensioa  may  be  illustrated  firocQ  the 


ROBERT  CAMPBELL  MOBERLY 


II 


rinrer's  remarks  about  Atonement  and  Personality.    The  first 

instance  is   perhaps   rather   a  slip  of  the  pen  than  a   serious 

mistake.    On  p.  90,  the  reviewer,  in  attempting  to  interpret  my 

Fatlicr,  says:    'Jesus   Christ's  humanity   is   impersonal,  hence 

its  unique  capacity  of  universal  relation.*    Now  it  is  true,  of 

course,  that  he  did  make  a  distinction  between  the  humanity 

of  Christ  and  that  of  the  ordinary  individual ;  and  the  distinction 

^—    consists  precisely  in  this  unique  capacity  of  universal  relation. 

H   Bat  his  whole  object  was  to  break  down  the  ordinary  conception 

H  that  the   essence  of  personality  consists,    to  some  extent,   in 

^   cxciusivcncss  and  impenetrability.      In  50  far  as  these  qualities 

J       are  attributes  of  our  personality— and  this  is  the  case  much  less 

H  than  is  generally  imagined — they  are  accidents  belonging  to  its 

^  imperfection,     The  humanity  of  Christ  in  its  universality  is  the 

»le  type  of  perfect  human  personality.     It  is  far  morc^  not  less, 

personal  than  our  humanity.     Thus,  to  mark  the  universality  of 

Christ's  humanity  by  the  negative  formula  'impersonal'  is  to 

shift  the  emphasis,  and   in  effect  to  obscure  the  point,  of  my 

Father's  ailment.    And  in  fact  my  Father  himself  says  (pp.  93, 

94)  'To  deny  the  human  personality,  however  in  some  contexts 

I      necessary,  is  not  without   its  own  risks.     There   is,  and   there 

^■can  be,  no  such  thing  as  impersonal   humanity.     The  phrase 

^■involves  a  contradiction  in  terms.'    '  Of  necessity,  He  is  a  person : 

^ind    He,  the    Person,   is   human  .  .  .  There   was  in   Him   no 

impersonal    Htimanity    (which   is    impossible) ;     but  a  human 

nature  and  character  which  were  personal  because  they  were  now 

the  method   and    condition  of  His  own   Personality:   Himself 

become  human,  and   thinking,   speaking,  acting,  and  suffering 

as  man.' 

Another  instance  of  the  same  kind  of  misapprehension  is  the 
re\"i<n*'cr's  treatment  of  my  Father's  relation  to  Mysticism.  The 
reviewer  assumes  that  we  know  what  Mysticism  is ;  c.  g.  that 
it  is  an  altitude  at  an  opposite  extreme  to  Dogmatism  and  Scholas- 
ticism,—  and  speaks  of  him  as  having  'travelled  a  long  way  in 
a  few  years  towards  a  purely  mystical  theology'.  Now  in  the 
twelfth  chapter  of  Atctwment  and  Personality  M)'Sticism  is  dealt 
with  directly.  The  tendency  there  is  to  accept  Mysticism  as 
representative  of  the  truth  and  of  the  whole  truth  ;  but  to  shew 
(hat,  truly  interpreted,  it  is  nothing  partial  or  one-sided,  but 


12  THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

a  recognition  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  throughout  the 
whole  of  life.  But,  thus  viewed,  the  term  Mysticism  is  no  longer 
capable  of  being  used  as  a  party  label.  Hence  it  is  unfortunate 
that  the  reviewer  should  attempt  to  use  it  so.  It  is  of  course 
open  to  him  to  disagree  with  my  Father.  He  may  condemn 
either  any  attempt  to  reach  a  unity  behind  the  difference  of 
inward  and  outward,  or  this  particular  attempt.  But  it  can  hardly 
conduce  to  a  proper  understanding,  to  treat — without  argument 
to  shew  its  failure— what  is  an  attempt  at  a  higher  synthesis,  as 
merely  a  step  on  the  way  towards  one  of  the  opposed  extremes. 

There  is  another  point,  on  which  it  seems  necessary  to  say 
something  ;  and  that  ts  my  Father's  treatment  of  presuppositions. 
Nothing  that  he  wrote  has  been  so  widely  attacked  as  wholly 
perverse  and  absurd.  Mr  Henson  speaks  of  the  two  prefaces  to 
Mtftisterial  Priesthood  as  '  the  confessions  of  relentless  and 
disqualifying  prejudice.  They  preach  a  doctrine  of  intellectual 
impotence  and  point  the  moral  of  scientific  despair*.  And  this 
attitude  is  a  typical  one.  The  Church  Quarterly  reviewer  is  not 
so  uncompromising  in  hostility;  but  he  speaks  of  the 'singular  part' 
which  presuppositions  play  in  the  preface.  And  he  concludes  his 
discussion  by  saying:  'A  comparison  of  ecclesiastical  histories 
written  by  Protestants  and  Catholics,  by  Anglicans  and  Dissenters, 
should  surely  suffice  as  a  rcductio  ad  absurdum  of  the  theory 
that  dogmatic  presuppositions  are  a  trustworthy  auxiliary  to 
"historical  and  exegctical  methods  ".'  Yet  much  of  this  opposi- 
tion seems  so  gratuitous,  that  it  is  necessary  to  say  something 
in  explanation  of  the  prefaces.  But  it  is  probably  a  vain  task  ; 
for  nothing  could  be  clearer  than  the  second  preface  itself.  And 
it  has,  seemingly,  failed  to  convince  the  world. 

My  Father  did  not  think  that  he  was  advocating  anything  very 
new  or  startling  in  these  prefaces.  He  thought  that  he  was 
merely  recognizing  obvious  facts.  He  did  not  raise  the  subject 
as  an  advocate  of  presuppositions  against  those  who  did  without 
them.  He  raised  it  in  order  to  point  out  that  his  opponents* 
position  was  in  the  main  the  result  of  presuppositions,  and  of 
presuppositions  which  he  considered  mistaken.  These  pre- 
suppositions he  enumerates  and  attacks. 

His  view  of  the  matter  was,  briefly,  this:  A  man  without 
presuppositions   is    as  much    an    abstraction,  a    psychological 


ROBERT  CAMPBELL  MOBERLY 


13 


» 


monster,  as  a  man  without  a  character.  Presuppositions  arc 
the  result  of  a  man's  past  experience  as  a  whole.  To  demand 
iJial  be  shall  drvcst  himself  of  presuppositions,  is  to  demand  that 
he  shal!  view  each  new  question  without  the  least  reference  to 
thai  past  experience.  And  this  is  an  impossibility.  For,  apart 
from  conscious  reference,  the  very  capacities  which  a  man  has  for 
dealing  with  a  new  experience  are  inseparably  connected  with 
his  past  experience.  And,  in  the  second  place,  it  is  unreasonable 
to  treat  these  presuppositions  as  necessarily  a  handicap  or 
hindrance  in  the  endeavour  to  arrive  at  truth.  If  it  be  true  that 
reality  is  determined  by  the  ideal,  then  a  knowledge  of  the  ideal 
must  be  a  guide  to  a  knowledge  of  reality.  And  if  reality  is  all 
of  me  piece,  the  knowledge  that  we  have  should  help  us  to  the 
knowledge  that  we  have  not  yet. 

At  this  point  the  reviewer— who  is  more  appreciative  of  my 
Father's  point  of  view  in  this  matter  than  are  most  of  the  critics — 
ttould  part  company  with  him.    He  speaks  of  our  presuppositions 
isconceming '  matters  of  fact  which  no  doubt  arc  ultimately  deter- 
nincd  by  the  natural  and  spiritual  laws  of  the  universe,  but  which 
only  an  absolute  knowledge  of  those  laws  could  enable  us  to  deduce 
from  them  '.     This  my  Father  would  admit ;  but  he  would  deny 
the  inference  that,  because  all  deductions  based  on  partial  know- 
ledge are  imperfect,  they  are  therefore  to  be  eschewed  altogether. 
^^ Indeed  such  a  'self-denying  ordinance'  could  only  be  carried  out 
^nt  the  cost  of  an  absolute  paralysis  of  all  advance  in  knowledge 
Hvbatsoever.     The  scientific  method  is  not  so.    The  scientist  uses 
V generalizations  based  on  imperfect  knowledge.     The  truth  of  the 
law  of  gravitation  is  a  presupposition  which  every  scientist  carries 
with  him  into  the  examination  of  any  phenomenon  that  appears 
to  bear  on  that  law.     But  no  sane  person  contends  that  the 
scientist  would  be  more  likely  to  arrive  at  truth,  by  abstracting 
from  his  previous  experience,  and  treating  the  new  phenomenon 
as  though  tliat  experience  had  never  been.     Of  course,  no  one 
contends  that  we  can  never  change  our  opinions,  that  no  new 
experience  can  be  of  sufficient  importance  to  overthrow  these 
presuppositions.     But  each  new  datum  must  be  correlated  with 
our  knowledge    and   experience  as    a    whole ;    and,   unless  it 
bulks   sufficiently   lai^e   or   important    in    the   new    whole  to 
cause  a  modification,  it  will  have  to  be  modified  itself  in  case 


14  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

of  contradiction.  My  Father  expressly  disclaims  any  dearc  '  thaf 
theological  preconceptions  as  such  should  tyrannize  over  the 
interpretation  of  the  text'.  He  would  have  been  the  last  to 
deny  that,  with  many  theological  and  historical  writers  of  the 
past,  they  have  done  so  unduly.  But  that  is  not  the  point.  We 
cannot  permit  ourselves  to  be  paralysed  by  the  past.  And  the 
writer  in  the  Church  Quarterly  cannot  realty  need  to  be  reminded 
that  *  abusus  non  tollit  usum '. 

The  practical  question  then  will  not  be  one  of  presuppositions 
or  no  presuppositions;  for  they  are  natural  and  inevitable.  It 
will  be  a  question  of  right  or  wrong  presuppositions.  And  the 
best  way  to  secure  the  right  ones,  and  to  prevent  those  we  have 
from  becoming  over-rigid  and  tyrannical, — and  also,  one  would 
have  thought^lhe  way  least  open  to  the  chaise  of  obscurantism,— 
is  to  avow  one's  presuppositions  publicly,  to  have  them  ever 
before  one's  mind,  to  be  continually  confirming,  modifying,  or 
correcting  them  by  a  correlation  with  new  data  as  they  arise. 
Thus  the  only  safe  way  to  deal  with  presuppositions  is  to  bring 
them  to  clear  self-consciousness ;  and  it  is  so  that  both  writer  and 
readers  are  least  likely  to  be  misled.  This  is  the  method  which 
my  Father  attempted  to  put  into  practice ;  and  it  is  their  failure 
to  do  this,  which  is  the  reason  of  hrs  quarrel  with  those  whom 
he  was  criticizing  in  Ministerial  Priesthood.  How  far  he 
was  sitccessful  in  his  attempt  to  do  justice  to  both  elements  in 
experience,  the  old  and  the  new,  may  reasonably  be  matter 
of  controversy.  A  decision  depends  on  the  use  made  of  the 
method  in  detail.  And  this  is  not  the  place  for  such  a  discussion. 
But  the  general  prindples  of  method  which  he  professes  in  the 
prefaces  arc  surely,  when  we  consider  them,  not  only  fair  and 
reasonable,  but  even  obvious  and  necessary. 

There  are  one  or  two  minor  points  about  which  it  may  be 
worth  while  to  add  a  ^^v  words.  On  p.  78,  speaking  of  the 
relation  of  faith  and  reason  in  the  Lux  Mundi  essay,  the  reviewer 
says  '  Wc  desiderate  some  clear  principle  of  delimiution,  which 
might  help  us  to  fix  the  frontiers  of  the  understanding  .  . .  and 
the  higher  reason '.  With  this  may  be  compared,  p.  84,  '  The 
"combination  of  obedience  that  is  concretely  practical  with 
thought  that  is  speculatively  patient"  is  not  the  best  attitude  for 
dealing  with  obscure  events  in  past  histor>^  when  wc  are  trying 


ROBERT  CAMPBELL  MOBERLY 


15 


discover  what  actually  occurred.'  In  these  two  places,  the 
teWewer  assumes  as  axiomatic,  that  there  is  a  point  where 
idealism  can  go  no  further,  that  there  is  a  region  of  hard  fact, 
in  which  the  spiritually  informed  reason  is  not  only  not  superior, 
but  even  inferior,  to  the  logical  understanding. 

^Now  thia  '  presupposition  '  of  the  reviewer's  would  have  been 
denied  by  my  Father.  Of  course,  he  would  have  acknowledged 
liiat,  in  some  subjects,  it  is  possible  to  abstract  from  all  moral 
aod  spiritual  influences  with  less  harm  than  in  others.  But  the 
possibility  of  a  *  delimitation  of  provinces ',  or  the  existence  of 
a  i^on  where  the  abstract  understanding,  as  such,  is  a  better 
goide  to  truth,  was  utterly  foreign  to  his  thought.  This  is 
another  of  those  places,  where  the  reviewer  seems  to  fail,  because 
be  docs  not  realize  the  audacity  of  the  thought.  The  writer  is 
attacking  some  of  the  root  presuppositions  of  the  ordinary  man. 
It  is  therefore  necessary  for  the  critic  to  go  further  back,  and  to 
defend,  not  to  assume,  those  presuppositions. 

The  next  point  is  almost  the  converse  of  this.  My  Father 
maintains  throughout  the  inseparability  of  fact  and  idea.  The 
reviewer  has  just  before  been  attacking  this  inseparability  from 
the  side  of  fact.  He  now  attacks  it  from  the  side  of  idea.  He 
dm'S  a  contrast  between  the  historical  and  the  philosophical 
method  of  treating  the  question  of  the  ministry,  points  out  that 
the  latter  was  the  more  congenial  to  my  Father,  and  continues: 
The  book  would  have  been  stronger,  if  he  had  frankly  set  on 
one  side  the  historical  problems  about  the  ministry  in  the 
primitive  Church.  He  was  not  specially  well  qualified  to  deal 
with  them  as  a  historical  student,  and  he  neither  possessed  nor 
desired  to  possess  the  kind  of  impartiality  which  the  investigator 
of  Christian  origins  must  impose  on  himself,  if  his  work  is  to  rank 
above  an  tx  parte  statement  of  the  evidence.*  On  the  question 
of  impartiality,  I  have  already  spoken.  And  I  am  not  in 
a  position  to  discuss  the  more  purely  historical  qualification. 
But  my  Father's  object,  in  not  ignoring  the  historical  problems, 
is  clear.  Though  to  him  mere  fact  was  dead  fact,  though  the 
ideal  element  much  transcended  the  factual ;  idea  in  total  separa- 
tion from  fact  remained  nevertheless  barren.  Thus  the  historical 
facts  of  the  Incarnation  were,  to  his  mind,  representations  in  the 
lenomenal  world  of  eternal  truths  far  transcending  those  facts; 


l6  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

but  apart  from  the  facts,  we  at  any  rate  could  have  no  know- 
ledge of  those  truths.  They  would  remain  merely  transcendent 
and  other-worldly.  Their  own  inherent  majesty  might  be 
untouched ;  but  there  would  be  no  guarantee  that  ive  had  any 
part  or  lot  in  them.  The  same  holds  good  of  the  question  of  the 
ministry.  Any  treatment  of  this,  which  wholly  ignored  historical 
fact,  would  remain  fundamentally  incomplete  It  would  simply 
hang  in  the  air.  We  are  reminded  of  this  on  p.  91,  when  the 
reviewer  desiderates  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  relation  of  historica! 
fact  to  eternal  truth.  '  If  any  presence  of  Christ  other  thao 
a  spiritual  presence  would  now  be  by  comparison  unreal,  why 
was  it  not  so  always  ?  What  was  the  use  of  a  historical  Incarna- 
tion?' Does  not  the  reviewer  here  refute  his  own  objection 
on  p.  83  ? 

The  question  of  presuppositions  seems  to  be  involved  again 
in  the  discussion  of  my  Father's  criticism  of  Bishop  Lightfoot. 
The  reviewer  accuses  him  of  misunderstanding  the  Bishop,  in 
holding  him  to  maintain  that  'the  organized  Church  is  not  much 
more  than  a  necessary  evil '.  According  to  the  reviewer,  Lightfoot 
does  not  uphold  the  theory  of  a  purely  spiritual  Chiuch.  'Church 
order  is  a  means,  not  an  end.  But  this  declaration  is  combined 
with  the  fullest  recognition  of  the  necessity  of  "appointed  clays, 
set  seasons,  and  a  ministry  of  reconciliation",  so  long  as  the 
Church  is  militant  here  in  earth.  In  short  there  are  no  priests 
or  sacraments  in  Heaven,  but  we  are  not  there  yet  There  is 
nothing  in  this  to  which  a  Catholic  need  object ;  the  question 
is  only  one  of  emphasis.*  Here  one  may  ask  whether  there  is 
such  a  very  great  difference  between  holding  the  ministry  to  be 
a  necessary  evil,  and  holding  it  to  be  a  necessary  accompaniment 
of  the  Church's  career  on  earth,  but  abolished  in  Heaven.  The 
reviewer  seems  to  treat  it  as  an  axiom,  that  the  ministry  is 
incompatible  with  the  ideal  immediatcness  of  the  relation  between 
God  and  the  individual,  which  wc  must  imagine  to  exist  in  Heaven. 
And  this  is  to  make  it  dependent  upon  the  weakness  of  human 
nature,  and  to  make  it  vanish  with  the  disappearance  of  that 
weakness.  This  is  not  the  place  lo  discuss  such  a  presupposition. 
But  it  is  necessary  to  point  out  that  it  was  not  my  Father's ;  and 
therefore  that  to  criticize  him  on  the  assumption  of  this  common 
basis  is  unjustifiable.      He  would  certainly  have  declined   to 


ROBERT  CAMPBELL  MOBERLY  17 

on  ihe  degree  of  transmutation  of  the  ministry  in  the 
ity.  But  he  would  not,  I  think,  have  accepted  as 
axiomatic  the  theory  that  it  is,  ultimately,  to  be  '  destroyed ' 
rather  than  '  fulfilled  ' ;  or  that  destruction  is  the  only  fulfilment 
possible  to  it.  To  his  mind  it  was  not  obvious  that  the  existence 
of  an  intennedtary  involves  separation,  save  on  a  rather  crude 
and  mechanical  view.  It  seems  permissible  then  to  return 
a  verdict  of  Not  proven  '  to  the  reviewer's  charge  of  misunder- 
standing Bishop  Lightfoot ;  for  between  the  Bishop's  view  and 
his  own  there  is  a  wide  gulC 

One  other  minor  criticism  of  the  reviewer's  seems  to  involve 
some  slight  misunderstanding.  On  p.  90,  speaking  of  my  Father's 
discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  he  says :  '  He  seems  to 
prefer  the  word  persona  with  its  unfortunate  legal  associations, 
to  the  Greek  vttoaraax^,  of  which  it  was  an  admittedly  unsatis- 
factory translation.'  This  is  not  the  case.  What  he  docs  prefer 
to  vB-iJoTaCTts,  is  not  the  Latin  word  persona, '  with  its  unfortunate 

e legal  associations';  but  the  English  word  'person',  with  al!  the 
fiillaess  of  meaning  it  ha£  come  to  have  for  us.  He  expressly 
admits  that,  historically  »nd  in  the  first  instance,  the  translation 
may  have  involved  some  intellectual  loss  (cf.  A.  and  P.  p.  160). 
I  It  may  or  may  not  be  worth  while  to  add,  that,  whereas  the 
reviewer  speaks  of  him  as  reaching  '  the  centre  of  his  subject  and 
the  meaning  of  personality'  in  ch.  g,  which  is  entitled  'Human 
Personality  ' ;  he  himself  would,  I  believe,  have  been  inclined  to 
hold  that  the  centre,  both  of  the  book  as  a  whole,  and  of  the 
meaning  of  personality  in  particular,  was  rather  to  be  found  in 
the  discussion  of  Divine  personality  in  the  preceding  chapter. 

Throughout  the  article,  my  Father's  position  is  represented  as 
something  of  a  compromise,  and  so  somewhat  unstable.  Thus 
wc  arc  told  that  Lux  Mundi  as  a  whole  had  '  the  character  of 
Vermittclungstheologie — of  a  transitional  phase  that  could 
hardly  be  permanent';  and  his  essay  is  said  to  suffer  'from  the 
weakness  or  inconclusiveness  of  all  arguments  which,  while 
professing  to  be  unprejudiced,  are  conducted  without  any  explicit 
indication  of  their  ultimate  premisses '.  Oi Ministerial  Priesthood 
we  are  told  that  *  it  shews  that  uncertainty  of  touch  which 
indicates  a  transitional  period  in  the  writer's  thought  *.  And, 
even  as  regards  Atotutnent  and  Personality^  'the  book  does  not 
VOL.  VL  C 


I 


l8  THE  JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

give  the  impression  that  the  autlior's  views  had  quite  reached 
their  firuil  form.  If  his  life  had  been  spared,  he  would  assuredly 
have  discovered  that  the  scholastic  and  the  mystic  in  his  own 
mind  were  not  in  complete  harmony.'  It  is  on  this  central  issue 
that  the  view  of  this  paper  most  joins  battle  with  the  view  of  the 
Church  Quarterly  article.  Those  who  approached  the  matter  as 
'intimates^  were  impressed,  whether  in  the  books  or  in  conversa- 
tion, by  nothing  more  than  the  completeness  and  coherency  of 
the  philosophy  as  a  whole.  Whatever  else  might  be  said  about 
it,  it  could  not,  they  thought,  fairly  be  said  that  it  was  not 
completely  worked  out.  The  author  might  be  wrong  ;  consbtency 
might  be  bought  at  too  dear  a  price;  but  at  least  he  had  one 
consistent  and  far-reaching  philosophy.  He  knew  exactly  where 
he  stood  in  every  detail.  Thus  where  the  reviewer  only  sees  the 
uncertainty  of  touch  incidental  on  a  '  half-way  house  '  theory,  pro- 
ceeding from  one  groping  his  way  he  knows  not  exactly  whither; 
the  other  view  sees  a  harmonious  philosophy,  which  docs  not 
fall  between  the  extremes  of  ordinary  controversy,  but  goes 
behind  and  includes  the  truth  of  each.  It  is  obvious  that,  while 
this  difference  as  to  the  general  nature  of  the  matter  to  be 
ciiticized  exists,  there  is  not  likely  to  be  much  harmony  or  mutual 
understanding,  with  regard  to  criticisms  in  detail 

It  is,  perhaps,  necessary  to  add  one  word  of  caution.  Tt  is  only 
possible,  within  the  limits  of  a  paper  such  as  this,  to  dwelt  in  the 
roughest  way  on  general  features.  It  is  impossible  not  to  produce 
a  picture  which  is,  in  some  ways,  one-sided  and  exaggerated.  It 
would  be  most  unfortunate  and  untrue  if  an  impression  were 
given  that  my  Father  was  inclined  to  pursue  logical  consistency 
at  the  cost  of  ignoring  or  slurring  over  difficulties.  Even  if  his 
unification  prove  not  to  be  finally  satisfactory,  it  is  not  cheap  and 
easy.  In  this  connexion  may  be  noted  his  insistence  on  the  place 
of  abstractions,  such  as  force  or  love  in  our  conception  of  God, 
and  their  superiority  to  a  crude  anthropomorphism. 

I  have  already  said  that  this  paper  docs  not  pretend  to 
accomplish  the  impossible,  i.e.  to  be  written  in  a  really  judicial 
frame  of  mind.  It  is  an  attempt  to  represent  the  impression 
made  by  a  view  such  as  that  of  the  Church  Quarterly 
article  on  one  who  approaches  the  matter  from  the  other  side. 
And,  of  course,  it  has  been  mainly  necessary  to  dwell  on  points 


ROBERT   CAMPBELL   MOBERLY  19 

of  difference.  But  that  should  not  be  allowed  to  obscure  the 
gratitude  due  to  one  who  has  given  us,  what  all  must  feel  to  be, 
on  the  whole,  a  sympathetic  and  illuminating  bit  of  criticism. 
Moreover,  it  is  obvious  that  anything  like  a  dogmatic  tone  in 
this  paper  would  be  In  especially  bad  taste.  An  apology  is 
perhaps  due  for  faults  In  this  direction. 

With  r^ard  to  the  very  fragmentary  treatment  of  a  few  points 
in  my  Father's  teaching,  which  is  all  that  is  attempted  here,  there 
is  of  course  no  serious  efifort  to  appraise  the  value  of  that  teaching. 
The  attempt  has  been  to  indicate  on  some  few  points  what  are 
the  questions  which  he  actually  raised  ;  and  to  point  out  some 
directions  In  which  criticism  seems,  at  least,  applicable;  together 
with  some  others  in  which  it  appears  to  be  a  little  beside  the 
mark. 

W.  H.  MOBERLV. 


ca 


ao  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


THE   BELIEFS  OF  EARLY  MOHAMMEDANS 
RESPECTING  A  FUTURE  EXISTENCE. 

This  subject  has  attracted  a  consideraUe  amount  of  attention 
in  Europe,  but  though  it  has  so  oftoi  been  discussed  I  venture  to 
think  that  it  is  ver}-  little  understood.  If  we  open  any  cmlinary 
manual  of  histor}-  produced  in  our  part  of  the  worid,  we  shall 
probably  find — no  matter  wbether  the  author  be  a  Christian 
or  a  sceptic — that  the  success  of  Mohammed  is  represented  as 
largely  due  to  the  hope  of  Paradise  and  the  fear  of  Hell  where* 
with  he  impressed  the  minds  of  his  contemporaries.  And  most 
Eurvtpean  writers  are  caretul  to  add,  not  without  a  certain 
ptea:>ure.  tkit  the  Plradise  promised  by  Mohamnxd  differs 
<ss«x::au!}-  from  the  Paradise  expected  by  Cbrtsdans.  In  all 
thss  a$  in  nK\$t  popular  views  of  histoty.  there  is  some  admixtore 
of  :n£th.  but  the  ctcve  c>ctsely  w«  exanunc  the  &cts  the  riHMe 
c^<ariy  do  we  pcrcei\-<  thit  the  qnestka  ts  by  no  means  so 
^imp^  as  t$  coousca!y  s::pr<0£ed.  la  reality.  Mohammeds 
trjLC*-it^  on  the  sab-iect  of  the  hzture  lafe.  itr  fcom  supplying 
aa  ci^~  expluuttscc  of  hSs  :^«Kcess^  £?  p-cvrved  to  hxire  been  a 
greu:  sfjmbaE^>Msx4:  to  his  oxttecajwrarics  aad  w*s  nerer  Iblly- 
*:c«^<«d  by  hi?  vCX^-wtt^  -a  jcieei^aeBt  age& 

F;:^oc<eJLn$  wb<>  hiw  wnrtea  cc  :h5$  v^acfcxn  csisiIN'  &II  into 

tie  =is?.ike  vx  xsssna^  t5i»t  Ae  doctna?  j*  a  Kjme  Sate  of 

r?cr2>ct5oc  can  5ia>w  pwsea^ed  3»  sawe  cSctJty  »  the  Arabs 

a  ^«r  drse  oc  >tofram=aec  thm  St  rrcsects  r^  ocss  O^r^tsms  of 

ei>-cay-    Is  Fi^rwf  tSwe-  SeS;^  htve  *>  jccg  XTtsai  13  easeatial 

pW  T«r5a?«5  tSr  ssjec  bsyccttK  p«rt.  cc  rcc*£ltr  rsi^Tcn  diat 

we  aai  i  Sari  ti?  -ssj^w  a  wUp^x:  w-iiccc  :i«=:.    Yet  it  is 

^pdK  cJesT  dtas  Ae  »%>-«  cc  ^SjS'  bcitissr  ,\rtbs.  wia»ver  else 

I  it  «agr  lone  Mciajsd.  cSi  k<  SKiJcue  xxy  i«ix£  3t  x  Paradise  or 

t  m  WUL    Thi  -UKxac  An^cfc3c  tvvCs  ar?  snrer  -net&rr  cc  Rpeatsag 

ilfeMtadtar  Abk&  oua  &as  accA^ig  aaure  v  ^c^  cr  ?:-  y-tr     So 


MOHAMMEDAN    BELIEFS    IN    FUTURE    EXISTEiNXE      at 


general  was  this  sentiment  among  the  Arabs  that  even  the 
Chrislians  of  Arabia  seem  to  have  been  more  or  less  aflected  by 
it.  The  most  celebrated  of  the  Christian  poets,  'AdI  ibn  Zaid, 
who  lived  at  al-Hira  on  the  Euphrates  shortly  before  the  public 
2ppearance  of  Mohammed,  speaks  of  death  in  language  which 
docs  not  differ  at  all  from  that  of  his  heathen  fellow  countrymen. 
Alluding  to  the  kings  and  heroes  of  former  limes,  he  says — 


'After  all  their  prosperity,  their  royal  estate  and  their  dominion,  they 
finished  into  the  graves  yonder : 

'Then  they  became  like  dry  leaves,  which  arc  swept  away  by  the  east 
iHsd  and  by  the  wesL' 


I     Together   with    utterances   such    as    these,   which  doubtless 
npress  the  prevailing  belief  of  the  time,  we  find  many  traces 
of  a  more  primitive  conception,  namely  the  idea  that  in  the  grave 
itself,  or  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  grave,  the  soul  of  the  dead 
man  still  exists,  at  least  for  a  while,  retaining  a  kind  of  half- 
consciousness.    The  most  usual  terms  applied  to  the  souls  of  the 
dead  arc  W(/a,  which  properly  means  '  echo ',  and  hama,  which  also 
^—^  means  '  head  '  or  '  skull '.    Probably  *  soul '  is  the  original  meaning 
^B  of  the  latter  word,  and  the  head  i:>  called  hnwa  as  being  the 
^m  abode  of  the  soul,  according  to  the  idea  expressed  in  a  well-known 
^  verse  of  the  poet  ash-Shanfara, '  in  my  head  is  the  greater  part 
of  myself.     Hence  the  hdma  is  represented  in  poetry  as  a  kind 
of  bird,  resembling  an  owl  ipu)na),  which  flies  out  of  the  head  of 
the  dead  man  and  hovers  about  near  the  grave.     It  is  curious 
I      that  almost  the  only  feeling  ascribed  to  the  hdma  is  the  fceHng 
^ftfLUlurst '.     Thus  in  poems  composed  on  the  death  of  a  relative 
^^wc  often  find  such  phrases  as, '  may  he  be  refreshed  with  drink  I ' 
In  later  times  this  was  little   more  than  a  poetical   figure,  the 
'drink'  rcferrii^  to  the  rain  which  falls  upon  the  grave  and 
keeps  it  green,  but  there  arc  many  indications  that  the  phrase 
was  originally  used  In  a  literal  sense  ^.     It  is  not  to  be  supposed, 
however,  that  these  crude  beliefs  amounted  to  any  thing  like 
a  doctrine  of  a  future  life ;  the  hama  of  the  ancient  Arabs  was 


h: 


'  So  also  beads  ktc  cal^  hUlat-ai-him  or  mtuMiH-al-ham,  '  tbe  abode  of  sonls' 
ikOl's  Mu'/am,  ed.  Waslcnfdd,  iv  422  line  10  •'jlgfidul  xv  -JT  line  a3). 
*  Tbe  evidence  is  given  by  Wclltiausen  In  his  Heslt  araiischtH  Heidrnthumt  and 
a^.  (1897)  p.  181  seq. 


32  THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

a  mere  wraith,  a  shadowy  representation  of  the  feelings  which 
had  belonged  to  the  man  when  alivx ;  it  was  not  in  any  sense 
a  moral  personality.  The  clearest  proof  of  this  is  that  the 
Bedouins  of  the  present  day  have  similar  beliefs  as  to  the  shades 
of  the  departed,  and  even  oflfcr  sacrifices  to  Ihcm  ;  yet,  as  we 
learn  from  no  less  an  authority  than  Mr  Charles  Doughty,  '  with 
difficulty  they  imagine  any  future  life' — if  they  pray  and  fast, 
they  do  so  in  hope  of  some  temporal  blessing  ',  In  this  respect 
the  modern  Bedouin  is  the  true  representative  of  the  ancitmt 
Semites. 

If  we  take  these  facts  into  consideration,  we  shall  be  able  to 
realize,  in  some  measure,  how  utterly  the  teaching  of  Mohammed, 
on  the  subject  of  the  future  life,  was  opposed  to  the  habits  of 
thought  which  prevailed  among  his  fellow  countrymen.  In 
speaking  of  the  future,  Mohammed  emphasized,  above  all  things, 
the  idea  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  idea  of  retribu- 
tion. How  these  ideas  shaped  themselves  in  the  Prophet's  mind 
and  to  what  influences  they  were  due,  is  a  matter  about  which  we 
have  no  trustworthy  information.  No  one  can  suppose  that 
he  arrived  at  them  independently,  but  how  much  he  borrowed 
from  Judaism,  how  much  from  Christianity,  and  how  much  from 
other  sources,  we  can  scarcely  hope  to  detennine. 
I  Let  us  first  consider  the  idea  of  the  resurrection.  This  doctrine 
appears  distinctly  in  some  chapters  of  the  Koran  which  admittedly 
belong  to  the  earliest  period  of  Mohammed's  prophetic  career. 
Now  at  that  time,  near  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century  of 
our  era,  the  idea  of  the  resurrection  was  familiar,  not  onty  to 
Christians,  but  also  to  Jews  and  Zoroastrians^  and  accordingly 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  Mohammed  may  possibly  have  derived 
the  doctrine  in  question  from  any  one  of  these  three  religions. 
Hut  there  arc  reasons  which  seem,  on  the  whole,  to  indicate  that 
the  prophet's  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  was  mainly  based  upon 
Christian  beliefs.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the 
ordinary  word  for  the  resurrection  {kiyama)^  which  occurs  no  less 
than  seventy  times  in  the  Koran,  is  evidently  of  Christian  origin, 
since  it  is  identical  with  the  Syriac  kt^amta^  the  usual  word  for 
the  resurrection  in  the  writings  of  the  Syrian  Christians.     The 

>  C  M.  Doughty  AniM  Dearta  vol  i  p.  3401. 


MOHAMMEDAN    BELIEFS    IN    FUTURE    EXISTENCE 

Jewj,  on  the  other  hand,  do  not  seem  to  have  used  this  term,  but 

teinploj-cd  some  other  phrase,  especially  Myyath  hammcthlm 
•the  quickening  of  the  dead',  or  simply  t?hiyyak  'quickening*. 
Ills  also  to  be  considered  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
for  obvious  reasons,  occupied  a  much  more  important  place  in 
the  theology  of  the  Christians  than  it  did  in  that  of  the  Jews. 
As  Mohammed's  acquaintance  both  with  Chrjstianit>'and  Judaism 
was  extremely  superficial,  it  is   in    itself  more  likely  that  he 

IboTTOwed  his  notions  of  the  resurrection  from  the  religion  in  which 
this  subject  was  most  prominent.  Of  Zoroastrianism  Muhammed 
kr«w  even  less  than  he  knew  of  Judaism  and  Christianity.  In 
Ihe  yijaz,  the  part  of  Arabia  where  Mohammed  spent  his  life, 
Iherewcrc  many  Jews  and  some  Christians,  but,  so  far  as  we  are 
aware,  no  Zoroastrians.  Whatever  Mohammed  heard  of  Zoro- 
utrivusm,  at  least  during  the  earlier  part  of  hia  career,  he  must 
lave  heard   indirectly.     \Vc   know,   for  example,  that   one  of 

J  Mohammed's  fellow  townsmen,  an-Nadr  ibn  al-Harilh,  who  had 
visited  the  Persian  provinces  on  the  Euphrates,  used  to  entertain 
the  people  of  Mecca  with  tales  about  the  ancient  Persian  heroes. 
Bill  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  an-Nadr,  or  other  travellers  of  the 
same  kind,  had  any  clear   ideas  about   Zoroastrian   theology. 
And  when  we  come  to  examine  the  passages  in  the  Koran  which 
relate  to  the  resurrection,  it  is  impossible  to  discover  in  them  any 
trace  of  the  very  peculiar  ideas  with  which  the  resurrection  is 
associated  in  Zoroastrian  writings-    According  to  the  Zoroastrian 
llicoiogians,  the  resurrection  is  not  to  be  brought  about  by  the 
direct  action  of  God  ;   it  is  to  be  '  produced ',  as  they  say,  by 
certain  holy  men,  some  of  whom  lived  in  the  remote  past,  while 
others  arc  to  appear  in  the  future.     The  virtuous  acta  performed 
by  these  men  gradually  effect  an  Improvement  in  the  religious 
ad  physical  condition  of  the  world,  so  that  finally  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead  will  become  '  possible '.     Thus  wc  read,  in  the 
Zoroastrian  treatise  known  as  the  Mainyo-i'Khard,  that  unless 
Kai-Khusrau  had  destroyed  the  idol-temples  the  power  of  evil 
would  have  increased  to  such  an  extent  that  '  it  would  not  have 
been  possible  to  produce  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the 
/inal  body '.    Of  these  strange  notions  the  Koran  contains  nothing. 
Mohammed,  like  the  Christian  theologians,  always  represents  the   I 
surrcction  as  due  to  the  direct  and  sudden  intervention  of  God,  i 


\ 


24  THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

and  he  never  holds  out  any  hope  of  a  gradual  improvement  in 
the  state  of  the  world,  such  as  that  whidi  the  optimistic  disciples 
of  Zoroaster  so  confidently  expected.     But  if  we  are  justified  in 
concluding  that  Molummed's  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  was 
mainly  derived  from  Christianity,  tt  does  not,  of  course,  follow 
that  he  derived  it  from  the  orthodox  Christianity  of  the  period, 
*"  or  from  any  official  source  whatsoever.     His  Christian  informants 
were,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  wandering  ascetics  who  belonged  to 
no  church  in  particular,  or  else  belonged  to  small  sects  of  whom 
wc  know  next  to  nothing.     Hence  it  comes  about  that  in  one 
very  important  point  the  resurrection  described  in  the  Koran 
differs  from  the  resurrection   in  which   the  great  majority  of 
Christians  have  always  believed.     According  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  the    leaching  of  the  various  Christian  churches,  the 
future  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  the  consequence  of  the  past 
Resurrection   of  Christ,  '  the   first-fruits  of  them  that  slept ',  in 
other   words,    the    resurrection    to    eternal    life    is   represented 
as    a    process  which  has   already   b^:un.     According   to  the 
Koran,  on   the  other  hand,  Christ  never  rose  from  the  dead, 
for    the  simple    reason  that   He   never  died ;   when  the  Jews 
sought   to  slay  Him,  God   removed  Him  from  the  earth,  and 
a   phantom  was  crucified   in  His  stead  (Koran  iii  48,  iv  156]. 
It  is  true  that  in  one  passage  of  the  Koran  (xix  34)  Christ  is 
represented  as  speaking  of  His  Death  and  Resurrection,  but  this 
seems  to  mean  only  that  He  will  die  and  come  to  life  again  at 
the  end  of  the  world.    Unlike  the  New  Testament,  which  teaches 
that  'we  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed,'  the 
Koran  repeatedly  declares   that  'every  soul  is  to  taste  death' 
(ix  iSa;    xxi  36;    xxix  57).     That  every  one,  whether  he   be 
righteous  or  wicked,  is  to  be  r,iised  to  life,  appears  from  many 
passages,  and  it  is  clearly  implied  that   the  resurrection  of  all 
classes  will  be  simultaneous.     A  dtstinctiun  between  a  first  and 
a  second  resurrection,  such  as  we  find   in  the  New  Testament 
Apocalypse,  is  an  idea  foreign  to  Islam, 

We  now  pass  on  to  Mohammed's  doctrine  of  retribution.  In 
the  Koran,  as  in  most  Christian  systems  of  theology,  the  resur- 
rection is  inseparably  connected  with  the  judgement ;  '  the 
day  of  the  rcsuricction ' '  and  the  day  of  judgement '  arc  used  by 
Mohammed  as  terms  virtually  synonymous.     The  phrase  '  the 


MOHAMMEDAN    BELIEFS   IN   FUTURE   EXISTENCE 

day  of  judgement'  {yaum-ad-din)  was  evidently  borrowed  either 
from  the  Jews  or  from  the  Cliri&tians,  for  din  'judgement '  is  not 
an  Arabic  but  an  Aramaic  word  '.    Another  name  for  the  day  of 
judgement  is  as-Sd'a  '  the  hour ',  which  at  once  recalls  to  us  the 
phrase  in  the  New  Testament '  that  day  and  hour '.     Hut  the  use  ■-] 
of  'the   hour'  absolutely,  in  this  technical  sense,  seems  to  be  l 
peculiar  to    Islam  ;  the  frequency  with  which  it  occurs  in  the    ( 
Koran  is  especially  remarkable.     Of  the  other  terms  applied  to  J 
the  day  of  judgement  and  of  the  manner  in  which  it  is  described 
in  the  Koran,  there  is  no  need  to  sjieak  here  In  detail,  since  the 
Koran  is  one  of  the  few  Arabic  books  which  are  easily  accessible 
to  European  readers.     My  object   is   rather  to   investigate  the 
relation  in  which  Mohammed's  doctrine  of  retribution  stands  to 
previous  and  to  subsequent  beliefs. 

The  first  thing  to  be  noticed  is  that  the  elaborate  descriptions  ^ 
of  the  judgement,  of  Paradise  and  of  Hell,  which  we  find  in  the  | 
Koran,  are  almost  entirely  confined  to  the  older  portions  of  the  ( 
book,  to  those  chapters  which  Mohammed  produced  at  Mecca,  f 
while  his  disciples  were  as  yet  few   in  number  and  generally  \ 
regarded  with  contempt.    To  the  great  mass  of  his  fellow  towns-  ^ 
men,  the  prophet's  teaching,  and  in  particular  his  doctrine  of"  the 
future  judgement,  appeared  not  only  incredible  but  ludicrous. 
Over   and  over  again  wc  find  hira  complaining  of  the  derision 

^_^«*ith  which  his  announcements  on   this  subject  were   received. 

^H*When  we  are  dead',  said  the  Meccans,  'and  when  we  have  ^ 
become  dust  and  bones,  shall  we  then  be  called  to  judgement  ?  *  J 
(Koran  xxxvii  51).  If  Mohammed's  object  was  to  gain  disciples, 
it  is  strange  that  he  should  have  put  forward  so  frequently  and  so 
emphatically  ideas  which  brought  upon  him  nothing  but  ridicule. 
But  it  is  clear  that  the  very  fact  of  his  isolation  and  the  apparent 
impossibility  of  bringing  about  the  triumph  of  his  cause  by 
worldly  means  made  the  idea  of  a  sudden  divine  interposition  all 
the  more  attractive  to  him.  How  near  he  supposed  the  day 
of  judgement  to  be  we  cannot  say,  for  when  questioned  on  this 

'  It  happcBi  tb«t  in  Pcrtian  there  Is  «  word  tttn  mcaining  <  religion  ',  which  has 
no  conaeiion  with  the  Aramaic  t/tn ;  m  the  Pcrsiwi  tfln  wa»  also  borrowed  by  the 
Antn  Mt  an  catly  period,  Mohammedan  thccloguns  naturally  confused  the  two 
npn  aiiiiiii,  and  Bomctimes  cxpUtn  yaum-aJ-Jin  aa  meaning  '  the  day  of  religion  *. 
Thh  ii  merely  one  of  the  niinieroux  coxes  In  which  ignorance  of  Hebrew  and 
Aniuic  bu  affected  Mohamoiedaii  excscus. 


"i' 


I 


26 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


subject  by  his  opponenls  he  invariably  disdaimed  all  definite 
knowledge,  but  it  would  seem  that  during  the  earlier  part  of 
his  prophetic  career  he  had  no  notion  of  founding  a  religion,  sti^l 
less  offounding  a  poHlical  organixalion  ;  he  was,  as  he  repeatedly 
said,  merely  a  warner,  sent  to  announce  the  great  catastrnphe 
which  might  take  place  at  any  moment  and  put  an  end  to  all 
earthly  institutions.  In  this  respect,  it  cannot  be  denied,  the 
convictions  of  Mohammed  bore  a  great  resemblance  to  those  of 
the  early  Chnstlans.  How  then  are  we  to  account  for  the 
profound  difTercnce  between  the  Koran  and  early  Chiistian 
literature,  as  regards  the  manner  in  which  the  future  retribution 
is  described  ?  The  minute  and,  to  our  roinds,  grotesque  accounts 
of  Paradise  and  Hell,  which  abound  in  the  older  parts  of  the 
Koran,  arc  commonly  explained  by  Europeans  as  due  to  the 
idiosyncrasies  of  the  prophet's  mind,  or  else  to  the  coarseness  of 
of  the  Arabian  national  character.  This  theory  seems  to  me 
inadequate,  since  it  ignores  the  fact  that  the  later  chapters  of  the 
Koran  offer,  in  this  respect,  a  marked  contrast  to  the  older  ones  ; 
after  Mohammed  established  himself  at  Medina,  the  allusions  to 
this  subject  in  the  Koran  become  much  rarer  and  seldom  differ 
-from  those  which  are  found  in  popular  Christian  writings.  The 
real  explanation  seems  to  be  that  at  first  the  idea  of  a  future 
retribution  was  absolutely  new,  both  to  Mohammed  himself  and 
^to  the  public  which  he  addressed.  Taradisc  and  Hell  had  no 
traditional  associations,  and  the  Arabic  language  furnished  no 
religious  terminology  for  the  expression  of  such  ideas;  if  they 
were  to  be  made  comprehensible  at  all,  it  could  only  be  done  by 
means  of  precise  descriptions,  of  imagery  borrowed  from  earthly 
affairs.  At  Medina,  on  the  contrary,  where  there  was  a  large  and 
powerful  Jewish  colony,  the  notion  of  a  future  state  of  rewards 
and  punishments  was  evidently  not  unfamiliar,  and  accordingly 
the  prophet  could  content  himself  with  general  references  to  the 
subject. 

As  to  how  far  the  descriptions  of  the  judgement,  of  Paradise 
and  of  Hell,  arc  intended  to  be  taken  literally,  there  has  been  much 
controversy  among  Mohammedans,  as  we  shall  presently  see. 
But  nowhere  in  the  Koran  itself  is  there  anything  to  suggest  that 
the  language  used  on  these  subjects  is  allegorical.  Many  of  the 
details  are  common  to  the  Koran  and  the  New  Testament  :  all 


IIOHAMMEDAN    BELIEFS    IN    FUTURE    EXISTENCE      a? 


these  resemblances    must    be    due    to    oral    information,    for 
Mohammed  never  cites  any  Christian  writing  %'crbatim.     Many 
otiier  details  are  borrowed  from  the  heathen  Arabian  poets,  and 
this  is  all  the  more  remarkable,  since  Mohammed  professed  a 
ptat  contempt  for  poets  and  poetry.     But  the  prophet  was  not 
pmsessedofa  creative  imagination,  and,  as  he  had  no  literary 
pjodels  except  the  poets  of  his  own  people,  he  could  not  fail  to  be 
inSuenced  by  them,  however  much  he  might  disapprove  of  llicir 
general   spirit.     It  has  lately  been  remarked  by  a  well-known 
Oricntali&t,  Dr.  Gcorg  Jacob  "^i  that  the  descriptions  of  Paradise 
in  the  Koran  bear  a  startling  resemblance  to  the  descriptions  of 
drinking-parties,  which   occur  repeatedly  in  the  heathen  poets. 
The  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.     It  must  be  remembered  that  ia 
Mohammed's  country  the  conditions  of  life  were  extremely  simple ; 
art  and  luxury  of  any  kind  were  things  of  which  the  Arabs 
caught    only    occasional    glimpses,    when    the    foreign    wine- 
merchant — the  wine-merchant   is  always    a    foreigner    in    old 
Arabian  poetry— came  across   the  desert   with   his  wares,  and 
pitched  his  gaily  decorated  tents  in  some  sheltered  spot,  on  the 
bank  of  a  stream  or  under  the  shade  of  a  grove  of  palm-trees. 
Thither   all    the  neighbouring  tribes  wouM  repair,  to  taste  the 
foreign  drink  and  listen  to  the  foreign  musicians.    That  such 
scenes  furnished  much  of  the  imagery  employed  to  describe  the 
joys  of  Paradise  can  hardly  be  doubted  when  wc  compare  the 
following  passage  of  the  Koran  with  some  verses  which  I  will 
quote  from  a  heathen  poet. 
In  the  Koran  (xxxvii  40  seq.)  we  read ; — 

'They  [i.e.  the  righteous]  shall  enjoy  a  stated  pro\Hsion, 
Fruits  shall  they  have,  and  they  shall  dwell  in  honour 
Among  the  gardens  of  delight. 
Upon  coucht'S  face  to  face, 

A  cup  shall  be  passed  round  to  them  from  a  fountain, 
Clear,  delicious  to  them  that  drink, 
Ii  shall  not  overwhelm  them,  nor  siiall  they  be  robbed  of  their 

strength, 
And  »-ith  them  shall  be  consorts  with  bashfu]  glances,  large  of 

eyes, 
Fair  as  eggs  hidden  in  a  nest* 

*  Jillan^ixhtt  B*JnhttnUhtn  and  ed,  1897  p.  107. 


K/ 


THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


A  little  before  the  time  of  Molminmcd,  the  poet  al-Aswad  ibn 
Ya'fur  composed  an  ode,  in  which  he  says ' : — 

*There  was  a.  time  when  I  would  betake  me  in  the  evening  to  the 
wine- merchants,  with  my  hair  well  combed,  lavish  of  my  substance, 
before  my  neck  had  been  stiffened  by  age  : 

'And  there  I  delighted  myself— for  youth  is  keen  to  enjioy — with 
choicest  wine  mingk^d  with  water  that  fell  from  the  morning  clouds, 

'  Wine  furnished  by  one  adorned  with  ear-rings,  sweet-voiced,  and 
wearing  a  girdle,  wine  which  he  brought  for  silver  coins  : 

'It  is  carried  round  by  an  attendant  having  a  i>earl  on  each  ear,  clad 
in  a  tunic,  the  lips  of  his  fingers  stained  with  red  dye  : 

'  And  the  fair  women  walk  past,  resembling  full  moons  or  graven 
images,  while  gentle  maidens  bear  the  goblets  : 

'And  the  hearts  are  smitten  by  the  fair  ones,  who  are  even  as  the 
^gs  of  the  osirich '  lying  between  a  belt  of  sand  and  a  stony  ridge.' 

Another  point  of  interest,  in  this  connexion,  is  that  the  word 
'Aar',  which  occurs  several  times  in  the  Koran  as  an  epithet  of 
the  female  inhabitants  of  Paradise,  is  one  of  the  ordinary  epithets 
of  women  in  the  old  poets.  Many  other  instances  might  be 
cited  to  show  how  largely  Mohammed's  conception  of  the  future 
h'fe  was  afTected  by  the  poetry  of  the  heathen  Arabs.  But  it  must 
be  remembered  that  these  resemblances  arc  confined  to  matters 
of  detail ;  the  idea  of  the  future  life  itself,  as  a  state  of  retribu- 
tion, was  essentially  non-Arabian,  and  hence  it  must  always  be 
regarded  as  one  of  the  most  astonishing  facts  in  religious  history 
that  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  Arabs  should  have  been  led,  in 
the  course  of  a  few  years,  to  adopt  a  belief  which  at  first 
appeared  to  Ihem  the  height  of  absurdity. 

When  we  consider  the  conditions  under  which  the  Prophet 
lived,  his  total  ignorance  of  philosophy  and  of  systematic 
theological  speculation,  we  cannot  wonder  that  his  teaching  on 
the  subject  of  the  future  existence  remained  to  the  last  somewhat 
vague  and  incoherent.  There  are  two  principal  questions  to 
which  the  Koran  gives  no  definite  answer,  namely  the  question 
of  the  stale  of  the  departed  between  the  moment  of  death  and 
the  Resurrection,  and  the  question  whether  the  sentence  pro- 

*  At-M-fad^aliyyBt  ed.  Thorbeclce,  No.  37,  verse  so  •«{. 
'  Women  are  Mmpired  to  cg^s  on  account  of  the  whitcnesi  of  their  skin. 

*  Hence  the  European  honri,  which  is  used  u  «  sixtgulaTj  although  the  Arabic 
form  ift  a  pluraL 


MOHAMMEDAN    BELIEFS   IN   FUTURE    EXISTENCE      29 

Bounced  on  the  day  of  Judgement  is  in  all  cases  to  be  final.    With 

r^jard  to  the  former  question,  Mohammed  seems  to  have  held 

that  the  state  of  the  departed,  until  the  Resurrection,  was  sorae- 

thijig  resembling  unconsciousness,  for  in  the  Koran  it  is  placed 

OB  2  level  with  sleep  (xxxix  43).     'God  receives  to   Himself 

the  souls  when  they  die,  and  those  which  have  not  died   (Me 

receives)  in  their  sleep ;  so  He  retains  those  on  whom  He  has 

pronounced   sentence  of  dealli,   and  sends  forth  the  others  for 

an  appointed  time.'     That  this    passage  leaves   many  points 

unsettled   is  obvious.     A  similar  uncertainty  exists  as  to  the 

much  more  important  question  of  the  finality  of  the  Judgement. 

ll  is  true  that  the  Koran  often  says  of  those  who  enter  Paradise 

or  Hell,  as  the  case  may  be,  'They  shall  abide  therein'  (A»m 

fthd  khalidun).    But  though  this  phrase  suggests  the  idea  of 

ctcraal  blessedness  or  misery,  it  can  scarcely  be  said  to  affirm  it 

in  a  definite  form  *.     Moreover,  it  requires  very  little  ingenuity 

to  prove  that  besides  those  who  'abide'  in  Hell  there  may  be 

some  who  remain  there  only  for  a  short  time,  in  other  words, 

that  repentance  and  pardon  are  possible  after  the  Judgement. 

That  such  interpretations  soon  became  popular  even  among  the 

most  orthodox  Mohammedans  we  shall  presently  sec. 

In  passing  from  the  Koran  itself  to  other  sources  of  information 
respecting  the  doctrines  of  the  Prophet,  wc  pass  into  a  region 
where  Uiere  is  almost  boundless  scope  for  conjecture.  It  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  of  the  many  thousands  of  sayings 
ribed  to  the  Prophet  by  tradition  some  at  least  must  be 
uine.  Bui  unfortunately  nothing  is  more  difficult  than  to 
determine  which  are  genuine,  for  in  the  early  days  of  Islam  the 
manufacture  of  false  traditions  was  practised  on  an  enormous 
scale-  This  has  been  conclusively  proved  by  recent  investiga- 
tionSj  in  particular  by  those  of  Professor  Goldzihcr,  but  it  is  not 
ia  itself  a  new  discovery.  Some  of  the  most  learned  of  the 
Mohammedan  writers  on  the  Sacred  Tradition  perpetually  com- 
plain of  the  mass  of  spurious  traditions  which  were  current  in 
their  time,  and  one  of  these  critics,  a  certain  Yahya  ibn  Sa'id, 
who  lived  in  the  second  century  after  the  Prophet,  goes  so  far  as 

'  The  verb  kha!ada  and  iu  derivalives  do  not  convey  the  notion  of  eternity  tn  an  ■ 
ibanlute  tcci»e,  as  may  be  seen,  for  inMancir,  in  the  caa£  of  the  paEaive  parttciflcs 
mtJAalitid  taA  mHVUtttl,  'one  who  still  reUins  the  vigour  of  roulb'. 


:     nati 


1 


30  THE  JOURNAL   OF   TFIEOLOGIOVL   STUDIES 

to  say:  'There  is  nothing  in  which  we  have  found  respectable 
persons  to  be  more  mendacious  than  In  the  matter  of  the  Sacred 
Tradition'^.  Thus  if  we  wish  to  ascertain  what  the  Prophet 
taught  on  any  subject,  such  as  that  which  we  are  now  consider- 
ing, the  Sacred  Tradition  must  be  regarded  as  a  very  unsafe 
guide,  especially  when  its  testimony  davci^es  in  essential  points 
from  that  of  the  Koran.  But  though  it  Is  seldom  possible  to  use 
the  books  of  tradition  with  confidence,  in  order  to  settle  what 
was  the  teaching  of  Mohammed,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  these 
traditions  arc  of  inestimable  value  as  records  of  what  was 
believed  and  taught  in  the  various  sections  of  the  Mohammedan 
world  during  the  first  two  centuries  after  the  Prophet  It  is  for 
this  purpose  that  I  shall  now  appeal  to  them,  nor  shall  I  attempt 
to  decide  the  diiTicult  question  as  to  the  precise  origin  of  each 
tradition. 

In  comparing  the  Koran  with  tradition  we  at  once  perceive 
that  a  whole  series  of  questions,  about  which  the  Koran  says 
nothing,  or  next  to  nothing,  are  treated  in  the  books  of  tradition 
with  remarkable  fullness.  This  applies  especially  to  the  subject 
which  we  are  now  investigating.  It  is  astonishing  to  see  how 
much  more  was  known  about  the  mysteries  of  the  future  life 
by  Mohammedan  theologians  of  the  Middle  Ages  than  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Koran,  and  nearly  all  tills  mass  of  additional 
information  is  traced  back  to  the  Prophet,  on  the  authority  of 
such  august  persons  as  'A'tsha,  Ibn  'Abbas  or  Abu  Huraira.. 

Many  of  these  accretions  are  of  no  interest  to  us,  since  they 
consist  only  in  absurd  attempts  to  embellish  the  statements  of 
the  Koran  by  supplying  names,  measurements,  or  other  details ; 
as,  for  instance,  when  we  are  told  precisely  how  long  the  Day  of 
Judgement  will  hist,  how  tall  the  variuus  classes  of  mankind  will 
be  when  they  are  raised  from  the  dead,  and  how  much  tliey  will 
perspire  while  sentence  is  being  passed  upon  them.  But  these 
puerilities  are  not  in  any  way  specially  characteristic  of  fslam,  as 
it  would  be  easy  to  find  innumerable  parallels  for  them  in  Jewish 
and  Christian  writings;  they  merely  illustrate  the  general 
tendency  of  popular  theology  to  conceal  by  means  of  statistics 
its  essential  poverty  of  thought  and  imagination.  I  will  therefore 
confine  myself  to  matters  of  more  importance. 

>  Mu3lim  Saiify  (,«d.  of  a.h.  ugo)  i  p.  B, 


MOHAMMEDAN    BELIEFS    IN    FUTURE    EXISTENCE      31 


There  were  two  principal  innuenccs  which  gradually  modified 
the  beliefs  of  the  early  Mohammedans  respecting  a  fulurc  life — 
ihe  influence  of  primitive  superst  ftioii  and  the  influence  of 
rationalism.  Both  of  these  liave  left  numerous  traces  in  the 
Sacred  Trad  h  ion. 

I  have  already  remarked  that  the  Koran  contains  very  little 
iflfonnatiou  as  to  the  state  of  the  departed  between  the  moment 
of  death  and  the  Resurrection,  and  accordingly  on  this  question 
many  ideas  wholly  foreign  to  the  teaching  of  the  I'rophct  easily 
found  their  way  into  Mohammedan  society,  and  soon  came  to  be 
regarded  as  essential  elements  of  orthodoxy.  The  belief  that 
the  soul  of  the  departed  dwells  in  or  near  the  grave  and  is  partly 
ODDsdous  of  what  takes  place  in  the  neighbourhood,  was,  as  wc 
have  seen,  not  unknown  to  the  heathen  Arabs.  In  Syria  and 
other  countries  which  were  conquered  by  the  early  Mohammedans 
such  ideas  were  still  more  prevalent,  as  is  proved  by  the  literature 
of  the  Syrian  Christians.  No  one,  for  example,  who  studies  the 
descriptions  of  the  cult  practised  at  the  tombs  of  Saints,  can 
doubt  that  the  Saint  was  supposed  to  be  actually  present  on 
the  spot.  Or  again,  when  wc  read  such  books  as  the  Carwina 
yisidcPia  of  Ephraim  Syrus,  it  is  impossible  not  to  be  struck  by 
the  manner  in  which  the  other  world  is  constantly  identified  with 
the  material  sepulchre.  We  cannot  therefore  wonder  that  a  few 
generations  after  the  Prophet,  when  vast  numbers  of  foreign 
converts  had  been  admitted  into  the  Mohammedan  community, 
the  primitive  conception  of  the  future  siale,  as  a  sojourn  of  the 
soul  in  the  grave,  should  have  become  more  and  more  prominent 
in  Mohammedan  theology.  The  conception  was  essentially 
a  popular  one,  not  the  product  of  theological  speculation^  but, 
when  once  it  had  established  itself,  Ihc  theologians  were  comiKllcd 
to  reconcile  it,  as  best  they  could,  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Koran. 
The  general  term  applied  to  this  department  of  theology  is  ahwal- 
ai-kubiir  '  the  states  of  the  graves ',  which  corresponds  to  the 
Christian  phrase  'the  doctrine  of  the  intermediate  state'.  The 
simplest  form  which  the  doctrine  assumed  was  merely  that 
the  dead  are  conscious  of  what  is  occurring  in  the  place  where 
their  corpses  happen  to  be.  Thus  it  was  related  that  the  Prophet, 
ifter  the  battle  of  Badr,  turned  to  some  of  his  slain  enemies  and 
'said,  'You  have  found  that  what  your  Lord  promised  was  true'. 


Hti'tOs'** 


>  - 


J 


t.       *  >.. 


32 


THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


Whereupon  some  of  the  bystanders  exclaimed, '  Those  whom  you 
address  are  dead  '.  To  which  the  Prophet  answered,  'They  can 
hear  as  well  as  you,  but  they  cannot  reply  *  *. 

A  further  devclopcment  of  this  doctrine  is  seen  In  what  the 
theologians  call  ' adfuib-al-kabr  or  jitnat-al-kabr  '  the  suffering 
which  takes  place  in  tlie  grave',  which  may  be  illustrated  by  the 
following  words  ascribed  to  the  Prophet :  '  When  a  man  has  been 
laid  in  his  grave  and  his  friends  take  their  departure,  he  hears  the 
sound  of  their  footsteps ;  then  two  angels  come  to  him  and  cause 
hira  to  sit  up,  saying  to  him,  "What  belief  did  you  profess 
concerning  this  man  (i.e.  Mohammed)?"  If  the  dead  is  a  true 
believer,  he  answers,  "  I  bear  witness  that  he  is  the  Servant  and 
the  Messenger  of  God  ".  Then  the  two  angels  say,  "  Behold  the 
place  which  you  were  to  occupy  in  Hell,  instead  of  which  God 
has  assigned  to  you  a  place  in  Paradise ".  But  if  the  dead  is 
a  hypocrite  or  an  unbeliever,  on  being  asked,  "  What  belief  did 
you  profess  concerning  this  man  ? "  he  answers,  "  I  know  not, 
I  used  to  profess  what  other  people  professed  ".  Thereupon  he 
is  beaten  with  bars  of  Iron,  and  utters  a  shriek  which  all  beings 
in  the  neighbourhood  can  hear,  except  men  and //««'*,  If  this 
passage  stood  by  itself  we  might  imagine  it  to  imply  that  the 
soul  of  the  true  believer  at  least  will  not  remain  in  the  grave  but 
will  be  transferred  to  Paradise,  as  soon  as  the  question  put  by 
the  two  angels  has  been  satisfactorily  answered.  This,  however, 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  general  opinion  of  those 
theologians  who  held  the  doctrine  of  the  examination  in  the 
grave,  for  according  to  another  tradition  the  Prophet  said — '  Each 
one  of  you,  after  death,  will  be  made  to  see  his  abode '  every 
morning  and  evening,  whether  he  be  destined  to  Paradise  or  to 
Hell,  and  he  will  be  told,  "This  is  thine  abode",  (and  so  thou 
shalt  continue)  until  God  shall  raise  thee  up  on  the  day  of  the 
Resurrection  '*.  Here  it  is  evidently  assumed  that  the  souls  both 
of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  remain  in  the  grave  till  the 
Resurrection.  In  later  times  this  view  was  abandoned,  at  least 
as  regards  the  righteous,  by  some  theologians  who  maintained 

>  BukhJlrl  Sahik  (vocaliMtJ  ed.  of  A.B.  1196)  fi  p-  93  (»  •  P-  34S  >»  Krdil'a 
td.),  Muilim  ii  p.  359. 

■  Bukhirti^rii  C-  i  p.  346  in  Krchl'sed.). 

*  iJteratly,  <hia  abode  (.!•  c.  his  Tuturc  abode)  will  be  presented  to  him'. 

*  BuLhan  ii  p.  94  ( a  i  p.  347  in  Krehl's  ed.). 


MOHAMMEDAN    BELIEFS    IN    FUTURE    EXISTEXCE      33 


Ihc  souls  of  true  believers  would  be  deposiled  In  the  crops 
(4nw/iV)  of  certain  birds  which  were  supposed  to  dwell  in  the 
siadow  of  the  throne  of  God^  According  to  another  view, 
tbebirds  in  question  perch  on  the  trees  in  Paradise^.  But  it  was 
Cominonly  held  Uiat  neither  Paradise  nor  Hell  could  be  entered 
before  the  Resurrection,  and  hence  a  certain  Abu  Bakr  al-Asamra 
it^cd  that  Paradise  and  Hell  were  not  yet  created,  'for',  as  he 
nmarked,  *  there  is  at  present  no  use  for  them  '  '.  It  is  true  that 
ItliisAbu  Bakr  was  considered  heretical,  but  his  argument  'there 
is  at  present  no  use  for  them  '  could  not  have  been  brought 
forward  if  it  had  been  generally  thought  that  Paradise  and  Hell 
ft-re  inhabited  by  disembodied  spirits.  The  theory  that  Paradise 
md  Hell  were  not  yet  in  existence  seems  to  have  been  especially 
common  among  the  Mu'taztla,  i.  e.  the  rationalistic  theologians  of 
urly  Mohammedan  times. 
It  would  be  tedious  to  enumerate  all  the  opinions  which  were 
t  about  the  experiences  of  the  dead  in  their  graves,  but 
tradition  on  this  subject  deserves  special  notice,  because  it 
^isjics  an  instructive  example  o(  an  ancient  heathen  superstition 
^fted  upon  Islam.  The  Prophet,  we  are  told,  passed  one  day 
iyt^t)  graves  and  perceived — it  is  not  said  by  what  means — tliat 
the  persons  buried  there  were  suffering  for  their  sins.  So  he 
look  a  fresh  palm-branch,  broke  it  in  two,  and  stuck  a  piece  into 
adi  grave.  When  his  companions  asked,  '  O  Messenger  of  God, 
why  hast  thou  done  this  ?  *  he  answered, '  Perhaps  their  mfferittgs 
nay  be  relieved,  so  long  as  these  sticks  remain  moist '  *.  We  see 
here  the  close  connexion  between  the  doctrine  of  the  punishment 
of  sinners  in  the  grave  and  the  heathen  idea  of  the  hdma,  or 
thirsty  ghost. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  that  in  proportion  as  the 
belief  in  the  consciousness  of  disembodied  spirits  is  developed 
the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  naturally  tends  to  fall  into  the 
background.  That  this  was  the  case  among  Mohaniniedans  may 
be  seen  from  a  saying  ascribed  to  the  Prophet  by  one  of  the 

*  Chulll  fkya  iv  p.  ^]8,  line  1^. 

*  CluzJJi  Ad-Durrtt  (cd.  Cauiicr  >  p.  i,^  of  the  Ar&bic  text.  From  this  there  wu 
only  a  Uep  U>  Uie  belief  that  the  soul  itself  became  a  bird,  oa  the  above  paauce 
tbews. 

'  ShafamstSnl  (ed.  Cureton)  i  p.  51. 

■  Biikhiri  it  p.  90  (-  i  p.  341  in  Krehl's  e4.], 

VOU  VI.  u 


a 


34 


THE    JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


most  revered  of  the  later  theological  authorities,  al-GhazalT — 
'  Death  is  resurrection,  and  when  a  man  dies  his  resurrection  has 
already  taken  place  *  \ 

The  tendency  indicated  in  this  last  tradition  appears  still  more 
clearly  in  the  speculations  of  the  rationalistic  theologians.  Even 
in  very  early  times  some  Mohammedans  felt  a  repugnance  to 
interpreting  the  promises  and  threats  of  the  Koran  in  a  literal 
sense.  Hence  in  one  tradition  Mohammed  is  represented  as 
saying,  in  the  very  words  of  St  Paul,  *  God  has  declared,  I  have 
nude  ready  for  my  righteous  servants  what  eye  hath  not  seen 
nor  ear  heard,  nor  hath  it  entered  into  the  heart  of  man^'. 
A  similar  attempt  to  spiritualize  the  idea  of  Paradise  appears 
in  another  saying,  also  ascribed  to  the  Prophet.  '  God  will  say 
to  the  inmates  of  Paradise,  "Are  ye  content?"  and  they  will 
ansu'cr,  "  How  should  we  not  be  content,  O  Lord,  seeing  that 
Thou  hast  given  to  us  what  Thou  hast  given  to  none  other  of 
Thy  creatures?  '*  Then  He  will  say,  "  I  will  give  you  something 
better  tlun  this  ".  And  they  will  answer. "  O  Lord,  what  can  be 
better  than  this?**  He  will  say.  **  I  will  cause  my  favour  to  rest 
upon  >'ou,  and  I  will  never  be  wroth  with  you  again  "  '  '. 

Sentiments  such  as  these  could  cause  the  orthodox  theologians 
no  alarm.  But  some  of  the  rationalists  went  much  further  and 
lUtunlly  aroused  \'iolcnt  opposition.  One  of  the  most  eminent 
rationalists, 'Amr  ibn  Bahr  al-JahiZr  maintained  that  those  who 
were  condemned  to  Hell  would  not  suffer  eternally,  but  would  be 
tnmsfttrmed  into  the  nature  of  fire  *.  A  still  bolder  speculator, 
Jahm  ibn  $aftrin.  who  vas  put  to  death  as  a  heretic  rather  more 
thaa  a  century  after  the  Prophet,  tau^t  that  both  Paradise  and 
Hett  woald  oesse  to  exist  after  a  while,  and  that  all  lands  of 
actnrity  (Aralifl)  wooM  come  to  an  end,  giving  as  his  reason  that 
e\-cr>-  Icind  of  activity  must  have  an  efkd,  jnst  as  it  must  have 
a  bcginnii^.  The  phrase  of  the  Koran  *  Tbey  shall  abide 
therein  *,  Jahm  explained  as  a  fa>*perbole  '. 

One  important  point,  about  which  the  hter  represartati»e« 
of  offtbodoxjT  abandoned  tbe  ordinal  ortbodox  pasitkMi.  b  tbe 


l«  ^  417,   be 


i 


\ 


MOHAMMEDAN    BELIEFS   IN    FUTURE    EXISTENCE 


35 


relation  between  works  and   the  future   recompense.     In    the 
Kcnn  it  is  repeatedly  stated  that  Paradise  Is  the  reward  of  good 
works.    When  the  righteous  enter  Paradise,  it  will  be  said  to 
them, '  Lo !  this  is  Paradise,  yc  have  been  put  in  possession  of 
ir  by  reason  of   that    which    ye    have    donc*^     But,   a    few 
geDcrations  later,  the  controversies  between  the  orthodox  and 
the  rationalists  naturally  led  the  former  party  to  emphasize  the 
importance  of  faith,  as  contrasted  both   with  works   and   with, 
icason.    The  more  difficulty  there  was  in  defending  a  dogma  by 
argument,  the  more  meritorious  it  seemed  to  accept  that  dogma 
blindly  and  unreservedly.     Hence  it  came  to  be  maintained  that 
works  have  no  part  In  procuring  entrance  to  Paradise,  and  this 
doctrine  was,  of  course,  put  into   the  mouth  of  the   Prophet 
himself,  who  had  taught  the  precise  opposite.     Thus,  according 
lo  a  tradition,  Abu  Huraira  related — '  I  heard  the  Messenger  of 
God  say.  "No  one  shall  enter  Paradise  in  virtue  of  his  works  "^  at 
which  tlicy  exclaimed,  "Not  even  thou,  O  Messenger  of  God  ?  " 
*  Not  even  I  ",  said  the  Prophet,  "  save  by  a  special  exercise  of 
divine  favour    and    mercy".'"     The   same   idea,  with  certain 
modifications,  appears  in  another  tradition,  of  which  the  following 
is  an  abstract.    The  Prophet  first  describes  how  the  Jews  and 
the   Christians  are  to  be  cast  into  Hell,  and  then  goes  on   to 
explain  what  will  be  the  fate  of  those  who  worship  the  True  God, 
be  they   righteous  or  wicked.     According  to  the  well-known 
Mohammedan  belief,  a  bridge  is  to  be  erected,  which   passes 
through  the  midst  of  Hell  into  Paradise.     Some  persons  will 
succeed  in  crossing  the  bridge,  while  others  arc  detained  midway. 
Those  who  have  escaped  intercede  with  God  on  behalf  of  their 
less  fortunate  brethren — '  our  brethren  who  used  to  pray  wilh  us, 
to  fast   with   us.  and  to  labour  with  us'.    Then  God  will   say 
to  them, '  Depart,  and  if  ye  find  any  one  in  whose  heart  is  faith  of 
the  weight  of  a  gold  coin,  fetch  him  out'.    The  righteous  there- 
upon return  into  Hell,  under  sfx-cial  divine  protection,  and  fetch 
out  a  number  of  sinners.     The  process  is  repeated  several  times, 
and  on  each  occasion  the  quantity  of  faith  demanded  is  reduced, 
ontD  it  amounts  only  to  the  weight  of  a  grain  of  dust.     Finally 
God  stretches  forth  His  hand,  and  draws  out  a  number  of  peisons 

>  Koran  Tii  41 — cf.  x»l  34,  xUii  71. 

*  Bakbtul  vii  p.  lo  (act  in  Krchl'i  ed.). 

D  3 


36  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

whose  faith  falls  short  even  of  this  last  standard.  When  they 
have  been  bathed  in  a  river  called  the  Water  of  Life,  they  arc 
admitted  to  Paradise,  and  the  inmates  of  Paradise  exclaim 
*  These  are  they  whom  the  Merciful  has  set  free  and  has  broughl 
into  Paradise  apart  from  any  work  that  they  have  performed  oi 
any  merit  that  they  have  acquired  *  \ 

A.  A.  Bevan. 

'  Bukhftrt  viii  p.  170. 


38  THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

of  its  main  instruments  the  formula  which  expresses  fccHng, 
in  a  word,  the  statement  of  belief,  the  creed.  But  I  want  a  more 
general  category,  and  one  less  subject  to  misleading  implications 
than  this  word  *  creed  '.  Unfortunately  the  term  which  suggests 
itself,  namely  tradiiiofi,  also  carries  with  it  partisan  implications. 
Still,  it  will  serve  the  purpose. 

Now  the  inspiration  and  the  tradition  with  which  we  arc 
occupied,  are  something  more  than  mere(y  individual  possessions. 
And  it  is  because  they  reach  beyond  the  individual  that  they  are 
fitted  in  a  special  way  to  form  the  foundation  of  a  common  life. 
Here  a  warning  is  necessary.  We  must  speak  of  inspiration  in 
some  sense  when  we  arc  dealing  with  any  of  the  great  religions 
of  the  world.  It  is  not,  therefore,  the /rtf/  of  inspiration  which 
distin^ishes  Christianity  from  Buddhism,  or  from  Islam.  It  is 
the  object  to  which  the  inspiration  is  directed,  that  is  all 
important.  Hence  we  must  qualify  these  terras  inspiration  and 
tradition  by  something  further.  What  lliey  reach  towards  is  the 
person  of  Jesus.  It  is  the  peculiar  character  of  this  person, 
therefore,  that  must  be  borne  in  mind  when  we  set  out  to  explain 
the  peculiar  character  of  the  Christian  experience.  For  the 
person  of  Jesus  is  not  to  be  reduced  to  the  ordinary  categories  of 
human  nature.  At  least  I  shall  assume  this  for  the  purpose  of 
my  argument.  And  here  I  will  set  up  a  distinction  which  is 
ultimate,  and  which,  I  fear,  will  prevent  any  general  agreement 
being  reached  as  to  the  psychology  of  the  Christian  life.  The 
Christian  experience  is  oJtly  possible  in  its  characteristic  farms  so 
lotig  as  men  act  and  think  as  if  the  person  of  Jesus  were  human 
and  spinething  more.  That  is  to  say  we  have  a  regulative  idea, 
an  idea,  therefore,  which  is  as  incapable  of  proof  as,  say,  the 
existence  of  God,  for  the  simple  reason  that  any  proof  can  only 
proceed  by  b^ging  the  question.  Hence  there  must  always 
be  a  radical  difference  in  the  treatment  of  the  history  of  the 
Christian  experience,  according  as  wc  do,  or  do  not,  apply  this 
regulative  idea.  Nor  can  1  expect  that  my  treatment  of  the 
topic  will  satisfy  those  who  fail  to  apply  this  regulative  idea. 
At  the  same  time,  in  marking  out  the  area  of  difference, 
we  also  mark  out  the  area  of  agreement.  The  Christian 
experience  will  conform  to  the  general  conditions  of  experience, 
although   it    will    not    be   entirely    accounted    for    by    them. 


THE    INSPIRATION   OF   THE   LITURGV 


39 


There  arc  many  other  instances  of  the  same  kind.  For  example, 
thechcmist  will  try  to  satisfy  in  his  investi^tions  the  principles 
0/ molecular  physics,  although  chemistry  is  molecular  physics  and 
something  more.  In  just  the  same  way  the  student  of  the 
Christian  experience  will  try  to  shew  tlmt  his  descriptions  are  not 
ioconsistent  with  the  ordinary  canons  of  the  human  experience- 
although  he  will  bear  in  mind  the  further  implications  of  his 
fflbjecl.  And  so  in  the  following  pages  I  will  try  to  set  forth 
whit  I  have  to  say,  as  far  as  possible,  in  such  terms  as  may  befit 
I  purely  historical  treatment  without  bringing  in  the  terms  of  a 
jpccially  theological  belief. 

And  yet  such  an  attempt  can  only  be  partially  successful.  For 
Ihc  mere  assumption,  that  there  is  an  objective  element  in  the 
Christian  experience  will  conduct'  us  at  once  into  the  sphere  of 
theology.  It  is  this  same  objective  clement  that  has  already  led 
us  to  anticipate  a  theory  of  the  person  of  Christ.  And  I  fear 
that  the  attempt  to  explain  the  Christian  experience,  will  be  but 
a  transparent  veil  for  implications  of  a  distinctly  theological 
charaacr. 

Let  us  proceed  now,  however,  to  set  out  our  subject  in  terms 
vbich  shall  take  for  granted  as  little  as  may  be.  In  the  first 
place,  the  Person  of  Jesus  impressed  His  immediate  followers  in 
such  a  way  that  they  formed  tliemselves  into  a  society  animated 
ud  sustained  by  a  common  love  and  enthusiasm  for  Him.  This 
colhusiasm  and  love  has  persisted  in  the  Christian  society  from 
the  beginning  until  the  present,  and  it  has  manifested  itself  in 
certain  special  ways  which  are  important  for  us  now,  because  they 
concern  the  sctf-revclation  of  the  Christian  spirit  as  it  spreads 
from  the  community  to  the  individual.  We  will  try  to  interpret 
the  New  Testament  and  the  liturgy  considered  as  the  conscious 
utterance  of  the  Christian  spirit  For,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
liturgy  and  then  at  a  later  date  tlic  sacred  writings  were  the  first 
things  to  present  themselves  to  the  external  observer  or  the  new 
convert.  And  his  is  the  point  of  view  from  which  we  are 
starting. 

In  the  next  place,  the  consciousness  of  the  Christian  com- 
munity, as  we  might  expect,  sets  its  object,  the  Person  of  Jesus, 
in  a  high  and  clear  light.  '  I  know  whom  1  have  believed.'  The 
valchword,  or  symbol   of  the   Christian  society   consisted  in 


J 


40  THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

a  series  of  definite  propoeitions  about  the  Person  of  JesiK.^ 
'  TraditicMi ',  sa>*s  Haniadc  \  '  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  w(«— J 
consisted  in  the  contents  of  the  sj-robol  for  the  time  being.*  A]M.«1 
this  is  the  sense  in  which  we  shall  speak  of  tradition.  It  is  tl^  c 
term  which  Paul  uses  of  what  his  ccn\-erts  received  from  hinn 
And  the  contrasted  emptoyment  in  the  New  Testament  of  tb».e 
phrases  '  traditions  of  the  elders  *,  *  traditions  of  men ',  ought  nc^ 
to  discredit  the  proper  use  of  the  term. 

II 

We  will  now  proceed  to  consider  the  inspiration  of  tt»® 
Christian  society  as  disclosed  most  especially  in  the  compositic*** 
of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the  litui^.  I  do  not  say  t^* 
inspiration  of  the  New  Testament.  For  the  term  inspiration,  *^ 
course,  can  only  be  used  of  the  writers  of  the  books  of  the  Ne** 
Testament,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  the  inspiration  of  the  writers  0*^^ 
the  New  Testament  was  something  which  they  shared  with  th^ 
Christian  society  as  a  whole.  Hence  it  is  proper  to  speak  of^ 
the  inspiration  of  the  Christian  society  as  disclosed  in  the  New 
Testament. 

Jesus  Himself  left  no  written  memorials.     In  view  of  the  large 
part  which  the  New  Testament  has  played  in  the  life  of  the 
Church  and   in  the  history  of  the  world,  it  is  also  a  strikii^ 
circumstance  that  no  saying  of  Jesus  has  been  recorded  which 
deals  directly  with  the  use  of  the  New  Testament.     Hence  it 
seems  probable  that  the  popular  religion  of  to-day,  so  far  as  it 
consists  in  each  man  making  up  his  own  religion  out  of  the  New 
Testament,  is  unlike  the  Christianity  of  the  lifetime  of  Jesus,  and 
of  the  century  which  followed  upon  the  death  of  Jesus.    The 
convert,  upon  joining  the  rising  young  community,  was  admitted 
into  a  new  order  of  life,  and  upon  his  baptism  received  a  brief 
summary  of  the  belief  of  the  Church  concerning  her  Founder,    He 
had  but  little  written  guidance.    The  oral  communication  of  the 
teacher  took  precedence  of  every  other  means  of  communication. 
*  Hold  fast*,  says  Paul,  'the  traditions  which  you  were  taught 
through  our  word   of  mouth  or  our  letters.'     In  this  way  the 
Church,  speaking  through   her  teachers,  acted  as  the  channel 
by  which  the  life  and  example  of  Jesus  became  the  possession 

1  Hittoty  ofJPogftui  (tr.)  iii  309. 


THE   INSPIRATION   OF   THE    LITURGY  41 

first  of  her  immediate  neighbours  and  contemporaries,  and  then 
of  after  ages.  But  at  first  there  was  nothing  answering  to  the 
modern  use  of  the  New  Testament. 

Now  this  seems  a  plain  statement  of  an  obvious  fact.  But 
the  full  meaning  of  this  fact  is  far  from  being  obvious,  and 
requires  to  be  sought  further.  How  was  it  that  the  life  and  the 
example  of  Jesus  so  captivated  the  imaginations  and  governed 
the  wills  of  his  contemporaries  and  the  succeeding  generations 
that  their  characters  were  re-created  and,  in  a  spiritual  sense,  they 
were  bom  again  ?  Our  answer  must  take  account  of  the  context 
into  which,  so  to  speak,  they  were  woven,  of  the  past  from  which 
they  sprang,  of  the  future  into  which  they  were  moving.  The 
ase  o(  the  Old  Testament  by  the  Church  to  shew  how  Jesus  was 
the  due  to  the  history  of  the  Jewish  race,  was  a  parable  of  the 
way  in  which  also  He  answered  to  the  inherited  impulses  of  the 
other  parts  of  the  ancient  world.  Jesus  brought  in  a  new  era  of 
the  spirit ;  He  did  not  bring  in  a  temporal  revolution.  The 
antique  world  continued  still  for  many  generations  to  furnish  the 
mould  into  which  the  life  of  the  Church  was  cast.  Overbeck's 
st^estive  essay  upon  the  attitude  of  the  ancient  Church  to 
slavery  may  be  called  in  to  illustrate  this  fact  *.  The  Christian 
Church  has  never  interfered  in  politics  without  going  outside  her 
proper  domain,  and  so  those  popular  writers  who,  like  Dean 
Farrar,  dwell  upon  the  social  and  political  deflciencies  of  ancient 
chrilization,  as  though  it  was  the  iirst  business  of  the  Church  to 
remedy  them,  fall  into  error  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  early 
history  of  the  Church.  So  far  was  the  Christian  Church  from 
being  in  any  sense  a  revolutionary  oi^anization,  that  it  actually 
gave  to  the  ancient  world  a  fresh  and  crowning  lease  of  life,  and 
the  world-dreams  of  an  Alexander  and  a  Julius  received  their 
profoundest  fulfilment  in  the  spiritual  cosmopolitanism  of  the 
Nazarene.  It  was  scarcely  an  accident  that  the  inscription  upon 
the  cross  was  written  in  the  three  great  languages  of  the  ancient 
*orld.  The  break  between  the  old  and  the  new  did  not  affect 
the  more  noble  elements  in  Greek  and  Roman  life,  and,  indeed, 
the  Church  has  acted  as  the  intermediary  by  which  the  invaluable 
legacy  of  ancient  culture — its  philosophy  and  art — has  entered 
into  the  possessions  of  the  modern  world.    Jesus  came  not  to 

*  Studitn  Mur  GtsMdttt  tltr  alttn  Kirch*  i  1 85. 


43  THE  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

destroy  but  to  fulfil ;  and  the  example  of  Jesus  included  in  itself^ 
and  gave  permanence  to,  what  u-as  most  valuable  in  the  heritage 
of  the  past  But  it  did  more.  It  also  furnished  a  prophecy  of 
what  was  best  in  the  future.  Just  as  we  have  traced  in  the 
Christian  ideal  the  nobler  elements  of  Greek  and  Roman  and 
Jewish  antiquity,  so  in  the  rich  complexity  of  the  mind  of  Jesus 
there  are  foreshadowed — like  the  petals  of  the  flower  as  yet 
enfolded  in  the  bud — the  successive  chapters  of  the  history  of 
the  Christian  Church. 

Now  it  was  this  spirit,  that  looked  to  the  past  and  the  future 
alike,  which  Jesus  breathed  upon  his  immediate  disciples,  and 
through  them  upon  the  after-world.  Such  a  spirit  has  proved 
itself  capable  of  absorbing  into  itself  the  most  varied  national  and 
racial  tendencies,  and  thereby  of  entering  into  and  determining 
the  succeeding  stages  of  national  and  racial  history.  We  sec  the 
spirit  of  Jesus  permeating,  first,  the  Jewish  mind,  and  then,  in 
a  still  more  eminent  degree,  the  Greek  and  the  Roman  mind.  It 
spreads  nmong  the  Egyptians,  the  Celts,  the  Teutons,  the  Slavs, 
in  a  manner  which  has  only  ceased  to  seem  miraculous  because  it 
has  become  familiar.  IIow  strong  such  an  impulse  must  have 
been  in  its  origin  1  How  all  differences  must  have  been  fused  at 
first  into  one  burning  flood  of  enthusiasm  1  Now  when  the 
intensity  of  the  spiritual  experience  rises  above  a  certain  pitch, 
it  is  accompanied  by  certain  phenomena,  certain  modes  of  self- 
expression.  And  these  attain  a  unique  character  by  which  they 
arc  marked  off  from  the  expressions  of  those  spiritual  experiences 
which  are  of  lesser  degrees  of  intensity.  Hence  they  are  not 
always  understood  if  they  are  measured  by  the  ordinary 
standards.  It  is  on  these  lines  that  wc  ought  to  approach  the 
question  of  the  inspiration  of  the  New  Testament.  And  for  the 
sake  of  clearness  I  will  try  to  state  the  principle  in  definite 
terms : — 

Ai  timrs  of  intellectual  and  spiritual  exaltation  not  only  do  large 
ideas  become  the  common  possession  of  the  multitude,  but  the 
power  of  expressing  those  ideas  is  also  widely  possessed,  and  thus 
the  question  of  authorship  can  scarcely  be  solved  in  t/te  same  way 
as  when  inspiration  is  more  sporadic  in  its  distribution. 

Since,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Christian  experience  is  marked  off 
from  other  experiences  not  by  thc/af/  of  inspiration,  but  by  the 


k 


THE    INSPIRATION    OF    THE    LITURGY 


43 


*$w/to  which  the  inspired  feelings  arc  directed,  \vc  must  expect 
to  be  able  to  illustrate  the  Christian  experience  by  the  closest 
paallcis  from  other  quarters,  and,  in  particular,  we  will  try  to 
explain  the  origin  of  the  New  Testament.  For  here  again  we 
iutvc  a  fact  ihc  familiarity  of  which  blinds  us  to  its  special 
diaracter.  And  this  special  character  we  may  understand  better 
in  ihe  light  of  some  recent  lucubrations  about  the  Elizabethan 
lilcrature.  The  attempt  which  has  been  made  to  shew  that 
Shakespeare's  plays  and  poems  were  written  by  another  hand, 
rests  simply  on  the  ground  of  certain  general  resemblances  of 
thought  and  expression.  Hut  these  general  resemblances  of 
thought  and  expression  are  just  the  common  characteristics  of 
tbe  age  and  country  in  which  Shakespeare  lived  ;  and  if  instead 
of  confining  ourselves  to  Shakespeare,  we  continue  our  reading 
of  the  Elizabethan  writers  a  little  further,  we  shall  still  meet  with 
s'milar  turns  of  thought  and  expression.  In  order  to  be  con- 
siitent,  therefore,  we  shall  be  compelled  to  attribute  to  the  hand 
which  penned  the  works  attributed  to  Shakespeare,  the  whole  of 
tfie  literature  of  the  time.  And  there  have  not  been  wanting 
those  who  were  bold  enough  to  draw  this  perfectly  It^ical  and 
batastic  conclusion.  Spenser,  Marlowe,  and  the  rest  are  thus, 
along  with  Shakespeare,  the  masks  through  which  a  single  face 
looks  down  upon  us. 

The  most  illuminating  discussion  of  Shakespeare's  genius 
ahich  has  come  under  my  notice,  is  contained  in  The  Mind  of 
Man  by  Mr.  Gustav  Spiller,  who  shews  how  largely  Shakespeare 
drew  upon  what  was  a  common  stock  of  feelings,  ideas,  phrases. 
And  there  is  one  sentence  in  his  book  which  I  will  borrow,  and 
use  it  again  for  our  special  purpose.  '  Shakespeare ',  says  Mr. 
Spiller, 'stands  for  the  genius  of  the  Elizabethan  era  much  more 
than  for  his  own  superiority/  In  the  same  way  we  will  say  that 
the  writers  of  the  New  TesUment  stand  for  the  spirit  common  to 
the  Christian  Church  much  more  than  for  their  own  superiority. 
Hence  it  ts  that  so  much  of  the  early  Christian  literature  is 
anonymous,  or  as  good  as  anonymous.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  may  serve  to  shew  how  high  a  level  could  be  attained 
by  writers  who  failed  to  leave  even  a  name  behind  ihem.  The 
strange  belief  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  like 
clerks  taking  down  from   dictation  the  verbal    utterajices    of 


J 


44 


THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Another,  is  curioiLsly  revived  in  the  fantastic  tl3cor>'  of  the 
Eliznbclhan  literature  that  wc  have  already  noticed.  If  Lord 
Bacon  were  permitted  for  once  to  speak  in  his  own  person,  he  would 
perhaps  use  this  popular  theorizing  rs  an  illustration  of  '  idols'. 
'  Wc  observe  *,  he  says, '  that  idols  are  the  deepest  fallacies  of 
the  human  mind:  for  they  do  not  deceive  in  particulars  as  the 
rest  by  clouding  and  ensnaring  thejudgement  ;  but  from  a  corrupt 
pitrdispositiun  ur  bad  complexion  of  the  mind,  which  distorts  and 
infects  all  the  anticipations  of  the  understanding,'  Such  popular 
theories,  however,  do  not  gain  wide  acceptance  without  the 
admixture  of  an  clement  of  truth.  Let  us  try  to  rescue  this 
clement  of  truth,  and  apply  it  to  the  origin  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  is  to  say.  to  the  conditions  amid  which  the  New 
Testament  arose.  In  so  doing  we  shall  make  a  start  towards  the 
better  understanding  not  only  of  the  New  Testament,  but  of  the 
prophetic  impulse  generally.  May  we  say  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  inspired  so  far  as  its  writers  shared  in  the  common 
enthusiasm,  and  in  the  gifts  which  that  enthusiasm  conferred; 
the  pfts  of  tongues,  of  prophecy,  of  exposition,  in  a  word,  the 
spiritual  gifts? 

Here  then  wt  meet  with  a  very  striking  incidental  confirmation 
of  the  principle  whkli  n-e  established  a  short  time  since-  We  are 
not  ooly  enabled  to  understand  better  the  prevalent  tooc  of 
Ibeliag  ukd  tuguagc  which  reigns  throughout  the  New  Tcsta- 
OKflt :  wc  cau  sohrc  a  probtcm  which  has  always  exercised  the 
intqpceters  of  the  New  Testament.  ahhoaBfa  tfaqr  <lo  not  say 
nuch  about  iL  The  gift  of  toognes  and  tkose  other  gifts  b^oog 
to  the  general  state  of  cxcitcoxnt  which  gave  berth  to  the  New 
TOSUMMM.  To  use  a  physiologKal  ejcpfcssioo,  there  was  an 
nbaoffMnl  exdutioci  of  the  speech  oeactcs*  whiA  accompanied 
Utt  general  disturbuce  of  rna'ginnTni  iii  Siiftir cwrfiiotui  ue 
cfcjMly  ■■■?!  II  ml  M  tiKBe  nhahrthan  gtts  of  lanamr  which 
scnrcc^  km  mndeilU  ikHS  tixne  of  the  enrljr  cftiHcL  iVnd 
h  seems  rrnw hir  to  legmd  ^e  iiiitr  behnrionr  of  Paul 

d  his  r.em,v)ndf.ntJ»  as  a  fitirnhr  infi  f  of  the 
wkkli  irtiBBffwirl  Ike  Tw  of  the 
in  a  sttKt  coinHM]r^  '^  *^  *^  ^^  cnrijr ' 


MwanteMth^ 


stnctly 


tbe 


THE  INSPIRATION    OF   THE   LITURGY  45 

limits  of  the  common  life,  it  expressed  itself  in  the  growth  of 
\iit  liturgy  ;  so  far  as  it  was  more  individual  in  character  it  took 
the  form  cS  apocalyptic  contpositwns.  Hcnoe  wc  must  r^ard  the 
New  Testament  as  holding  a  middle  place  between  the  vast  mass 
of  apocalyptic  compositions  on  the  one  hand,  and  Uic  liturgical 
Iwms  on  the  other.  Thus  we  gain  not  only  a  theory  of  the 
grmiFih  of  the  canonical  scriptures,  but  also  a  partial  explanation 
of  these  other  scarcely  less  important  products  of  the  Christian 
spirit 

To  take  the  apocalyptic  literature  first,  Ilarnack  scarcely  does 
justice  to  the  general  sincerity  of  the  earliest  times  when  he  says 
that  the  first  Christian  century  was  distinguished,  among  other 
things  •  by  a  quite  unique  literature  in  which  were  manufactured 
ferts  for  the  past  and  the  future,  and  which  did  not  submit  to  the 
lunal  h'terary  rules  and  forms  but  came  forward  with  the  loflicst 
pretensions'  *.     So  far  is  this  from  being  the  case, that,  wonderful 
to  relate,  the  Apocalypse  of  yohn  is  the  only  representative  of  this 
fcifld  which  found  iis  way  into  the  canon,  and  this  only  after 
a  prolonged  struggle.     It  is  one  of  the  many  tokens  of  the  sober 
judgement  of  the  authorities  of  the  early  church  that  it  should 
be  so,  and  I  know  of  no  circumstance  which  may  more  properly 
indinc  us  towards  a  high  estimate  of  their  historical  sense.     For 
the  amount  of  the  apocalyptic  literature  and  its  popularity  was 
oiormous.    It  revived  with  each  fresh  persecution.    Each  succeed- 
ing attack  roused  the  enthusiasm  of  the  martyr  Church  to  fi-csh 
expresions.     The  persecution  of  Diocletian — the  final  baptism 
of  blood  and  firc^was  only  like  its  predecessors  when  it  drove 
the  persecuted  to  revive  and  to  imitate  those  Jewish  stories  of 
Bil  and  the  Dragon,  of  the  Three  Children,  which  had  supported 
Jewi.sh  faith  centuries  before  under  the  oppression  of  Antiochus. 
It  is  a  perverse  understatement  to  compare  these  and  similar 
compositions  with  the  modern  religious  novel.    They  are  in  great 
part  the  cries  of  anguish  and  yet  of  triumph  which  were  wrut^ 
from  the  Christian  society  as  it  passed  through  the  last  moments 
of  stress  on  to  the  crowning  victory.     The  churches  of  Rome 
and  Alexandria  sealed  their  confessions  with  the  seal  of  martyrdom. 
_U  is  therefore  a  fi^t  ending  for  the  New  Testament  that  the  last 

1  HUtorf^  Dogma  (tr.)  i  143. 


46 


THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


book  in  it  should  be  a  manual  for  martyrs.    These  are  they  which 
came  out  ofjp-eat  tribulation. 

The  other  gift  was  not  less  wonderful.  It  produced  the 
liturgy.  The  importance  of  this  circumstance  for  the  history  of 
the  Church  can  scarcely  be  exaggerated.  For,  as  we  shall  see, 
it  was  for  a  long  time  through  the  liturgy  rather  than  through 
the  New  Testament  that  the  traditional  estimate  of  the  Person  of 
Christ  was  guarded.  The  New  Testamcnl  itself,  indeed,  contains 
some  traces  of  the  prayers,  hymns,  and  confessions  of  faith  which 
formed  the  substance  of  the  stated  worship.  And  to  that  extent 
it  takes  for  granted  a  certain  liturgical  developement.  I  do  not 
understand,  however,  why  in  this  coiniexion  reference  should  be 
made  only  to  the  one  or  two  incidental  remarks  contained  in 
St  Paul's  letters,  and  why  the  canticles  which  are  preserved  in 
St  Luke's  gospel  should  not  also  be  quoted.  They  may  very  well 
proceed  in  part  from  the  persons  to  whom  they  are  attributed. 
The  art  of  writing  psalms  was  still  alive  among  the  Jews  douTi 
to  the  Christian  era.  And  I  find  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that 
the  mother  of  Jesus,  who  hid  so  many  things  in  her  heart,  was 
a  poetess  and  the  authoress  of  the  Afagiiijicat.  The  composition 
of  prayers  and  'spiritual  songs'  at  the  bt^inning  of  the  Christian 
history,  was  repealed  at  the  German  Reformation  in  the  hymns  of 
Luther  and  of  the  Z^ra  Grrmanica;  tlie  Elizabethan  age  furnished 
tlie  beautiful  forms  of  the  collects  of  the  Anglican  liturgy  and  the 
incomparable  style  of  the  Authorized  Version ;  the  Evangelical 
revival  of  the  eighteenth  century-  spoke  in  the  hymns  of  Wesley ; 
the  Oxford  Movement  of  the  nineteenth  century,  in  the  verses  of 
Newman  and  the  Christian  Year.  But  no  later  compositions 
can  hope  to  surpass  the  6rst  hymns  and  prayers  and  confessions 
of  faith  as  the  immediate  outcome  of  the  Christian  spirit. 


III. 

We  have  thus  attempted  to  consider  the  inspiration  of  the 
early  church  as  a  fact  capable  of  positive  statement.  We  can 
trace  its  features  and  measure  its  extent ;  as  wc  can  trace 
and  measure  other  historical  events.  It  is  not  meant,  of 
course,  that  we  have  exhausted  the  meanings  of  this  inspira- 
tion when  we  have  referred  it  to  its  historical  setting.     But  this 


THE    INSPIRATION    OF    THE    LITURGY  47 

^  a  matter  for  further  eDquiries  which  lie  bc}'ond  our  present 
scope. 

Let  as  now  return  to  the  other  part  of  our  subject,  tradition^ 
and  consider  very  briefly  the  terms  in  which  the  Church  handed 
eo  the  standard  of  belief,  which  was  also  in  effect  the  standard  of 
fcriii^.  The  Church  from  time  to  time  became  agreed  in  the 
main  that  there  were  limits  beyond  which  she  no  longer  recognized 
Icr  own  special  temperament.  !t  became  clear  that  absolute 
&«dom  of  speculation  and  absolute  licence  of  temperament 
ind  emotion  were  inconsistent  with  the  maintenance  of  definite 
standards  of  speculation  and  of  emotion.  Hence  to  upbraid  the 
Church  for  setting  up  a  canon  of  right  thinking  or  orthodoxy  is 
beside  the  mark.  The  Church  was  driven  to  this  course  by  the 
instinct  of  self-preservation.  The  student  may  lament  or  accept 
the  necessity  of  fixed  standards.  But  one  thing  is  quite  certain. 
The  controversialists  of  the  early  centuries  knew  what  they  were 
talking  about,  when  they  declared  that  there  were  doctrines  by 
which  the  Church  will  stand  or  fall.  This  consideration  quite 
nqilains  the  hesitation  with  which  changes  have  been  admitted* 
wen  in  the  external  drcumstanccs  of  the  life  of  the  Church  ;  and, 
*t  the  same  time,  it  has  been  too  much  overlooked  by  those 
thtnlcers  of  each  age  who  have  sought  to  remould  Christian 
tradition  in  conformity  with  the  standards  of  each  age.  Hence 
the  genuine  reformation  of  the  Church  m  doctrine  or  practice 
mast  always  come  from  within,  although  the  impulse  to  such 
reformation  may  very  well  originate  outside  her  borders.  And 
so  it  seems  to  me  that  the  function  of  the  psychologist  must  be 
carefully  distinguished  from  that  of  the  critic  of  dogma.  His 
f'fficc  will  be  rather  to  describe,  than  to  suggest  possible  changes 
in  the  subject-matter  of  his  descriptions. 

If  then  a  purely  subjective  criticism  leads  to  attempts  at 
reconstruction  of  the  Christian  ideal,  attempts  which  are  doomed 
to  lailure  beforehand,  so,  on  the  other  hand,  those  who  take  the 
N'cw  Testament  out  of  its  context  and  consider  it  apart  from 
the  institutions  of  the  Church  throw  the  Christian  ideal  out  of 
its  historical  perspective.  Now  this  is  an  error  which  seems 
to  be  current  not  only  among  the  general  public,  but  also  among 
professed  students.  There  is  too  exclusive  a  preoccupation  with 
books,  a  preoccupation  which  rises  in  some  quarters  to  a  positive 


48 


THE    JOURN^VL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


prejudice  against  any  olhcr  source  of  information.     The  evidence 

of  liturgical  usage,  of  custom,  of  Christian  art,  is  in  the  main 

ignored.     For  example,  the  earliest  monuments  of  the  Roman 

catacombs,  the  inscriptions,  the  paintings,  go  back  to  the  first 

century,  that  is  to  the  lifetime  of  some  of  the  apostles.     And 

the  slightness  of  such  archaeological  evidence  is  balanced  by  the 

certainty  with  which  it  records  a  contemporary  utterance.    Critics 

h'kc  Strauis  may  dissolve  the  figure  of  Jesus  into  myth,  or  with 

Schmiedel  leave  Itim  almost  speechless,  but  the  catacombs  take 

us  into  the   presence,  or  at  least   the  handiwork,  of  the   first 

generation  of  his  folloxvcrs,  and  we  find  ourselves  in  a  religious 

atmosphere,  apparently  continuous  with  that  of  the  Gospels.    Yet 

it  has  taken  thirty  years  for  the  work  of  de  Rossi  to  obtain 

rec<^nition  in  England,  and  even  still  to  repeat  his  statements 

is  to  incur   the  reproach  of  Roman  partisanship.     If  then  the 

evidence   of  Christian  art  is  to  be  weighed,  so  also  must  the 

evidence  which  is  furnished  by  the  liturgy.    The  arrangement 

of  the  liturgy  is  curiously  dominated  by  dogmatic  presuppositions, 

a  fact  of  which  Pliny's  famous  sentence  ts  a  striking  symbol. 

*  To  sing  hymns  in  antiphon  to  Christ  as  though  to  God  *  may 

well  stand  for  a  general  account  of  the  liturgy.     Just  as  Roman 

and  Greek  history  have  been  interpreted  anew  in  the  light  of 

archaeological  and  other  e.'<tra-liteniry  evidence,  so  the  history 

of  the  Christian  Church  is  to  be  interpreted  anew  in  the  light  of 

liturgical  and  archaeological  evidence.     And  just  as  the  critical 

methods  which  at  first  seemed  to  throw  grave  doubts  upon  the 

Troy  and  Mycenae  of  Agamemnon  and  Priam,  and  the  Rome  of 

Romulus,  have  in  the  end  re-established  the  old  traditions,  if  not 

in  detail  yet  in  substance ;  so  in  a  more  eminent  degree  has  it 

been  with  the  apostolic  age.    Purely  literary  speculation  dissolved 

into  air  the  presence  and  martyrdom  of  Peter  at  Rome,  but  the 

I  archaeologist  can  almost  trace  his  footstc^is  side  by  side  with 

^^  those  of  PauL    We  can  look  now  upon  the  facts  of  the  past  in 

^H  a  stereoscopic  manner,  combining  in  one  focus  the  double  insight 

^H  which  is  given  by  the  Christian  literature  on  the  one  hand,  and 

^H  by  Christian  institutions  and  art  on  the  other.     Perhaps  you  say, 

^1  '  What  has  this  to  do  with  p^chologtcal   study  ?  *     I  answer, 

^M  very  little  so  long  as  psychoid^  confines   itself  to    a    bare 

^M  description  of  the  individual  Christian  life.    But  when  it  steps 


THE   INSPIRATION   OF  THE   LITURGY 


outside  that  limit,  it  must  proceed  not  less  scientifically  than 
when  it  attempts  to  portray  the  character  of  any  other  social 
organism. 

And  now  to  bring  this  paper  to  a  conclusion;  I  will  try  to 
tbtK  that  we  have  been  really  in  touch  with  the  actual  current 
of  the  life  of  the  early  church.  There  are  two  salient  circumstances 
of  which  every  theory  must  take  some  account.  There  is  the 
primacy  of  the  Roman  Church  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other 
the  pre-eminent  place  occupied  by  the  Eucharist.  Unless  we  can 
eihibic  these  tvra  facts  in  some  sort  of  relation  to  what  has 
already  been  advanced,  our  attempt  to  formulate  the  history  of 
the  Christian  experience  in  psychological  terms  must  be  considered 
a  &ilurc. 

And  first  as  to  the  Roman  Church.    The  tie  facto  primacy  of 
the  Roman  Church  was  based  not  only  upon  the  political  primacy 
oftbe  ancient  capital,  but  also  upon  a  certain  sobriety  of  judge- 
ment and    upon    the   high    degree    of  practical    wisdom    which 
characterized  the  Roman  mind.    As  Harnack  has  pointed  out, 
the  recognition  of  this  de  facto  primacy  of  the  Roman  Church 
in  the  early  centuries  is  not   necessarily  implicated   with   the 
recognition  of  the  de  iure  primacy  of  the  Roman  bishop.    And 
what  I  am  going  to  say  is  not  calculated  to  serve  the  purposes  of 
Roman  controversialists.     Here  again  I  will  draw  upon  Harnack. 
WLcthcr  it  be  Dionysius  of  Rome  writing  about  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  or  Leo  I  attempting  to  compose  the  monophysitc  con- 
troversy, or  Agatho  writing  to  the  emperor — 'We  are  astonished', 
be  says*,  'at  the  close  affinity  of  the  three  manifestoes.    The 
three  popes  did  not  trouble  themselves  about  proofs  or  arguments, 
but  fixed  their  attention  solely  on  the  consequences  of  disputed 
doctrines.    Starting  with  these  doctrines  they  refuted  doctrines 
of  the  right  and  left,  and  simply  fixed  a  middle  theory  which 
existed  merely  in  words,  for  it  was  self-contradictory.    This  they 
grounded  formally  on  their  ancient  creed  without  even  attempting 
to  argue  out  the  connexion  :  one  God,  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit ; 
one  person,  perfect  God  and  perfect  man ;  one  person,  two  wills. 
Their  religious  interest  centred  in  the  God  Jesus,  who  had 
imcd  the  substantia  humana' 

»  Hilary  t^f  Dogma  (}iT.')  lU  94. 
£ 


50  THE    JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

In  these  sentences  Harnack  furnishes  us  with  a  principle  which 
wc  may  lay  down  as  follows : — Tkc  policy  of  tlu  Rcnutn  bisfiops 
in  doctrinal  matters  was  not  to  originate  but  to  regulate.  Jesus 
was  to  be  regarded  as  perfect  Cod  and  perfect  man.  And  no 
inference  was  to  be  permitted  which  conflicted  with  either  of  these 
propositions. 

That  is  to  say,  the  guidance  of  Rome  in  matters  of  doctrine 
was  purely  a  negative  one  at  first.  And  we  can  mark  it  off  with 
the  utmost  clearness  from  that  later  and  positive  procedure  which 
has  led  to  ihc  elaborate  creed  of  Pope  Pius  V,  and  to  the  decrees 
of  18^1)4  and  1870.  The  earliest  inspiration  of  the  Church  and 
its  teachers  in  this  respect  seems  to  resemble  the  daemon  of 
Socrates ;  it  interferes  to  restrain  from  error,  but  not  to  suggest 
jTOsitive  action.  Hence  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Church  was 
recognized  at  Jirst  in  so  far  as  it  confined  itself  to  guarding  the 
tradition  in  the  sense  of  which  we  have  spoken.  But  Hamack 
scarcely  docs  justice  to  the  spirit  of  compromise  which  he  traces 
at  Rome.  Ji  is  not  the  mere  fact  of  compromise  that  explains 
its  occasional  success  as  a  policy.  Where  two  opposing  parties  ■ 
are  absolutely  divided,  the  result  of  a  conflict  must  be  in  the  end 
the  complete  victory  of  the  one  side,  and  the  complete  defeat  of 
the  other.  A  compromise  succeeds  so  far  as  there  is  a  great  ■ 
central  body  of  feeling  and  opinion  to  which  expression  is  given. 
The  Roman  policy  &atisAed  the  needs  of  the  great  mass  of  the 
Church.  Let  us  try  to  find  a  more  defiaitc  expression  for 
this  fact. 

The  life  and  example  of  Jesus  communicated  to  the  young 
community  an  enthusiasm  and  an  inspiration  which  was  passed 
on  from  the  first  to  the  second  generation  of  believers,  not  in 
the  form  of  Christian  scriptures,  but  by  word  of  mouth.  'The 
baptismal  confession  was  imparted  to  the  catechumens  by  word 
of  mouth,  and  this  procedure  was  confirmed  by  the  subsequent 
cockoeption  of  the  disc^ima  arcmti:  hence  written  records  are 
not  found  till  pretty  late.*  ^  Thus  the  earliest  doctrines  about 
the  person  of  Jesu$  could  not  hax'C  been  deduced  from  the  New 
Testament.  On  the  other  hand,  these  doctrines*  already  existing 
aad  formulated  in  the  earliest  creeds^  detcmuned  the  Choich  in 
selecting  those  writings  which  shouki  be  r^ardcd  as  canoaicaL 


\ 


THE    INSPIRATION   OF   THE   UTURGY 


5t 


I 


But  the  creed  must  not  be  separated  from  the  common  worship 
•of  the  Church,  and  especially  from  the  most  important  part  of 
theoommon  worship,  the  Eucharist.  Through  possession  of  the 
creed  the  catechumen  was  initiated  into  the  full  privileges  of 
the  Qiristian  society,  that  is  to  say,  Into  participation  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  ^  And  the  high  estimate  of  the  person  of 
Jesus  which  was  declared  in  the  creed,  must  not  be  separated  from 
the  worship  of  Him  which  was  implied  in  the  whole  form  of  the 
cwemonial.  The  arrangement  of  the  liturgy  represented  the 
inv-sterious  approach  of  a  divine  presence  to  the  worshipper.  A 
^try  large  proportion  of  the  earliest  monuments  of  Christian  art, 
Kuny  of  them  not  later  than  the  second  century,  bear  testimony 
both  to  the  lai^  place  occupied  in  the  life  of  the  Church  by 
the  Eucharist,  and  to  the  mystical  interpretation  of  the  meal ". 
Hence  when  we  ask,  What  was  the  reason  why  the  traditional 
JDltrpretation  of  the  person  of  Jesus  was  maintained  so  per- 
aitently  ?  we  are  bound  to  t.ikc  account  of  the  influence  of  the 
ibnns  of  worship.  Lex  oramll  Ifx  credendi.  The  law  of  prayer 
B  ilso  the  law  of  belief.  Hence  we  arrive  at  our  concluding 
principle.  Thi  idea  of  the  person  of  Jesus  as  of  perfect  God  and 
frrfat  man,  was  flourished  upon  the  liturgy  in  general  and  the 
hKharist  in  particular, 

bThus  the  Koman  primacy  and  the  high  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist  have  a  meaning  for  the  history  of  the  whole  Christian 
Church,  in  so  far  as  the  declarations  of  the  Roman  bishops 
secured  the  twofold  view  of  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  the 
Eacharistic  symbolism  maintained  the  feeling  of  the  incorpora- 
tion of  the  Church  in  a  divine  body.  In  the  light  of  this,  I  do 
not  feel  much  confidence  in  any  attempt  to  restate  the  Christian 
ideal  which  leaves  out  of  account  the  functions  which  the 
leading  doctrines  of  the  Church  have  actually  fulfilled  in  the  past. 
No  textual  or  higher  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  really 
affects  the  authority  of  the  most  ancient  creed.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  seems  to  be  generally  admitted  now  that  the  form  of  the 
New  Testament  books,  as  we  have  them,  was  not  attained  until 
1  certain  amount  of  editing  had  been  undergone.  In  other  words, 
Ihc  men  who  gave  us  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  their 

I  I  Cor.  xi  19. 

*  Lowric  CkrisHan  Art  and  Archarohgy  313  IT. 


52  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

present  form,  were  members  of  the  society  which  had  already 
elaborated  Christian  doctrine  to  the  point  at  which  we  have 
traced  it.  Hence  it  seems  doubtful  whether  any  historical 
criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  can  ever  get  behind  the  stand- 
point of  the  Church  of  the  second  century.  We  may  accept,  or 
we  may  reject,  tradition ;  we  cannot  hope  to  remould  it  to  any 
private  interpretation.  ^ 

Frank  Granger. 

^  i  Peter  i  ao. 


53 


THE   BOOK   OF  THE   DEAD. 

ifrcn  interest  attaches  to  the  new  translation  of  the  Egyptian 
Bxkcf  the  Dead,  the  last  part  of  which  has  just  been  placed  in 
tile  hands  of  subscribers.  It  is  in  the  main  the  work  of  the  late 
Sir  P.  le  Page  Rcnouf  and  is  the  most  scholarly  and  best  ap- 
proved translation  that  has  yet  appeared.  Begun  in  1894,  it  was 
phnaed  to  be  completed  in  eight  parts  ;  and  the  work  proceeded. 
Bot  Rcnouf  died  when  only  six  parts  had  been  issued  ;  and  the 
Intaslation  and  commentary  have  been  completed  from  his  notes, 
^  M.  Edouard  Navillc,  Professor  at  Geneva,  to  whom  also  we 
cue  the  present  Introduction. 

The  Introduction  is  valuable  as  giving  the  chief  facts  known 
ibout  the  history  of  the  text ;  and  it  is  no  fault  of  M.  Navillc's 
^t  it  contains  a  confession  of  ignorance  as  to  its  meaning,     llie 
wry  reason  of  that  ignorance  excites  further  curiosity.     In  the 
frsi  place  some  of  the  early  chapters  of  this  collection  date  from 
the  earliest  times,  and  language  was  in  a  primitive  stage.    The 
rubrics  attribute  them  to  a  king  of  the  first  dynasty,  and  they  may 
really  be  older  than  the  pyramids.     Undoubtedly  they  go  back 
to  the   Old    Empire  ;   and  wc  are  forced  to  admit  that  their 
origin  is  not  much  later  than  the  beginning  of  Egyptian  civiliza- 
tion.   The  texts  of  tlie  Middle  Empire  shew  already  that  there 
were  various  editions.     Words  once  well  understood  had  become 
obsolete  ;  ancient  usages  had  fallen  into  desuetude,  many  allusions 
were  now  uncertain  iu  their  reference.     Comment  and  explanation 
became  necessary.     Later  copyists  incorporated  the  commentary 
with  the  text,  and  sometimes  included  inconsistent  readings.     By 
the  time  of  the  twenty-sixth  dynasty  the  Book  was  hardly  in- 
telligible even  to  its  editors.     Rcnouf  says, — '  I  have  no  doubt 
whatever  that  some  chapters  of  the  Book  of  the  Dead  were  as 
»)bsaire  to  Egyptians  living  under  the  eleventh  dynasty  [say 
jt  3000  ti,  c]   as  they  arc   to  ourselves.'     And  as  to  the 


54  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

prcnent  obscurity,  in  some  of  the  sentences  the  meaning  often  seems 
to  us  childiih,  or  even  'outrageous  nonsense'.  We  may  be  sure 
however  that  it  was  not  so  to  the  devout  Egj'ptian  who  paid  for 
R  copy  of  the  sacred  word  and  placed  it  in  the  tomb  with  his 
dooQUcd  rcUtivc.  The  difficuhy  now  is  not  in  literally  translating 
the  text,  but  in  understanding  the  meaning  which  lies  concealed 
beneath  familiar  words.  For  this  portion  of  the  task  the  trans* 
later  of  hieroglyphics  is  not  necessarily  well  equipped.  It  is 
conrcssed  that  '  the  most  accurate  knowledge  of  the  Egyptian 
vocabulary  and  grammar  will  not  sufHce  to  pierce  the  obscurity 
Arimng  from  what  M.  dc  Roug^  called  symbols  or  allegories, 
which  are  in  fact  simple  mythological  allusions'.  Naville  speaks 
of '  the  Egyjitian  mythology  which  plays  such  an  important  part 
in  the  Hoiik  ',  and  confesses  that  *  wc  have  not  yet  unravelled  all 
its  intricacies '. 

It  ts  certain  that  tn  Eg>*pt  six  thousand  years  ago,  there  was 
«  mytholog}'  whicli  scr\'cd  as  a  background  of  religious  belicC 
It  wta  so  important  and  so  cherished  that  temples  were  built  to 
the  gods  it  recognized,  and  priests  were  supported  to  perform 
itM  attd  celebrate  festivals.  It  w«s  so  generally  known  and 
accepted,  thai  the  sacred  writings  of  that  time  assume  the 
thcoU^*  lostcttd  of  setting  it  forth  didaaieaUy.  There  is 
ao  Smit  ff  At  ZV«/.  P»pcHy  speaking.  What  wc  have  is 
acpftrate  ctwpters  or  coniposilioost  of  various  date  and  author- 
tA\p«  and  as  iodcpeudrnt  of  cue  aaoUicr  «s  the  Psabns  in  the 
H^fftw  Scriptures.  They  are  given  in  the  present  editioQ  as 
iM  \m  MWtban.  hk  the  course  of  ccntwies  they  mwfaiaml  re- 
vMm  Mid  MJiUMWil ;  «ad  aew  du^iters  were  added.  It  was 
lue  ia  the  day  before  they  veie  collected  aad  iasaed  in  «fast 
haqfled  «a  ithoritd  adfcSaa.  Th^mnfaimdi 
ttv  OBCCasBd  pcfioa  vat  si^pBcd  vi&  oae  or 
chaftm  as  a  9»dt  mucwmL  He  diy  of  Bfe  vas  over,  he 
Nrt.aMiltt««aldtef«to 

dh-viiNwt— d  escape  alycril^hK  waste' 
«»«««».    fliBirlffii  gjfcid 

aotttat? 

ae«Maed 


I 


THE    BOOK    OF    THE    DEAD  5^ 

fong-papyTus  in  the  Turin  Museum.  lie  published  it  and  called 
it  tJie  Todtenbuch—\S\^  Book  of  the  Dead :  but  that  again,  is 
not  a  translation  of  the  Egyptian  title.  That  title,  as  rendered 
by  Renouf.  is '  Coming  forth  by  day '  ;  but  Renouf  felt  a  difficulty 
in  ncplaining  Uie  phrase.  Naville  would  translate  the  title, — 
'Coming  out  of  the  day',  the  day  being,  in  his  opinion,  'the 
period  of  a  man's  life,  having  it.<;  morning  and  its  evening'.  This 
ncplanation  hardly  commends  itself  to  us.  Surely  a  man  in  his 
grave  does  not  require  chapters  to  help  him  to  come  out  of  his 
earthly  life.  He  had  left  that  behind.  He  was  believed  to  be 
passing  through  the  darkness  of  the  Netherworld,  and  it  was 
hoped  that  after  this  night  of  death,  there  would  be  a  morning 
of  resurrection.  Literally,  if  he  went  down  in  the  west  and 
followed  the  course  of  the  sun,  he  would  by  and  by  rise  up  in 
the  cast,  into  the  light  of  heaven.  He  would  come  forth  into 
Dayl  Is  not  this  the  meaning?  May  we  not  call  these  old 
chapters  the  Book  of  Resurrection? 

Rcnoufs  idea  as  to  the  purpose  and  sense  of  the  chapters 
amounLs  to  this,— that  they  relate  to  the  blessedness  of  the  dead, 
i^ardcd  in  three  aspects;— fi)  Renewed  existence  *  as  upon 
earth*.  The  deceased  cats  and  drinks,  and  satisfies  all  his 
ph)*sical  wants.  He  particularly  enjoys  the  activities  of  agri- 
cuhural  life,  (c)  He  can  transform  himself,  and  range  through 
the  universe.  (3)  He  becomes  assimilated  to  the  gud  Osiris,  and 
triumphs  over  his  enemies.  Osiris  is  the  sun  in  his  underworld 
aq>cct.  In  the  Egyptian  mythology  there  is  a  very  close  relation 
between  Osiris  and  Ra,  and  sometimes  they  are  declared  to 
become  interfused,  one  and  inseparable.  Ra  is  the  sun-god,  the 
seat  of  whose  worship  was  Heliopolis,  a  city  connected  with 
the  oldest  religious  traditions  of  the  country.  The  bulk  of  the 
Book  of  the  Dead  c^mc  from  Heliopolis.  It  Is  not  disputed  that 
a  lending  feature  in  Egyptian  religion  was  the  worship  of  Ra, 
and  that  Heliopolis  may  rightly  be  called  the  religious  capital  of 
E^'pt  Next  to  the  Book  of  the  Dead,  the  longest  of  the  sacred 
writings  of  the  Eg>-ptians  is  the  Litany  of  Ra ;  and  in  this 
the  Supreme  Power  is  adored  in  all  his  numerous  manifesta- 
tions. Of  another  composition,  in  honour  of  Ra-Harmachis, 
Mr.  W,  R.  Cooper  says, — 'This  beautiful  hymn  .  .  .  resembles 
those  sublime  outpourings   of  adoration,   of  which    in    sacred 


i 


56 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


literature  Psalm  civ  is  so  characteristic  a  type.'  Now  the  king 
of  Egypt  was  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  Ra,  his  living  image ; 
jind  when  he  died  he  went  the  way  of  the  Sun,  as  Osiris 
had  done. 

Katncses  II  says  of  his  deceased  father,— ' Thou  dost  rest  in 
the  depth  lite  Osiris,  while  I  rule  like  Ra  among  men.'  As  early 
as  the  fourth  dynajily  the  monarchs  were  honoured  with  the 
appellation  of 'Osiris'  on  their  funeral  tablets.  In  later  time  all 
good  men  of  all  ranks  were  assimilated  to  Osiris;  they  were 
ftddcessed  as  '  the  Osiris  N.  N. ',  and  the  body  was  bound  up  to 
rtaemble  Osiris.  The  survivors  trusted  that  the  deceased  would 
rise  to  new  life,  as  it  was  believed  that  Osiris  had  done.  The 
royal  sepulchres  in  the  valley  ot  Bidafi  el  Meluk,  at  Thebes,  have 
their  walls  adorned  witli  pictures  which  generally  represent  the 
GOUrac  of  the  sun  thromh  the  Underwork!.  The  deceased  is 
supixwcd  to  follow  the  god  in  his  journey.  In  other  *-ords,  the 
Sun  repre5«nts  the  Deity,  and  the  good  man  goes  to  be  with  his 
god.  The  way  out  of  the  Underworld,  and  up  to  Heaven,  was 
by  a  staircaae  [or  Jacob's  ladder]  of  seven  steps :  and  in  chapter 
xxu  Osiris  sa>*s, — '  I  am  the  Lord  of  Restau,  tbe  same  who  is  at  the 
bond  of  tbe  Staircase.'  Rcxioaf  here  bids  as  compare  tbe  [ncture 
cf  Osiris  at  the  bend  of  die  Staircue,  whkfa  is  rqpfcseaied  on 
tbe  alabaster  sarcophagus  of  Scti  I  in  tbe  Soanc  Hoseun.  The 
(Qod  man.  having  thus  «sctside«5  from  tbe  oetber  deep  to  the 
gate  of  )lea\xtv  counted  upon  bcii^  assisted  over  the  thresfaokL 
Tbe  (kvcascd  kiz«g  Pepi  I.  as  ckrty  as  bis  p>-raniid — say  5300  B.C. 
— <xcluin\  'Hail  to  thcc,  O  bcider  of  God  .  .  .  Stand  np, 
O  LiAkScr  of  Godr  and  'every  god  atmibrtb  o«t  bis  hand 
NMOtbis  f^  wbca  be  cuinetb  foitb  iMo  bevna  fay  tbe  Ladder 
of  Godr 

h  Qi^ibttobeckairtbaJCtbcbassofaBcicBtEsyTtiwlkeotQey 

As  we  cm;>e>m  siy  tfaat  we  are  led, 
t»  Mlwe's  God.  JO  tbcy;    and  tbe  r«eaQa  of 
tbQT  n^ikJ  mo6t  was  the  sky-    Ik  ma^  be 
«r<nB^tbac 


THE    BOOK    OF   THE    DEAD 


57 


for  ihat  should  have  been  plain  sailing  for  the  siin's  'boat',  and 
for  the  souls  in  the  wake  of  it.     Instead  of  this,  it  seems,  the 
deceaxd  might  miss  his  way:   he  met  with  deceivers  and  en- 
countered  many   perils.     \Vc  are  .surprised   at  the  multiform 
dangers,  and  often  baffled  in  trying  to  guess  their  meaning.     The 
deceased  passes  through  the  chine  of  Apepi  the  Serpent,  at  the 
risk  of  being  devoured  ;    he  meets  with  crocodiles,  and  through 
tiem,  strangely,  may  be  robbed  of  his  Words  of  Power.     There 
irt  Merta  goddesses,  and  the  Apshait,  and  the  Eater  of  the  Ass,  all 
requiring  to  be  kept  back.     At  a  place  called  Sutenhenen  a  great 
slai^hter  is  perixitratcd,  and  at  another  place  there  is  a  divine 
block  of  Execution.     The  unwary  soul  may  be  imprisoned,  or  be 
taken  in  the  net  of  the  catchers  of  fish.     The  deceased  may  even 
die  a  second  time,  and  see  corruption.     It  is  possible  that  some 
of  these  dreadful  things  are  survivals  of  the  more  primitive  fancies 
which  terrified  mankind  before  they  became  civilized  enough  to 
study  the  stm  and  stars  and  measure  the  return  of  the  seasons. 
It  is  possible  that  some  of  the  descriptions  arc  symbolical  of 
bets  of  the  astronomic  system  itself.     What  is  that  Stairway  at 
the  end  of  the  journey  ?    and  how  comes  it  to  have  seven  steps  ? 
Egyptian  religion  was  not  sun-worship  pure  and  simple.     In  an 
astronomic  system  the  moon  may  be  of  some  importance  ;  certain 
stars  may  have  a  place ;   equinoxes  and  solstices  may  be  taken 
into  account. 

There  were  many  divinities  besides  Ra,  and  some  of  them  so 

closely  associated  with  him  that  they  too  must  be  supposed  to 

have  been  celestial.     Isis  and  Ncphthys  were  his  sisters;    Set 

was  his  murderous  brother ;    Horus  was  his  son,  who  avenged 

him.     Osiris,  who  reigns  in  the  Underworld,  becomes  inseparable 

from  Ra  ;  and  Thoth  is  continually  to  the  fore  as  Ra's  favourite. 

It  should  be  an  object  of  the  student  to  identify  these  divinities 

astronomically,  with  the  same  certainty  thai  Ra  is  identified  with 

the  son.     Who  is  Thoth?    In  chapter  clxxxii  he  is  the  perfect 

scribe,  the  writing-reed  of  the  Inviolate  God  :    he  writes  justice 

and  execrates  wrong,  and  his  words  have  dominion  over  the  two 

earths.     The  Greeks  recognized  Tholh  as  their   own  Hermes, 

the   god    of  number   and    calculation,   of   letters   and    learning. 

Of  course,  therefore,  he  corresponds  to  Mercury  and  to  Nebo 

in  other  systems.    We  shall  perhaps  find  that  the  Pantheon 


58  THE    JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

included  nearly  the  same  circle  of  divinities  in  all  the  ancTem 
nations.  And  why?  Surely  because  they  all  h^d  the  same 
heavens  above  them,  the  same  succession  of  seasons,  the  same 
need  of  measuring  months  and  years  ;  and  the  same  practice  of 
celebrating  the  festivals  of  each  divinity  as  the  day  came  rotmd. 
Hermes  or  Thoth  was  associated  with  the  renewal  of  the  years. 
He  was  supposed  to  measure  their  length  and  to  record  their 
passage;  and  thus  he  became  the  god  of  number  and  of  letters. 
He  supplied  all  the  data  for  a  correct  calendar.  When  the 
time  and  place  of  the  equinox  were  accurately  fixed,  the  right 
adjustment  made  between  the  summer  and  winter  halves  of 
the  year,  Thoth  was  said  to  appease  the  two  gods,  to  reconcile 
the  two  brothers  It  was  this  exact  balancing  of  the  hemi- 
spheres that  made  him  the  lord  of  justice.  It  was  the  need 
of  bringing  the  calendar  into  accord  with  the  astronomic  facts 
which  gave  men  their  sense  of  obligation  to  divine  law,  the 
decrees  of  heaven.  The  concrete  fact  is  ever  the  parent  of  the 
abstract  idea. 

It  would  be  easy  to  enlarge  the  proof  of  an  astronomic  element 
in  Egyptian  religion.  It  would  be  fatuous  to  deny  its  cxistencc- 
No  doubt  some  French  and  English  writers  of  the  past  were  too 
easily  satisfied  with  a  simple  solar  explanation :  they  so  had  the 
sun  in  their  eyes  that  they  could  see  nothing  else.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  the  writers  who  now  refer  everything  to  the  fancies 
of  sav^es  are  no  less  wide  of  the  truth.  The  early  Egyptians 
were  rot  savages  when  they  established  the  worship  of  Ra  the 
Sun-gnd  ;  nor  were  those  of  later  centuries  degenerate  barbarians 
when  they  built  more  temples  and  added  more  chapters  to  the 
sacred  book.  The  continuity  of  the  teaching  is  wonderful,  and 
only  to  be  understood  when  wc  recognize  that  the  standard  was 
ever  present  to  men  in  the  sun  and  stars.  If  the  priests  kept 
themselves  abreast  of  science,  then,  as  the  equinox  receded 
on  the  ecliptic  and  the  stars  altered  in  declination,  they  would 
have  to  modify  the  teaching  and  the  ritual.  This  would  be  one 
reason  for  writing  new  chapters ;  while  another  would  be  the 
general  advance  of  culture.  When  modification  had  been  too 
long  neglected,  the  readjustment  would  come  sometimes  with 
the  shock  and  inconvenience  of  a  revolution. 

M.  Naville  refrains  from  attempting  to  explain  the  chapters 


THE    BOOK    OF    THE    DEAD 


59 


* 


he  tianslates,  because  *  wc  have  not  yet  unravelled  all  the  m- 

tricacies  of  the  Egyptian  mythologj'  *.     I  do  not  mean  to  say 

that  Egyptologists,  either  foreign  or  English,  attribute  any  part 

of  the  development  of  Egyptian  teaching  to  the  need  of  keeping 

in  Mcord  with  the  changing  heavens.    They  are  not  convinced 

that  the  basis  of  the  teaching  was  astronomic.     That  an  element 

of  astronomy  is  there,  is  confessed  by  Renouf  and  Maspero  and 

other  masters  among  them  ;  but  with  the  remembrance  of  Dupuis 

and  Volney  and  other  sun-god  theorists  to  daunt  them,  they  hold 

back  too  much.     With  scientific  caution  they  refuse  to  go  an 

inch   beyond    their   (acts ;    and   since  they  have    no  scientific 

imagination  they  make  no  progress.     Like  M.  de  Roug6  they  cry 

out  piteously  that  the  most  accurate  knowledge  of  the  vocabulary 

aod  grammar  will  not  enable  them  to  pierce  to  the  meaning  of 

symbols  and  allegories ;   yet  they  will  not  lend  countenance  to 

any  other  method.     This  obscurantism  of  the  Egyptologist  is  as 

intolerant  as  ever  was  that  of  the  Hebraist.     To  us  it  is  also 

intolerable. 

Religion  is  what  it  is,  whatever  its  historical  and  outward 
origin.  Just  as  man  is  man,  even  if  his  ancestor  was  an  ape, 
M  we  are  Christians  now,  whatever  the  hole  of  the  pit  from 
B"hich  we  were  digged.  But  we  are  naturally  curious  about 
ongins;  and  as  it  has  seemed  worth  while  to  probe  into  natural 
evolution,  so  is  it  to  inquire  into  spiritual.  Christianity,  it  is 
recognized,  came  out  of  Judaism :  but  whence  came  Judaism 
itself?  Did  Israel  sojourn  in  Egypt  and  learn  nothing  about 
Ra  the  Sun-god?  We  have  satisfied  ourselves  that  the  theology 
of  the  Egyptians  had  an  astronomic  basis,  and  the  worship  of  the 
Sun,  as  a  symbol  of  Deity,  was  a  prominent  feature  in  it.  An 
astronomical  system  prevailed  also  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria. 
where  Anu  corresponds  to  Ra,  Nebo  to  Thoth,  and  the  pantheon 
in  general  is  similar.  Even  the  Hebrew  system— by  the  evidence 
of  the  sacred  books — must  at  first  have  had  an  admixture  of  the 
same.  With  Babylon  on  one  side  of  them  and  Egypt  on  the 
other,  the  Hebrews  could  hardly  escape  it.  As  there  was  nothing 
original  in  their  architecture,  so  there  was  little  that  was  peculiar 
their  religion.  The  Babylonians  had  their  temples  and  festivals, 
eir  priests  and  sacrifices,  their  psalms,  and  their  revelations  by 
dreams.     The  Hebrews  built  their  Temple  to  face  the  East,  and 


6o  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

offered  sacrifices  at  sunrise  and  sunset.  They  paid  regard  to 
new-moon  days ;  they  held  high  festival  of  Passover  and  Atone- 
ment at  the  season  of  the  equinoxes.  The  seven  lights  of  their 
temple  candlestick,  Josephus  tells  us,  represented  the  planets. 
Either  in  Egypt  or  in  Chaldea  we  should  be  able  to  uncover  the 
roots  and  the  trunk  of  the  tree  whose  branches  have  overshadowed 
the  nations. 

Geo.  St.  Clair. 


6t 


DOCUMENTS 


AN  UNKNOWN  FRAGMENT  OF  THE  PSEUDO- 
AUGUSTINIAN  QUAESTIONES  VETERIS  ET 
NO  VI  TESTAMENTI. 

Ik  Ibe  collection  of  Quaettiows  Veteris  et  Norn  Testamsnti  CXXVII 
thae  are  contained  three  commentaries  or  homilies  on  the  first,  twenty- 
third,  and  fiftieth  psalms  respectively.  They  follow  immediately  on 
■  irjctatt  De  Mbi-CHIsedech,  which  is  numbered  CVIIII  in  the  col- 
Itction.  The  text  of  this  Question  is  given  entire  by  most  of  the 
editors,  but  a  note  of  the  Benedictine  editor,  P.  Coustant,  informs  us 
Hat  about  two-thirds  are  lacking  in  the  Colbertine  manuscript  and  also 
in  the  «litio  Ratisponenais '. 

To  this  can  now  be  added  the  information  that  Colberlinus,  now 
Pirisiacus  Biblioth.  Nat.  fat.  2709  (s.  IX),  by  no  means  stands  alone 
in  this  respect.  Five  other  manuscripts  of  the  ninth  century,  two  of  the 
tenth,  and  a  number  of  later  copies,  in  fact  all  existing  MSS  of  which 
the  writer  has  any  knowledge,  with  one  exception,  lack  these  two-thirds. 
This  exception  is  ScafT  X.  N.  191  of  the  Biblioteoi  Antoniana  in  Padua, 
and  is  of  the  thirteenth  century.  It  is  absolutely  certain  that  none  of 
the  editors,  who  have  printed  the  entire  Question,  had  evrr  seen  this 
manuscript,  and  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  MS  or  MSS,  from  which 
tiie  complete  Question  was  printed,  existed  among  the  manuscripts  in 
Piris  destroyed  at  the  Revolution.  If  we  could  trust  Coustant's  silence, 
we  should  conclude  that  the  other  manuscripts  named  by  him,  all  of 
late  date,  contained  the  document  complete.  We  cannot,  however,  trust 
him,  and  a  study  of  his  text  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  he  seldom 
opened  any  MS  to  which  he  had  access  except  Colbertinus,  and  that 

'  This  is  A  naine  for  the  tdiHo  firi»a/>s,  edited  by  an  AuMin  Friar  of  Piris,  who 
1 »  intive  of  Ratispona  (Ratisbon,  Rtgvnsbur^),  and  published  by  Jean  Trech3«l 
Lyon  in  I497.  Of  this  book  ten  copies  are  known  lo  exist  In  Frutcc  (see 
MademoiKlte  Pellechet'a  Catalognt  G/»*ral  des  InmnaMts  drt  Bihlinthijtus  Pt- 
bli^mts  dt  FruHft,  vol.  i  Pitra,  iH^j) :  the  British  Museum  has  one,  the  Bodleian 
baa  two,  Cambridge  Universily  Library  baa  one,  Jena  has  one.  and  the  Bibliolcca 
Anbraiana  at  Padua  one.  Qiiarltch  had  a  copy  for  lalc  in  18771  which  had 
belonged  to  Pirckbcimer,  the  friend  of  Erasmus. 


62  THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

rarely  and  to  little  purpose.  My  own  belief  is  that  there  existed  duriog 
the  sixteentli  century,  [>er1uips  :ilso  during  the. st;venLeei)th  and  eighteenth 
centuries,  either  in  France  or  Belgium,  one  copy  of  the  QuaestioiuSi 
which  had  Question  109  in  its  complete  form. 

If  we  compare  quu.  CXde  fsalmo  pximo,CX1  dspsalmo  vtGEKsiMO 
TBRTio  and  CXII  de  psaluo  Qi'/XQyACEXsfifo,  in  their  printed  form, 
we  shall  M-e  that,  while  the  commentaries  on  the  twenty-third  and 
fiftieth  psalms  are  each  provided  with  an  introduction  concerning  its 
title  and  historical  setting,  the  commentary  on  the  first  psalm,  which 
might  be  expected  a  fortiori  to  have  such  an  introduction,  is  without 
it  The  writer  plunges  at  once  /n  medias  res  by  ciling  tlie  first  words 
of  the  psalm  and  proceeding  to  comment  on  them.  He  has  thus 
encouraged  his  few  modern  readers  to  adopt  a  patronizing  tone  which 
he  ill  deserves.  Never  was  modest  writer  more  cruelly  treated,  first  by 
the  misfortunes  to  which  early  manuscripts  of  liis  works  were  .subjected, 
and  second  by  the  ignorance  and  carelessness  of  his  first  editor  and 
his  followers.  No  one  who  has  read  the  prefaces  to  the  work  in  the 
various  editions  and  compared  their  text  with  that  provided  by  any 
manuscript  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century,  will  think  these  words  too 
strong. 

For  the  writer  did  compose  an  introduction  to  his  commentary  on 
the  first  psalm;  and  the  same  misfortune,  which  nearly  lost  us  the 
greater  fiart  of  the  logih  Question,  involved  the  first  third  or  so  of  the 
I  loth,  Why  the  old  editor,  who  first  printed  CVIIII  entire,  did  not 
also  print  the  first  part  of  CX,  I  cannot  say,  The  problem  would  be 
further  complicated  if  we  could  suppose  that  his  MS,  while  it  had 
CVIIII  complete,  lacked  the  first  part  of  the  nest  Question.  This 
I  do  not  believe  was  the  case,  and  I  can  only  suppose  that  he  omitted 
this  pan  through  oversight,  or  because  it  seemed  to  contain  very  much 
the  same  thoughts  as  are  expressed  later  in  the  document. 

Before  going  on  to  describe  the  MS  which  contains  this  missing  part 
of  qu.  CX,  and  lo  give  the  text  of  it,  let  us  look  at  the  situation  as  it 
appears  in  all  the  other  MSS.  After  they  have  given  the  first  third  of 
qu.  CVIIII  quite  correctly  down  to  ijuia  nature  quae  poteit  (]).  2326, 
58),  there  follow  immediately  and  without  any  warning  the  words 
dicenie  Salotnone  i}uia  spcs  impinrum  peribii,  which  have  no  sort  of  con- 
nexion with  what  has  preceded,  and  conclude  the  Quaestio.  Then  is 
given  the  title  CX  de  pSAL.'\fo  PKiflto,  followed  by  the  Question  as  we 
have  it  in  the  printed  editions.  In  meditating  on  the  problem  of  the 
words  diante  Sahmone  quia  spes  impiorum  peribii  and  their  origin,  I  had 
observed  that  the  same  words  recur  near  the  end  of  qu.  CX,  but  liad 
been  unable  to  draw  the  correct  inference  from  the  fact.  The  examina- 
tion and  collation  of  the  Padua  codex  have  solved  the  problem  entirely. 


DOCUMENTS 


63 


The  mystmous  words  are  reallf  part  of  qu.  CX,  and  the  concluding 
•okIs  of  the  lost  first  part  of  it  The  ancient  archetype  to  which  all 
other  copies  go  back  had  lost  several  leaves'.  At  the  nght  foot  comer 
of  lie  verso  of  the  last  leaf  before  the  gap  were  the  words  ^uia  na/ura 
inw/otj/(p,  1326,  58):  at  the  left  top  comer  of  the  rerio  of  the  first 
leaf  after  ihe  lost  leaves  were  the  words  diunte  Sahmom  quia  spn 
mfionim  fxrihit.  The  title  of  qu.  CX  had  been  lost  with  the  rest,  but 
uj  person,  however  ignorant,  could  supply  it  from  the  sentence  which 
illfeii  bin)  in  the  face  after  the  word  peribit. 

The  manuscript  (ScafT  X.  N.  191)  of  the  Biblioteca  Antoniana  in 
Pidua  is  of  the  thirteenth  century*,  and  now  consists  of  1 16  leaves  of  very 
5ne  rcUum,  measuring  30x21  centimetres.  The  wilting  is  in  double 
poluinns,  and  is  most  careful  and  beautiful.  The  coloured  initials, 
I  though  not  very  elaljorately  decorated,  are  of  exquisite  form  and  hcrauty. 
I  There  are  catch-words  at  the  end  of  each  gathering.  Quaternions  in 
^■Ihe  strict  sense  there  are  none,,  at  least  in  the  part  dealing  with  the 
^H'^du/rffArf.  The  gatherings  there  consist  respectively  of  ten  (of  which 
^ptfaebller  seven  alone  belong  to  the  Quaestiones  part),  twelve  [then  the 
lots,  presently  to  be  described),  twelve,  twelve,  twehT,  and  fourteen  leaves. 
As  the  last  leaf  is  empty,  our  work  occupies  sixty-eight  leaves  in  all. 

The  codex  now  contains  the  thirteen  books  of  the  Confessions,  the 

Qkaestiones  Vetcris  et  Noui  Ttitamenti  CXX  VIJ  less  qu.  46  (from  the 

words  tt  utginti  guaffucr  classes  instituiae  sunt,  p,  2247,  24)  down  to  qu. 

101  (the  words  ut  obstqutum  praebtat  ordinando,  p.  2303,  9},  and  the 

latter  part  of  qu.  127  from  renasd  enim  renouari  est  (p,  2382,  44),  the 

Retractations,  the  De  Constnsu  Euangelistarum,  and  the  beginning  of 

Ihe  De  QuafStiofitbus  Oeioginta  Tribui  (down  as  far  as  the  words  luasor 

^i/lt  a  quo  damnatus  sit.     Non  etus).     From  an  entry  on  Ihe  flyleaf,  erased 

^■t  an  early  date,  it  appears  that  Ihe  manuscript  at  one  time  contained,  or 

^^aa  intended  to  contain,  the  whole  of  ihc  Vc  Quaationidus  LXXXIJJ, 

the  De   Vera  Heligione,  and  oiher  works,  in  addition  to  those  above 

mentioned.     It  is  improbable  that  it  ever  contained  these,  because  in 

the  valuable  fourteenth  and  fifteenth -century  Inventories  of  manuscripts, 

preserved  in  the  library,  only  the  four  works  which  are  (more  or  less) 

complete  are  indicated.     Further,  the  library  pos.<!csses  no  MS  containing 

the  works,  whose  titles  are  erased,  in  the  order  of  these  titles,  nor  indeed 

any  MS  answering  to  the  description  given  by  them. 

It  is  worth  while  to  transcribe  those  entries: — 


k 


Inoenlarium  (dated  1396)  f.  14  r. 

(Ubri  extra  armariu  cu  catena  sunt  infra  subscript.) 


^  TIm  *  stemmk  codicnm  '  U  printed  in  the  Sitaungsbtriehtt  J.  fiM.^ln'st.  Kl,  4tr 
'aUtrikiitM  Akadttnu  dtr  lVisunt<ha/ttH  in  Wi4M,  Bd.  cxlix  {190^),  At>Ui.  1  p,  11. 


J 


64 


THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Item  libri  confession utn  Augiistini  in  quo  uolumine  sunt  centum 
XXXVII  {stc)  questionum  Augustini  et  reiracLurum  {sic)  cum  liit>ulis 
copertis  corio  rubeo  et  cathena  [ofifiost'fe  a  contemporary  hand  has 
written  defictunt  aliquanta]. 

The  chain  has  perished,  but  the  codex  still  shews  clearly  where  ft 
was  fastened.  Part  of  the  'corium  nibeum'  still  exists,  and  the  board 
which  is  on  one's  right,  when  the  coJvx  lies  open  before  one,  still 
retains  a  slip  on  which  the  titles  of  works  in  the  MS  were  written  and 
can  be  partially  read. 

Inuenlahum  (dated  1449)  f.  20  u. 

{Sexta  Bancha  Sinistra.) 

Liber  confcssionfi  beati  augusrini  c:  aliorum  diucrsonim  tractantium 
eiusdem  copertus  coreo  albo  per  totum  el  clautculis  de  metallo. 
Cuius  principium  est  confessloni)  ipsa  columpna  cum  uno  C  de  azuro 
el  principium  2°  columpne  e  Magnus  e  domine  cfl  uno  M  de  azure  et 
cenaprio.  Incipit  etiam  quintemus  (?)  me  intanta  (?)  flagrantia.  Finis 
no  ultimus  no  enim. 

On  the  flyleaf  is  a  note  to  the  following  effect ;  '  Contuli  haec  quatuor 
opuscula  cum  editione  veneta  A.  1709  Ego  Keinhardus  Fischer 
Viennensis  2  Feb.  1751.'  It  is  unlikely  that  the  said  Fischer  was  one 
of  the  Fratres  Minores  Conventuales  at  Padua,  but  as  ihe  lists  arc  con- 
tained in  the  Archivio  Pubblico,  which  was  not  open  at  the  time  of  my 
visit  to  Padua,  it  was  not  possible  lo  Invtrstigate  the  matter.  Nor  liave 
I  thought  it  necessary  to  enquire  whether  the  collation  of  Fischer  was 
committed  to  writing  and  still  survives,  or  not 

I  have  to  thank  Father  Girolamo  Mileta,  Librarian  of  the  Biblioteca 
Antoniana,  for  his  very  great  kindness  to  me  during  my  stay  at  Padua. 

[The  Text.] 

DE  PSALMO  PRIMO  CX. 

Cum  propheta  Dauid  per  spccicm  camalium  spiritalem  rationera 
significaret,  diuersi  generis  ac  ineriii  psalmos  ad  dei  taudcm  et  sacra- 
mentum  alacrt  mente  pronuntians,  primum  psatmum  nuUo  uclamine 
texit,  ncquc  alicui  adsignauit,  sed  generalem  instituit,  ut  horuni  sit  qui, 
£  a  malis  segregati,  bonorum  sc  soctctate  munierint.  Nee  debuit  enira 
princt])iutn  ct  maxime  liuius  gratiae  in  ohscuritate  cantari  (ante  enini 
lux  quam  tenebrae,  et  caput  uniuscuiusque  rei  in  manifesto  est),  ncc 
inde  nt  quaestio,  sed  de  subicctis,     Unde  sic  orsus  est  dicens  : — 

BeATUS  UlR  QUI    <KON>    ABUT   IN   CONSIUO   IMPIORUK. 

10      'Consilium   tmpiorum'   est   conspiratio  malignorum    multifarie   in- 
tellegenda.      Idcirco  impii  a  peccatoribus  distant.      Im  pi  etas  enim 

4  qui «]  quit 


\ 


\ 

I 


I 


DOCUMENTS 


65 


gnuisr'mum  peccatum  est,  quia  omnis  impietas  pcccatum,  non  tamen 
omoe  peccatum  impietas.  Quo  modo  e^o  quis  'abit  in  consilio 
inqwnnn'?  Cum  a  se  uocalur  certe-  Hoc  enim  dicens  ostendit  quia, 
quimdiu  quis  a  nalura  non  exit,  non  incunit  peccatum.  Propter  hoc 
'beatas',  inquit,  'qui  non  ahiit  in  consilio  impiorum '.  Impietas  S 
eum  a  diabolo  CDepta,adsenttentibtis  sateU^it)ibus  cius,  inticit  honatnes 
Bt  panidpcs  eos  suae  impietatis  efGciat.  Ipse  enim  prior  in  deum 
peocans,  dum  uult  sibi  principatum  per  tirannidem  usurpare,  deiectus 
dcncris  sedibus,  hoc  solacium  acstimauit,  si  perditioni  suae  adquirerct 
ptinimos  socios.  Ideoquc  'bcatus',  inquit,  'uir  qui  non  abiii  in  con- 10 
alio  iroptonim ',  lUi  enim  semper  inliciunt  homines,  qui  sub  hoc 
prindpe  agentes  nobis  inimici  sunt,  dicente  apostolo;  non  est  enim, 

■it,  COHLUCTATIO   VOBIS    AHVERSUS    CAKNEM    ET   SASCUINEM,    SED    AD- 

viasus  PRIKCIPES  ET  POTESTATES,  ct  in  altera  epistula  dc  tyranno 
urnm  ait  inter  cetera  ita  ut  ik  tf.mplo  dei  sedeat,  ostendems  se  i| 
Ct'ASi  SIT  DEUS.     Quia  enim  peccare  duke  uidetur,  et  non  sentitur 
nalura  nisi  fuerit  factum,  ac  per  hoc  fallentes  non  apparent  quamdiu 
capiant,  sed,  cum  dccepcrint,  tunc  cognoscuntur,  propterca  bcatum  dicit 
iUam  qui  inlectus  non  fuerit  in  consilium  impiorum,  ut  cat  In  contubcr- 
nium  impietatis  illoruro.     Prima  ergo  impietatis  causa  haec  est,  qua  »o 
lebeOes  in  deum  maligna  conspiratione  esse  coeperunt,  qua  imilalione 
coepit  idolatria.     In  supemis  enim  coepta  praeuaricatio  descendit  ad 
terras.    Dura  (enim)  contcntt  non  sunt  uni  dco  cl  crcatori  esse  subiccti, 
impii  extiterunt,  maiestatem  eius  aliis  partiendo,  ut  spreto  ea  alios  sibi 
ad  culluram  eligerent.     Haec  est  enim  prima  causa  ofTensionis  human!  35 
leneris  ex  qua,  neglecti  a  dec,  diuersis  iniecebris  et  passionibus  in- 
lodendilraduntur  secundum  fidcm  apostoli  Fault.   Quid  enim  inuiolatum 
opus  manet,  quod  non  agnouit  auctoremP    Inde  iam  seminatum  malum 
comueludinem   renuit,   et    in   multas   partes    uelut  prnpago   palmiles 
I     tendit,  ut  qui  deo  non  pepercerant,  in  parentum  contunieliam  et  necem  y> 
''     tkdlhis  prosilirent,  quia, — ut  de  ceteris  taceara,  dicente  apostolo,  <^vo 
E»iM  MiHt  DE  HIS  QVi  FORis  svNT  ivDiCARE? — Rubcn  in  contumcliam 
patris  stuprum   in  concubinam  eius  admistt;    et  Absalon  contra  fas 
regntun  praesumpsit,  ut  ^latrecn  suum  imperio  et  uita  priuaret.     Habet 
[     adhuc  et  alias  pnrtes  impietas  quia  et  in  periculo  despiccre  rngantcm  35 
,     cam  prodcbsc  poissit  impietas  est,  ct  in  re  aspera  et  maligna,  ut  impkri 
possit,  consilium  dare  t  tarn  huius  rei  nee  ad  praesens  euasit,  et  talia 

^B  9  coDsilhiin  5  consilium  {tx  conditio)  8  deiectis  9  •dquirirct 

^^M  cDtuUium  13  Kph.  vi  13  15  3  Tbess.  {14  17  fRcturt  iS  capient 

(owT.)  19  intcllcdus  ai  cepcrunt  is  ceptn  33  contcmpli 

'       IT  *f-  Ron.  i  34.  16  38  raancnt  31   t  Cor.  v  13  36  propesse 

S;-S /brUusr  d  U^iti.,.n^a\.i'Hruna.ponmiia  shhI anU  Wa,tl  tttrtH9  ftriit  ut haud ita 

**n  in  Aoc  tvdiBC 

VOU  VI.  F 


quae  in  hunc  sensum  poterant  reperiri  t.  Non  inmerito  ergo  '  beatus 
uir  est  qui  non  abiit  in  consilto  ioipionim '.  Magna  enim  pcrnicics 
est  homini  et  tncurabile  uulnus  post  cognitionem  dei  his  erroribos 
sociflri.  Deterius  enim  traaetur  necesse  est  qui  post  uerum  conuertitur 
5  ad  falsum,  et  beatus  uir  est  qui,  ueri  cognitione  pcrcepta,  impiorum  fugit 
consilia  ;  quia  caput  erroris  inipietas  est. 

Et  sequitur  ex  in  uia  peccatorum  non  stetit,  quoniam  impossibfle 
est  non  pcccare,  sicut  possibtle  implum  non  esse,  quia  grauissimum 
peccalum  potest  euiuri,  cetera  autem  de  non  est  qua  subrepant.     Ipsa 

lo  enim  humana  conuersatlo  frequenter,  dum  i>eccare  non  cogitat,  ex 
inprouiso  incurrit  ut  pecceL  Ac  per  hoc  beatus  est  qui  in  consiltu 
impionim  non  uadit.  Hoc  est  nee  inclperc  malum.  Feccatum  autem 
quia  non  potest  non  incipi,  sicut  dixt,  beatum  dixit  qui  non  permanet 
in  CO.      Hoc  est  '  in  uia  peccatorum  non  stare '.     '  Via '  enim  '  peccato- 

1$  rum '  est  conuersatio  in  peccatis.  Male  enim  arabulare  dicitur,  qui  ad 
hoc  proccdit,  ut  quaerat  peccare.  Dum  enim  mens  eius  non  slat  in  dei 
lege  sed  euagatur,  '  in  uia  peccatorum  '  dicitur  ambulare,  quia  euagatio 
haec  quaerit  peccare.  Ideoquc  '  beatus  est  qui  non  stat  in  uia  pec- 
catorum', id  est,  qui,  paenitentia  subsequente;,  circumuentum  se  dolet 

»e  ct  recedit  (ab)  aspiratione  hominum  peccatorum.  Igitur  sicut  '  beatus 
est  qui  non  abiit  in  consilio  iropiorum',  sic  inemendabtlia  erit  si  abit, 
dicente  Salomone  quia  spes  imfiokvm  PEKiBtT. 

A.    SOUTEJL 


i 


i 


1  coDjilium 

X38 


II  consitiun 


i6  hoc 


31  waailiiuD 


la  Ptov. 


67 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES 


THE  OLD  LATIN  TEXTS   OF  THE  MINOR 
PROPHETS.    V. 

JOEL^ 

1. 1, 3  'Verbum  dnn  quod  factum  est  ad  loel  filium  Bathucl-   *  Auditc  Cod.  WtingX 
haec  seDiores  et  praebete  aures  omnesqui  habitatis  in  tcrram  si  facta 

lUQl  talia  in  diebus  vestris  aut  in  diebus  patruum  vcstrurum  super 
J  606.  'Filiis  vestris  narrate  ct  filii  vestri  filiis  suia  et  filii  eorum 
<  Dilionibus  aliis.    *  Residuum  uru        ....        residuum 

lucQstae  comedit  bruchus,  et  residuum  bruchi  comedit  erysibce. 
j'Evigilate  qui  ebrii  esiis  a  vino  vestro,  plorate  et  ululate  omnes  qui 

hibitts  vinum  in  vbrietatcm,  quia  ablata  est  ex  ure  vestro  iucunditas 
tct  gaudium.    'Quia  ascendit  gens  super  tcrram  mcam,  gens  fortis 

et  innu  .  .  .  ut  dentcs  sunt  leonis,  ct  molarcs  cius 
\  lioit  catuli  leonis,  **  posuit  vineam  meam  in  exterminiucn,  et  ficulneas 

oeas  in  con^ctionem  scrutans  er  scmiavit  et  proiecit,  exaltavic  vites 
6  suai.    '  Lugcat  mc  super  sponsam  praccinctam  cilicium,  super  virum 
9  cius  virginium.    *  Ablata  est  hostia  et  libatio  de  do 
le .        .         .         tes  qui  deservitis  altario.     "  Quia  miseri  facti  sunt 

ctinpi,  lugeat  terra  quia  miseruro  (actum  est  frumentuin,  arefactum 
II  est  rinum,  diminuit  oleum,  "ardacti  sunt  agricolae;  lugete  posses- 

1  s  Sfic.  lit         I  6,  7  Sptt.  cxH 

1. 1,  Ulia1  rovwrai  K*  (-to  K*)        vestris]  tj^w  C  [viiMv  B^  K  A)  Q"W        aut] 
■■'  !?*  Cl  0"*)         veMrorura]  ijiiaiv  K*  u/i«*  K'- "  super  cos]  "'(n  a\toiv  1, 

(n«f  nmET  lG|ll)  %.  nationibus  aliis]  «ii  -jwtav  *T*piw  (S  4.  t>ruchiis] 

imxn  K*  CAkk'xot  K'  J*^  •■  *)  fl^x«"  Q*        eryaibce)  •pioii#7  A  5.  evigiUtc] 

•ebrn  otale  S  vestro  1"]  avran-  (J  t«*-  sup  rax  O^  ebrictitcm]  •!«  5 

•M  5  gens  I*]  OM  S  gens  i']  om  Gi  forli<i  et  Innu  .  .  .1  vslida  et 

boMMnbolU  S  ul]  om  (S  denies] -t' cius  5  +  «vToir<S  sunt]  stcuC  5 

hnii  1*^  pr  dentca  S  pr  oSorrtt  CEt  aicut]  om  €r  leonis  3°]  leooum  5 

wrm^omfi  7.  ticulnm]  ficus  5         scrutans]  •^^lufoi*  K*  (■»•**  K'-^i*-^) 

et  scmuvit]  scrutinavit  S  +  ovtiji-  ^"5)  Q'"*  (_o*m  Q*)  cxaltavit]  /^  el  5 

f.  iTif t»l]  9ptsrf)<jo¥  6  J?  fS^ijnjffn  ILl**-  ^  •'^  postea  ras)  me]  /r  wp«t  (S  H  (/J* 

96.  ](  $.  alUrio}  ^r  n«i  Q"^ ■*■  mpiov  in  tharatt.  mitton  A  II.  arcfacii 

aiatj  «{<y0«ir<rav  BA  g  K*  •■  ^  KQF^oxwff^oai-  K'- " 

'  Inadvertently  omitted  from  an  earlier  Number. 


68 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Sfiteu/um 


siones  super  tritico  ft  hordeo  quia  perit  vindemia  ex  agro,  quoniam 

11  lignum  non  attulic  fructura.      '*  Vitis  arc&icta         .... 
gratuta  ct  palmae  cE  malae  omnia  ligna  agri,  arclacu  sunt 

■3  quia  confuderunt  gaudium  filii  hominuin.  "Praectnglte  vos  et  m 
plangite  sacerdotes,  lugete  qui  dcservitis  altario,  intrate  dormite  in  f 
ciliciis,  deservicntes  dfnb  quia  ablata  est  ex  domo  dei  vcstri  hostia 

14  ct  libati^.  "Sanctific  [S/^cu/uta]  (Sanctiticate)  ieiuniutn,  pracdicate  _ 
deservitionem,  convocate  seniores  et  omnes  inhabitantes  teiram  in  I 
domum  domini  dei   nostri,  ct  clamate  ad   dominum  vehementer. 

ij  "Vac  mihi,  vac  mibi,  vae  inihi,  in  diem  domini  1    quia  prope  esc 
dies  domini    .•■.......• 


II.  a  'Dies  tenebiarum  et  caliginis,  dies  nubis  et  nebulae     .        .        . 

Cott.  fTniij.       3  • et  postcriora  eius  campi  extet- 

4  minii,  et  qui  resalvetnr  non  erit  ex  eis.  *Sicut  aspectus  equonim 
£  aspectus  corum,  et  sicut  equites  sic  persequemur,  'et  sicut  vox 
quadrigamm  supra  cacumina  moniium  exitient,  et  sicut  vox  flanimae 
consumentis  stipulam,  et  stcut  popw/us  mullus  etj/tctis  prae 

Sfitcnimm        10  "Ante  conspectum  eius  turbabitur  tern  et  movebitur  caelum,  et  sol 


I 


Cypmui 


I 


et  luiia  conteneljrabuntur,  et  sidera  decident,  nee  dabunt  lumen 
II  suum.     *^Et  dotninus  dabit  vocem  suam  ante  conspectum  cxerctius 

sui,  quia  muttus  eat  nimium  exercims  iltius,  et  quia  valida  sunt  opeia. 

sermonum  ciua,  et  magnus  est  dies  dorainr,  magnus  et  manifestua 
II  nimitim,  et  qviis  erit  sufficiens  ilH?     "  \Cyprian\  Et  nunc  haec  dicit 

Dominus  Deus  vestcr;  revertimini  ad  me  ex  toto  corde  vestro, 
ij  simulque  et  ieiunto,  et  fletu  et  pUrctu.    "  Et  discinditc  corda  vestn 

et  non  vestimenta  vesira,  et  revertimi  ad  Dominum  Deum  \-estnim, 

1  1%,  14,  15  Spte.  xxvi  II  %  Sffc,  szvi         II  to,  1 1  Sfuc.  xxvi  II  \i,  ij 

Cypr.Dt  lapda  xztx,  zxxvl;  DtboH,  pat.  iv;  Sp^-  xxiii;  \^tit,Qi\.  D*  r$g.  aposiat, 
xi,  xii        II  13  Cypr.  Efiiat.  W  n  ;  ^<i  l^ov.  ix 

L  II.  quonism  lignum  non  attutft  fructuro']  om  tS  la.  ligiu  kgri]  ra  (vko» 

ayp»v  G^  (to  fvAa  tov  a-ypov  fl"*  ttA%^  13,  pnecingitc] prscdngiinmi S 

voslomSG  plangite] -r  vos  £         qui  dcservitis]  deservicntes  .S  iutnie] 

inlroiic  S  dnio]  dco  S  Star  @  tttilaia  cat  ex]  cessa\-it  de  ^         dei]  »O0QQ 

veatri")  q/ioic  0*  (lu/ian' 0*)      hosti'o]  sacrificiumS      libniio]  clibatioS         14.  et  i"] 
om  6  domini  dei  nostri]  e«<iv  vftwy  ItS  «v  K"-"  kv  OvH"-^  A  vebcnentcrl 

Adpot  9'  /HWQT  Tw  oB*K[iaiiai''\  wrtv  ofi[aivs]  t£w]i  o'  Q"*  I5.  doEDtni  i*]  oMf  fi 

II.  3.  campi]  ntStor  I&  (riSia  CotHpl)  crit]  fOTiv  A  ex  cb]  avrw  G  om  A 

4.  sicut  a"]  01  A  ouTv  K*  {-TM  K'- ")  5.  et  1"]  om  G  (ftw  S«)         fkcnmnc]  +  tvpo^ 

G  (W  —  Cod)  to.  eius]  atn-ir  K*  (-rou  K'-^)  A  Q  nee  dabunt]  ott  G  (o«^ 

SaitfiMHii  Q°}  II.  et  3"]  owi  C       mtgnus  i°]om^        erit]  •<jt»»  ft*  ^  i«!T7tu  M*-*  "^ 

13.  A  ^  C  b«cc]  sic  5  om  G  (to^*  106)  revertimini]  al  et  ronvertiniini  C -^S 
pf  Kot  S6  ex]  aI  ia  C  vestro]  ^et  ex  tola  uuiaa  vestn  S  shnulquc  et]  ^mJ 
em  CS        ct  ■»"]  om  A        Retu]  al  ploratione  C  13.  disdndiic]  al  scindite     C 

disrumpiteS     vesira  3"]a/omC     revertimi] o/reverticiiniC^  a/cQaverlicniDiC**^ 


J 


NOTES    AND   STUDIES  69 

qua  miscricore  et  pius  est,  et  paticns,  et  multae  mlserationis,  et  qui 
seoieaium  flectat   adversus  maliiias  irrogatas        .... 

(.("Onite  tuba  in  Sion,  sanctificatc  teJunium  et  indicitc  curationem, 

in  "idgregate  populum,  sanctificate  ecclesiam,  cxcipite  matores  natu, 
(olligite  parvulos  lactanles,  piocedat  sponsus  de  cubiculo  suo,  ct 

wsponu  de   Ihalamo  suo         .         .        .        *°  Ilium   ab  Aquilone  Tymmiu 
pescquar  a  vobis,  et  cxpeltam  ilium  in  terram  sine  aqua,  et  cxter- 
tninabo  faciem  eius  in  mare  primuic,  et  postenora  eius  in  mare 

Ji  fiorissiraum "  Et  lignum  TtrtutUoM 

I'anuirt  fructum  suura         .        .         .         .        **Et  eril  posi  haec  5/.rrti/«m 

efiundam  de  spiritu  meo  super  omnem  camem  el  prophetabunt  filii 

ij «  filiae  eonim "  Et  super  servos  TtrtuiUM* 

^ei  sncitlas  meas  de  meo  spiritu  efTundam        .        .        .        "Sot 

convertelur  in  tcnebras,  ct  in  sanguincin  luna,  priusquam  advcnit 

dies  magnus  et  illustris  Domini 

IQ.  3  *.        .        .  .        flosajfat,  et  adiadicabor  ad  eos  ibi  Cod.  Wnng. 

pn  plebe  mea  et  pro  bereditate  mea  /r/rahel,  qui  t/lspersi  snnt  in 
jgfntibus,  et  terram  meam  perdiviserunt, 'et  super  jwpulum  muum 

mjseruni  sortes  t-t  dodcrunt  pucros  mcretricibus,  et  puelks  vcndtde- 
4  root  pro  vino  et  biberunt.    '  Et  adhuc  vos  mihi  Tynis  et  Sido« 

i| " et  stellae  Occident  luminaria 

i6eorum.     "dms  autem  ex  Sion  cXamamx  ct  de  HfVnisalcm  dabit 

vocem  simm,  et  movcbitur  caelam  ct  terra,  dins  autem  parcel  populo 
1;  suo,  el  confortabit  dins  filios  Istrahel,  "et  cognoscetis  quia  ego  sum 

dnis  dS  vester  qui  inhabito  in  Sion  in  monte  sancto  meo 

n  I  j  ]6  Cypr.  Ttstim.  ii  19  II  ao  Tycon.  Rtg.  Stpt.  II  ) j  Tert.  Aih/.  lud. 

iffi        11  aiSptc.  Hi;  Tert.  Adv.  Mart,  v  ti  11  3<)  Tert.  w^cAj.  Marc.  (Sabalier, 

>■  79*)  'I  J*  Tert,  Adv.  Man.  (S*bfttier,  p.  731)  III  17  Tycon,  H*g.  Srpl. 

qiik]  al  quontain  CL  quia  mis«rIcon  ad  fin  trow]  <)«m  misericors  «C  miseralor  et 
■iHricordiae  plttrimos  T*tt  misericon]  al  mtkcrator  C  «t  piiis  eat  et  p^tiens 
k]  tl  om  C  pius  est  ad  fit  row]  cC  paticna  est  ct  ma^animus  ct  multiun 

BiMricars  et  patlens  in  mali^aitatlbus  5  malilias]  al  iniuriaa  C  maliUas 

imguas]  malitiam  inrog«tani  L        irrogntas]  otn  <n  15.  et]  mm  S  ■&  suo 

t*]  om  0*  (Aoft  Q'^  011T71  0*  (de  Q*  non  liq)  30.  itlum]  *ai  tw  ©        lemim] 

^v  K*  i.Tf  K  0  «t  pcistcriora  ad  fin  nm  J  in  mgg  el  sup  ras  A^  aS.  et  erit  post 
baec]  in  novisaimis  diebus  Ttrt  effuntlanij/rel  i^g"  aupcr]  in  Ttrt  filii]  + 
vpmCi  ct  filiae]  Qliacquc  TVrf  cDrumJv>uji><!S1L(r.n- 16^)  Jl{  19.  Krvox) 
*fom  6  (ojii  /MS  Compt)  meaaj  otn  ffl^  de  meo]  pr  tv  rmi  fift*pa»  ««ti*o«  ffi 
Ul.   a.  pro  i*]  em  G  {vp  4S)  4.  et  adhuc]  Km  n  ^  moi  n  ita.i  A  Q*        SidonJ 

7*Ae^  C  X*a*-  fl*"  I*  (?  15.  luminaria]  -^Trirot  <5  16.  cUmavit]  avokpa^trat 

If-*  A  Q  dfni  autem  :•  .  . .  voccni  suam]  om  K*  (hab  K'-  *)  ct  movebilur 
.  .  .  ler»a]  om  K*-  *  (pastes  rcvoc)  conforUbit  dioi]  vm  timi  C*  A  H  (A<ii  Q) 
SJ  ct]  Dm  T  quia]  quoDiam  T  sum]  cm  G  (Aofi  €1 130  811}  qui  inhabito] 
lobttaos  r        in  2*]  omTX 


Spttuhim 


Tytommt 


i8  .        .        .        "Et  erit  in  ilia  die  desiilUbunt  monies  dulcedinem, 

et  coUes  fluent  tactem et  fons  de 

domo  exiet  et  adaquavit  agmcn • 


Obadiah. 

3  .        .        .      'exaltans  habitationem  suam,  dicens  in  corde  suo: 

4  Quis  me  deducet  ad  terram?    'Si  exalutus  fucris  sicut  aquila  ct 
inter  Stellas  ponos  nidum  tuum,  iode  deiraham  te,  di'cit  Dominus     . 


18  "Erit  domus  lacob  ignis,  domus  autcm  loseph  flaniran,  donius  rcro 
Esau  stipula  ;  ct  exardescent  In  illos  et  commedent  eos,  ct  non  erit 
^nifer  in  domo  Esau,  quomam  Dominus  locutus  est        .         .         . 

ni  iS  Spic  cxx,  cxiiv 

Obadmft.  3,  ^,  18  Tycon.  Rtg.  Stpl. 

18.  domo]  +  Kiip(ffi' (S 

4.  inter]  pr  tar  ai-a  ffi^  U  («T  23  62  1471  J(  C«r  4»  lOfl)  {om  K  W  0»  hah  Q>^ 
t8,  ai  Domus  lacob  ignis  domus  auteni  E&au  stJpuU;  cC  exardescent  in  cos  et 
comcdcnt  illos,  ci  non  eril  igniferin  domo  Esnu  T  erit  t^lprmu  QS  domus  auten] 
Kat  «  oticcii  Q"9  (ci  Si  otHoi  (g  0*}  slipuUl  pi-  ftt  ffi"  {ptH  S)  eiardescenlj 

f««it«9otrot  -4  1?  49  XOfS  283  et  a']  om  «•  (hah  «".")  commedcnt]  Mta- 

^7f  nu  Q      in  domo]  om  in  ffi^  ^  ^,xc  238)  K  {txc  106)  {hob  A  Q) 


THE  LETTERS  OF  SAINT  ISIDORE  OF  PELUSIUM^ 

St  Isidore  of  Pelusium  was  one  of  the  most  interesting  figures  in 
a  generation  which  produced  many  interesting  men ;  and  it  is  strange 
that  more  attention  has  not  been  devoted  to  him  in  recent  times.     His 
correspondence,  remarkable  from  many  points  of  view,  is  unique  in  the 
patristic  period  for  the  large  number  of  his  tetters — two  thousand — 
which  have  been  preserved.     Few  of  the  fathers  continue  to  be  read, 
in  so  imperfect  a  form :  in  the  absence  of  a  critical  text  there  maj^- 
therefore  be  sufficient  excuse  for  an  attempt  to  present  in  summar^r' 
form  a  conspectus  of  the  present  position  of  Isidorian  criticism. 


'  The  following  paper  grew  oul  of  an  article  on  Gne«k  PatnBtic  CofomentstOK  = 
0.n  Uie  Pauline  Epistlea,  contributed  to  ihe  aupplemenlary  voliuncof  Dr  Hasiing^s* 
Dictionary  of  iht  Bible.     In  investigating  the  cxcgetical  work  of  Isidore,  I  foui»<i 
that  Cl^c  absence  of  any  modem  edition  made  it  necessary  to  probe  farther  into  tfac 
history  of  his  lelten.  than  I  should  otherwise  have  done :   but  the  material  soon 
swelled  beyond  the  limits  proper  to  a  dictiooiiry,  and  it  seemed  therefore  best  tc 
print  my  results  in  full  in  tbe  Joukhal,  and  to  abatnct  them  briefly  in  the  Arlide, 


i 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


71 


I.  The  Obiain  of  -niE  Coixhctiow. 

[n  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  a  hundred  years  after  the  death 
of  Isidore,  a  collection  of  3000  of  his  letters  is  mentioned  by  Facundus 
oTHenniana  as  widely  known,  pro  de/ensione  trium  capiiuhrum  \\  4: 
'fir  eiiam  sanctissimus  ct  magnae  in  ecclesia  Chriati  gloriae,  Isidorus 
pral)yter  Aegyptiua  Pelusiota,  <iuein  duo  millia  epistolarum  ad  aedi- 
ficationem  ecclesiae  multi  scripsisse  noverunt ',  &c.    The  editor  of 
Boindus,  Jacques  Sirmond— perhaps  the  greatest  of  all   patristic 
scholars — called  attention  in  a  note  on  this  passage  to  a  slatcTOent  which 
he  remembered  having  seen  in  some  ancient  Latin  MS  to  the  following 
effect : '  has  omnes  B.  Isidori  preshyteri  ct  ablialis  Petusioiae  recensui 
Ct  tnnstoli  ex  epistolis  eius  duobus  millibus,  quae  sunt  per  quingentas 
(hitributae  in  Acoemetcnsis  monasterii  codicibus  vetustissimts  quatuor'. 
Sirmond  gave  no  indication  at  all  as  to  the  locality  or  character  of 
the  MS  to  which  he  referred  ;  nor  was  it  till  fifty  ycnrs  later  (Sirmond's 
edition  appeared  in  1629)  that  new  light  was  thrown  upon  it.    But  in 
i633  there  appeared  at  Louvain  two  small  volumes  edited  by  a  pro- 
fessor in  the  university  of  tliat  city,  Christianus  Lupus  of  Ypres,  under 
the  titles  Ad  Ephtsinum  eondiium  variorum  pairu'u  episiohe  ex  manu- 
icripto  C'aisimnst's  bibliothecae  codke  deiumptae^  and  Scholia  et  notae  ad 
variemm  patrum  epiUoias.     Lupus  had  in  fact  discovered  in  a  MS 
of  Monte  Cassino '  a  most  important  collection  of  documents  relating 
to  the  early  years  of  the  Nestorian  controversy,  based  mainiy  on  the 
Tra^dia  of  the  Nestorian  wTiter  Irenaeus',  hut  containing  also  nearly 
6ft)'  letters  of  Isidore  of  Pelusiutn.     Lupus  did  not  publish  the  letters 
themselves ;  but  what  he  did  publish,  namely  the  words  with  which 
the  compiler  of  the  collection  introduced  them,  is  enough  to  shew  that 
we  have  here  the  source  of  Sirmonid's  statement — '  has  omncs  beati 
Isidori  presbyteri  et  abl>atis  Pelusiotae  exccrpai  et  transtuli  ex  epistolis 
eius  duobus  millibus,  qiue  sunt  per  quingentenas  distributae  in  Acoc- 
tnetensis   monasterii  codicibus  vetustissimis   quatuor ;    ubi  etiarn   per 
ordinem  singularum  numerus  continctur,  et  tiltima  est  quamego  quoque 
ultimam   posui.     Deo   gralias.'     In   this   very   definite   statement   the 
only  point  that  is  not  quite  clear  is  whether  the  letters  were  numbered 
independently  in  each  volume,  from  1  to  500,  or  whether  a  continuous 
numeration  from  i  to  aooo  ran  through  the  whole :  but  the  reference 
to  the  *  last '  of  the  series  seems  to  make  the  latter  alternative  much  the 
more  probable. 

Baluze  did  his  best  to  obtain  more  detailed  information  about  the 
Cassino  MS  than  Lupus  had  given,  and  in  particular  about  the  letters 

'  The  press-mark  of  the  MS  is  CaAinensis  a. 
Oa  this  work  And  iUi  author  see  for  insUtnce  Bright  Agt  a/iki  Falhen  ii  387, 


J 


73 


THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


of  Isidore :  but  not  succeeding  in  this,  he  was  reduced  to  reprinting 
in  his  Nova  ColUclic  the  documents  already  published  \  From  the 
Nova  Colkctio  they  passed  into  the  Concilia  of  I^bbe-Cokti,  iv  235. 

A  fuller  but  still  not  yet  a  complete  text  was  produced  by  Mansi, 
the  last  editor  of  the  Conciiia.  He  did  not  sec  the  Cassino  MS  itself 
but  a  transcript  of  it  by  cardinal  Tambunni,  and  also  used  a  second 
(imperfect)  copy  of  the  same  collection  which  he  found  in  MS  Vat. 
1319'.  Out  of  the  Isidorian  letters  he  selected  for  printing  those  only 
which  seemed  to  have  some  bearing  on  the  history  of  the  Ephesine 
council,  ten  in  number  {Condtia  v  758-762). 

Finally,  in  1873,  exhaustive  information  waa  supplied  in  the  BibUo- 
thcca  Casi/unsis  (vol.  i  pp.  56  sqq.,  and  appendix  pp.  7-24)  aa  to  the 
contents  and  arrangement  of  the  Cassino  MS,  together  with  the  text 
of  all  still  unprinted  documents,  &uch  as  the  remaining  letters  of  Isidore 
of  Pelusium  :  and  with  this  help  it  has  been  possible  to  draw  up  a  list 
of  the  forty-nine  letters  contained  in  the  collection,  for  comparison  with 
the  editions  (hereafter  to  be  described)  of  the  Greek  Isidore. 


X. 

3. 
3- 
4- 

5- 
6. 

7. 
8. 

9- 
10, 
II. 

13. 
13. 

14. 

16. 
17- 


Addressee 
Cyril  Alex. 
Timotheus  lector 
Cyril  Alex. 
Theodosius  Imp. 
Cyril  Alex. 


Indpit 

Quid  proficit 
Sicut  hamum 
Assentatio  quidem 
Siquidem  tu  ipse 


No.  in  the  Editions 

j    25 

loa 

3»o 

3" 


Multa  quidem  scripturarum    323 

Oportet  te,  o  334 

Terrent  me  370 

Sicut  dura  virga  404 

Non  est  sanura  405 

Virga  arundinea  419 
Non  mediocritet                  iU  223 

Qui  nee  gratia  315 

Quando  pessimi  329 

Multi  quidem  370 

Non  virtus  317 

Animi  virtute  31S 

Quoniam  quidem  40S 

'  See  Mkrs&cq  GttchichU  dtr  QutUtM  uttd  dtr  Littratur  dta  (anoniixhtn  Rtdtta  itm 
AbtntHande  1S70,  pp.  733,  734. 

'  Thb  very  interesting  MS,  which  I  examired  in  some  deUil  in  May  1903,  wu 
written  by  aevcraJ  hands  in  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and,  According 
to  Dr  Mcrcati,  probably  in  France.  Like  «  good  many  M  SS  of  that  date  it  is  of  vast 
bulk,  aiid  containa  a  more  complete  collection  of  tbe  earlier  genenU  couucila  thaa 
any  other  MS  ]  have  seen.  A  list  of  1(3  conlenta  is  sufficiently  intcrealing  to  justify 
an  appendix  to  the  preeent  paper :  sec  btlow,  p.  85.  Dr  Mercati  has  been  kind 
enough  (o  verify  ^and,  where  nccesMiy,  to  revise)  my  notes  about  it. 


Theodosius  diac. 

t) 
Hermogenes  episc. 
Hi  eras  presb. 
Dionysius  corrector 
Macarius  presb. 
Herminus  comes 
Theon 

Isidorus  diac 
Zeno  navarcus 


^^^^^^               NOTES   AND    STUDIES 

73        ^ 

^^          Addressee 

Jndpit 

No.  in  the  Editions                | 

B    iS.   fanonymousj 

Bene  mihi 

iv  174                1 

i^   Archibtiis  presb. 

Hoc  quod  apostolo 

166               ^^H 

^    30.    Leonlius  episc. 

Veracissime  ut 

V    at               ^^^H 

•  "• 

Si  aliquos  eorum 

^^1 

~    «.    Isidorus  episc. 

Quoniam  scripsisti 

too                     ^^^B 

1       13.    Philatrius 

Ego  quidem 

V  lafi                       ^H 

H    Ji-    Fauius  presb.  et  ana 

- 

1 

H             chorita 

Ipsi  qui  gloriantur 

i3r                             1 

H  3S-    Theon  episc 

Si  omnibus  manifestum          160                           ] 

■  ><^ 

Tibi  quidem 

z6i 

B  a;.    Alphius  episc. 

Nimia  Hbrorum 

SOI 

H18.    Harpocrates  sophista 

Novi  quoniam 

aaa                              ] 

iv    56                              1 

V  240                                ,( 

»9.    Petnis  scholasticus 

Aut  ex  principatus 

30.    Nilus  scholasticus 

Caecus  quidem 

■  ji- 

Quoniam  per  hoc 

iv  108 

■  32.    Paulus 

Nihil  optime 

V  244 

H  33.    Adamantius 

Quoniam  mens 

iv  2 1 1 

B  54-    Lampctius  diac. 

Valde  admiror 

V  355 

W  35-    Cyril  Alex. 

Olim  quidem 

268 

36.    'a  certain'  Nilus 

Audax  (iLiidem 

•7a 

37.    Hermius  comes' 

Et  qui  vendunt 

S76 

)8.    Henninus  comes 

Miror  quomodo 

S99 

39-               » 

Si  Paulo  idcirco 

300 

40.    Nilus 
B41.    Dorotheus  lector 
42.    Hermius  comes 

Nullum  credo 

iv  179                            1 

Forsan  eo  quod 

46 

Non  mireris 

V  400 

A3-    Zeno 

Quod  volo 

448 

B44.    Isidorus  episc. 
^4$.     Eulonius  diac 

Ultra  univcrsam 

iv  126 

Terribite  quid  et 

V481 

46.    Zosimus  presb. 

Qui  vivunt 

491 

K47.    Pemis 

Quoniam  putasti 

iv  117                             1 

H|5.    Leontius  epiac 

Quoniam  lectio 

133 

H9.    Alphius 

Scito,  0  optime 

47* 

'     We  learn  then  that  the  unknown*  translator,  like  Facundus,  knew 

'  The  Valkan  MS  remds  '  Hoc 

cruod  ab  apostolo.' 

'  The  Vatican  MS  rightly  gives  Hcrminui,  but  Conversely  aubatitutes  Hermius 

Tot  the  Kcrminui  of  the  Casaioa  MS  in  the  next  letter. 

'  For  (he  explanation  of  Iha  fact  that  lh«  order  in  the  Casiina  MS  coirespondB  to 

tbi  order  of  ilie  printed  editions 

n  the  earlier  but  not  in 

the  later  hooka  of  the 

cditiois,  see  below,  p.  79.     The 

lagt  Jetwr  of  the  MS  is  iv 

47  nf  the  editions,  but 

it  ii  expre^y  mM  (0  be  the  &nal  letter  of  the  coLlcctioD  ai 

1  it  lay  before  the  Latin 

K*  Dr  Ucrcali  suggests  (and  the  suggestion  is  an  extremely  attractive  o<ie)  that 

74  THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

Isidore  in  the  form  of  a  collection  of  2000  letters  :  and  we  Icam  further 
that  this  collection  was  divided  into  four  parts  of  500  letters  each,  and 
that  it  owed  its  existence  to  the  monks  of  the  'Sleepless'  monastery 
at  Con  slam  inoiilc.  This  monaster)-,  founded  alrout  440  by  a  certain 
Alexander  for  the  maintenance  of  a  perpetual  service  of  praise,  became 
the  stronghold  of  the  Chalcedonian  party  in  the  capital  during  the  long 
struggle  with  Monophysilism  :  and  it  was  no  doubt  because  Isidore, 
Egypti^in  and  friend  of  Cyril  as  he  was,  had  spoken  with  no  uncertain 
sound  about  the  doctrine  which  was  to  be  so  long  in  dispute,  that  his 
letters  were  collected  with  such  scrupulous  care  and  given  to  the  worid. 
The  two  letters  quoted  by  Farundus  represent  the  same  Greek  originals 
— ^though  in  independent  I^tin  versions — as  Nos.  3  and  7  (i  310,  37a) 
of  the  Cassino  MS,  and  were  no  doubt  equally  derived  from  the  col- 
leaion  of  the  Acoemeiae.  We  shall  next  see  that  that  collection  is  in 
fact  the  source  of  our  existing  Greek  MSS  of  the  letlcnj. 

11.  The  Principal  Manuscripts  or  St  Isidore's  Lettsrs. 

I.  By  far  the  oldest  and  most  important  MS  of  St  Isidore  is  one 
which  is  preserved  in  the  Greek  monastery  of  Grotta  Fcrrata,  under 

the  press-mark  D  «  i :  see  Rocchi  Codices  Ciyptcma  (Tusculum  1883) 
p.  55.  It  was  written  in  the  year  985  by  the  scribe  Paul  at  the  com- 
mand of  Nilus,  Since  the  monastery  of  Grotta  Ferrata  was  not  founded 
till  the  year  1004,  it  is  clair  that  the  manuscript  must  have  been  written 
elsewhere :  but  as  Nilus  was  the  name  of  the  founder  of  the  monastery, 
and  Paul  of  its  second  abbot,  tliere  is  every  reason  to  connect  it  with 
the  history  and  traditions  of  the  monastery,  even  if  it  was  actually 
brought  to  Grotta  Fcrrata  from  some  library  of  southern  Italy  at  a  much 
later  date  A  specimen  of  the  MS  is  published  in  the  Palaeographical 
Society's  facsimiles  (ii  86),  which  leaves  no  doubt  {so  my  friend  Pro- 
fessor I^ke  informs  me)  of  its  Italian  origin.  The  MS  is  divided  into 
two  parts  (both  however  bound  up  in  the  same  volume),  of  which  the 
first  contains  600,  and  the  second  loco  letters  :  but  the  letters  of  the 
second  begin  with  No.  1001 ',  so  that  it  is  clear  that  400  letters  are 
missing  in  between  ;  and  in  fact  a  note  on  the  last  page  of  the  first  part 
records  (apparently  in  the  original  hand)  the  absence  of  400  tetters  at 
that  point     There  is  therefore  no  room  for  doubt  that  the  immediate 

Ui«  tnnalation  of  taidore  is  due  to  Ehe  saniv  hand  as  the  revised  translation  of  the 
A«3  arChalcedon,  namely  to  Rusticu^  deacon  and  ne|>bewurpope  VJgiliua,  wlio 
is  known  id  U)C  latter  cose  to  have  used  MS.S  of  the  Arocmetae  :  'nunc  incipjunt 
gesU  prima  concilii  Calcedoucnsis,     Rustirus  ex  latinis  et  greda  exeinpl(aribus) 

maxtme  Acc)ciiiit(eDsis)  [nonasteni  emcndaui.' 

'  This  19  happily  made  clear  by  the  published  fac9imil«,  thougb  ihe  editors  faave^ 
miaioterpreted  the  symbol  an—  looi  i^wliich  vccuis  in  a  aomcwbat  unusual  fonii),a^ 
equivalent  to  the  cenual  Jettcrs  of  [.icf^]Aa[iw]. 


I 


» 


I 


NOTES  AND    STUDIES 

or  nlftnate  archetype  of  the  Grotta  Ferrata  MS  conesponded  exactly 

toAe  2000  iL'tlcrs  vf^  the  edition  of  ihe  Acoemetae. 
Any  future  text  of  Isidore  must  be  based  pn'marily  on  this  inanu- 

script :  but  no  editor  up  lo  the  present  has  made  any  use  of  iL    It  is 

mentioned  by  hearsay  in  the  preface  to  the  edi'/io  princeps  of  1585  fisce 

Wow,  p.  79> ;  cardinal  Carafa,  it  is  there  said,  had  reported  the 
existence  at  Grotta  Ferrata  of  a  manuscnpt  containing  1500  [a  mistake 
for  1600]  letters  of  Isidore.  Montfaucon  examined  it  personally,  and 
Uid  stress  on  it  as  by  far  the  oldest  MS  known  {Diarium  Itaiicura^ 
Paris  1702,  p.  J36).  Further  details  about  it,  and  about  the  relation 
of  Its  text  to  that  of  some  other  MSS,  are  given  by  N.  Capo  in  the  Siudi 
Itaiiant  di Jiloiogia  elassua  ix  (Florence  [901)  p.  45a  \ 

t.  Next  in  age  among  the  MSS  which  preserve,  as  far  as  they  go, 
the  order  of  the  original  series',  comes  a  Paris  MS,  gr.  832  (=Mi:dic. 
Reg.  2357),  of  the  thirteenth  century,  containing  the  first  1213  leucra. 
This  is  the  manuscript  from  which  the  editio  princtps  (see  p.  79,  below) 
iras  taken,  and  from  that  edition  we  can  sec  that  this  MS  corresponds, 
u  for  as  it  goes,  with  the  archetype  of  the  Grotta  Ferrata  MS :  its  first 
600  letters  tally  with  Grotta  Ferrata,  part  i,  its  last  213  tally  with  the 
first  413  of  Grotta  Ferrata  part  ii.  The  400  letters  missing  in  the 
Grotta  Ferrata  MS  are  happily  preserved  in  the  Paris  MS,  which  is 
liicrcfore  for  them  our  earliest  authonty. 

3, 4.  On  the  joint  testimony  of  these  two  MSS  we  coiild  without  rash- 
ness ai^ue  to  the  existence  of  an  original  tradition  of  a  continuous 
series  of  2000  letters,  the  whole  of  which  is  preserved  in  one  or  other 
of  them.  Such  a  continuous  series  is,  however,  actually  extint  complete 
in  two  pairs  of  MSS,  both  of  them  now  in  the  Vatican.  Vat.  gr.  649-650 
uid  Vat.  Ottob.  gr.  341-383.  The  former  set  have  been  in  the  Vatican 
erer  since  they  were  written  in  1552-4  at  the  order  of  cardinal;  Mar* 
Cello  Cervino  (afterwards  pope  Marcellus  II)  by  'lohannes  Honorius 
Mtlliae  oppiUi  Hydruntini  civis ',  and  ihcy  have  been  known  by  the 
ome  press-mark  at  least  since  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century : 
the  first  volume  contains  the  full  looo  letters,  the  second  tallies  with 
the  second  volume  of  the  Grotta  Ferrata  MS.  The  second  or  Otto- 
bonian  pair,  also  written  in  the  sixteenth  century  and  also  containing 
the  same  complete  scries  of  the  letters  as  the  pair  just  mentioned, 
passetl  into  the  Ottoboni  collection  from  that  of  the  Altcmps  family'. 
From  the  second  of  the  Vatican  pair  of  MSS  was  probably  derived 

'  According  to  Cftp<->,  the  cxkct  number  of  letters  in  the  scc&nd  pfirt  is  only  997. 

•  Two  MSS  of  the  oilier  class  bt-tonjf  to  the  devcntli  century,  see  p,  j8, 

'  Giovanni  Angelo,  prince  of  Altonps,  died  i6ao.     Far  the  further  history  of  the 

Attempt  MSS  sec  Prof.  Likc'a  concluding  article  on  Gntk  Montulerua  in  South 

ttaljU-  T.S.V  198). 


36  THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

the  printed  text  by  Schott  of  the  socatled  fifth  book  of  the  letters 
(sec  below,  p.  80) ;  both  Vatican  and  Altemps  MSS  were  collated  with 
the  editions  in  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  the  collations 
were  published  by  Possinas  (pp.  80,  81). 

The  mutual  relationship  of  the  Gtotu  Feirata,  Ottoboni-Aliemps, 
and  \'atican  MSS  is  discussed  by  Capo,  loc.  dt.  The  later  MSS  are  not 
likely  of  course  to  be  descended  from  the  Grotta  Feirata  MS,  since  they 
possess  the  400  letters  which  it  lacks:  but  there  is  also  an  omission 
by  homoeoteleuion  in  the  Grotta  Ferrata  MS,  from  which  the  other  two 
are  free.  On  the  other  hand  the  Vatican  and  Altemps  have  common 
mistakes  from  which  the  Grotta  Ferrata  MS  is  free :  while  all  three  are 
not  infrequently  agreed  against  the  printed  text,  both  where  that  is 
right  and  where  it  is  wrong.  Thus  the  three  MSS  form,  as  far  as  can 
be  seen,  a  distinct  family,  of  which  the  Grotta  Fenau  MS  is  naturally 
the  best  representative,  while  the  Otto boni- Altemps  is  decidedly  less 
incorrect  than  the  Vatican  MS* 

Of  the  remaining  MSS  most  conUtn  selections  from  the  imfus  of  the 
letter!^  made  on  grounds  more  or  less  arbitrary'.  Hut  mention  should 
first  be  made  of  the  one  or  two  other  MSS  which  give,  as  far  as  they 
go,  a  continuous  series  of  letters  \ 

5.  Vienna  cod.  gr.  ccxci  [225],  'antiquus  chartaceus'  (which  may  be 
taken  to  mean  fourteenth  or  fifteenth  century)  according  to  Lambecius, 
contains  the  lotso  letters  of  the  first  volume. 

6.  Vienna  cod.  gr.  suppl.  civ  [hisL  68] — see  the  supplementary  volume 
of  the  catalogue  p.  644 — saec.  xv  ineunt. :  contains  (on  foil.  281-316) 
414  letters  of  Isidore :  apparently  the  lirst  414  of  the  continuous  series. 

7.  Vatic.  Pii  II  gr.  137,  saec,  xv  exeunt.:  360  letters,  equivalent  to 
11-341  and  701-73!  of  the  continuous  series  tw  i  11-341,  ii  201-231 
of  the  editions. 

8.  Paris  gr.  949,  written  in  1581  by  Pantaleon  Mamouka  and  bought 
for  the  Royal  library  in  1687,  conuins  (on  foil.  127-193)  229  letters 
numbered  1542-1770.  Attention  is  directed  to  this  MS,  and  details 
about  its  contents  sujiplied,  by  E.  L.  A.  Bouvy  De  S.  Isid^ro  Peiuiiota 
Ubri  tres  (Niines,  1884  :  see  below,  p.  83) :  in  the  result  it  is  clear  that 
we  have  here  an  extract  from  the  continuous  series,  but  as  Bou*^  was 
in  error  about  the  date  of  the  MS  to  the  extent  of  zoo  years  it  may 
very  probably  turn  out  to  be  less  important  than  he  supposed*. 

^  The  notices  of  the  MSS  which  rollow,  where  not  otherwise  attributed,  come 
either  Trom  Nicoicycr'e  diascnation  Dt  hidari  Ptlusiotat  vHa  seriptis  *i  Joanna 
(Halle,  18)5  :  reprinted  in  Mi^c,  see  p.  83  below)  or  from  Capo  loc.  til. 

*  Bouvy  supplies  a  complete  index  of  the  numben  of  liicse  339  letters  in  the 
order  of  the  printed  text?  of  books  iv  aad  v,  which  will  be  of  great  help,  so  far  as 
it  goea,  to  a  future  editor. 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


77 


Tlie  above  are  the  only  MSS  of  which  at  present  it  is  possible  to 

say  confidently  th.it   the   letters   they  contain   arc  extracted  without 

break  or  alteration  of  order  from  the  original  collection  of  3000  letters. 

Of  those  that  now  follow  all  may,  and  the  more  important  certainly  do, 

represent  selections  dictated  by  special  purposes  or  drawn  up  on  new 

principles  of  arrangement    Among  them  is  one  which,  whether  for  the 

nonber  of  letters  it  contains,  or  for  the  influence  it  has  exerted  on  the 

liirtary  of  the  printed  text,  exceeds  all  the  rest  in  importance :  and  of 

this  it  will  be  natural  to  apeak  firsL 

9.  Venetus  Marcianus  126,  saec.  xiv;  1148  letters.  This  MS  was 
blown  to  Sixtus  Senentts,  and  is  mentioned  on  his  authority  in  the 
ptetice  to  the  fAitio  pnnceps  (p.  79,  below),  Neither  in  that  edition 
kiwcvcr,  nor  in  the  next — on  which  the  codex  was  actually  named  on  the 
iKie-pagc  (p.  79) — was  any  direct  use  made  of  it ;  but  the  latter  edition 
m,  as  we  shall  see,  actually  derived  from  a  Munich  copy  of  the  Venice 
MS.  Cardinal  Barbarigo,  so  Monifaucon  tells  us  in  his  Diarium 
Jtaiuum  p.  42,  had  intended  to  publish  it:  but  dying  in  1697  'atteri 
pnffinciam  reliquit'.  The  1148  letters  are  made  up  of  three  parts— 
4S4  on  exegesis  of  scripture,  175  on  n^isccllaneous  subjects,  and  489 
whidi  are  de\'oid  of  titles  altogether.  Montfaucon  states  that  the 
ex^elical  letters  are  here  arranged  in  the  order  of  the  books  of  the 
Bible  with  which  they  deal ;  there  is  some  reason  also  to  suspect  that 
partial  use  at  least  was  made  of  alphabetical  arrangement  according 
Id  the  opening  words  of  each  letter:  what  is  in  any  case  certain  is  that 
ihe  order  of  the  continuous  scries  of  2000 — from  which  there  is  not 
the  least  reason  to  doubt  that  the  1148  letters  of  the  Venice  MS  were 
derived — is  replaced  entirely  bysome  different  system  or  s>'stems.  One 
authority  tells  us  that  the  489  letters  of  the  third  section  of  this  MS  are 
nearly  atl  to  be  found  in  the  first  800  of  the  continuous  series :  but 
a  detailed  table  of  correspondence  between  this  manuscript  and  those 
described  above  is  a  desideratum. 

10.  Munich  gr.  49,  saec  xvi,  contains  also  1148  letters,  divided  into 
two  series  of  659  and  489  respectively :  the  first  series  thus  corresponds 
to  the  first  and  second  parts  of  the  Venice  MS  (484+ 175=659),  and 
the  second  to  the  third  part  of  the  Venice  MS.  The  manuscript  was 
written  at  Venice  by  Petrus  Carneas  of  Epidaurus.  It  was  obviously 
copied  from  the  MS  last  described.  Either  this  or  the  next  MS  was 
Ibc  source  of  Rittershusius'  edition  of  1605  :  see  below,  p.  79. 

11.  Munich  gr.  50,  also  saec.  xvi,  contains  the  same  1143  letters, 
dirided  into  the  same  series  of  659  and  489  as  the  last  MS,  and  was  no 
doubt  copied  from  it. 

!2.  Florence  Laurent  plut.  Ixxxvi  8,  saec  xv:  411  letters,  not  in  the 
Older  of  the  continuous  series.     Bandini  in  his  catalogue  of  the  Greek 


J 


MS5  of  the  Laurentim  library  (iii  agS)  gives  a  comptcte  list  ( 

of  all  these  letters,  as  well  as  an  alphabetical  index  of  their  opening  words: 

he  notes  too  that  the  MS  is  extraordinarily  difficult  to  read. 

15.  Upsala  gr.  5,  olim  Escorialcnsis,  sacc  xi :  131  letters  on  foil. 
145-184  (109  of  book  i,  7  of  book  ii,  15  of  book  Hi).  These  details 
are  given  by  V.  Lundstr6m  in  Eranos:  Acta  Phiiologka  Suuana^  ii, 
1897  ;  see  below,  p.  83. 

A  few  more  manuscripts  may  be  cursorily  enumerated 

Vat.  gr.  742,  saec.  xiii-xiv :  127  letters  (from  books  i  and  ii). 

Vienna  gr.  ccxcii  [203],  'antiquus  chartaceus*:  ninely-tbree  letters, 
not  in  the  order  of  the  editions;  including,  according  to  LAinbecius, 
one  unpublished  letter,  ®nXtkauf  itovax^'Kv  r^  o-kjiv^. 

Munich  gr.  551,  saec  xv:  sixty-three  letters. 

Rome,  Biblioteca  .'Vngelica  13  (c.  4.  14),  saec.  xi:  50  letters  on  foil. 
169  sqq.  (33  of  book  i,  15  of  book  ii,  2  of  book  iii) :  to  this  MS,  as 
■well  as  to  the  Athens  MSS  next  mentioned,  attention  is  direaed  by 
Lundstrijm,  afi.  at. 

Athens  ;  MSS  468  [477],  1120^  iiai,  contain  letters  of  Isidore^  but 
whether  few  or  many  the  catalogue  docs  not  state. 

Paris  coislin  112,  a.d.  1329:  epp.  aliquot  (foil.  457-473). 

Bodl.  Laud.  gr.  42,  saec  xii :  thirty-eight  letters  on  the  Psalms, 
arranged  according  to  the  order  of  the  Psalms,  but  each  letter  has  its 
number  in  the  continuous  series  prefixed. 

Vat.  gr.  711,  saec  xv:  thirty-six  letters  (with  one  exception,  all  from 
book  i). 

Munich  gr.  490,  Saec.  xv :  twenty-seven  letters. 

Vat.  Ottob.  gr.  90,  saec.  xvi :  twenty-seven  letters  (from  books  i 
and  ii). 

Vat  gr.  713,  713,  saec  xir :  letters  irpos  &a^opotr^ 

This  list  exhausts  the  MSS  known  to  me  as  containing  some  twenty- 
five  or  more  letters  :  but  the  number  of  MSS  which  contain  a  few,  often 
only  two  or  three,  of  the  tetters  is  a  very  large  one. 

III.   The  History  of  the  Editions  o?  St  IstooRE's  Letters. 

i.  The  edt/i'a  princeps  was  published  at  Paris  in  1585  under  the  title 
"ExtoToXai  ToO  oyt'ov  'ItriSuipou  toC  IlTfAo wtuutou.  S.  Isidori  J^eiusiotat 
epistolarum  ampHus  ituUe  ductntarum  libri  tres  nunc  primum  graect 
tditi ;  quibus  e  regienc  accesstt  latino  elariss.  viri  lac&bi  BUIU  I'runaei, 
S.  MichaeHi  in  Ercmo  quondam  cocnobsarchac^  tnterpretatio.  Parisiis 
apud  Guilclmum  Chaudiere.  The  preface  to  the  letters,  which  were 
only  published  after  Billi's  death,  is  addressed  to  Billi's  brother  Gode&oi 
by  Jean  Chatard  (loannca  Chatardus):  no  details  are  given  as  to  the 
sources  of  the  edition,  and  the  only  two  MSS  mentioned  are  one  at 


KOTES  AND   STUDIES  79 

Venice  containing  1148  epistles  and  one  at  Grotta  Fcrrata  containing 
1500— tfac  former  on  the  testimony  of  Sixtus  Sencnsis,  the  latter  on 
that  o(  cardinal  Carafa.  The  edition  itself  contains  12 13  epistles 
(diTided  into  three  books,  containing  respectively  500,  300,  and  413) 
and  therefore  cannot  be  derived  from  the  Grotta  Ferrala  MS,  which 
OMliins  too  many,  nor  exclusively  from  the  Venice  MS,  which  contains 
too  tew :  and  as  there  is  still  at  Paris  a  MS  containing  the  exact  number 
o(  1213  epistles,  there  is  no  douht  that  that  was  the  main,  and  little 
(bubt  that  it  was  the  only,  authority  employed '. 

ii.  Twenty  years  later  a  revised  and  enlarged  edition  appeared  at 
Heidelberg:  Tou  iv  ayioi^  irarplK  'ItriSwfMU  tov  IIijXoviriivrDv  ck  r^v 
iftfitjniav  TTJt  0tia9  ypn<^^  lirttrroXlav  ^ift^la  Titrmpa.  S.  Isidori 
Ptlusiotae  dt  inUrprtiatione  divinae  saipturae  epistolarum  libri  iv : 
quorum  trts  prions  cvm  latina  mtcrpretaiiont  d.  v.  I<u.  Billii  Prunaet 
frimurn  ante  annos  xx  PaHsiis  pr&diertt  iam  vero  su6  prtlum  revocati 
Mtt,  twL  Bavar.  ope  plurimis  in  iocis  insigniUr  aticH  suppieti  torrtcH 
tunt :  quartus  nunc  primum  exit  novus  ex  todtm  eod.  Bavar.,  cut 
Vtneius  in  btbl.  S.  Marci  rapotidet,  descriptus  et  iatinui  facfus  a  Cunrado 
Rittenhusio  J.  C.  Ex  oflicina  Commeliniana,  1605.  Of  the  two  MSB 
here  mentioned,  the  'Venetus'  is  no  douhl  the  same  as  that  seen  by 
Sixtus  of  Siena,  cod.  Marcianus  126,  No.  9  above:  the  Bavarian  codex 
is  either  Monac.  gr.  49  or  Monac.  gr.  50,  No.  10  or  No.  11  above.  In 
either  case  tlie  explanation  of  the  '  correspondence '  between  the  Munich 
and  Venice  MSS,  as  noted  on  Rittershusius'  title-page,  is  simply  that  the 
htteT  is  the  source,  mediate  or  immediate,  of  the  former.  The  number 
of  letters  in  the  new  or  fourth  book  (the  first  three  with  1213  letters 
are  repeated  from  the  Paris  edition)  is  230,  so  that  the  total  was  now 
raised  to  1443.  We  are  not  told  how  it  was  that  the  Munich  MS  of 
1148  letters  produced  only  a  book  of  330  :  but  the  obvious  conclusion 
k  that  the  remaining  918  had  already  found  a  place  among  the  1213 
of  Bilii.  In  cither  case,  it  is  clear  that  the  whole  arrangement  of  the 
Munich  MS  was  difierent  from  that  of  the  Paris  MS:  the  fourth  book 
of  the  edition  does  not  appear  as  such  in  the  MS,  but  is  only  a  con- 
venient designation  by  Rittershusius  of  those  letters  which  he  was 
publishing  for  the  first  time,  in  the  form  of  an  appendix  to  the  three 
books  of  the  Paris  edition. 

Ui.  A  similar  interval  of  about  twenty  years  had  elapsed  when  a 
ftvtbcT  reinforcement  was  added  to  the  printed  correspondence  of  St 

Isidore:  Tof»  ^v  nyi'ort  warpi*^  'itn^puv  tow  11  ijXoittiwtou  IvurroXai 
iniiJkmM.  S-  liidori  Pelusiotae  epistolat  hactenus  ineditae  de  Iocis  sacrae 
uripturat  moribusqtte  Jormandis,  ex  yaticana  pontiJUii  biblieiheea  nunc 

^  TIk  Venice  MS* No.  9  ikbove,  p.  77:    the  GrolM  Femta  US>No.  I,  p.  74: 
Ike  Paris  HS«No.  s,  p.  7j. 


I 


8o  THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

primum  eruiae  nottsque  tt  argumttttis  iUustrafae  ab  Andrea  SehottO 
societaiis  /«su  pres&ytero.  Antwerpiae,  a.  d.  i6?3.  In  the  next  year 
Schott  published  at  Rome  a  Latin  translation  of  the  Greek  volume, 
and  at  Frankfort  in  1629  a  combination  of  the  two:  Sanct.  Istdori 
Pelusiotae  preshyteri  eplstolarum  guas  in  BUlii  et  RilttrshusH  editiontbus 
desiderantur  volumen  reliquum,  quas  ex  Vaticana  summi  pojttificis 
biitiiotfuca  nuper  erutas  nunc  primum  graece  et  iatine  coniunxii  .  .  , 
R.  P.  Andrtas  Schcttus  societaiii  lesu.  In  this  edition  the  letters 
alretidy  printed  at  Paris  and  Heidelberg  were  not  repeated :  it  con- 
sisted only  cf  569  new  letters,  to  which  the  title  of 'fifth  book 'was 
given  for  purposes  of  convenience,  but  with  no  more  MS  authority  than 
the  'fourth  book*  of  Rittershusius,  No  details  are  given  about  the 
Vatican  MS :  but  it  is  reasonable  to  identify  it  with  Vat.  Gr.  650 
mentioned  above,  p.  75. 

iv.  The  cditlonii  of  Rittcrshusius  and  Schott  were  combined  in  a 
second  Paris  edition,  that  of  Morel,  in  1638:  Tou  kyiov  lotScwpon  tov 

IIijAniHri(.m>w  ^xurroA^  ^tfiXia  Trim  tit  t^v  ip^yjvtlav  rrj^  Btiav  yfta^^, 
Sanc/i  Isidari  Pelusiotae  dt  interprttatione  divinae  scripiurae  episfu/arum 
lihri  V :  quorum  tres  pHores  ex  interprttatione  cl.  v.  lac.  BiHii  Prunati^ 
quarius  autem  a  Cunrado  Rittershusio  I.  C,  qui  et  no/as  uberiores  et 
summas  et  indicts  priorilnis  Hbris  adiecit,  et  quintus  ah  Andrea  SchoHo^ 
societatis  Itsu  presiytero,  nunc  primum  in  Gallia  pTodeunt ;  mm 
indidbus  necessariis.  I'arisiis,  suroptibus  Aegidii  Morelli.  This,  the 
first  complete  edition  with  2012  letters,  has  remained  the  standard 
edition  ever  since :  but  being  only  a  compilation^  it  added  nothing 
to  the  criticism  of  Isidore,  and  its  excessive  faults  of  t)"|JOgraphy  and 
the  imperfection  of  its  indices  (whether  of  the  names  of  Isidore's 
correspondents  or  of  the  passages  from  Scripture)  are  serious  draw- 
backs even  to  its  convenience. 

V.  Thus  the  first  three  books  rested,  so  far,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Paris  MS  qualified  (but  probably  not  very  seriously  qualified)  by 
the  Munich  MS,  and  the  fourth  book  on  the  latter  MS  alone.  Neither 
Schott  nor  Morel  had  helped  a.t  all  to  strengthen  the  manuscript 
testimony  for  these  books :  but  ahnost  immediately  after  the  appear- 
ance of  Morel's  edition,  steps  were  taken  at  the  instigation  of  cardinal 
Francesco  Barbcrini  (died  1679),  nephew  of  pope  Urban  VIII,  to 
remedy  the  defect.  One  of  his  friends,  a  certain  'Franciscus  Arcudius 
graccus  calaber,'  bishop  of  Ntisco  in  the  kingdom  of  Naples  (died 
about  1640),  made  or  caused  to  be  made,  on  the  margin  of  a  copy  of 
the  1638  edition,  collations  of  two  Vatican  and  two  .\ltemps  SiSS, 
besides  one  MS  of  the  Sforza '  and  one  MS  of  the  Batberini  library. 

*  Cardinal  Fcdertco  Slbrza,  bishop  of  Rimiiiij  died  kS^S.    [Montfaucon  In  bis 
BihUQthtta  BiMciftKorum,  Puis,  iJi^  pp.  693-708,  gives  a.  catalogue  of  the  Sforza 


4 


k 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  8l 

The  copy  Ihus  enriched  fell  later  on  into  the  hands  of  the  Jesuit 

Fetms  Possinus,  who  pubhshcd   the  variants— with  a  preface,  from 

which  the  details  jusi  given  are  drawn,  dedicated  to  cardinal  Carlo 

Barberini,  nephew  of  Francesco — under  the  title  Isidortanat  coUatioms, 

^nihu  S.  Isidori  Peiusiolae  tphtolae  omnes  hactcnus  editae  cum  muIHs 

antt^is  optimae  notae  manuscriptU  codidbus  comparanfur  et  inde  drdter 

&ii  milie  has  supplenlur  out  emendantur :  Romae,  1670.     The  details 

gi?en  by  Possinus  prove  (if  proof  were  necessary)  that  these  manu- 

scHpti  codices  are  identical  with  Nos.  3  and  4,  p.  75  supra.      Com- 

paied  with  the  edition  of  1638  the  first  MS  of  each  pafr  is  found  to 

contain  books  i  and  ii,  and  200  letters  of  book  tii,  the  other  MS  of 

ad)  pair  containing  Imnk  iii  301-413,  with  books  iv  and  v.     Thus  the 

fint  volumes   contain   1000  letters,  and    the   second   volumes   the 

tentaining  io\a  letters,  of  the  edition  of  Morel.     That  the  2000  letters 

irf  the  MSS  which  preserve  thi,  continuous  series  have  swollen  to  2012 

in  the  printed  text,  is  only  due  to  errors  on  the  part  of  Rittcrshusius 

ud  Schott,  as  will  be  further  seen  below,  p.  84. 

Strangely  enough,  the  Bodleian  library  possesses  a  copy  of  the 
edition  of  1638'  with  marginal  collations  of  the  same  manuscripts  and 
of  the  same  dale  as  those  just  described  :  moreover,  it  is  found  on 
rumination  to  tally  so  closely  with  the  printed  material  of  Possinus 
that  it  is  clear  that  the  two  cannot  be  independent  of  one  another. 
The  book  came  to  the  Bodleian  in  the  collection  of  the  Dutch 
professor  J.  P.  d'Orvillc  (which  was  bought  by  the  University  in  1804), 
and  as  he  had  travelled  in  Italy  at  intervals  during  the  years  1723- 
1729,  it  was  probably  then  that  be  managed  to  get  hold  of  it. 
According  to  a  note  by  his  secretary,  Strackhoviua,  the  collations  are 
in  the  handwriting  of  Leo  Allatius  and  Luras  Ilolstenius:  nor  would 
there  be  in  this  anything  inconsistent  with  an  intimate  relation  of 
cardinal  Francesco  Barberini  to  the  work,  since  both  Allatius  and 
Holsten  were  members  of  his  household'.  As  regards  the  latter,  the 
ititement  of  Strackhovius  is  borne  out  by  the  similarity  of  the  principal 
collating  hand  to  other  undoubted  specimens  in  the  Bodleian  of 
Holsten 's  writing.  Where  then  does  Arcudius  come  in  ?  The  Bodleian 
volume  cannot  well  be  a  copy  of  the  Arcudius-Possinus  volume,  since, 
IS  the  collations  arc  in  more  than  one  hand,  it  must  certainly  be  an 

librBfy  from  ccd.  Chigi  ifiJB,  «nd  iinoDg  the  MSS  is  one  (p.  699D]  containing  fifty- 
^^bgiil  leltcn  of  Isidore,  which  is  probably  the  one  here  meant.] 
^H  ^  It  hai  no  less  than  three  acpamtc  press-marks :  in  the  catalogue  of  printed 
^Bnok*  It  is  Auct  X  I.  t.  ;,  amonic  the  MSS  it  is  d'Orville  310  or  in  the  continuous 
^nirtesMSBod).  i7i8«. 
'  '  Both  were  at  a  later  period  connected  with  tlic  Vatican  libmry :   Hol&icn  was 

mdiarce  of  ital  the  dale  of  his  death  in  i6&i,and  Allatius  succeeded  to  the  position 

kc  a  iew  years,  dying;  in  1667, 

VOL.  VI.  G 


82  THE  JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

orij^inal.  Nor  can  Possinus  well  have  used  a  copy  of  the  Bodleian 
volume  made  by  Arcudius,  since  the  edition  was  only  published  in 
1638,  and  there  is  perhaps  hardly  room  for  the  work  of  more  than 
one  scholar  and  the  collation  of  several  MSS,  besides  the  transcript 
of  the  whole  result  by  Arcudius.  if  the  latter  died  in  :64o.  It  seems 
most  likely  that  the  Bodleian  volume  is  actually  the  same  as  was  in 
the  hands  of  I'ossiniis :  and  with  regard  to  Arcudius  we  must  suppose 
that  the  cardinal  entrusted  him  with  the  new  edition,  that  he  employed 
Holsten  and  Allatius  to  make  collations  for  him — which  from  the 
relation  of  all  three  lo  the  cardinal  would  be  natural  enough — and  that 
his  death  forbade  his  making  the  use  that  he  had  intended  of  their 
labours. 

The  collations  of  the  Vatican  MS  (gr.  649,  650)  run  tight  through 
the  five  books  of  the  letters :  and  the  same  is  approximately  true  of 
the  Altemps  MS,  though  there  arc  gaps  in  the  continuous  use  of  it. 
On  the  other  hand  the  Sforza  and  Barherini  MSS  appear  (I  think)  only 
in  book  i,  and  even  there  only  occasionally' :  they  belong  doubtless  to 
the  numerous  class  of  MSS  which  contain  only  excerpts  from  the 
complete  collection. 

vi.  A   Gottingcn   dissertation    of  the  year   1737   deserves   passing    ■ 
mention  as  containing  a  useful  bibliography  of  the  editions.      Its  I 
historical  worth  may  he  guessed  from  its  title,  Disstriatia  fntaigura/is 
de  Isidore  Pelusioia  et  tius  episfolh,  guas  maximam  partem  esse  fictifias 
demonstratur  in  Aiadtmia  Georgia  Augus/a  publico  examini  permiua  d.    | 
X  Aug.  MDCCxxxvii  ab  hora  ix  usque  ad  xii^  praestde  C  A.  Heumanno 
.    .    .    a    candidaU)    magisterii  philosophici   Ernesto    Augusio    Pezoldo 
Hannoverano  S.  Theal.  Cult. ' 

vli.  The  Venice  edition  of  1 745  reproduces  Possinus'  notes,  but  of   , 
the  epistles  themselves  it  gives  only  a  Latin  version.  I 

viii.  Mignc's  PatroJogia  graeca  vol.  78  is  apparently  reprinted  from 
the  Paris  edition,  but  incorporates  Possinus  at  the  foot  of  the  page. 
But  the  value  of  the  edition  for  the  purposes  of  this  paper*  is  that  it 
reprints,  what  would  otherwise  have  been  inaccessible  to  me  (for  there 
is  no  copy  of  it  in  the  Bodleian),  the  valuable  dissertation  of 
H.  A.  Niemcycr  (Halle,  iSjg)  De  Isidori  Pdusiotae  vita  icriptis  et 
docirina  c&mmentatio  hstorica  iheohgiea.  Niemeyer  was  the  first  to 
attempt  a  caulogue  of  existing  manascripts  of  the  teners :  and  the 

*  I  have  noticed  ciuiiona  of  the  SfonA  MS  on  twcnty-onc  letters,  vu.  i  3,  4,  6, 
3't  49.  58.  JO,  77,  93.  111.  134.  140.  141,  ifj,  156,  175.  190,  301,  J16,  295,511  : 
ofthe  Barberini  MS  only  on  seven  letter?^  i  19,  40,  41,  54,  66,  79,  84. 

*  Both  the  Bodleian  chuIo^uc  and  the  dissertations  of  Niemeyer  and  Capo,  of 
which  I  shftU  be  spcnhing  nest,  aitnbule  the  dissertation  to  Hcumaoii  instead  ol  to 
Peloid.     Pcrhapi  the  profeMor  wrote  the  diacrtation  for  the  pupU. 

*  U  ought  also  to  t>e  added  that  tbc  index  is  wash  iuaproved  iu  Migne. 


l*OTES    AND    STUDIK 

notice  of  the  Vienna  and  Florence  MSS,  in  the  list  given  pp,  76,  77 
aifra,  is  taken  from  him. 

fV  A  very  useful  summary  of  all  that  relates  to  Isidore  will  be  found 
in  E.  L  A.  Bouvy  X>e  S.  Isidoro  Pelusiota  Hbri  ins  (Nlmes,  18S4). 
Tie  first  book  is  entitled  '  Isidonis ' :  the  second  '  Pelusiuni ' :  the  third, 
ibkh  alone  concerns  us  here,  'Hibliotheca  Isidoriana',  and  I  find 
in  it  many  of  my  conclusions  anticipated.  It  is  an  excellent  piece  of 
vorlc,  and  I  should  have  been  saved  a  good  deal  of  labour  if  I  had 
come  across  it  at  an  earlier  period  in  my  researches:  but  Douvy  gives 
details  of  only  two  MSS,  Paris  gr.  S33  and  949  (Nos.  2  and  8, 
pp.  75,  76  supra). 

I.  To  Bardenhewer's  Patrohgif,  ed.  2,  p.  335,  I  am  indebted  for 
Kferencc  to  an  article  by  a  Swedish  scholar,  V.  Lundstrom,  in  Eranos: 
Acta  Phiiolo^ca  Suetana^  vol.  ii  (1897)  pp.  68-80,  Besides  giving 
i  list  of  the  MSS  of  Isidore  known  to  him  (of  which  use  lias  been 
oode  already,  p.  78  ru/ra),  Lundstrdm  prints,  as  specimens  of  the 
idrantage  that  might  be  expected  from  a  new  and  critical  edition,  three 
letters,  aJ  Thto^^ostum  Aitw  6avfid(tn  {^PP- ''  2 1 2],  ad  NUum  m6na(hum 
01  /iiv  ayuM  \Rpp.  \  t\  ad  Dorothaim  monackum  'Av^poxt?  &vt)t^6T}<iav 
\Epf.  \  2]. 

XL  The  last  item  in  the  list  is  also  one  of  which  mention  has  been 
made  above  in  connexion  with  our  knowledge  of  the  manuscripts.  In 
the  Studi  Italiani  di  jUoh^a  ciassictL,  vol.  ix  (Florence,  1901)  pp.  449- 
466,  N.  Capo  gives  information,  tn  greater  detail  than  had  been  done 
before,  about  the  Italian  MSS  of  Isidore,  and  especially  about  the  three 
kiding  MSS,  those  of  Grotta  I'errata,  OttoboniAUemps,  and  the 
Vatican.  From  these  he  prints  three  letters  that  had  escaped  the 
notice  of  5>chott,  and  re-edits  two  that  had  appeared  on  the  authority  of 
the  Munich  MS  in  the  edition  of  Ritturshusius  [Epp.  iv  58,  125].  Capo 
has  also  developed  the  idea  of  a  complete  catalogue  of  MSS,  including 
ibose  that  contain  even  one  or  two  only  of  the  Isidorian  letters.  Such  of 
tiiese  as  are  important  for  the  number  of  letters  they  give  have  been 
emuneiaicd  above,  pp.  76,  78 :  but  there  are  others  which,  though  in  a 
genetal  sketch  Uke  the  present  they  may  be  left  out  of  account,  are  of 
too  early  a  date  to  be  safely  neglected  in  a  critical  edition.  Reference 
for  these  must  be  made  to  Capo's  article,  which  (it  may  be  added)  is 
written  not  in  Italian  but  in  Latin. 


Ir  has  been  shewn  in  the  first  portion  of  the  present  paper  that 
between  450  and  550  a.d.  a  collection  of  aooo  of  St  Isidore's  letters 
«as  formed  at  Constantinople,  and  that  two  Latin  scholars  of  the  sixth 
century,  Facundus  of  Hemiiana  and  an  unknown  editor  of  councils,  had 
independent  access  to  it.    It  has  been  shewn  further,  in  the  second 

C  3 


I 


H 

^  th. 


84  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


portion,  that  both  our  earliest  MS  and  our  fullest  MSS  represent  exacOy 
the  same  collcctiDn  of  aooo  letters,  and  ihat  those  MSS  which  do  not, 
as  they  stand,  correspond  with  that  collection,  were  without  doubt 
ultimately  derived  from  it.  And  from  the  lost  section  it  results  (a)  that 
the  first  1213  letters  {impro|icrly  divided  into  three  books)  of  the 
editions  arc  also  the  first  1213  letters  of  the  Constantinopolitan  collection ; 
(d)  that  the  next  230  letters,  or  fourth  hook,  are  formed  from  the 
Munich  MS  used  by  Rittersiiusius,  by  subtracting  such  letters  as  had 
already  been  published  among  the  1213  of  the  eiiitio  princeps^  and 
that  the  order  of  the  new  letters  in  Rittershusius  bears  no  ascertain- 
able rehtion  to  the  order  of  the  collection  of  the  2000  letters  ;  (<*)  that 
ihc  569  letters  of  Scholt's  fifth  liook  are  the  residue  of  the  original 
collection  of  2000,  and  that,  as  the  first  1213  of  the  pnnted  text  are 
identical  with  the  first  1213  of  the  aooo,  all  Schott's  569  belong  in 
consequence  to  the  last  787  of  the  2000. 

If  we  ask  why  in  this  case  the  printed  letters  are  not  2000  but  loia 
in  number — or  if  we  add  Cajo's  three  new  letters  2015 — the  main 
smswer  is  simply  that  Rittcrshusius  printed  several  letters  in  book  iv 
which  had  already  been  printed  In  the  original  edition  of  books  i-iii, 
and  tliat  Schott  similarly  repeated  in  book  v  several  that  had  already 
appeared  in  Rittershusius — the  explanation  in  each  case  being  of  course 
that  Rittershusius'  MS  gave  the  letters  in  a  different  order  to  that  of  the 
editio  pHmeps,  and  that  Schott's  MS  (which  had  the  same  order  as  the 
etiitio  prirueps,  as  far  as  that  went)  gave  the  letters  in  a  different  order 
to  that  of  Rittershusius.  Thus  iv  156=:  i  249;  iv  180  =  ii  2S5 ;  iv 
188  =  i  29  ;  iv  195  =  i  4;  iv  197  =  i  430  ;  iv  229  =  i  436  :  and  v  43 
■ss  iv  199  ;  v  91  =  iv  147  ;  v  138  =  iv  190  ;  v  139  =  iv  122  ;  v  187  = 
iv  124;  v  239  =  iv  56.  Besides  this,  Rittershusius' book  iv  entirely 
jumps  over  tbe  numbers  79  and  131,  so  that  he  really  published  not 
330  letters  but  228.  Altogether  then  there  are  twelve  doublets  of  the 
editors  and  two  missing  numbers,  which  reduce  the  total  from  2015  to 
aooi.  How  the  figure  3001  is  to  be  reconciled  with  the  f^ure  which 
Capo  gives  for  the  archetype  of  the  Grotia  Ferrata-Ottoboni- Vatican 
MSS,  it  is  not  possible  to  say  until  the  MSS  have  been  further  examined. 
But  that  both  figures  point  back  to  an  original  collection  of  exactly 
aooo,  no  more  and  no  less,  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  doubt. 

A  new  critical  edition  of  the  letters  of  Isidore  appears  to  be  one  of 
the  real  desiderata  of  patristic  literature.  ^Ve  should  gain  by  it,  since 
the  Grotta  Ferrata.  MS  has  never  been  collated,  a  vastly  improved  text : 
we  should  gain  the  restoration  of  the  latter  part  of  the  letters  to  their 
original  order :  we  should  gain,  too,  it  may  reasonably  he  hoped,  more 
assistance  to  the  student  in  the  way  of  enlarged  and  improved  indices. 
Even  if  a  complete  edition  is  at  present  out  of  the  question^  it  may  not 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


8s 


be  too  much  to  hope  for  a  ru-tssue  at  least  of  the  letters  that  relate  to 
ihe  exegesis  of  the  New  Testament.  These  occur  more  frequently  in 
tbe  fourth  book  than  elsewhere — of  the  letters  on  the  Pauline  epistles, 
Tor  instance,  alxiut  forty  arc  contained  amon^  the  230  letters  of  that  boolc, 
ui^st  a  somewhat  smaller  number  in  the  1780  letter?  of  the  other 
t<ob— and  the  fourth  is  still  read  on  the  authority  only  of  a  Munich 
MS  of  ihe  sixteenth  ccnturj*. 

C.  H.  TUKMKR. 

fA  Note  by  Professor  R.  Lake  on  the  Grotta  Fcrrata  MS  of  Isidore, 
rth  an  index  to  the  numbers  of  the  letters  of  Books  iv  and  v,  will  be 
published  in  the  next  number  of  the  Jouknal.J 


APPENDIX 
.Vore  oM  TBZ  Contents  or  Vatic,  uit.  1319  (see  p.  7a  supra). 

1.  Foil.  1-91.  'Synodicon  Casinense':  see  Maassen  pp.  733-737, 
tod  above,  p.  71.  The  concents  coincide  exactly,  as  far  as  they  go, 
tiih  the  Cassino  MS,  but  they  only  extend  as  far  as  about  p.  1 16  of  the 
latter;  fol.  91  i  of  the  Vatican  MS  breaks  off  after  the  words  'con- 
nituti  sed  quoniam '  in  the  middle  of  the  documents  printed  in 
BiMotAtca  Catinensis  i.  appendix  p.  26.  The  text  of  the  Vatican 
ippeared,  on  a  super6cial  examination,  to  be  decidedly  superior  to 
Ihc  teat  of  the  Cassino  MS.  All  the  forty-nine  letters  of  Isidore  are 
common  to  both  MSS. 

2.  Fol.  92  [92  ^  should  precede  92  a  :  i.  e.  the  outer  edge  of  the  leaf 
bss  been  bound  in  instead  of  the  inner].  Titles  of  the  canons  of 
Chalcedon,  and  the  canons  themselves  as  far  as  can.  17  ;  the  version  is 
that  of  Dionysius  Exiguus,  as  on  ful.  238  below.  The  hand  is  a  different 
one  to  the  preceding  collection. 

J.  Foil.  93-98.  Fmgment  of  a  collection  of  pope  Leo's  letters, 
including  the  following  documents  [I  give  the  numbers  of  the  Ballerini 
edition],  arranged  apparently  according  to  correspondents  ;  to  the 
emperor  Marcian,  xciv  Sanctum  cUmentiaCy  Ixxviii  Littcras  pidatis, 
cxi  Quam  <,\celUnti ;  to  the  emperor  Leo,  clvi  LiUcrai  clementiae,  clxiv 
Afuieis  manifestis^ue,  cxlviii  Luet  praxime^  cxlv  Offidis  quat  ad ;  to  the 
empress  Pukheria,  cv  Sanctis  et  Deo,  Ixxxiv  Rcli^osam  pietath,  cxvi 
Quamtfis  nuUas ;  to  Flavian  of  Constantinople,  xxxviii  Profectis  tarn 
wstris,  xtxvi  Litteras  tuae  diUitionis,  xxxix  ^iugtt  sollidtudimm^  xlix 
Qutu  ei  quanta  ;  to  Anatolius  of  Constantinople,  Ixxxvii  Ad declinandam  ; 
to  Anastasius  of  Thessalonica,  xlvii  Quantum  relatione  Hilarii;  to  the 
firesbyter  Martin,  Ixxiv  Graiias  agimus  \  Eutyches  to  pope  Leo,  xxi 
De   tnea   in  J^omittum ;  'exemplar   epistolae   taciti    nominis  lacte  ad 


J 


86  THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

quendarn  scire  cupient :  quid  contrarium  catholicae  fidei  senserit 
Eutichi[s] '  J/rJ;V  miAi  (sec  Maassen  p.  396:  Mansi  Cond/ia  v  1017). 
The  Ust  document,  owing  to  the  mutilation  of  the  MS,  breaks  off 
at  the  end  of  fol.  g8^  with  the  words  'completa  est  apostoH'  (Mansi 
V  1022).     Again  in  a  different  hand. 

4.  Foil.  99-238  a.  Acts  of  Chalccdon  according  to  the  version  of 
Ktisticus  (Maassen  pp.  745-751):  in  two  hands,  of  which  the  first  wrote 
foil.  99-2181  the  second  foil.  219-3383.  The  thirty-five  preliratnary 
pieces  (Maassen  pp.  746-758)  are  numbered  by  Greek  letters.  The 
Canons  are  not  contained  in  the  Acts  at  all :  according  to  Maassen 
p.  741  we  should  expect  to  find  them  in  Actio  xv,  but  they  are  not 
there.  After  the  Acts  proper  occur  the  two  supplementary  pieces 
mentioned  by  Maassen  p.  743,  *  Responsio  seu  allocutio  sancti  et 
universalis  Calchedonensis  concilii '  and  the  conciUar  letter  to  pope 
Leo  Repkium  est  gaudio. 

5.  Foil.  238  5-*40*.  Canons  of  Chalcedon  in  the  version  of 
Dionysius,  together  with  its  'definitio  fidei ' :  not  in  either  of  the 
hands  that  transcribed  the  Acts  of  the  council,  but  possibly  in  the 
hand  that  wrote  foil.  1-91. 

6.  Foil.  241  0-2450.  Canons  of  Nicaea  and  Sardica;  itseemedtome 
that  the  titles  and  text  were  written  respectively  by  the  two  hands  which 
transcribed  the  Acts  of  Chalcedon,  but  Dr.  Mcrcati  questions  the 
correctness  of  this  view.  The  version  of  Nicaea  is  that  known  as 
Caecilian's,  and  the  form  of  it  is  nearer  to  the  text  of  the  Ballerini 
(drawn  from  cod.  Vcron.  Ix)  than  to  that  of  Maassen  (drawn  from 
Monac.  lat.  6243  and  Wirceb.  Mp.  th.  f.  146).  The  canons  of  Sardica 
are  in  a  hitherto  unknown  version. 

7.  FolL  J4S  a~i^^  a.     St  Augustine's  catalogue  of  heresies  ad  Quod- 
vu//deum,   containing   the  spurious  ending   that    includes    the   Eutf- 
chians  r  see  the  Benedictine  edition  of  St.  Augustine,  tom.  viii  pp.  i— - 
22.     In  the  same  hand  as  No.  6. 

8.  Foil.  253  rt-260  a.    Five  books  of '  S.  Eusebius '  de  Triniiate :  in  th«=» 
same  hand  as  Nos.  6  and  j.     This  is  part  of  the  perplexing  group  <v^ 
documents  sometimes  known  as  pseudo-Athanasius,  but  more  ofte•»^ 
as  Vigilius,  de  Triniiaie.     According  to  Dom  Morin  {Rtvue  B^nidictin^^r, 
Jan.   1R98)  books  i-vii  of  '  Vigilius '  may  well   belong  to  the  fourtli 
century,  and  not  impossibly  to  Eusebius  of  Vercelli. 

C.  H.  Turner.       j 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  87 

RECENT   WORK  ON   EUTHALIUS. 

Some  five  or  six  j^ears  ago  it  was  whispered  among  the  few  scholars 

"Who  cared  Tor  so  remote  a  subject,  that  the  mysterious  Euihalius,  Bishop 

of  Sulci,  bad  turned  up  as  a  historical  pemuna^c  of  the  seventh  century. 

Wore  could  not  then  be  said,  as  the  publication  of  the  document  which 

feed  his  date  n-as  reser\'ed  for  the  Introduction  to  the  Writings  of  the 

liew  Testament  which  was  promised  by  Dr  Hermann  Kreiherr  von 

Sodcn  and  of  which  the  first  instalment  is  now  in  our  hands. 

^^     In  order   to  estimate   llie  bearing   of  the   new  discovery   on   the 

^■Xiahalian    problem,  and   to   appreciate   von  Soden's   handling   of  it, 

^■ilis  necessary  to  summarize  the  results  arrived  at  in  my  Euthaliana 

B  (1895),  ^^^  t<^  i^^^tc  3  further  contribution  made  to  the  subject  by 

~    Professor  E.  von  Dobschiitz. 

In  my  preface  I  spoke  of  the  subsidiary  matter  found  in  many  MSS 
oT  the  Acts  and  Epistles  as  '  descended  ultimately  from  an  Edition 
of  these  books  put  out  in  ancient  times  by  a  modest  scholar  who  has 
BM  revealed  his  own  personality,  but  to  whom  tradition  has  ascribed 
the  name  of  Eutlialius'.  Working  with  Zacagni's  edition  of  the 
Eahahan  apparatus,  and  supplementing  it  by  some  later  discoveries 
and  by  occasional  reference  to  MSS,  I  endeavoured  to  bring  some 
order  into  the  chaos  of  materials,  to  discriminate  between  earlier  and 
hlfr  stages  of  ils  acaimulation,  and  so  to  pave  the  way  for  some  future 
editor.  I  discerned  two  distinct  periods  in  the  early  growth  of  ibc 
apparatus : 

I.  Between  343  and  396 :  Prologues  to  the  Pauline  Epistles,  to 
Ihc  Acts  and  to  the  Catholic  Epistles,  followed  by  full  tables  of  quota- 
lions  and  chapter  summaries,  and  a  text  written  colometricaliy,  or  in 
sense- lines. 

a.  In  396:  the  dated  jVar/j-'fiMwyaM/^  compiled  out  of  the  Prologue 
to  the  Pauline  Epistles ;  the  insertion  of  slicbometrical  calculations, 
and  of  colophons  such  as  that  which  is  preserved  in  Codex  H. 

The  former  of  these  editions  1  ascribed  to  Euthaltus,  who  had 
hitherto  enjoyed  the  credit  of  the  whole  of  what  I  have  just  enumerated; 
the  latter,  with  less  confidence,  to  Evagrius  whose  name  is  found  in 
connexion  with  portions  of  it.  A  large  part  of  Zacagni's  material  stilt 
remained  as  the  addition  of  subsequent  compilers. 

The  general  position  thus  reached  was  .accepted  with  a  few  modifica- 
tions in  detail  both  in  an  elaborate  review  in  the  Guardian  (Jimc  17, 
1896),  and  by  von  Dobschuti:  in  bis  article  on  Euthalius  in  Hauck's 
Xeaiencydofddie  {\q\.  v,  1898).  'I'he  latter  writer  pointed  to  a  forth- 
coming study  of  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  Syriac  versions,  which 
presently  appeared  under  the  title  'Eutbaliusstudien'  in  the  Zeitschri/t 


1 


I 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


fiir  Kirchtngtsckiihte  (xix  2),  In  this  article  he  took  the  precaution 
to  write  the  name  of  Eutlialiiis  in  inverted  commas,  thus  indicating 
a  readiness  to  abandon  that  designation  of  the  original  editor,  if  need 
should  be.  His  most  important  point  vfas  the  proof  that  the  Prologues 
and  some  other  portions  of  the  apparatus  were  translated  into  Syriac 
in  connexion  with  the  I'hiEoxenian  version  in  508.  This  result,  which 
might  have  been  only  of  interest  to  Syriac  scholars,  has  now  become 
an  important  element  in  the  discussion  of  the  Euthalian  problem. 
It  is  unfortunate  that  this  article  has  been  ignored  by  subsequent 
writers  on  the  subject  both  in  Kngland  and  in  Germany. 

In  the  same  year,   1898,  I   had  occasion  in   Dom   Butter's  Intro- 
duction to  the  Lausiac  History  of  Paiiadius  (p.  1 03  f),  to  call  attention 
to  a  kind  of  colophon  connecting   the  Armenian  translation  of  the 
Life  of  Evagrius  with  the  worVs  of  Evagrius  which  follow  it.     I  need 
only  repeat  here  the  first  lines :    '  I  have  written  and  set  out  according 
to  my  jKJwer  three  books  in  ordt;red  and  easy  and  convenient  dis- 
courses.'    These  words  are  ahnust  identical  mtb  the  bcijioning  of  the 
rendering  of  the  'Evagrian'  colophon    in    the    Armenian    biblical 
manuscripts.     After  investigating  the  matter  I  was  obliged  to  s^y  :  '  I 
can  offer  no  further  light  upon  the  coincidence  by  which  a  colophon 
at  the  close  of  a  life  of  Evagrius  corresponds  so  closely  with  a  biblical 
colophon  which  contains  the  name  of  Evagrius.     Wc  seem  further  than 
ever  from  an  explanation  when  we  note  that  in  the  Armenian  Bible 
MSS    the  latter    colophon  does    not    contain    the    name    of  Evagrius 
at  all.'    I  added  the  following  note  in  regard  to  the  Greek  colophon  ia 
Codex  H:   'I  have  been  inclined  to  think  that  eY*rpni,  not  eY*rpioc, 
originally  stood  in  Codex  H,  and  that  afterwards  eY04^loc  cnicKon  . .  . 
was  written  over  it.'     I  venture  to  note  these  details  here,  as  they  may 
easily  escape  the  observation  of  students  of  the  Euthalian  question. 
On  the  latter  point  a  word  or  two  more  may  be  said.     Dr  Zahn,  in 
an  article  to  be  mentioned  presently,  calls  attention  to  the  unusual 
form  of  the  sentences,  Emyfuot  lypaipa  »tnt  ii<(i<ftyp'  kt\;  and  ^.ttdypto^ 
SuiA.oi'  Kai  €'(7Tc;(i<7a  ktX.,  observing  (i)  that  both  arc  found  elsewhere 
without  the  proper  name  EudypiOi,  and  (a)  that  iyii  EvdypoK  is  the 
fonn  which  would  naturally  be  expected.     I  think  thurrcfore  that  the 
possibility  thai  thi!  pro]H;r  name  first  came  inas  a  heaxling  in  the  genitive 
case  deserves  consideration;   and  I  would  note  (1)  that  the  line  in 
which  the  presumed  €Y&rpi»  stands,  seems  at  first  to  have  contained 
no  more  than  this  one  word,  and  (2)  that  the  symbol  s  occurs  in  three 
other  places  in  the  fragments  of  Codex  H  (see  Omont's  edition,  p.  la'). 

*  M.  Omoiit  sugccsLcd  the  possibility  ihat  the  ligature  may  be  due  to  the  huid  of 
the  reviner  wim  inked  over  xhc  ruling  letters  of  the  codex.  In  the  case  of  QpOfH 
(jh  }4j  this  may  well  be  as,  but  in  Uie  other  two  rues  it  ia  leu  prot»ble. 


NOTES  AND    STUDIES 


89 


W 

^«1 


We  must  now  pass  on  10  speak  of  the  discovery  published  in  von 
Soden's  /3«  Schri/teH  des  N.T.  (I  i  f>z^),  and  of  the  use  which  the  editor 
nakes  of  rt.     Herr  Wobbermin  has  found  in  an  eleventh-century  MS 
ia  the  Laura  on  Mt.  Athos  a  Confession  entitled :  EvftiAcuv  imtrKovaa 
StrAx^  o/KoAoyi'a  vtpi,  rv?  op^wSo^u  Tr/o-rtitj^.     Internal  evidence  shews 
thit  it   was  wriiien  between  662  and  680.     ll  contains  a  reference 
to  Maximus  the  Confessor.     The  next  piece  in  the  MS  is  a  letter  from 
Athanasius  to  bis  'son  Maxiinus  ihe  philosopher'.    Von  Sodcn  has 
DO   hesitation    in    identifying    this   Athanasius   with    the   Athanasius 
mentioned  in  the  Euthalian  prologues  to  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles. 
Thus  Euthalius  and  his  prologues  are  brought  down  into  the  seventh 
century,  and  all  the  'Penelope  labours'  of  former  scholars  are  dis- 
missed at  once. 

Another  interesting  discovery  is  announced  on  p.  646.  Von  der 
Goltz  has  found  the  Greet:  text  of  a  document  hitherto  known  only 
in  the  Armenian  translation,  which  Gnds  a  place  in  Armenian  Bibles 
in  connexion  with  the  Euthalian  apparatus.  It  is  called  in  Armenian 
the  Prayer  of  Euthalius.  In  the  Greek  it  is  headed  ;  ir/»?  ifiavrav, 
A€:cordingIy  we  know  at  last  the  meaning  of  the  pujtzling  statement, 
naX  TO  :r/w  It^vriv,  crrtxot  wf ,  which  occuTS  in  a  slichometrical  list  in 
certain  of  the  Euthalian  MSS. 

Von  Soden  gives  free  play  to  his  imagination,  and  writes  a  fanciful 
fc  of  Euthalius,  grounded  upon  these  new  discoveries.  Two  vigorous 
protests  have  already  been  entered  against  this  offhand  treatment 
of  a  most  complicated  problem.  Mr  E.  C.  Conybeare,  who  has  the 
credit  of  fust  bringing  the  Armenian  evidence  to  bear  upon  the  subject, 
insists'  that  it  has  been  proved  that  the  Prologues  are  earlier  than  the 
Aiartyrium  fault,  which  is  on  abbreviated  statement  drawn  out  of  one 
of  them  in  a.  d,  396.  He  lurther  asserts  on  the  ground  of  Armenian 
Chronicles  and  other  evidence,  Ihiil  the  Euthalian  apparatus  was  already 
attributed  by  the  Armenians  to  Euthalius  before  700  a.  i>. ;  and  he 
clnims  that  'both  the  language  and  internal  dating  of  the  Armenian 
ompel  us  to  set  the  translation  back  in  the  fifth  centur)- '.  His  view 
that  the  fourth-century  EuthaJius  was  decorated  with  the  title  '  Bishop 
%yi  Sulci'  only  at  a  Late  jxiriod  when  his  namesake  of  the  seventh 
century  bad  come  into  a  certain  prominence. 

An  exhaustive  examination  of  the  theory  of  von  Sodcn  is  made  by 
Dr  Zahn   in  the  Neue   Kirchlklu  /^ilsikrijt  xv  4,  5.     He  begins  by 
pointing  out  that  a  quotation  from  the  newly  discovered  Confession 
Euthalius  was  printed  by  F.  H.  Reusch  in  1889,  with  the  heading: 

}Uy*t.    After  discussing  the  orthography  of  the  Sardinian  See  at  some 

>  Zntethrifif.  i.  A'.  T.  Wiaains^ajt  v  1904. 


k 


length,  he  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Letter  of  Aihanasius 
to  Maximus  the  Philosopher  is  a  genuine  letter  of  the  great  Achanasius 
of  the  year  370  or  371,  and  so  disposes  of  von  Soden's  supposition 
that  it  was  written  by  a  seventh -century  Aihanasius  to  Maximus  the 
Confessor.  He  points  out  the  immense  difference  in  style  between 
the  Confession  newly  discovered,  and  both  the  '  Prayer  of  Euthalius ' 
and  the  Euthalian  Prologues :  and  he  inclines  to  idcntily  on  the  ground 
of  style  the  author  of  the  Prayer  with  the  author  of  the  Prologues. 
With  much  learning  he  reviews  the  whole  situation  of  the  Euthalian 
problem.  He  accepts  and  reinforces  the  view  that  the  first  stage  of 
the  Euthalian  apparatus  must  be  placed  some  time  before  396,  the 
date  of  the  Martyrium  Patiii.  He  thinks  it  most  probable  that  the 
original  edition,  though  put  out  anonymously,  was  the  work  of  a  writer 
named  Euthalius,  and  that  his  name  was  preserved  by  a  true  tradition 
which  at  length  found  a  place  in  the  titles  of  the  Prologues :  and  be 
is  confident  that  the  description  'Bishop  of  Sulci'  was  an  erroneous 
insertion  of  a  still  later  period.  His  two  articles  are  full  of  illustrative 
matter,  and  worthy  of  his  great  reputation  for  the  accumulation  and 
masterly  handling  of  a  bewildering  mass  of  details'. 

Tlie  latest  sketch  of  ihe  Euilialian  question  which  has  been  given 
to  English  students  is  to  be  found  in  Mr  Turner's  article  on  'Patristic 
Commentaries'  in  the  supplementary  volume  uf  Dr  Hastings's  BiNe 
Dictionary.  It  would  seem  as  though  the  new  material  published  by 
von  Soden  reached  the  writer  too  late  for  proper  digestion,  and  had 
to  be  hurriedly  combined  at  the  last  moment  with  results  which  had 
been  attained  independently  of  it.  Von  Dobschiitz's  work  on  the 
Syriac  versions  has  here  also  escaped  recognition,  though  a  true  instinct 
had  led  Mr  Turner  to  suggest  that  some  fresh  light  might  have  been 
obtained  by  a  systematic  examination  of  Syriac  MSS. 

A  proper  edition  of  the  Euthalian  api^iratus  is  now  more  urgently 
needed  than  ever;  it  is  essential  as  a  preliminary  to  the  classi6cation 
of  the  cursive  MSS  of  the  Acts  and  Epistles.  For  the  present,  and 
until  some  new  facts  are  brought  to  light,  we  may  reasonably  continue 
to  assign  the  origination  of  this  appanitus  to  a  fourth -century  Euthalius, 
and  wc  may  be  allowed  to  doubt  whether  Euthalius,  the  seventh-century 
Bishop  of  Sulci,  ever  put  his  hand  tu  such  work  at  all. 

J.  Armitace  Kobinson. 


^  It  I»  only  surprising  that  he  does  not  Btrengtheti  his  position  by  a  reference  to 
von  DobscliQti'i  proof  ihM  the  Prologue*  were  rendered  into  S>Tiac  in  508  ;  for,  bb 
a  matter  of  fact,  he  givcs  «  reference  in  a  footnote  (o  Ibe  arlicEe  Id  which  this  i« 
brought  ouL 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


9^ 


THE  PALESTINIAN  SYRIAC  LECTIONARY. 

The  April  number  of  the  Journal  of  Thfolo^cal  Studies  con- 
tiined  a  paper  by  Professor  J.  T.  Marshall  upon  remarkable  readings 
found  in  the  Palestinian  Syriac  Leciionary  of  ihe  Epistle*,  in  which 
the  writer  attempted  to  shew  from  internal  evidence  that  the  Leciionary 
was  composed  in  Egypt,  and  that  it  contains  a  biblical  text  of  a  very 
peculiar  type,  both  from  ihe  readings  it  supports  and  from  the 
interpretations  that  it  gives  to  the  Greek.  The  followitig  pages  are, 
alas,  almost  wholly  controversial.  I  shall  try  to  shew  that  the  argu- 
ments which  link  the  rise  of  the  Palestinian  Syriac  version  with  Egypt 
are  of  very  little  cogency,  and  that  the  proved  connexion  of  a  Palestinian 
Sjxiac  community  with  Egypt  belongs  to  a  bte  stage  in  the  literature 
of  that  dialect.  This  being  the  case  let  me  begin  hy  shaking 
my  opponent's  hand,  as  prize-Bghters  do  (so  I  am  told)  in  the  ring. 
Disagreements  in  these  complicated  and  difficult  questions  of  language 
and  criticism  are  inevitable,  but  it  is  at  any  rate  a  matter  for  con- 
gratulation that  both  my  opponent  and  myself  feel  a  common  interest 

an  this  long  neglected  comer  of  Christian  Literature. 

I  Professor  Marshall  bases  his  case  on  internal  evidence.  Before 
examining  his  reasons  let  us  set  down  what  we  know  on  general 
grounds  about  these  documents,  In  the  first  place  we  must  not  forget 
that  the  Christian  Palestinian  Literature  is  wholly  'Orthodox',  i.e. 
belonging  to  a  body  in  communion  with  the  Byzantine  Church,  This 
consideration  should  al  once  rendt^r  us  very  sceptical  .ibout  alleged 
points  of  contact  with  Coptic  versions  of  the  Bible,  for  the  Coptic 
Church  was  always  a  stronghold  of  Monophysite  doctrine  from  the  days 
of  Anastasius  onwards.  The  next  point  is  to  note  the  places  from 
whence  came  ihe  Palestinian  MSS  that  have  survived  to  our  days. 
These  arc:  the  Monastery  on  Mount  Sinai,  the  Monasteries  on  the 
Boar's  Head  Promontory  near  Antioch  {J.  T.S.  ii  177 0»  ^^  great 
Monastery  of  St  Mary  Deipara  in  the  Nitrian  Desert,  the  Cairo  Geniza, 
and  unknown  places  in  Egypt.  The  Nitrian  MSS  seem,  to  have  been 
bought  at  the  sale  of  SultAn  Bibars's  booty  by  one  Surflr,  a  deacon 
of  Palestinian  descent,  and  the  Genim  fragments  may  very  likely  have 
come  to  the  Synagogue  at  the  same  time.  These  last  are  now  all 
palimpsest  with  Hebrew  writing  on  the  top,  so  that  no  doubt  they  were 
bought  by  the  Jews  as  cheap  writing-material.  Thus  the  'Palestinian 
Syriac'  Literature  is  quite  as  much  connected  with  orthodox  sanctuaries 
in  Palestine  as  with  the  Nile  Valley. 

The  Palestinian  Syriac  Lectionary  of  the  Epistles  is  known  to  us 
from  a  single  codex,  of  no  great  antiquity,  which  was  bought  in  Cairo 


I 


THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


by  Mrs.  Lewis  of  Cambridge  in  1895.  No  one  doubts  that  the 
Ivcctionary  is  constderahly  older  Uian  this  MS ;  but  it  is  well  lo  bear 
in  mind,  before  we  allow  ourselves  to  draw  startling  conclusions  from 
minute  points  of  translation,  that  the  text  upon  which  we  are  working  is 
that  of  a  single  MS,  a  MS  copied  by  a  scribe  who  was  possibly  ill 
instnjcled  in  the  dialect  of  the  r;ectionary.  The  MS  certainly  contains 
many  blunders :  we  find  Misren  (1,  e.  Kgypt)  for  Midian  in  Isaiah  ix  4, 
p.  87.  and  at  the  end  of  Isaiah  Ix  3,  p.  :24.  we  find  iky  Saviour  for 
thy  Siunrise.  When,  therefore,  Prof.  Marshall  speaks  of  the  'scores 
of  readings  not  found  anywhere  else ',  we  may  reasonably  suspect  that 
not  a  few  of  ihcm  may  Ik;  incrc  misLikes. 

Prof.  Marshall  founds  his  case  for  the  Egyptian  origin  of  the 
Lectionary  on  two  considerations.  The  first  is  tha.t  the  Lesson  coa- 
taining  Genesis  ii  agrees  almost  verbatim  with  that  found  in  the  Liturgy 
of  the  Nik,  as  published  by  Vt.  Margoliouth  in  1896.  With  this  no 
one  will  quarrel.  The  Lttur^'  of  the  Nile  was  obviously  drawn  up 
in  Egypt,  and  the  community  of  Aramaic-spcaktng  Christians  who  used 
it  must  therefore  have  been  settled  in  EgypL  Bui  the  i[S  in  which 
it  is  preserved  is  not  exclusively  a  '  I'alestinian '  book :  parts  of  it  are 
written  in  Edessene  Syriac,as  well  as  in  Carshuni.  No  Coptic  inSucnce 
is  visible  in  any  part  of  the  MS  ;  in  fact,  the  whole  book  is  a  translation 
from  the  Greek  *.  We  And  Greek  formulas  transcribed  in  Syriac  letters^ 
but  the  only  Egyptian  thing  in  the  MS  is  the  Nile  Service  itself.  The 
Liturgy  of  the  Nile  proves  the  existence  in  Egjpt  in  the  thirteenth 
century  of  a  Christian  congregation,  which  used  a  Palestinian  Syriac 
littial,  but  il  leaves  the  presence  of  tJiat  congregiUion  in  Egypt 
unexplained. 

It  is  when  I'rof.  Marshall  goes  on  to  connect  the  Palestinian 
l*ctionar>*  with  the  Cohairic  version  that  his  work  is  so  unsatisfactory. 
He  attempts  to  shew  lliat  the  Lectionarj-  was  translated  from  a  Greek 
text  akin  lo  that  represented  by  the  Bohairic,  i.  e.  the  Coptic  version  of 
Lower  Egypt.  The  readings  of  the  Lectionary  are  grouped  in  Tables ; 
of  these.  Tables  A  and  B  illustrate  the  alleged  kinship  with  the  Bohairic, 
while  the  rest  are  intended  to  exemplify  the  theology  of  the  translator. 

'  Mr  Gnghtmnn  iiiformud  ine  wliilc  this  pApcr  u*as  passing  throogh  the  Presi 
that  the  Greek  of  ihc  Lilurgy  of  Ikt  Ntle  bias  been  edited  in  A.  DmitriJ€WSklj*» 
EucMqgia,  pp.  684-691,  an  important  hoo'k  which  I  bavc  been  ^ble  to  coostih 
througb  the  kindness  of  my  friend  Mr  f,  C.  Conybeare.  Dminrijewskij's  t«xt  is 
actually  uken  ivom  a  MS  at  Sinat,  dated  t  j^io  a.d. 

It  nay  be  of  interest  to  rote  llial  the  mysterious  Response  t^AaS  f^lOf^, 
which  is  said  so  often  by  the  cori^^^tion  la  tht  PulrslirLian  rile,  lurnit  out  to  be 
a  corriipiioti  of 'Avaj,  Nn'At.  The  other  response.  O  hoty  ont  of  Ctui  (Margolioutb, 
J  R  A  S  for  if^jifj,  p.  7'^Ji  "^  '"  ''^^  Grtct  'Aku  rp  vparw^  iird  rp  -wpovTo^u  tov  9(oV| 
MtiAt, 


H. 


NOTES  AND    STUDIES 


93 


Table  A,  however,  we  may  leave  at  once  on  one  side,  as  it  only  contains 

'Disputed  readings  in  which  the  Lcctionary  agrees  with  the  Bohairic, 

and  also  with  the  best  Greek  MSS '.     This  Table  informs  us  of  the 

falucof  the  text  of  the  I^ectionary,  but  naturally  it  cannot  demonstrate 

any  special  connexion  with  the  Bohairic  version.      It  is  otherwise  with 

Table  B,  which  contains   '  Readings  in  which  the  Lcctionary  agrees 

with  the  Bohairic,  in  cases  where  it  is  not  generally  supported  by  the 

best  Greek  MSS '.   Community  in  error  shews  community  of  parentage. 

If  Table  B  contain  a  number  of  agreements  with  the  Bohairic,  where 

the  Leclionary  and   the    Bohairic   stand  alone  or  almost  alone,  then 

Prof.  Marshall's  case  will  obtain  a  ready  hearing.     But  as  a  matter  of 

fact,  out  of  the  thirteen  readings  in  Table  B  only  in  one  is  it  alleged 

that  the  Lcctionary  and  the  Bohairic  stand  alone.    This  is  Rom.  v  6, 

«  passage  marked  by  Westcott  and  Hort  as  corrupt  on  account  of  the 

nmnerous  petty  variations  in  the  MSS.     Substantial  agreement  l>ctwccn 

our  two  'authorities'  in  such  a  passage  would  doubtless  go  far  to  prove 

a  common  origin  for  their  text.     But  their  agreemt^nt  is  only  partial 

after  all.     Westcott  and  Hort,  following  B,  print 

(I  Y<  XftUTToc  oiToiv  ijfiMn'  aaSfvStv  in  teurU  Kaipov  Wtp  &<Tt/iwv  iiridaytv. 

[For  «i  yc  .  .  .  m  the  following  variants  are  found  : — 
hiyap  .  .  .  mNACD'  Marcion   Syr.hkl 
I  <Tt  yap  .   .  .   [am.  trt  2")  ^  etc. 

I  CK  Ti  yap  •  •   ■   [<""■  *'^'  *'^]  l^"**^  I'Stt 

I  tl  yap  .  .  .  [t?m.  in  a»]  104  {a/ias  h««^)  /u/d 

The  Feshitta  has  ^.1  ^J^,  i.e.  «iSi  .  .  .  ,  omitting  the  second  ?T^ 
sod  the  ancient  Arabic  text  from  Sinai,  edited  by  Mrs  Gibson,  begins 
irith  'if,  and  joins  in  with  oi^uv  97^1'  AtrStvuv. 
Now  a  Uteral  English  translation  of  our  two  authorities  is 
Ixff.     'Tor  if  Christ  when  we  are  weak,  yet  on  a  time  on  account  of 
vicfced  men  died.' 

Bok.  '  For  if  yet  when  we  are  weak  on  a  time  Christ  died  on  account 
of  wicked  men.' 

The  Lectionar>'  keeps  the  Greek  order,  the  Bohairic  adopts  an  order 
of  Its  own  and  appears  to  join  in  with  r"i-nM»-  iifi.C>v  fUidtviuv  Uike  the 
mass  of  Greek  MSS)  rather  than  with  xari  n/upov  (like  B  and  the 
Lectioriary).  It  would  ne^-er  have  occurred  to  me  to  cite  such  a  doubt- 
ful and  imperfect  agreement  between  the  Palestinian  Lcctionary  and 
the  Bohairic  version  in  support  of  any  hypothesis.  If  I  had  done  so, 
I  might  have  said  that  the  I-ectioiiary  shews  some  contact  with  the 
Peshitta  as  might  be  expected  in  a  late  Aramaic  version,  and  sdme 
affinity  with  the  text  of  B  as  might  be  expected  in  a  text  which  has 
a  geographical  connexion  with  'AbiJd  near  Caesarca  in  Palestine.  iJut 
it  is  safer  to  leave  such  intangible  coincLdences  altogether  on  one  side. 


I 


94  THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

In  the  rcmaioing  twelve  passages  grouped  together  by  Prof.  Marshall, 
the  Palestinian  Lectiotury  and  the  Bohairic  agree  in  company  with 
other  authorities,  and  these  are  by  no  means  of  a  specifically  Egyptian 
character.  In  Rom.  vi  5,  Eph.  i  20,  Col.  ii  13,  the  reading  alleged  by 
Prof.  Marsliall  as  shewing  a  siH.*ciaI  connexion  between  the  Lectionaiy 
and  the  Bohairic  is  actually  that  of  the  English  Authorized  Version. 
In  Rom.  vi  11,  where  the  true  text  has  'Christ  Jesus'  and  the  Bohairic 
with  most  Creek  documents  has  'Christ  Jesus  our  Lord*,  the  Lecttonary 
has  'in  the  I^ird,  in  Jesus  Christ'  (su).  In  Rcjm.  viii  2  the  Lectionary 
and  the  Bohairic  do  agree  in  reading  'hath  made  us  free  from  the  law 
of  sin  and  death ',  a  very  natural  turn  found  also  in  the  Ethiopic  in 
Erpcnius's  Arabic,  where  for  us  our  Creek  MSS  vary  between  me  and 
tAee.  Rom.  viii  11,  on  the  other  hand,  ought  not  to  have  been  put 
in  the  Table  at  all,  because  (i)  the  better  texts  of  the  Boliairic  read 
'Christ  Jesus'  not  'Jesus  Christ',  and  (ii)  the  Palestinian  Lectionary, 
like  the  Peshitta,  always  puts  'Jesus'  before  *the  Messiah*.  In 
Rom.  X  5,  where  both  the  Lectionary  and  the  Bohairic  transble 
&  iroitjo-ac  av6pi-mm  by  '  the  man  who  doetli  it',  the  two  authorities  differ 
in  that  the  Lectionary  puts  otc  immediately  before  o  iro*ijffa?  while  the 
Bohairic  puts  it  before  t^i-  Bixauxrvi-^v,  and  this  difference  corresponds 
to  a  well-marked  textual  variation.  In  Rom.  x  8,  where  the  true  text 
has  kryti  only,  the  Lectionary  has  'siiith  the  Scripture'  with  D  Latt, 
while  the  Bohairic  has  'the  Scripture  saitb'  with  G.  In  Rora.  x  9  the 
Lectionary  and  the  Bohairic  agree  with  B  and  the  English   Revised  j 

Version  against  the  mass  of  copies  in  reading  on  Kv^uk  'It^oCt.     In  ^- 

Eph.  i  1 1  our  two  authorities  agree  in  the  ci>m|iany  of  D  0  and  a  number  -^ 

of  minuscules,  in  Heb.  ix  14  they  agree  in  the  company  of  D*  N"  P  and        .^^ 
some  thirty  more,  in  Heb.  x  33  they  agree  with  No  and  at  least  nine 
more.     Where  two  authorities  thus  agree  as  members  of  considerable 
groups,   little   can   be   inferred    as   to  the  nature  of    their  common 
element. 

I  venture  to  think  that  no  one  who  weighs  these  thirteen  allegec^^zatf 
coincidences  will  consider  that  Prof.  Marshall  has  even  made  out  a  1  ihi    fc  l 

for  his  theory.     It  was  indeed  hardly  lo  be  expected  that  the  Orthodos : 0: 

Palestinian  Lectionary  should  have  much  affinity  with  the  Monophysil^    e 
Egyptian    version,    seeing    that   the    Harclean    Syriac,  a    Monophysit-_^^e 
version  which  wc  know  to  have  been  prepared  in  Egypt,  shews  so  Utt^K.e 
kinship  with  any  Coptic  text.     But  mere  statements  n^ade  about  the^^^e 
Eastern  versions  are  too  ol\en  accepted  by  textual  critics  who   Tn£3m.y 
have  no  special  atujuaintance  with  the  obscurer  Oritntal   di.Tlects,  ^50 
tliat  it  seemed  worth  while  to  examine  Prof.  Marshall's  examples  one 
by  one. 

It  will  scarcely  be  necessary  to  treat  Prof.  Marshall's  argumencs 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


95 


ibotft  the  theological  character  of  the  Palestinian  Leclionary  in  any 

deiaiL  But  when  he  says  that  the  I^ctionary  has  'a  closer  resemblance 

toiTargum  than  any  other  New  Testament  MS  has',  I  must  protest 

H«  Prof.  Marshall  ever  examined  the  Syriac  Vulgate?     In  turning  the 

Greek  of  the  Xcw  Testament  into  any  Semitie  Inngiiage  it   is  often 

necessary  to  paraphrase  in  order  to  make  sense,  and  liad  1  been  asked 

to  dttracterize  the  Lectiona.ry  I  should  have  spoken  rather  of  slavish 

neglect  of  Aramaic  idiom  than  of  'theological   bias'.     Again,  when 

FVof.  Manihall  says  'We  are  disposed  to  bdicve  that  the  translator  was 

tuniliar  with  the  Pcshitta,  l>txaHsc  wc  think  that  othL-rwisc  he  could 

Mrcely  have  so  systematically  evaded  its  readings '  he  makes  a  state- 

ount  which  will  not,  I  venture  to  ttiink,  gain  much  favour  among  tliose 

»bo  read  these  versions  for  themselves.      Even  among  the  thirteen 

ladings  in  Table  B.  chosen  by  Prof  Marshall  in  (inirr  to  exhibit  the 

dose  union  between  the  Palestinian  Lcctionary  and  the  Bohairic,  in  no 

leu  than  four  the  I^^ciionar>-  agrees  with  the  Peshitta  entirely  and  in 

tuo  more  partially.     In  fact  I  do  not  know  how  to  describe  the  textual 

[»cts  more  accurately  or  more  tersely  than  in  the  words  of  Dr  Nestle 

at  the  end  of  his  Critical    Notes    to    Mrs  Lewis's  edition   (p.   Ixxiv). 

Dr  NcsUe  sa>*s :   *  There  is  no  Greek  or  other  authority  quoted  by 

Tiidiendorf  for  the  epistles  of  St  Paul,  witli  which  this  Syro-Greek 

Lcctionary  would  agree  in  all  passages  ;  but  it  is  worth  while  to  observe 

howfrequently  it  does  so  with  the  Greek-Laiin  codices  D  F  G  on  the  one 

land,  and  with  the  Syriac  versions  on  the  other '^'. 

We  may  go  yet  a  step  further  with   regard  to  the   origin  of  the 
Uctionaiy.   In  1894  Mrs  Gibson  published  part  of  the  Pauline  Epistles 

'  Before  leaving  Prof.  Marshall  it  may  be  wdl  to  point  out  for  the  benefit  of 
tbose  wfao  do  not  ratd  Syriic  some  of  ihe  maoy  inaccuracies  of  his  trAnsUtion 
ofl  Cor.  xi  2^  tt.  As  the  passj^^c  was  (juutcd  for  textual  and  theulogical  purposes, 
Wdu  ProC  Marshall  liimsclf  ttioaglit  it  necessary  (o  ad>d  '  (itj '  in  brAckcts  after 
tttt  rendering  of  ioijut  lav  Kii-Tjrt  in  v.  2$  to  indicate  the  iibscncc  of  the  pronoun 
Iran  the  Syruc,  a  hrgb  standard  of  pxaclncis  wni  to  have  been  expected, 
t  C«r.  xJ  14,  'ftod  broke  ii  olT',  rrati  'and  bralie'.  The  wont  used  is  the  ordi- 
Bsry  Syriac  term  for  •  to  break  bread  '. 
ti, '  And  so  likewise  ',  mti  '  Likewise  also  '.     Prof.  Marshall  on  p.  443  t  lays 

some  »trcu  on  the  occurrence  of  n/m>  in  certain  placcE. 
»7,  '  Every  one',  reoJ 'Ho  that  everyone'.    The  m.w  of  f^ooo  to  render  fior* 

is  curious  bm  wcCi  established,  e.g.  Matu  x.xjti  31,  3  Cor.  v  16. 
37, '  when  there  is  no  mcecness  in  hii»  ',  rrad  '  and  a  not  worthy  of  it '.     For 

Ihb  eonslrui-tion  see  Matt,  x  37,  3S  and  Heb.  xl  36. 
3(, '  Let '.  fkm/  '  But  I  a*)  let" 

19,  'and  has  no  tneetness',  nWand  is  not  worthy'. 
30.  *  afflicted  *,  r*ad  '  ill  *, 

Ji, '  chastised  '.  rtaci  '  judged  '  (some  word  as  in  v,  31). 
An  ihese  errors  might  liave  been  avoided  by  coiiJultiii|  Mrs  Gibsoa'c  naiiy 
'*^rablc  glossary  to  the  Lcctionary, 


^ 


96  THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

in  Arabic  (Rom. — Eph.  ii  9)  from  a  fragmentaiy  MS  at  Sinai  of  the 
ninth  century.  As  is  often  the  case  with  MSS  of  the  New  Testament 
some  lectionary  rabrics  are  inserted  in  the  text.  The  system  is  neither 
the  present  Byzantine  Lectionary,  nor  that  of  the  Nestoiians,  Jacobites, 
or  Maronites,  but  it  is  closely  akin  to  what  we  find  in  the  Palestinian 
Lectionary.  It  will  be  convenient  to  give  a  tnmslation  of  the  parallel 
rubrics  in  each  document.  The  order  is  that  of  the  Lectionary,  starting 
with  the  first  Sunday  after  PenUeost.  Only  beginnings  of  Lessons  are 
noted,  as  no  clue  is  given  where  the  Lessons  ended  in  the  Arabic 

I.  Rom.  V  I  Pal.     First  Sunday:  to  the  Galatians  (ju*),  from  the 

Epistle{s)  of  St  Paul. 
Ar.      Read  on  the  first  Sunday.    This  is  the  first  of 

the  Lessons. 
For  the  second  Sunday :  to  the  Romans. 
Read  on  the  second  Sunday. 
For  the  third  Sunday :  to  the  Galatians  {sic). 
Read  on  the  third  Sunday. 
For  the  fourth  Sunday :  to  the  Hebrews  (;jV). 
Read  on  the  fourth  Sunday. 
For  the  fifth  Sunday :  to  the  Corinthians. 
Read  on  the  fifth  Sunday. 
For  the  sixth  Sunday  :  to  the  Ephesians. 
Read  on  the  seventh  Sunday '. 
For  the  seventh  Sunday :  to  the  Galatians  (nV). 
Read  on  the  eighth  Sunday. 
For  the  day  of  the  Nativity  of  the  Messiah  to 

the  Galatians  is  read. 
Ar,     Read  the  day  of  the  Nativity  and  the  day  of 

the  Wax-tapers  (ra  ^<wt«)  '. 
36.  I  Cor.  X  r       Pal,    Second  Lesson,  to  the  Corinthians  (at  the 

hallowing  of  the  water  [35],  on  the  night 

of  the  Kalends  in  the  Mass  [34])- 
Ar.     Read  on  the  day  of  the  fast  of  the  Kalends  in 

the  Mass'. 

*  There  is  no  Lesson  in  the  Arabic  for  the  '  Sixth  Sunday ',  so  probably  a  number 
has  been  misread. 

■  Ar.  j^,  Miipot.  The  night  of  the  vigil  of  the  Epiphany  (Jan.  5-6)  is  deariy 
meant,  an  opinion  with  which  I  am  glad  to  say  Mr  Brightman  agrees. 

'  Hr  Brightman  writes  :  '  The  Fast  of  the  Kalends  would  at  first  snggest 
Jan.  I,  which  was  once  kept  as  a  fast  as  a  protest  against  the  pagan  orgies. 
But  here  the  Kalends,  for  whatever  reason,  means  the  vigil  of  the  Epiphany.' 
He  compares  the  uiutna  in  Kaltndis  tanuarii  of  the  Mozarabic  Breviaiy 
(Jan.  3-5),  the  fifth  being  also  itiuHium  Epiphaniat,  Further  research  among 
orthodox  kalendars  may  possibly  bring   to   light  some  other   instance  of  this 


2.  Rom.  vi  3 

Pal 

Ar. 

3.  Rom.  viii  2 

Pal 

Ar. 

4.  Rom.  ix  30 

Pal. 

Ar. 

5.  2  Cor.  V  14 

Pal. 

Ar. 

6.  Eph.  i  17 

Pal. 

Ar. 

7.  Eph.  ii  4 

Pal. 

Ar. 

28.  Gal.  iii  24 

Pal. 

NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


97 


jj.  Rom.  Mv  14    Pal. 


\%  I  COr.  vi  a* 

4I'  Rom.  xii  i 

44-  Rom.  xii  6 

4&  Rom.  xii  16 

f  ].  Rom.  xiii  7 
59"  Eph.  i  J 


For  the  Sunday  of  the  Excommunicalions  *: 

to  the  Romans. 
Read  on  the  Sundayof  the  Excommunications'. 
For  the  serond  Sunday  of  the  Fast :   to  the 

Corinthians. 
Read  on  the  first  Sunday  of  the  Fast 
For  the  third   Sunday  of  the  Fast :    to  the 

Romans. 
Read  on  the  second  Sunday  of  the  Fast. 
For  the  fourth  Sunday  of  the  Fast :   to  the 

Romans. 
Read  on  the  third  Sunday  of  the  Fast 
For   ihc   fifth   Sunday  of  the   Fast :    to  the 

Romans. 
Read  on  the  foarth  Sunday  of  the  Fast. 
[Two  leaves  missing  here.] 
Rcid  on  the  fifth  Sunday  of  the  Fast. 
I      j».  cpu.  I  J  j-ai.     Lesson  from  the  Epistle  that  is  called  of  the 

^H  Ephesians.    (Sunday  of  the  EvAo/ij^^koc 

^^^^^^m  Ar.  Read  on  Palm  Sunday  (ruii'  Bufwv)*. 

^Ti^TSxi  33     A/.  The  Ai^site,  from  (Ep.)  to  the  Corinthians. 
I  [on  Maundy  Thursday.] 

^1  Ar.  For  Great  Thursday. 

"73.  G*l.  vi  14        Pal.  The  Apostle,  from  (Ep.)  to  the  Galatians. 

[on  Good  Friday  (73).] 

Ar.  On  the  day  of  the  FeasI  of  the  Cross*. 

^J6.  I  Cor.  XV  I      Pal.  This  for  Great  Saturday  :  to  the  Romans. 

^P  Ar.  Read  on  the  morning  of  Easter  Sunday  in  the 

^  Mass. 

Thus  the  two  systems  are  practically  identical.     The  only  rubrics  of 
the  Arabic  unrepresented  in  the  Palestinian  Lectionary  are  : — 

PRom.  viii  zS     for  Feasts  of  Martyrs 
I  Cor.  xii  27     for  Feasts  of  Apostles  and  Prophets 
I  Cor.  XV  13,  18,  51     three  Requiem  Lessons  for  the  Dead- 

tiMMBdrntare,  but  in  txty  case  Us  rarity  and  obscurity  is  a  atronE  point  of  contact 
betmui  the  PatcaimUin  Lectionary  and  the  Arabic  MS  at  Sinai. 

^^i-i^Sa^CkXH,  Af.  [tJi/^.  'Tbe  Sunday  uf  tlie  ExcumisunicaLions',  says 
■(•  Brighinau,  'seems  obviously  to  be  the  mpiairi^  n^t  ^jjdoSe^int.  i.e.  the  First 
"■^  In  Lent,  when  all  the  herctica  are  anathematized,  a  ceremony  instituted 
•feftbe  Iconoel«lic  troubles.' 

'  The  Rubric  is  put  at  Eph.  J  I,  but  Uiere  ia  a  Eml  sUr  is  Uie  text  at  v,  ^. 

'  ll  it  o«l  certain  that  Sep.  I4  is  meant. 

VOL.  VL  H 


These  would  naturally  have  come  at  the  end  of  the  Lectionary,  which 
is  now  missing.  If  it  were  complete,  there  is  every  re;ison  to  believe 
that  all  the  rubrics  in  the  Arabic  would  correspond  to  Lessons  in  the 
Syriac  Lectionary.  On  the  other  band,  the  four  following  Lessons  in 
the  Syriac  are  unrepresented  in  the  Arabic : — 

17.  Rom.  i  I        Sunday  before  the  Nativity 

18,  Rom,  {ii  19    St  Basil 

77.  Rom.  T  6        Sixth  I^-sson  for  Maundy  Thursday 
79.  I  Cot.  i  iS.    Eighth  Lesson  for  Maundy  Thursday. 

Agabst  these  trifling  differences  we  have  to  set  the  many  curioas 
agreements,  such  as  the  beginning  of  the  year  after  Pentecost,  the 
mention  of  the  'Kalends'  and  the  Sunday  of  the  Excommuni- 
cations. Common  usage  of  this  sort  points  to  a  common  local  Use. 
I  venture  to  think  that  there  can  be  no  further  doubt  that  the  locality 
was  the  Convent  on  Mount  Sinai,  and  that  Mrs  Lewis  and  Mrs  Gibson 
were  in  every  way  well  advised  when  they  published  the  Lectionary  in 
S/uJia  Sinaitica. 

Of  course  it  may  be  many  years  since  the  MS  was  at  the  Convent ; 
indeed  it  is  conceivable  that  it  never  was  there,  but  was  made  in  Cairo 
for  the  use  of  the  establishment  that  the  Sin.iidc  community  have  long 
kept  up  in  the  capital  of  Egypt.  The  Abbot  of  Sin.-ii  habitually  lives 
not  on  Mount  Sinai  but  in  Cairo,  so  that  his  household  actually 
needed  to  use  the  Nile  service,  and  it  seems  to  me  highly  probable 
that  the  Palestinian  Syriac  community  of  Egypt,  for  whom  the  Liturgy 
cf  the  IfiU  was  drawn  up,  consisted  of  members  or  dependants  of  the 
Sinaitic  community.  In  that  case  the  Liturgy  of  ike  Niie  is  older  than 
the  ninth  century,  for  no  prayer  is  made  in  it  for  the  Archbishop  of 
Sinai,  a  dignity  which  the  Abbot  of  the  great  Convent  has  enjoyed  since 
that  period  with  very  few  intermissions.  However  that  may  be,  it  does 
rot  affect  the  identity  of  the  I,.ection  system  found  in  the  Falestiniaii 
Praxapestolos  and  in  the  ancient  Arabic  MS  at  Sinai.  This  is  probably 
the  oldest  Byzantine  Table  of  Church  Lessons  of  which  we  have  any 
detailed  information.  The  Kalcndar  found  in  the  Palestinian  Syriac 
MSS  which  have  an  ultimate  connexion  with  'AbiHd  is  diiferent  and 
very  much  nearer  to  the  modern  Byzantine  arrangeraent. 

It  should  also  be  added  that  the  Palestinian  Lectionary  and  the  Arabic 
MS  at  Sinai  arc  quite  different  in  their  textual  cha.racter.  Both  are 
translations  from  the  Greek,  but  they  have  very  few  readings  or  render- 
ings in  common.  Thus  the  preceding  investigation  cannot  claim  to 
throw  much  direct  light  upon  the  first  beginnings  of  the  Palestinian 
version  of  the  Bible. 

F.   C   BURKITT. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


99 


\OmS  OF  LITURGICAL  LECTIONS  AND  GOSPELS. 

I-mntGicAL  students  arc  familiar  with  the  fact  that  excerpts  from 
Ibe  Scriptures,  read  in  the  course  of  the  Liturgy  as  Lections,  are  sub- 
ject to  a  somewhat  elaborate  system  of  introductor>'  formulae.  These 
fonoulae  may  repay  some  investigation  and  analysis.  They  may  have 
M  their  origin  in  an  intention  to  identify  the  position  of  the  selected 
pmage,  when  the  absence  of  division  of  Scripture  into  chapters  and 
ftna  necessitated  some  other  method  of  indicating  the  source  of  the 
passage  read.  They  are  obviously  of  great  antiquity,  since  the  East 
and  West  are  in  very  close  accord  in  their  use  and  application  ;  and 
with  reference  to  the  prophetic  introduction,  St  Chrysostom  in  his 

IUoBulies  on  the  Acts,  and  on  2  Thessaloniana '  alludes  to  it  as  existent 
in  his  time. 
The  formulae  themselves  arc  these : 
For  Prophetical  passages, 
Haec  dicit  Dominus  T(i3t  Xiyu  Kvpiot 

For  Historical  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  (even  if  taken  from 
Prophetical  Books), 
In  diebus  illis  iy  rw  ^fiipat^  iKtivms 

For  I^cssons  taken  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
In  diebus  iltis  iv  raTt  ^fUpsut  iMivais 

For  Epistles  taken  from  the  writings  of  St  Paul, 

IFratres  i&tXi^oC 

For  Epistles  taken  from  the  Catholic  Epistles, 
Carissimi  ayamfroi  or  iScX^oi* 

For  Epistles  taken  from  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
Canssime  <    ,       „. 

\  T*mOV  1(T€ 
Tor  Lessons  taken  from  the  Book  of  Revelation, 
In  diebus  illis  No  lections  from  this  Book. 

These  formulae,  it  is  fairly  evident,  arc  a.11:,  with  the  possible  exception 
of '  In  diebus  illis '  in  the  case  of  Historical  Prophetic  readings,  derived 
from  expressions  freely  employed  in  the  various  sources  of  the  lections 
themselves. 


'  Quoted  liy  Binghain  Christian  Antiquiti^x  book  xJv  J  S. 

*  The  Creek  me  is  a  lilUe  indctemiinalc  in  the  cnsc  of  lh«  Epistle  of  Si  James, 
,  formulae  being  employed,  without  any  very  appttrcDt  rcasun  for  the  difference. 

U  2 


1 


lOO        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

There  is  one  definite  exception,  always,  to  the  use  of  these  proems. 
A  lection  from  the  commencement  of  a  book  or  epistle  b^;ins,  as 
in  the  text,  with  the  Pauline  or  other  salutation.  Another  excepticHi, 
the  reason  for  which  is  not  obvious,  is  that  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  the  lection  is  not  invariably,  though  it  is  generally,  b^un  with 
the  word  'AScX^ 

A  tendency  is  manifest  in  the  Latin  Missal  to  round  <^  etulings,  as 
well  as  to  make  b^nnings :  and  when  it  can  be  conveniently  done 
the  words  'per  Dominum  nostrum  lesum  Christum'  are  added  to 
New  Testament  passages,  while  *  dicit  Dominus  Omnipotens '  is  some- 
times appended  to  Prophetic  excerpts.  Is  this  possibly  the  cue  for 
some  response  from  the  congr^ation,  *  Iaus  Deo ',  '  Deo  gratias ',  or 
something  of  that  kind  ? 

There  remain  still  to  be  examined  the  formulae  employed  in  intro- 
ducing the  Liturgical  Gospels.  Here  also  there  is  a  suflSdently  close 
correspondence  between  the  customs  of  the  East  and  the  West  to 
indicate  identity  of  origin,  and  yet  some  minor  differences  which  may 
point  to  something  more  than  the  idiosyncrasies  of  the  different  Church 
systems. 

The  opening  verses  of  any  of  the  Four  Gospels  are  announced  in  the 
Latin  Church  as  follows : 

'  Initium  sancti  evangelii  secundum  Matthaeum,  Marcnm,  Lucam', 
or  *  loannem ',  as  the  case  may  be. 

Later  passages  have  the  heading 
*  Sequentia  sancti  evangelii  secundum '  etc. 

In  the  Greek  Gospel  Book,  the  heading  in  either  case  is  merely 

'Ek  rou  Kara  Mar^otov,  etc. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  Epistles,  an  'Initium*  has  no  proem;    a 
'  Sequentia '  almost  always  has. 

The  Latin  use  in  all  cases  where  there  is  a  proem  is  to  be^  it  with 
the  words  '  In  illo  tempore ' :  and  when  the  substance  of  the  pert- 
cope  so  introduced  is  a  parable  or  discourse  there  follows  *  dixit 
lesus',  then  words  descriptive  of  the  persons  addressed,  e.g. 
'  Dixit  lesus  discipulis  suis ',  with  a  further  addition  sometimes 
of  '  parabolam  banc '.  Of  these  latter  formulae  there  are  some- 
times variants :  *  Dicebat  lesus ',  *  Locutus  est  lesus  . . .  dicens ', 
and  *  Loquebatur  lesus  .  . .  dicens  *.* 
The  only  exceptions,  however,  to  the  use  of  the  formula '  In  illo 
tempore*  are  the  cases  where  some  specific  time-note  is  given 
in  the  text  of  the  Gospel  itself: 

^  See  Note  A  at  end  of  article. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


lot 


fcg.  'Sequentia  Sancti  Evangelit  secundum  Lucam*. 
'Anno  quinto  decimo  imperii  Tibcrii  Caesaris',  etc 
or  '  Sequentia  Sancti  Evangclii  secundum  Matihaeum  *. 
'Cum  esset  desponsata  mater  Icsu  Maria  loseph,  antequam 
coDvenirent ',  etc 
The  Greek  formulae  are  these  : 

T«r  KaifM  iKtirf  and  Eiirti'  £  Kvptot. 

TTiese,  howerer,  are  never  combined :  a  veptKor^  begins  with  one 
or  other  of  them,  not  both. 

ETnv  o  Kv/xcK  occurs  either  absolutely  unexpandcd,  being  fol- 
lowed immediately  by  the  passage  from  the  text,  or  in  com- 
bination with  one  of  four  settings  : 

ETrtr  6  Kvpios  r^v  irapafioXifv  ravnjv 
TOK  lavTou  fiaOrfTiUK 
irpof  TOUT  irnrioTfvKOTa^  air^  lotiSo/out 
wjjoT  Tot's  i\i]\\BvTixv  wp6%  ouToi*  'loiSai'ow. 

The  exceptions  to  the  use  of  the  indeterminate  time  formula  are 
iiiail&r  to  those  of  the  Latin  rite.  It  is  not  used  at  the  opening  verses 
of  the  Gospels,  and  disappears  in  favour  of  a  specific  time-note. 

These  Greek  formulae  bring  into  marked  prominence  a  similarity 
between  the  introductions  of  the  Gospel  and  Prophetic  lections, 
which  the  Latin  use  exhibits  less  forcibly,  since  for  iv  raU  ^fiiixut 
lutivtut  vtc  have  t^  xac^y  iKuvtf,  and  for  raSt  kcyti  K.vpio9  we  have 
iliro-  o  Kvpioi,  a  more  obvious  correspondence  than  in  the  form 
'lesus  dixit'.  This  seems  to  point  to  a  deliberate  adoption  of 
these  '  incipits ',  and  a  studied  conformity  to  the  method  of  com- 
mencing Prophetic  lections ' :  and  hence  suggests  that  they  did  not 
arise,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Epistle  lections,  from  characteristic  phrases 
in  the  text  itself.  It  is  also  remarkable  thai  the  same  forms  arc  used 
Fin  the  case  of  all  the  four  Gospels ;  although  there  is  no  use  of  the 
phrase  r^  xaip<ji  cVc^i^,  or  its  equivalents,  by  St  John*. 

'  The  opcmiigor  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  an  app&rent  allusion  to  lomethinir 
of  this  kind: 

no\tifttfian  Mai  ■aAurp^tro't  vdAtu 

{ir  ToTi  ifiUpats  htlvaii) 
i  &tiit  XaX^af  rcn'i  warpiaiy  tr  Twr 
wpo^na  (r&6*  Xiyti  KOfuas) 
Jr*  lax^rani  rwv  ^litpS/y  roiranr 

(fjaff  i  Kiptot,  or  i  'lijcovt'i. 
*  Fferlups  Tew  hav«  r«alued  hnw  Inr^ely  these  formulae  have  left  traeeis  in  the 
openings  of  the  Sunday  or  Holyday  Gospds  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
There  are  ten,  to  which  are  prefixed  th«  words  '  Jeaus  said'  or  'Jesus  said  unto 


a 


I02  THE  JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

This  brings  us  to  the  point  of  asking  how,  if  these  are  really  intro- 
dactory  formuhe,  they  have  found  their  way,  either  in  exact  transcription, 
or  in  fairly  obvious  adaptation,  into  the  text  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
Assuming  that  St  Mark's  Gospel  is  the  oldest  compilation,  as  is  most 
gencnUly  admitted,  it  is  remarkable  that  it  opens  with  the  formula  now 
liturgically  employed  in  announcing  the  opening  passage  of  any  of  the 
four  Gosfiels.  'Apj^  tov  tdoyycXiov^  In  ilium  Evangelii  (lesu  Christi}: 
and  it  strikes  one  on  finding  the  phrase  in  its  own  place,  that  the 
added  words  '  secundum  Mattbaeum ',  etc,  seem  forced  and  strained, 
as  though  a  phrase  already  familiar,  which  had  indeed  become  conse- 
crated to  union  with  the  Name  of  Jesus  Christ,  must  be  somewhat 
awkwardly  adapted  to  connect  itself  with  the  name  of  a  compiler. 
This  however  is  an  issue  rather  apart  from  the  main  thesis  of  this 
study  of  the  'indefinite  time-note',  and  its  place  in  the  text  of  the 
Erangeltsts.  St  Mark  has  it  twice  in  the  fonn  iv  jxic'rats  rah  ^jfUpoi^. 
In  chap,  i  g  it  introduces  the  narrative  of  our  Lord's  Baptism  by 
St  John ;  and  in  ^lii  i  it  introduces  the  miracle  of  Feeding  the  Four 
Thousand.  It  is  interesting  to  find  it  here,  as,  if  the  theory  advanced 
is  accepted,  it  affords  an  indication  of  the  way  in  which  two  separate 
traditions  of  the  same  incident  came  to  be  incorporated  in  one  com- 
pilation. Both  were  current  in  the  Church,  and  this  one  is  adopted 
into  the  text,  with  its  own  prefatory  words. 

In  iv  35  the  phrase  Kal  Xr/ci  avroU  tv  iKtirjf  rp  "ffl^po.  &^*a%  ywvOfMyjjv, 
vhich  introduces  the  miracle  of  the  Sdlhng  of  the  Tempest,  looks 
like  an  editorial  modinotiiun  of  the  formula.  The  parallel  passage 
in  St  Luke  [viii   23]  has   another  modification,  namely   ^  fu^  rZv 

There  is,  perhaps,  one  more  passage  in  this  Gospel  in  which  the 
formula  appears,  aJthough  it  is  less  obvious,  and  probably  more  dis- 
putaiile,  namely  in  H  20,  where  the  days  of  the  Bridegroom's  departure 
are  foretold  by  our  Lord  with,  in  St  Mark,  the  phrase  to«  njorwirouo-ii' 
tv  iKtivr)  r^  yjfUpq.:  St  Luke  V  35  has  tot*  vTiartva-ovcra'  iv  iKtivai^  toI* 
■^fiipai^;  but  the  account  in  St  Matthew  terminates  with  the  word 
vrtarcvtrava-tv.  The  removal  of  the  full  stop,  in  Si  Luke,  from  its  place 
after  ^fitpait  to  >nj<rT«J(rov<rn',  would  leave  the  formula,  naturally 
enough,  at  the  beginning  of  the  paragraph  about  the  New  Cloth 
and  the  Old  Garment.  A  similar  readjustment  would  not  suffice  in 
St  Mark ;  but  it  is,  perhaps,  not  unlikely  thai  the  words  liave  been  brought 

Mil  disciples':  namely  those  for  St  John  the  Evanueliat,  Fifth  Sunday  In  Lent, 
Second  Sunday  after  Easter,  Third  Suniiay  after  EasUr,  Fourth  Sunday  after 
Easter,  Whiuunday,  Sixth  Sunday  after  Tniiity.  NinUi  Sunday  after  Trinity. 
Twentieth  Sunday  after  Trinity,  SS.  Philip  aad  James.  There  arc  fourteen  others 
In  which  lEie  Hdy  Name  is  substituted  for  '  He '  or  '  HJm '  in  ilie  A.  V. 


i 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


103 


I 
I 


iD»  their  present  place  editoriall;^,  from  the  opening  of  the  next  passage : 
some  phrase  like  ttinv  o  'Iijuovs  having  been  dropped  in  the  process. 

The  Matthew  Gospel  contains  more  numerous  instances.  'Er  &i 
na  ^fiipaK  iKtiyaK  (iii  i)  introduces  the  narrative  of  St  John  Baptist's 
pffitching :  'Ev  iittiyy  Tif  niup^  (xi  2$)  iinngs  in  that  passage  '  I  thank 
Thte,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  th.it  Thou  hast  hidden 
these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent ',  which  produces  the  impression 
of  the  introduction  of  something  from  a  Johannine  source  into  the 
UKam  of  the  Synoptic  story.  Here  again  St  Luke,  who  introduces 
the  same  passage  (in  x  ai),  uses  a  variant  proem,  iv  avrg  7-^  iZptf. 

TEf  ««(«'wj.  T<p  «(upw  {xii  i)  introduces  the  incident  of  the  ears  of 
corn  on  the  Sabbath,  where  St  Luke  has  the  mysterious  Stx/rtftonfiturw, 
vhich  can  hardly  be  anything  else  but  an  importation  from  the  heading 
of  a  pericope. 

And  the  same  words  preface  the  account  of  the  martyrdom  of 
St  John  Baptist  (xiv  i). 

The  group  of  Parables  in  xiii  has  the  introductory  phrase  "Ev  &i 
rg  ^fup^  intivj],  vhich  also  occurs  in  xxii  33,  preluding  the  question 
of  the  Sadducees  concerning  the  Resurrection. 

Except  for  the  fact  that  we  find  St  Luke  using  the  phrase  o-  airr^  r^ 
ifif  {x  at,  see  above)  as  the  equivalent  for  iv  iKtiv<^  ry  ittup%  it 
might  seem  overbold  to  attribute  a  similar  origin  to  the  two  remaining 
pissages;  but  with  that  clear  link  one  may  perhaps  quote  *Ei/  iit*<rjf 
r^  Zpq.  (xviit  1),  the  introductory  phrase  in  the  narrative  of  the 
dispute  as  to  'the  Greatest  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven',  and  again 
*£»■  iKttr^  r^  ip^  (xxvi  55),  in  the  course  of  the  narrative  of  the 
Passion,  followed  by  'Are  ye  come  out  as  against  a  thief,  &c.  This 
looks  hkc  a  perfect  Liturgical  proem,  with  its  'setting",  for  the  whole 
passage  runs 

^m     *  In  ilTo  tempore  dixit  lesus  turbis.' 

^M  The  preface  to  St  Luke  of  itself  raises  the  issue  whether  the  compiler 
^■docs  not  mean  to  state  that  his  work  is  based  upon  an  orderly  arrange- 
ment of  pericopes,  with  specific  time-notes  supphed  as  far  as  possible 
from  private  research  and  information.  If  such  a  conjecture  is  well 
founded,  we  get  the  first  glimpse  uf  its  operation  in  the  passage 
immediately  following  the  introduction,  where  possibly  the  usual 
formula  occurs  in  the  words  (i  5)  cv  toTs  ^/Atpan,  and  is  then  broken 
off  to  substitute  the  definite  statement  'Wpt^ov  ^adiXimt  rrfi  'luuSouic 
for  the  indefinite  iKtlvtm  or  rovmis  of  the  authority  employed. 
In  i  39  'Ev  rate  V<^k  ravrai;  Mary  visits  Elizabeth. 

*  Sec  not«  A,  at  the  dose,  for  examples  of  these  '  settings'. 


» 


J 


ii  I  'Ey  TCrt  ^fjiipa*s  ixuyats  there  went  out  a  decree  from  Caesar 

Augustus. 
Ti  13  'Ef  rai;  rjfUfxut  ravratt  Jesus,  after  spending  the  night 

in  prayer,  appoints  the  Twelve. 
T  17  "Ev  /ii^  rHv  ftfupwy  He  heals  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  and 
viii  3  2  Stills  the  Tempest ;  while  in 
XX  I  "Ev  fii^  Twv  ^{itp^v  iVdVujv  He  is  challenged  as  to  Hia 

authority  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 

And  in  xxiii  7  the  phrase  iv  ravrtut  nuc  ^{lipan  18  introduced  in 
the  course  of  the  narrative  of  the  transfer  of  Jesus  by  Pilate  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  Herod.  This  passage  is  peculiar  to  St  Luke, 
and  it  might  have  been  expected  that  it  would  have  been 
introduced  by  this  foimula,  if  the  theory  were  well  founded. 
But  the  presence  of  the  words  at  the  end  of  Ihe  sentence  is 
perhaps  as  strong  an  indication  of  origin,  though  a  little  veiled ; 
for  undoubtedly  the  editor  of  St  Luke  worked  over  his  materials 
to  a  considerable  extent 

The  interpolation  contains  two  instances : 

In  xiii  I  'Ev  avr^  t^  xatpiL  Our  Lord  recei%'es  Ihe  report  of  the 
massacre  of  the  Galilaeans,  and 

xlit  31  'Ev  avrp  ttJ  T/fupff  is  warned  by  the  Pharisees  that  Herod 
is  seeking  to  kill  him. 

Btit  if  the  interpolation  is  somewhat  poor  in  examples  of  the  indefinite 
lime-note,  it  is  very  difficult  to  read  it  and  study  its  connecting-links, 
without  gaining  the  impression  that  the  matter  of  it  is  derived  firom 
pericopes,  originally  introduced  by  the  other  Liturgical  formula,  Etro- 
i  Kvpioi,  or  possibly  a  form  of  it  akin  to  the  Western  'lesus  dixit', 
ECircv  Q  'lijcrois.  There  may  be  a  trace  of  it  in  the  editorial  intro- 
duction to  the  delivery  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  xi  1-3 ;  but  it  certainly 
occurs  boldly  in  xii  42  Etirev  o  Kv'^<m  'Who  then  is  that  faithful  and 
wise  servant?'  Here  it  occurs  apparently  as  an  answer  to  a  question 
put  by  St  Peter;  and  in  xvii  6,  again  in  answer  to  words  addressed  to 
him,  Elirev  &i  0  KvptoK,  'If  ye  had  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard  &eed'. 
Possibly  in  either  case  the  previous  address  is  introduced  by  the  editor 
to  account  for  the  use  of  the  word  Krpiw  in  the  formuLij  which  might 
appear  a  little  strange  and  unusual  if  it  occurred  bluntly  in  the  narrative, 
without  some  preparation  for  it.  The  two  parables  in  chapter  xviii 
are  introduced  with  phrases  which  summarize  their  purport  in  a  manner 
almost  wholly  liturgical — 'l-^^ty*  5c  itai  w«^/3oX»;i'  avnU,  that  men  ought 
always  to  pray  and  not  to  faint,  prefacing  the  siory  of  the  importunate 
widow ;  and  at  verse  9  f^wtv  £c  teal  irpov  riva;  rovs  irrrot^orai  itft  iavrwv 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  105 

on  curcv  Sutaiot  Ktu  i(ov$tvowTas  rov«  Xoiirovc  rrpf  mpa^Xi/if  Tavnp', 
which  introduces  the  story  of  the  Pharisee  and  Publican '.  It  is,  how- 
ever, clearly  less  possible  to  identify  this  fonn  of  proem  than  the  other. 
Fot,  although  paragraph  after  paragraph  of  St  Luke's  interpolation 
begins  with  the  words  ttmy  84,  which  may  indicate  an  original  cTn-o' 
6  KvpuK  or  o  'hjoms,  on  the  other  hand  similar  connective  forms  are 
to  be  found  in  the  homogeneous  Gospel  of  St  John,  from  which  the 
other  formula  is  absent. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  supplies  four  instances  of  the  employment 
of  the  formula ;  all  in  those  earlier  chapters  which  must  depend  upon 
some  documentary  basis,  if  the  theory  be  accepted  that  the  later  portion 
of  the  book  is  the  result  of  the  personal  experiences  of  a  companion 
of  St  Paul.  %•  TOts  ^fitpoK  ravTOic  St  Peter  stands  up  to  take  action 
as  to  the  election  of  St  Matthias  (Acts  i  15).  "Ei-  Si  row  ^fUpai^  ravran 
the  strife  arose  between  the  Grecians  and  the  Hebrews,  which  is  the 
prelude  of  the  martyrdom  of  St  Stephen  (Acts  vi  i).  "Ev  ravraw  Si 
ms  ^fUpan  Prophets  came  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch  and  Agabus 
foretold  the  dearth-  Kar  iKtivov  Si  rov  Kotpov  Herod  the  king  stretched 
forth  his  hand  to  vex  certain  of  the  Church  {Acts  xii  i). 

In  three  of  these  cases  it  is  noticeable  that  the  formula  introduces 
the  history  of  a  saint  or  a  martyrdom,  which  might  well  have  been 
topics  of  liturgical  commemoration.  The  fourth  is  more  difficult  to 
place;  but  it  may  be  connected  with  the  James  martyrdom,  which 
follows  hard  upon  it;  or  it  may  have  attracted  the  formula  as  a 
definite  predictive  Christian  prophecy,  recited  on  that  account  during 
tbe  liturgy. 

In  the  valuable  edition  of  St  Luke's  Gospel,  by  Dr  Arthur  Wright, 
almost  all  the  passages  quoted  in  support  of  the  theory  of  a  definite 
litu^cal  origin  for  certain  portions  of  the  narratives  are  enclosed  in 
the  square  brackets  [  ]  which  indicate  editorial  notes.  So  far,  there- 
fore, the  theory  that  they  are  foreign  to  the  general  course  of  the 
itvrative  has  solid  support.  But  they  are  Synoptic  rather  than  individual 
phenomena ;  and  this  at  once  places  them  on  a  footing  different  from 
tlm  of  an  idiosyncrasy  of  personal  style.  St  John's  indefinite  time-note 
•s  generally  Mcro  ravra,  a  phrase  which  occurs  with  sufficient  frequency 
^  in  the  Synoptists  to  indicate  it  as  a  natural  and  normal  con- 
JUQctive  use. 

It  is  to  the  sources  therefore  themselves  that  we  must  turn  for  the 
'^^n  of  a  use,  common  to  the  Synoptic  editors,  and  absent  from 
^t  John.  It  would  be  improbable,  if  these  were  in  any  large  measure 
^itu^cal,  that  the  junctions  of  separate  pericopes  should  be  wholly 
obscured.     However  excellent  workmanship  may  be,  joints  and  selvages 

*  See  note  A  it  end  of  article. 


106  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

have  a  tendency  to  betray  themselves  ;  and  it  is  the  belief  of  the  writer 
of  this  paper  that  these  selvages,  compared  with  ancient  and  widespread 
liturgical  custom,  do  indicate  that  the  sources  employed  had  already, 
at  llie  time  of  their  embodiment  in  connected  narrative,  been  cast  in 
liturgicaJ  form,  and  in  that  form  attained  ecclesiastical  publicity. 

The  fact  that  such  publicity  belonged  to  the  earlier  chapters  of 
St  Luke  would  be  of  more  than  common  interest,  and  would  take  back 
the  discussion  of  them  Uj  their  substance  rather  than  to  their  manner 
of  presentment. 

The  writer  hopes  that  if  he  has  not — as  he  does  not  claim  to  have — 
proved  his  theory,  he  has  at  least  advanced  it  beyond  the  stage  of  mere 
conjecture. 

P.  H.  Droostew. 


Note  A. 


In  the  Greek  EvayytAioK  the  fonnula  E'lrev  o  KvpuK  occurs  elth^^^. 

absolutely  by  itself,  being  immediately  followed  by  the  passage  (tom-^-^ 

the  text,  or  with  one  of  these  four  'settings' — 

E-hrt»  o  KvpLot  njv  ^rapaffokifv  Tavn]V 

rati  toiToir  fiaOijTali 

irpoB  Toiit  jrtvttrTCuieoTai  air^  'lovSnZou? 

irpos  Tovs  iXjjXvdorav  Trpos  avriiv^  'luuSot'ow. 

The  Western  use  is  much  more  varied,  and  the  formula  itself  is  k 

rigid. 

Dixit  lesus  discipulis  suis 

discipults  suis  parabolam  hanc 

Pharisaeis 

Sadducaeis 

Pharisaeis  et  Scribis  parabolam  istam 

Pharisaeis  parabolam  banc 

turbis  ludaeorum 

turbis  parabolam  banc 

turbis  ludaeorum  et  principibus  saccrdotuni 
parabolam  tianc 

Petro 

Simoni  Petro 

Nicodemo 
Diccbat  Icsus  Scribis  et  Pharisaeis 

turbis  hanc  similitudinem 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


107 


iTesus      ad  turhas  ct  ad  disn'piilos  suos  diccns 
turbis  ludaeorum  diccns 
Loquebatur  lesus       principibus  sacerdotum  et  Pharisaets  in  para- 
bo  lis  diccns. 
But,  as  stated  in  ilie  body  of  the  article,  these  more  varied  Western 
fonw  are  all  preceded  by  the  invariable  '  In  ilio  tempore '. 

Compare  these  with  the  opening  of  the  Prayer  Book  Gospel  for 
St  Mallhias'  Day  'At  that  time  Jesus  answered  and  said'. 
Would  it  not  be  almost  impossible,  without  referring  to  the 
A.  v.,  to  say  offhand  whether  this  wctc  an  application  of  the 
fonnula,  remaining  in  the  Prayer  Uook,  or  a  direct  quotation 
from  the  ic«  itself? 


^ 


BAPTISM  BY  AFFUSION  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH. 


wha 
^kas 


In  his  Note  1  on  the  Didaehe  in  the  July  number  of  l\\e/oumaJ  of 
Theological  Studies,  Dr  Ui^jg  has  repeated  the  old  arguments  from 
literature  in  favour  of  the  theory  that  for  the  first  four  or  five  centuries 
baptism  by  submersion  was  the  usual  practice.  These  seem  to  be 
based  on  the  assumption  that  KaroMuv  and  mergerc  must  necessarily 
mean  to  submerge.  If  this  is  assumed,  it  is  of  course  easy  to  establish 
what  has  already  been  taken  for  granted. 

He  has,  it  is  true,  appealed  to  the  witness  of  archaeology,  which  at 
t  must  be  taken  into  account  in  considering  the  question.  But  he 
only  refers  to  four  out  of  the  nine  certiin  ruprcsentations  of  the  rite  that 
have  been  found  in  the  Catacombs,  and  these  he  dismisses  in  a  some- 
what summary  manner.  One  of  the  Ravenna  mosaics  is  mentioned, 
but  no  allusion  is  made  to  symbolic  representations,  or  to  the  various 
baptismal  scenes,  on  sarcophagi,  ivories,  medals,  &c.  The  still  more 
conclusive  proof  against  the  theory  of  submersion,  that  can  be  drawn 
from  a  consideration  of  the  depth  of  ancient  fonts,  is  entirely  ignored. 

I  considered,  I  think,  all  the  points  that  he  mentions,  in  writing  my 
Baptism  and  Christian  Arcftafology,  published  last  year  as  part  of 
Studio  Biblica  by  the  Clarendon  Press,  though  it  was  not  my  object 
to  collect  passages  which  seemed  to  me  from  the  ambiguity  of  the 
language  to  throw  no  real  light  on  the  question.  The  passage  in 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  which  Dr  Bigg  quotes,  escaped  my  notice,  but  it 
describes  baptism  as  being  administered  exactly  as  it  is  represented  in 
early  Christian  art. 


May  I  take  this  opixirtunity  of  correcting  some  drors,  and  adding 
a  few  points  to  what  I  then  wrote? 

In  describing  the  fresco  in  the  crypt  of  Lucina  (c.  too  a.  d.)  1  had 
originally  written  : 

'  The  water  flows  over  the  feet  of  the  Saviour.  The  horizon  line  of 
water  runs  behind  His  neck,  but  is  not  intended  to  represent  water 
covering  His  body,  as  in  that  case  the  Baptist  would  be  in  the  water 
too ;  nor  can  the  water  be  intended  to  rise  to  the  Saviour's  waist,  as 
in  De  Rossi's  engraving,  as  then  the  land  on  which  he  stands  would 
be  submerged.' 

In  writing  this  I  had  followed  De  Rossi  and  Garrucci.  I  altered 
it  on  reading  A.  de  Waal's  article  in  the  Romisciu  Quartahchri/t,  to 
which  I  referred,  and  my  outline  iilu.stration  was  taken  from  the  half-tone 
block  accompanying  his  text.  Unfortunately  owing  to  its  high  actinic 
power,  the  blue  of  the  water  did  not  come  out  in  the  photographic 
reproduction.  The  splashes  of  water  round  the  head  of  the  catechumen 
in  the  fresco  in  the  GallcEy  of  the  Sacraments  also  disappeared  in  his 
picture,  but  I  had  observed  them  myself  in  the  original,  while  I  failed  to 
see  the  fresco  in  the  crypt  of  Lucina.  The  publication  of  Mgr.  Wilpcrt's 
coloured  illustration  in  his  recent  work  Die  Ma/ereUn  der  Katakomben 
Horns  shews  that  Garrucci's  engraving  was  more  accurate  on  this  point, 
and  that  my  words  as  originally  written  were  substantially  correct. 

Two  entirely  new  examples  from  the  Catacombs  arc  published  in  this 
work.  In  one  the  water  rises  as  high  as  the  knees,  but  olherwist:  they 
present  no  variation  of  type,  though  they  confirm  the  accepted  inter- 
pretation of  the  fresco  in  the  crypt  of  Lucina  as  really  picturing  out 
Lord's  Baptism.  They  date  from  the  first  half,  or  the  middle,  of  the 
third  century. 

The  fresco  in  St  Domitilla  mentioned  on  my  p.  245  is  also  published, 
as  well  as  the  painting  in  the  same  place,  which,  owing  to  Garrucci's 
incorrect  copy  (tav.  xxxiii  3),  has  hitherto  piasscd  for  a  scene  of 
benediction,  but  is  now  clearly  pro%'ed  to  be  a  baptismal  scene- 

Of  the  other  three  doubtful  representations  given  by  me  on  p.  255, 
although  interpreted  by  Wilpert  as  picturing  the  miracle  of  healing  the 
blind,  the  first  two  seem  to  me  more  probably  to  be  bapdsmal  scenes, 
as  in  the  healing  of  the  blind  the  sufferer  is  represented  kneeling 
(though  not  on  sarcophagi,  ii  is  true);  while  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
adding  the  third  to  the  list  of  baptismal  scenes,  as  the  fact  that  the 
catechumen  is  clothed  is,  as  I  have  shewn,  no  objection  to  so  inter- 
preting it.  Mr  Bannister,  in  a  notice  in  the  Nistoricai  Review,  July,  1904, 
P-  5^5-  points  out  that  another  such  example,  in  addition  to  those  I  have 
quoted,  has  been  discovered  by  Mgr.  Galarte  at  Naples. 

I  much  regret  that  my  Exx.  11  and  12  from  the  gold  treasure  of 


r 

I  ' 

r    cp 

I      An.t 
Ru 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 

Stoiga^ia  arc  taten  from  a  forgery.  Of  this  I  have  no  doubt  after 
reading  Grisar's  JI  ttsoro  4ti  Cav.  Rossi  (Rome,  1895),  which  had 
esaped  my  notice.  This,  howwer,  is  of  liiile  importance,  as  the  objects, 
eva  if  genuine,  would  have  been  of  the  seventh  or  eighth  century,  and 
unique.  They  would  have  supplied  little  evidence  as  to  the  custom  of 
the  early  Church. 

Id  attributing  the  relief  at  Monza  to  c  700  a.  d.  I  followed,  as 
I  thought,  Strzygowski's  dating  in  his  Iconographtt  der  Taufe  Christi. 
I  bare  since  had  an  opportunity  of  examining  it,  and  see  that  it  is 
obviously  of  a  later  period,  probably  of  the  fourteenth  century.  This 
beings  it  into  line  with  many  other  mediaeval  representations  where  the 
«uer  rises  in  a  heap,  a  feature  which  is  possibly  connected  with  the  idea 
that  gre«'  up  in  later  times  that  submersion  was  the  more  correct  method 
of  administration. 

Much  fuller  information  as  to  African  fonts  than  was  available  when 
I  wrote,  can  be  found  in  S.  Gsell's  Les  monumittts  auHquts  de  PAlgirU. 
These  are  mostly  of  the  fifth  or  sixth  centuries,  and  are  eleven  in  number. 
Tbc  following  should  be  added  to  my  list  on  p.  349  : 


r            Place. 

Shape. 

Date. 

Diameter. 

Depth. 

Ain  Zirtim 

drcnlar 

C.5IS 

the  bottom  nude 

of  one  block 

» 

Cutigliooa 

aqsare,.  with  s 
circular  tuBJa 

l-io  m. 

•j-o  m. 

Got)^ 

eircular 

cSo  tD. 

I  ra. 

Haiifou  a  RuBguBise 

»qu«r« 

Ic.  400 

? 

0'6s  m. 

Ucssncfa 

circuUr 

surraunded  by  a 
step  0'40  in.  high 

! 

Nofwtt 

sqatre 

0.9  J  m. 

0-84  m. 

&di  Femicti 

square,    with 

circular  Inuia 

r-jom. 

r.75  m. 
outside 

StUtgue 

circular 

1 

1  m. 

1 

Cp.  also  Cabrol's  Dutionnaire  d^ArcfUohgie  Chrititnne  et  de  Uturgie^ 
Aft.  Afrique,  XXI.  Baptistircs,  p.  702. 

Ruined  baptisteries  of  an  earlier  dale  are  mentioned  by  Strzygowski 

m  bis  KUinasien,  tin  Neuland  dtr  KunstgtscMchte^  p.  a6,  and  on  p.  14 

Mr  j.  W.  Crowfoot  speaks  of  'a  small  baptistery  with  a  font  and  drain', 

among  the  ruins  of  Binbirkilisse.  but  no  exact  measurements  are  given. 

On  p.  33  of  Strzygowski's  Der  Dom  zu  Aachtn  he  pul)Iishcs  a  plan  of 

the  seventh-century  church  of  Si  Gregory  at  Etjachmiadm  in  which 

a  small  quatrefoil  font  of,  apparently,  a  diameter  of  1  m.  lies  behind 

a  pittar  to  the  right  of  the  sanctuary. 

The  researches,  of  which  he  has  published  the  results  in  the  two 
above-mentioned  works,  seem  to  point  to  the  fact  tlmt  in  art,  as  well  as 


no         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

in  Church  life,  the  part  played  by  the  East  was  far  more  important  than 
wc  are  apt  to  believe,  and  that  the  imperial  art  l)Oth  of  Rome  and 
Byzantium  was  less  primitive  and  less  widespread  in  its  influence.  If 
this  was  so,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  fonts  from  l^g)'pt,  Patcsiinej  and 
Asia  Minor  should  be  of  the  smaller  square  type,  c^tim  made  out  of 
single  bloclis  of  stone,  while  the  larger  fonts,  modelled  on  the  analogy 
of  the  public  baths,  arc  found  at  Rome,  Ravenna,  and  in  the  later 
churches  of  Africa  built  at  the  time  of  the  Byzantine  domination.  Of 
course,  even  in  these  later  fonts  submersion  would  be  at  best  awkward, 
and  in  most  cases  Jtnpossible. 

Since  baptism  by  aCTusion  would  seem  to  have  been  the  universal 
practice  in  the  early  Church,  its  mention  in  the  Didach^,  or  rather  the 
mention  of  the  sufficiency  of  water  poured  on  the  head  alone,  of  course 
ilirows  no  light  on  the  question  of  its  date. 

Clement  F.  Rogers. 


THE  ETYMOLOGY  OF  BARTHOLOMEW. 

Considering  the  number  of  monographs  on  proper  names  which 
have  appeared  within  the  last  ten  years  or  so,  one  naturally  expects 
to  find  fresh  light  on  the  ctjniology  of  Bartholomew  in  the  latest 
standard  Bible  Dictionaries.  It  is  hard  to  understand  why  only  the 
robber  chief  ©aXo^ov  (Joseph.  Ant,  XX  i  i)  is  still  cited  as  an  example 
of  the  name,  when  it  occurs  four  times  besides  in  the  same  author 
as  borne  by  honest  men  (XIV  viii  i,  xv  6,  Be/.  lud.  I  xvi  5  bis)\  for 
the  alternative  reading  nT«Xo/uuuc  in  all  these  passages  is  not  better 
attested  than  ®a\Qfinta<s  and  is  probably  due  to  its  greater  fame  in 
Hellenic  history  (see  B.  Niese's  critical  text,  Fltmi  lost  phi  Opera). 

The  name  lD7n  occurs  in  three  Nabalean  inscriptions  (Lidzbarski 
Handbuch  der  nordstmit.  Epigraphik  p.  3S6)  and  the  radical  letters  ^T\ 
in  the  Assyrian  compound  name  A'a^/z/a/ZiKe  (Delitzsch  Auyr.  Handwort. 
p.  707).  Whatever  lexical  obscurities  may  still  be  left  in  the  language 
of  the  Samaritan  Targum,  it  is  certain  that  n't^n,  fern.  «t3'^n,  is  there 
used  sixty-three  times  to  translate  the  Hebrew  nK  and  n\nK  in  cases 
where  the  original  means  half-brother,  half-sister,  fellow  man,  clansman, 
or  fellow  citizen  (Gen.  iv  2,  8-ir,  21  ;  ix  5 ;  xvi  12;  xvii  7;  xx  5,  13, 
&c.).  The  word  has  been  \-ariously  explained.  Castcllo  equates  it 
with  aStX^Qc,  because  £  and  n  and  0  and  o  are  homoi^anic ;  S.  Kohn 
identilies  it  with  Heb.  D^i^,  furrow,  which  the  Samaritau  uses   in 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  III 

a.  figmadve  sense,  i.  e.  the  seed  in  the  same  human  body  is  hlce  grains 
/n  one  furrow  {SamaH/aniseh^  Studien  p.  55,  note  4) ;  Petermann,  in 
ti>e  Vocabulary  of  his  Grammatica  Samaritana,  translates  it  frater 
mterinus,  a  sense  which,  as  the  above  passages  shew,  is  not  compie- 
liensive  enough.  As  far  as  is  at  present  known,  the  word  occurs  only 
<MKe  in  the  Jonathan  and  Jerusalem  Targums  Gen.  xlix  5,  poK^n  in 
the  fonner,  ps^n  in  the  latter,  which  J.  Levy  compares  with  toX/*v/w. 
taXft^K  {C^lddiscAa  Worterb.);  but  the  Samaritan  use  of  the  word 
suggests  that  the  Jewish  paraphrasts  wish  to  convey  the  meaning  that 
Simeon  and  Levi  are  uterine  brothers. 

All  these  etymological  conjectures,  however,  are  untenable  in  face 

of  the  fact  that  in  Assyrian  ialimu  means  '  twin ',  primarily  used  as  an 

^^jective  in  combination  with  a^  to  designate  a  twin  brother,  but  also 

iaving  this  sense  when  standing  alone  (Delitzsch,  1.  c).    It  would  seem, 

'^en,  that  the  Samaritans  gave  a  wider  meaning  to  a  word  which  they 

^<3  brought  with  them  from  their  Assyrian  home. 

]f^  then,  etymology  justifies  the  assumption  that  Bartholomew  was 

^   Samaritan,  and  the  reasons  generally  given  for  identifying  him  with 

^^tbanael  be  accepted,  the  unique  phrase  in  the  Gospels,  Behold,  an 

^^»iieUtc  Indeed  (John  i  47),  may  have  a  new  meaning  for  us.     Our 

^^^^\^  tells  the  disciples  that  though  the  Jews  denied  the  Samaritans  the 

""^^ht  to  caU  themselves  Israelites,  He  knows  that  Nathanael  is  one 

^^(^iritually.    Equally  signlBcant  is  the  structure  of  the  sentence  $v  iypail/m 

^•^^owtr^  iy  T^  vofixf  koX  ol  vpo^a^ai  (i  45).    We  may  infer  from  it  that 

"^^lilip  being  a  Samaritan  at  first  named  the  Pentateuch   only,  but 

^^^^=)rrected  himself  when  he  remembered  that  he  was  Christ's  disciple, 

^*-*id  therefore  accepted  the  Jewish  canon  of  Scripture. 

It  could  hardly  be  contended  that  Samaritans  would  not  reside  in 

^^-Salilee ;  one  might  as  well  ask  how  the  illustrious  Judaeans,  the  Virgin 

-^^dary  and  Joseph,  came  to  live  in  Galilee,  or  how  our  Lord  who  was 

*=:>oni  in  Bethlehem   could   rightly   be  called  a  Galilean,  or  how  a 

^Samaritan  should  happen  to  be  between  Jericho  and  Jerusalem.    We 

^^Iso  know  that  the  fertility  and  productiveness  of  Galilee  and  its  great 

^Cshing  industry,  both  for  home  consumption  and  for  export,  attracted 

several  nationalities  (Josephus  B.  I.  Ill  iii  2,  Encyc.  Bib.  sub  voc.  MsK^. 

Jis  veterans  the  Samaritans  could  settle  anywhere  in  Palestine.     They 

served  in  Apollonius'  army  in  the  Maccabean  period  (i  Mac.  iii  10); 

by  their  help  Herod  recovered  Jerusalem  from  the  Parthians  and  the 

Jewish  patriots,  and,  as  king,  found  more  love  and  fidelity  in  Samaria 

than  among  the  people  of  Israel  {Mommsen  Jlisf.  Horn,,  The  Provinces 

pL  ii  pp.   178,  181,  English  translation).    When  Palestine  became  a 

Roman  province,  the  garrison  stationed  at  Caesarea  consisted  mostly 

of  Samaritans  and  Syrian  Greeks  i^b.  p.  1 86).     Pilate  was  superseded 


113  THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

by  Vitcllius  because  he  iUtreated  the  Samaritans,  the  loyal  allies  ol 
Rome  (Hausrath  Hht.  New  Test.  Times  ii  p.  9  f,  English  translation). 
It  is  not  likely  that  Herod,  bis  successors,  or  Rome  would  interfere 
with  the  commercial  interests  of  Samaritatis  because  the  Jews  bated 
them. 

N.  Herz. 


'PONTIUS  PILATE'  IN  THE  CREED. 

In  1893  I  dictated  a  note  to  my  papils  in  a  course  of  lectures  on 
the  Creeds,  which  I  ask  permission  to  reproduce. 

•. .  .  Rufinus  (m  sytn^.  ap.  16)  and  Augustine  {dt  fide  et  symb.  ri) 
assert  that  the  name  of  Pontius  Pilate  was  intended  to  fix  (approxi- 
mately) the  date  of  the  Crucifixion.  If  this  be  true,  it  shews  that  the 
original  tradition,  which  formed  the  base  of  the  Creed,  was  drawn 
up  very  early  in  Syria,  where  the  name  of  the  Procurator  would  be 
used  more  naturally  than  that  of  the  Emperor  to  date  an  event 
Thus  the  name  of  Pilate  locates  the  Creed  as  well  as  dates  tbe 
Crucifixion,  for  the  name  of  the  local  Roman  Governor  would  be  of 
interest  only  in  the  district  where  he  had  jurisdiction.' 

I  did  not  embody  this  note  in  my  Oerumenical  Documents,  in 
1899,  because  at  the  time  I  was  rather  enamoured  of  Zahn's  theory 
that  the  mention  of  Pilate  was  intended  to  guard  against  a  possible 
heathen  perversion  of  a  historic  reality  into  a  mere  moral  myth.  But 
I  was  delighted  to  5nd,  from  Dr  Sanday's  article  in  the  /.  T.  S.  iii  ao 
(Oct.  1901),  that  the  same  conclusion  had  been  reached  by  Marian 
Morawski  in  the  Z^itsckrift  far  kath.  Theohpe^  1895,  It  is  true  that 
Dr  Sanday  hesitates  to  accept  this  view.  But  a  longer  residence  in 
the  'provinces'  has  only  confirmed  me  in  my  opinion,  Our  Colonists 
always  and  most  naturally  date  events  by  the  names  of  their  local 
governors.  Thus  the  hurricane  that  struck  Barbados  in  189S  will 
always  be  referred  to  as  having  occurred  in  the  time  of  Sir  James  Hay; 
and  in  St  Vincent  the  recent  eruptions  of  the  Soufrifere  will  be  r©- 
memticred  aa  happening  under  the  administratorship  of  Mr  Cameron 
and  the  governorship  of  Sir  Robert  LIuwellyn.  The  name  of  the 
reigning  sovereign.  Queen  Victoria  or  King  Edward,  would  not  convejT 
a  date  half  so  accurately.  Yet,  after  all,  it  is  probably  not  so  rouch 
a  matter  of  date  as  of  inseparable  association  of  an  event  with  a  person 
who  was  promioendy  concerned  with  it.     Dr  Sanday  admits  that 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  II3 

it  is  probable  enough  that  the  phrase,  which  had  become  a  standing 

/onoula,  assumed  this  character  in   Palestine.     I  would  venture  to 

go  farther,  and  say  that  before  St  Paul  set  out  on  bis  first  missionary 

journey  in  a.  d.  46,  there  was  already  a  Baptismal  Confession  more 

Of  less  definitely  formulated  in  Syria,  which  St  Paul  carried  with  bim 

and  taught  to  his  converts  at  their  Baptism. 

T.  Herbert  Bindlev. 


THE    ORJGEN-CITATIONS    IN    CRAMER'S  CATENA 
ON   I  CORINTHIANS. 

It  has  long  been  recognized  that  the  text  of  many  portions  of  Cramer's 

Catenae  Grtucorum  Patrum  in  Novum  Testamentum  leaves  much  to  be 

desired.     Since  bis  first  volume  was  published  in  1838  large  additions 

have  been  made  to  our  knowledge  of  the  Catenae  themselves;  but 

eren  where  we  have  still  to  depend  in  great  measure  upon  the  MSB 

»hich  Cramer  used  much  can  often  be  done  to  improve  the  text,  since 

iinfortunately  in  several  cases  he  did  not  make  his  own  collations.     In 

'ie  Introduction  to  his  sixth  volume  (Gal,  Eph.,  Phil.,  Col.,  Thess.) 

^e  himself  expresses  a  fear  that   the   'scriba  Parisiensis'  whom  he 

*ifcployed  has  not  always  truly  represented  the  reading  of  the  MS 

Claris  Cois.  gr.  304)  used  for  those  Epistles.     That  his  suspicion  was 

J'istified  was  abundantly  shewn  by  the  new  edition  of  Origen's  com- 

**^entary  on  Ephesians  based  upon  that  MS  by  the  Rev.  J.  A.  F.  Gregg, 

^-«id  published  in  this  Journal  '. 

*^         During  a  recent  visit  to  the  Paris  Library  the  present  writer  examined 

^%e  MS  upon  which  the  Catena  on  i  Corinthians  is  based  with  special 

*~«ference  to  the  Origen-citations.     The  MS  {Paris,  grec  227)  contains 

^^ly  the  Catena  upon  this  Epistle,  and  is  in  excellent  preservation.     It 

^:^onsists  of  213  leaves,  of  which  the  last  seven  are  in  a  different  but 

^xntemporary  hand,  and  is  rightly  assigned  to  the  sixteenth  century. 

"The  spelling  is  very  bad,   but  the  writing  is  clear  and  contains  no 

abbreviations  of  unusual  difficulty.    The  lemmata   are   quite  plainly 

distinguished  from  the  commentary,  the  several  portions  of  which  are 

each  invariably  introduced  by  the  name  of  the  author  from  whom  they 

'  y.  T.  S,  Januaiy-July,  lijot. 
VOL.  VI.  I 


114  THE    JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

arc  taken.  These  names  are  written  either  in  full  or  in  a  more  or  1ms 
contracted  form,  the  two  commonest  alihreviations  being  those  for  the 
names  of  Origen  and  John  Chrysostom.  The  former  appears  either  as 
(S/xyevow,  ^piytv,  ifuyt,  a»piy,OT  very  often  in  the  form  of  a  small  w  from 
the  centre  of  which  rises  a  capital  T  surmounted  almost  invariably  by 
a  small  t :  the  upright  stroke  of  the  r  has  a  semicircular  loop  on  the 
righl-hand  side  to  represent  the  p.  The  t  never  appews  in  Cramer's 
representation  of  the  sign.  The  name  of  Chrysostom  is  rcpresenlcd 
cither  by  'lutawutj  or  far  more  frequently  by  a  long  vertical  stroke 
surmounted,  but  never  touched,  by  a  small  w.  It  never  has  the  form 
of  contraction  printed  in  Cramer,  and  there  is  never  the  slightest  doubt 
which  of  the  two  names  was  intended  by  the  scribe. 

A  short  examination  sufficed  to  shew  that  the  divergence  of  Cramer^ 
text  from  the  MS  is  conslant  and  serious,  and  for  reasons  which  will 
appear  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  'scriba  Parisiensis '  who  is  re- 
sponsibEe  for  the  blunders  in  the  Ephesians  essayed  his  'prentice 
hand  upon  i  Corinthians,  which  appeared  in  Cramer's  fifth  volume. 
That  volume  contains  more  than  tighty  quotations  nominally  from 
Origen,  and  more  than  t5o  from  Chrj'sostom.  The  first  'Origen' 
extracts  given  arc  the  two  which  are  printed  on  p.  7,  lines  1  ff,  gS'. 
But  in  the  MS  the  first  is  assigned  by  its  symbol  to  John  (Chry- 
sostom), the  second  to  Origen.  Between  this  page  and  p.  21,  line  14, 
where  the  name  'linavynv  is  first  written  in  full,  every  one  of  the  five 
extracts  (pp.  9,  iff;  10,  25  f;  13,  17  f;  15,  33  IT;  19,  mA)  prefixed 
in  the  MS  hy  the  symbol  for  John  is  assigned  by  the  transcriber 
in  Cramer  to  Origen.  Further,  between  p.  ir,  14  and  p.  3B,  11 
where  the  name  'ludi-vov  is  next  written  in  full,  nn  passage  is  ascribed 
in  Cramer  to  Chrj'sostom,  since  the  transcriber,  apparently  not  yet 
understanding  the  meaning  of  the  symbol,  has  transferred  the  seven 
intermediate  passages  to  which  it  is  prefixed  in  the  MS  (pp.  ai,  ijS; 
24.  33  ff:  A  iff;  30.  7ff  (and  hence  18  ff);  34,  25  ff;  35.  34  ff) 
again  to  Origen.  At  p.  39.  29  the  symbol  is  for  the  first  time  inter- 
preted rightly,  although  the  next  two  passages  in  which  it  occurs  (pp.  42, 
13  ff;  48,  22  ff)  are  again  assigned  to  Origen.  From  p.  5c,  10  onwards 
the  sign  where  it  occurs  is  correctly  understood,  though  at  p,  S2,  20 
and  in  several  subsequent  passages  the  transcriber  seems  to  have 
hesitated,  for  he  gives  (inaccurately)  the  form  of  the  sign  at  the  foot  of 
the  page.  It  is  possible  that  the  true  interpretation  was  suggested  to 
him  in  turning  over  the  leaves  of  the  MS  by  the  fact  that  in  two 
passages  (Cramer  pp-  133,  27;    2731  4)   the  scribe   has  written  the 

^  Ex«![>t  wliere  othcrwivc  smtcd  ihi  refcrcAces  which  follow  kre  vil  to  Cruscr's 


Isnia]  stroke  surmounted  by  the  «s  but  altering  his  mind  has  crossed 
Oi/idie  ft,  and  written  'I<iJciKFoi;  in  full '. 

We  have  thus  no  less  than  fifteen  passages  assigned  in  the  MS  to 

Criirysostoni,  hut   in  Cramer  to   On'gen '.     The   suggestion   that   the 

I       ^irribulion  might  possibly  be  Justified  by  internal  e\'idence  is  disposed 

<^S  by  the  fact  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  two  extracts  on  p.  30,  the 

■^^J  liter  has  traced  all  of  them  to  their  proper  context  in  the  printed  text 

<     «^yChrysostoin's  Homilies  on  i  Corinthians*.    The  loss  of  fifteen  Origen- 

I    ^=Ttalions  is  of  course  a  serious  one  since,  as  is  shewn  by  the  list  of 

1     X^Bssages  given  below,  there  are  already  grave  lacunae.     The  passages 

•'•hich  remain  contain  comments  upon  the  following  portions  of  the 

'     Jt*:pistle . — I  Cor.  i  ab,  4-8,  9,  10,  17  (^w),  18,  19,  20-ai,  26-29;  >' 

.4.-4,  7-8,  9-10,  11-15  ;  iii  1-3,  4.  6,  9-13,   15.  16-20.  ai-22;  tv  1-4, 

S»^7.  8.  9-1".  »5-<8,  19-20.  »t;  V  1-2,  3,  5,  7-8,  9-13;  vi3,  4-10, 

^-*  '.  »3.  14.  <5.  <8,  19-20;   vii  1-4,  s-7,  a-ji,  ia-14.  18-20,  31-24, 

^^95-38;  ix  7,  lo-ii,  16-17,  19-aa.  «3.  24;  »  i-5i  6;  wi3,  38-39;  xiii 

J       ^-2,  3.  4-5.  8-n,  i»j  JOT  31,  34-3''.  37-38;  XV  2,  ao-«2,  36-37;  xvi 

I        ■■0-12.  13-14- 

^H  Unfortunately  the  transcriber's  inaccuracy  is  not  confined  to  the 
^^  nuDcs  of  authors,  but  extends  to  the  text.  He  was  inadequately 
I  eqoipped  for  his  task,  and  a  student  of  Greek  palaeography  will  readily 

I  tecognizc  the  causcofthc  following  blunders  taken  from  a  host  of  others: 

^*  Ciamcr  p,  j,  6  Kotvow  'Cod']  «otvo;  w;*  n*;  7i  9  'TpQKtlv&t  'Cod'] 
^H  tpamurOax.  Tl  I  32,  18  KarvpOwTofitvov]  KaiapSiuirofuy  II;  5I|  lO  into  Si 
^V  fftpDv  '  Cod  'J  vn-nSccoTf'fitiH'  11  ;  79,  1 9  tvayitptiati  '  Cod  *]  hfrvyttpiirti 
D;  139,  2  vvo  Si  iripm.'i  'Cod  ']  viroSttcripov^  U  ;  137,  19  Xf^et?]  8of« 
II.  In  fact  in  a  very  large  number  of  cases  where  the  reading  of  the 
MS  ii  definitely  cited  at  the  foot  of  the  page  that  citation  is  wrong. 
On  p.  266,  4,  not  understanding  the  contmciion  of  ki-m<t  (in  opposition 
to  ivTidtait),  the  transcriber  lias  omitted  it  altogether.  On  p.  183,  8, 
baring  obBer\-ed  that  the  scribe  has  usually  represented  the  ordinary 

'  On  p.  tjti,  a6,  the  transcriber  Itaa  done  Chrysostom  a  still  further  injustice  by 
■llgjiliH  williimi  I  iiiiiiiii  ii[  II  [iiiiin,!  prefixed  by  his  symtMil  to  Occutncnlus — no 
iotM  throuch  sheer  carelessness.  The  extract  on  p.  343, 1 7  ff  to  which  no  tiAtnc  is 
attacbcd  in  Cramer  is  also  assigned  by  the  MS  to  Chrysostom. 

*  P.  355,  j;  fl*  is  maTkcdin  the  MS  as  a  separate  extract,  but  sioce  like  the  pr«- 
ndi&g  it  ii  assigned  to  Origen  this  is  of  Ins  imporlance. 

'  It  follows  therefore  that  the  referencca  in  Tischeodorf  iVouMw  Ttatattuv/uHt 
(cd.  vii).  major)  on  i  17  to  p.  55,  <?n  i  2-,  to  p.  16,  on  it  i  to  pp.  34,  35,  on  it  1  to 
p.  35  ftrr'),  on  ii  9  to  p.  42  (where  a  tang  citract  ia  given),  on  ii  Ij  to  p.  4S  of 
Cnmer's  Catena  on  t  Cor.  can  no  longer  be  cited  as  evidence  for  the  rcadiog 
of  OriKen  in  those  passages. 

*  Tbb  symbol  is  used  to  denote  the  true  US  reading,  tranMribed  without  coa- 
Indiofla. 

I  2 


Il6  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

contraction  for  Ktu,  found  no  doubt  in  the  exemplar,  by  «'  and  finding 
The  word  (ru^m  divided  at  the  end  of  a  line  (trapUm)  he  has  ingenuously 
transcribed  it  as  trap  Kaf^  which  is  nfHisense. 

If  the  Paris  MS  were  an  independent  authority  a  careful  re-collation 
of  the  whole  of  it  would  be  imperatively  necessaty :  but  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  it  is  in  all  probability  a  direct  descendant  of  the  Vatican 
Catena,  Vat.  gr.  762,  not  known  to  Cramer,  this  larger  undertaking, 
which  the  writer  has  only  carried  out  so  far  as  Origen  is  concerned, 
is  for  the  present  superfluous.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  an  examination 
of  this  Vatican  Catena  together  with  such  additional  information  as 
may  be  gleaned  from  further  discoveries  of  Catena  MSS  or  fragments 
may  help  to  throw  some  light  upon  the  question — at  present,  as 
Professor  Hamaclc  confesses ',  an  obscure  one — as  to  the  character 
of  the  work  from  which  the  citations  on  i  Corinthians  are  taken. 

Ctj^UDB  Jenkins. 


i 


THE  ASITIA  ON  ST  PAUL'S  VOYAGE. 

Acts  xxvn. 

For  fourteen  days  the  Alexandrine  ship,  into  which  the  centurion 
had  transferred  bis  soldiers  and  prisoners  at  Myra,  was  driven  by  tui 
ENE.  gale  from  Crete  to  ^falta.  With  regard  to  the  food  supply  and 
the  condition  of  those  on  board,  we  are  told  (v.  21)  xoXA^«  dmT*a< 
vrrapxovtrrfi  (A.  V.  'after  long  abstinence ' :  R.  V.  '  when  they  had  been 
long  vrithout  food':  Vutg.  'cum  multa  ieiunatiofuisset':  Douay  Vc-rsion 
'after  they  had  faste<l  a  long  time').  Although  this  expression  occurs 
after  an  allusion  to  the  'third  day'  of  the  storm  and  'more  days',  the 
participle  implies  that  this  do-trc'a  had  already  been  in  existence.  In  con- 
sequence of  it  St  Paul  endeavours  to  keep  up  their  spirits  {tiBv/iwrt). 
On  the  night  before  the  actual  wreck,  he  again  addresses  them,  saying  that 
it  was  the  fourteenth  day  TrfwifrSoKQirre?  Smrot  BtartXti-n  (A.  V.  '  ye  have  - 
tarried  and  continued  fasting  ' :  R.  V.  'ye  wait  and  conrinuc  fasting':  .^ 
Vulg.  'expectanies  ieiuni  perraaneiis':  D.V.  'ye  expect  and  remaii 
fasting ').  Id  connexion  with  this  state  of  things  the  following  addtttonarr 
expressions  occur — fitraXn^Mtv  rpo<t>Tit,  ^178*1*  ir/HHrAa/?o/wvot  .  .  .  (v,  33) 
irpotTXa^tir  rpotft^n  (v.  34) ;  \afi!uvaprov{v.  35)  ;  fi'^r^nr  .  ,  .  irpotrtXaPoyr^t^ 
rpoiftijt  (v,  36);   •coptirOivrti  rpotftrji,  iK^aWoptvoi  rov  crirw  (v.  38).      Let 

*■  Haxnack  Di*  Chnnotogi*  eUr  altdiristl.  LitUratur  ii,  1904,  p.  46  not«  I. 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES  I17 

it  be  noted  also  that  the  ordinary  word  for  '  fasting  *,  viz.  vyjarttoy  is 
used  of  the  Jewish  autumnal  fast  in  v.  9,  as  also  of '  fasting '  in  all  the 
other  places  in  the  N.  T. ;  and  that  do-irut  and  aa-troi  occur  in  this 
passage  only.  Moreover  a  Jewish  fast  did  not  imply  eating  nothing 
at  all  during  the  day,  but  nothing  until  the  evening,  when  a  full  meal 
was  taken ;  so  that  no  notable  weakness,  much  less  any  loss  of  heart, 
would  ordinarily  be  the  result. 

The  Greek  irord  o-iTos  has  of  course  two  general  meanings,  the  first 

being  '  grain ',  i.  e.  wheat  and  barley  either  in  a  raw  state,  or  as  '  bread ' ; 

and  the  second  being  '  food '  of  any  kind.     The  compound  do-iria  has 

according  to  Liddell  and  Scott  first  the  meaning  of  '  absence  of  food ', 

and  secondly  the  medical  meaning  of  'loss  of  appetite'.    Hobart  (Medica/ 

Language  of  Stljtfu  p.  z76)allowsthe  A.  V.  translation,  as  above  quoted, 

to  stand  as  if  representing  its  only  meaning ;   but  two  of  bis  quotations 

at  least  distinctly  point  to  '  loss  of  appetite  from  illness  * ;   viz.  r^Kcriu 

0  atr^cFwv  ixo  oSvKcwy  to^jvptuF  kox  dcrmi;?  (tat  fiy}x°^t  where  the  '  pains  ' 

uid  'cough'  decide  the  meaning  of  the  intermediate  word  (Hipp. 

^erd.  454)  ;  and  koI  Kw/iairapcnrcro,  ao-iros,  SBvftm,  aypmrvoi  (Hipp,  Epid. 

1096),  where  voluntary  abstinence  can  scarcely  be  meant.     At  least  two 

other  compounds  of  o-iroc  retain  the  primary  meaning  of  '  wheat ',  viz. 

'ttAw-iTvs  used  in  describing  countries  growing  much  grain  (Xen.  Hell. 

5- a.  16  :   ^rf.5.3:  Strabo  751,  LiddellandScott);  and  dJtriTostowhich 

^ddell  and  Scott  give  'with  good  wheat '(&*(>/.  Theocr.  7. 34)  as  a  second 

^^eaning,  and  '  with  good  appetite '  as  a  first    Whether  ofo-iroc  was  used 

^^lloquially  by  sailors  and  others  in  the  Mediterranean  basin  at  this 

^^me  in  the  sense  of  '  without  wheat  or  bread '  caimot  as  yet  be 

^^olutely  decided,  for  Messrs  Grenfell  and  Hunt's  Papyri  give  no 

^^istance  so  far  as  they  have  been  examined. 

As  to  the  meaning  in  the  context,  the  Exp.  Gr.  Test,  quotes  a  few 
Tl^mm.  in  favour  of  a  'disinclination  for  food'  from  anxiety,  but 
^he  majority  seem  to  treat  the  meaning  of  '  abstinence  from  all  kinds  of 
Toed '  as  the  only  one  possible.    At  the  same  time  they  one  and  all 
take  it  for  granted,  that  some  food  must  have  been  taken,  which  sub- 
stantially gives  away  this  meaning.     Smith  ( Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of 
St  Paul  p.  114)  su^ests  the  impossibility  of  cooking  as  the  most 
probable  cause  of  this  abstinence.    A  religious  motive  has  also  been 
suggested,  viz.  the  desire  on  the  part  of  those  on  board  to  avert  the 
wrath  of  heaven  by  a  penitential  act,  as  the  people  of  Nineveh  did  in 
Jonah's  time.    If  '  abstinence  from  all  food '  were  the  only  available 
meaning,  it  is  more  Ukely  that  the  necessity  of  battening  down  the 
hatchways,  lest  the  waves  should  in  washing  over  the  deck  get  down  to 
the  wheat  and  swell  it,  and  burst  open  the  ship,  was  the  reason. 
However,  St  Luke  was  a  physician,  and  nearly  all  the  circumstances 


Il8        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

recorded  and  the  words  used  point  the  use  of  the  word  in  question  in 
the  medical  sense  of  loss  of  appetite  from  illness',  which  in  this  case 
would  of  course  be  sea-sickncss-  As  the  reasons  for  adopting  this  latter 
meaning  at  the  same  time  render  the  former  one  iniprobablc,  it  will  be 
best  to  deal  with  them  liolh  together. 

There  is  a  moral  certainly  that  the  ship  was;  one  of  the  fleet  of  com 
ships  plying  between  Alexandria  and  Rome  under  certain  imperul 
regulations.  The  same  wind,  which  drove  the  Adramyttian  ship,  in 
which  the  centurion  and  his  company  sailed  from  Caesarea  round  the 
east  ca|>e  of  Cyprus,  would  have  forced  the  ship  from  Alexandria  to 
make  for  Myra  on  a  larboard  tack  seven  points  from  the  wind.  Again, 
when  hesitating  about  wintering  at  Fair  Havens  in  Crete,  it  is  the 
centurion  who  in  represented  as  ultimately  deciding  the  question  (v.  ii), 
and  not  the  owner.  Anyhow  there  was  plenty  of  wheat  on  board,  for 
the  very  last  act  before  cutting  loose  their  anchors  on  the  Maltese  coast 
was  to  throw  overboard  '  the  wheat '  (to*-  <r»Tw,  v.  38).  Moreover  on  the 
last  night  there  was  either  bread  or  the  means  of  baking  it,  for  St  Paul 
took  '  bread '  {dprtiv).  Again,  bread  is  the  usual  form  in  which  wheat  is 
eaten ;  yet  any  traveller  in  uncivilized  countries  will  testify  that  most 
satisfying  meals  can  be  made  by  simply  chewing  whole  grain.  Lastly, 
a  few  exceptionally  constituted  men  might  last  out  a  fourteen  days' 
abstinence  from  food,  yet  a  chance  collection  of  sailors,  soldiers,  and 
passengers  would  not  be  able  to  do  so,  as  a  matter  of  (act :  much  less 
would  they  be  able  to  make  a  heavy  satisfying  meal  (v.  58)  after  so  long 
a  fast.  They  had  then  plenty  of  food  on  board,  and  could  have  eaten 
it  if  they  wished  and  could  get  access  to  it 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  evidence  to  shew  that  the  motion  of  the 
ship  was  a  specialty  trying  one.  On  leaving  Clauda  we  are  given  to 
understand  that,  if  they  had  allowed  them.selres  to  drift  in  a  line  with 
the  wind,  they  would  have  been  cast  on  the  African  quicksands.  Hence 
they  took  measures  to  work  up  northwards  of  the  direct  line  of  the 
wind,  about  three  points,  as  Smith  reckons  and  the  position  of  Clauda 
and  Malta  shews.  The  wind  was  known  as  the  Euroclydon,  or  the 
wind  that  causes  'wide  waves',  if  we  take  the  reading  of  the  Text. 
Rec.  as  a  corrupt,  or  the  sailors',  form  of  £f-pvK\t?Swc.  (Between  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope  and  Tasmania  are  what  are  called  the  Roaring 
Forties,  i.  e.  a  stretch  of  sea  in  lat.  40"  S.,  where  huge  '  wide  waves  *, 
caused  by  the  monsoons  up  north,  in  certain  months  cross  the  ships' 
course  continuously.)  Whether  this  be  the  true  reading  or  not,  a  ship 
driven  in  a  line  with  the  wind  merely  pitches  and  tosses;  but  if  she 
works  out  of  the  direct  line  she  gets  a  peculiarly  trying  screwing  motioa 
om  and  above  the  pitching  motioa.  There  is,  therefore,  ample  reamo 
for  sunnisitig  that  most  of  those  on  board  suffered  from  ordinary  sea- 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


119 


siclmess  and  its  mental  effects.  Usually  this  illness  passes  off  in  three 
days  or  so,  but  considering  the  size  of  the  ship,  viz.  about  500  tons,  as 
is  usually  reckoned,  and  the  violence  of  the  gale  (w.  14-30),  and  the 
difficulty  at  all  events  of  getting  appctiiing  food,  the  usoal  'loss  of 
appetite '  and  general  collapse  may  well  have  lasted  in  most  cases  all 
the  fourteen  days.  If  this  hypothesis  is  correct,  a  certain  amount  of 
nourishment  would  have  been  regularly  taken,  but  not  much  ;  and  the 
physical  weakness  and  misery  and  despondency  of  mind  would  have 
been  at  the  end  very  pronounced.  There  is  no  reason,  however,  to 
suppose,  that  every  one  was  thus  suffering  :  St  Paul  and  St  Luke  appear 
to  have  been  quite  well;  and  the  .sailors  must  have  con.siantly  been  able 
to  attend  to  the  ship  day  and  night  to  keep  hex  in  her  course,  as  is  clear 
also  from  the  quickness  with  which  they  discerned  the  apprtwch  of  land 
and  took  the  necessary  measures  against  being  wrecked  in  the  darkness 
of  the  night.  The  word  toAA^  also  may  be  pressed  to  mean  that  this 
itftrUt  while  general,  was  not  universal. 

St  Paul's  words  also  point  to  this  same  meaning.     Sometime  after 

the  third  day  he  tries  to  cheer  them  up  by  narrating  his  vision.    This 

is  of  course  the  very  thing  done  nowadays  by  friends,  who  are  well,  to 

those  who  are  ill,  in  order  to  check   the  disposition  to  give  way  to 

despondency.    The  use  of  the  word  TpoaSoKwvm,  some  days  after, 

points  (0  the  additional  despondency,  which  must  have  supervened  in 

consequence  of  the  delay  in  the  fulfilment  of  St  Paul's  prophecy.     Then 

lie  had  to  urge  them  to  take  more  to  eat  than  they  had  been  in  the  habit 

of  taking.     Three  times  is  the  prep.  irp6^  used  (T.R.),  as  if  intended  to 

deoote  the  necessity  of  taking  something  in  addition  to  the  small  amount 

theretofore  Uken,   that  they  might  he  strong  enough  to  endure  the 

WmiDg  struggle  in  landing.    Again  it  is  stated  that  they  did  make  the 

effort  to  throw  off  their  languor,  for  they  became  €v9i<tioi,  and  thereon 

tbcy  were  able  to  make  a  hearty  meal  {KopftrBivTK,  v.  38). 

Words  of  encouragement  alone,  however,  would  scarcely  have  so 
cempletely  attained  the  Apostle's  object,  had  he  not  been  aided  by 
exlemal  circumstances.  Farst  of  all,  the  ship  riding  at  anchor  in  the 
bay  would  have  pitched  only,  and  have  been  freed  from  the  screwing 
•notion  above  alluded  to.  Then  there  are  definite  reasons  for  believing 
tiut  the  storm  had  spent  its  strength,  (i)  The  sailors  saw  that  they 
tould  again  at  last  launch  their  small  boat,  which  they  had  with  such 
difficulty  got  on  board  fourteen  days  before  (vv.  16,  30).  (ii)  The 
•ind  is  described  as  nTeijw^j  (v.  40),  i.  e-  as  a  breeze,  and  no  longer  as 
*  gale,  (iii)  On  landing  there  was  heavy  rain,  which  generally  holds 
off  in  a  violent  gale  owing  Co  the  honiogeneousness  of  tlie  atmosphere 
^  to  the  agitation  of  the  air,  but  falls  on  the  fall  of  the  wind.  Another 
fCUOQ  is  suggested  below.    The  fact  that  on  running  aground  the  stern 


J 


^e  ship  was  broken  up  is  no  proof  to  the  contrary,  for  Ion; 
a  continuous  gale  it  tikes  many  hours  and  even  days  for  the  long  heavy 
rollers  completely  to  cease. 

We  may  sum  up  these  coosidera lions  then  briefly  thus.  In  favour 
of  the  medical  meaning  of  '  loss  of  appetite  from  illness'  for  Atn-na  is 
the  acknowledged  preference  of  St  Luke  for  using  medical  terms 
especially  in  cabcs  of  illness ;  the  excessively  trying  motion  of  the  ship 
even  for  fiiirly  good  sailor? ;  the  course  taken  by  St  Paul  and  the 
expressions  he  uses ;  and  the  result  of  the  partial  removal  of  the  cause 
of  the  illness  on  the  last  night. 

There  is,  however,  one  point  which  still  awaits  a  full  and  satisfactory 
explanation,  and  that  is  why  the  Apostle  did  not  urge  those  on  board 
to  take  a  good  meal  when  he  addressed  them  on  the  ^rst  occasion 
(w.  21-36),  but  confined  himself  to  words  of  encouragement  only. 
Even  if  oo-iro^  cannot  bear  the  meaning  of  '  without  farinaceous  food', 
yet  one  great  cause  of  the  want  of  apfjetite  ra.iy  have  licen  the  inability 
to  get  access  to  the  store  of  wheat  and  bread  or  biscuits  below  deck. 
To  this  day  in  those  parts  the  sailors  and  working  classes  live  chiefly 
on  (i)  onions,  leeks,  figs,  dried  grapes,  and  such  like ;  (ii)  wheat  and 
barley  bread.  Salt  and  sun-dried  fish,  as  also  occasionally  ficsh  meat, 
arc  added  as  accessories,  rather  than  as  a  substantial  part  of  a  meal. 
There  do  not  seem  to  have  been  any  very  elaborate  arrangements  for 
boarding  passengers  in  common  in  those  days  ;  and  probably  those  on 
board  each  had  with  him  a  supply  at  least  of  the  first-named  kinds  of 
food.  When  leaving  Fair  Havens  with  a  gentle  south  wind  the  little 
boat  was  out,  and  the  hatches  were  doubtless  open  to  air  the  wheat 
below  :  for  it  seemed  only  a  pleasant  run  of  some  six  hours,  and  they 
would  be  safe  for  the  winter  in  the  excellent  harbour  of  Phoenix. 
When  tht:  storm  came  down  upon  them  and  the  waves  began  to  break 
over  the  bulwarks,  the  first  step  to  take  would  be  to  shut  down  the 
hatchways.  If  the  w.iter  got  in  torrents  into  the  wheat,  it  would  swell 
and  burst  open  the  sides  of  the  ship  in  spite  of  the  undergirding  ropes. 

On  leaving  Clauda  not  only  would  there  have  been  pooping  seas 
washing  over  the  deck,  but  also  a  certain  amount  of  water  over  the 
bulwarks,  for  the  course  implies  that  the  ship  was  slightly  sideways  to 
the  wind.  It  is  true  thai  it  is  stated  that  there  was  an  iKffoK^  on  the 
second  day,  but  it  is  quite  possible  that  what  was  thrown  overboard 
was  wares  on  deck,  for  later  on  it  is  particularly  stated  that  they  threw 
over  'fAi  wheat',  in  contrast  it  may  he  to  what  they  had  previously 
thrown  overboard.  It  may  well  be  that  they  did  not  dare  to  open  the 
hatchways  after  once  the  gale  had  got  the  ship  into  its  clutches  {trwaff 
irotri'o-ros,  v.  15).  Hence  they  had  to  live  on  what  they  happened  to 
hare  on  deck.     A  medical  man  told  the  writer  that  in  his  opinion  an 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  12I 

ordinaiy  passenger  could  keep  alive  for  fourteen  days  on  fruit  and 

vegetable  fare  but  that  he  would  be  very  weak,  unless  it  was  supplemented 

with  iarinaceous  food.     Hence  as  long  as  the  wheat  could  not  be  got 

li,  it  was  no  use  for  St  Paul  to  invite  the  people  to  take  a  solid  meal ; 

bat  on  the  last  night,  when  there  are  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  wind 

iiad  lulled,  and  the  waves  were  no  longer  breaking  over  the  deck,  and 

tbe  batches  could  be  opened,  then  he  could  encourage  them  to  make 

a  good  meal,  represented  by  the  word  rpotft^.    They  had  access  to 

wheat  and  bread.    There  is  about  90  per  cent,  of  water  in  fresh  fruit 

and  vegetables,  and  about  75  per  cent,  of  solid  matter  in  dry  bread; 

and  consequently  a  very  satisfactory  meaning  is  given  to  the  words 

Kop€<rGtvm  Tpotl>ijv  (v.  38).     If  this  hypothesis  will  hold  good,  it  would 

seem  that  every  difficulty  is  cleared  up,  as  far  as  the  condition  and 

health  of  those  on  board  are  concerned.    There  are  one  or  two 

difficulties  with  regard  to  the  navigation,  which  it  will  be  best  to  deal  with 

separately. 

PS.  The  Rev.  Dr  Moulton  has  been  so  kind  as  to  hunt  out  an 
instance  of  Aavrivt,  meaning  'abstinence  from  food  owing  to  illness  '  in 
tbe  Egyptian  Papyri,  Kenyon's  edition.  No.  144^  a  first-century  letter. 

J.  R.  Madan. 


MARK  THE  'CURT-FINGERED'  EVANGELIST. 

Ik  a  paper  on  '  The  Early  Church  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels  *,  printed 

in  this  Journal  (v  330  ff),  Mr  Burkitt  has  called  special  attention  to 

tbe  causes  leading  to  the  very  subordinate  place  once  occupied  by 

Mark's  Gospel,  as  compared  with  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

With  his  general  position  that  this  was  due  largely  to  'the  frankly 

bi<^raphtcal  element '  predominating  in  it  over  the  formally  didactic 

element,  which  is  so  marked  a  feature  of  Matthew  in  particular,  I  fully 

concur.     But  when  he  proceeds  to  explain  how  it  was  that,  in  spite 

of  this  drawback  to  the  general  acceptance  and  appreciation  of  tbe  more 

purely  historical  Gospel,  it  did  actually  win  its  way  at  length  to  equal 

bofiour  with  its  fuller  and  more  didactic  fellows,  I  cannot  but  think 

that  he  overlooks  the  most  important  factor  of  all,  viz.  the  sheer  weight 

^f&stiong  and  definite  historical  tradition  connecting  that  Gospel  with 

*"*  witness  of  an  apostle,  to  wit  Peter.     It  was  not  '  an  ethical  instinct ' 

^  a  historical  instinct';  for,  as  Mr  Burkitt  points  out,  the  Church  at 

^^  was  not  much  alive  to  the  historic  interest  of  '  the  story  of  the 

""^tiy",  while  it  preferred  the  explicit  ethics  embodied  in  sayings 


to  the  ethical  ideal  implicit  in  the  concrete  Life.     It  vzs  something^S 
else  which  turned  the   scale  in   favour  of  Mark's  narrative,  when   it::^ 
became  a  question  of  its  being  coordinated  in  honour  with  the  other  "^ 
members  of  the  Quaternion  of  canonical  Gospels.     The  matter  is  one 
of  considerable  interest  and  importance,  and  will  bear  looking  into 
a  little,  especially  as  it  may  lead  us  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the 
strange  tradition  that  Mark  the  Evangelist  was  6  KoAo^oSaxrvAoc,  aa^H 
epithet  variously  explained  in  the  1-atin  prefaces  to  his  Gospel.  ^| 

We  observe,  then,  that  down  to  the  time  of  Papias'  apologetic  refer- 
ence, as  we  may  fairly  style  it,  ttiere  is  no  trace  of  Mark's  Gospel — 
beyond  its  early  use  in  Matttiew '  and  Luke— outside  the  Roman  Church. 
There  the  signs  of  its  pie&ence  in  Clement's  Epistle  are  disputable, 
but  hardly  so  the  evidence  afforded  by  licrmas  ( see  Swctc's  Sf  Mark, 
xxivf).  And  more  interesting  still,  Justin  Martyr,  our  first  explicit 
witness,  and  writing  probably  in  Rome,  refers  to  it  under  the  description 
•memoirs  of  Peter'  {Dtai.  io6,  cf.  88).  This  shews  the  light  in  which 
the  Roman  Church  regarded  a  Gospel  which  early  and  seemingly 
trustworthy  tradition  tells  us  was  compiled  by  its  author  specially  in 
response  to  a  local  demand  in  Rome.  It  also  explains,  at  one  and 
the  same  time,  two  facts  tending  in  different  directions,  namely,  the 
gradualness  with  which  this  narrative  took  its  place  as  a  axnonscsil 
Gospel,  and  the  firmness  of  its  hold  on  that  place,  once  it  had  gained 
it.  'Peter's  Memoirs'  might  not  at  once  be  regarded  exactly  as  a 
Gospel  of  the  type  created  by  Matthew,  and  to  which  Luke  fairly 
readily  conformed;  but  once  it  was  classed  with  these  at  all,  it  was 
bound  to  occupy  its  place  of  honour  without  dispute,  as  being  virtually 
the  oral  Gospel  of  the  great  apostle  Peter  (as  Luke  was  believed  to  be 
that  of  the  great  apostle  Paul).  Yel  we  have  evidence  that  it  had 
to  overcome  no  little  prejudice  in  passing  from  its  original  position 
as  the  local  Gospel  book  of  the  Roman  Church,  to  the  canonical 
position  of  general  use  throughout  the  churches  of  the  Empire.  When 
exactly  it  began  to  attain  wider  circulation,  such  as  is  involved  in  Papias' 
reference  to  it,  is  uncertain.  If  Mr  Burkitt's  view  be  correct,  that  the 
phenomena  of  the  lost  ending  point  to  a  time  when  *  no  more  than 
a  single  mutilated  copy  was  in  existence,  or  at  least  available '  for  copy- 
ing— at  the  request,  it  may  be,  of  foreign  churches — then  it  is  natural 
to  suppose  that  it  was  not  earlier  than  the  end  of  the  first  century 
K  (when  the  end  of  the  unique  copy  in  the  archives  of  the  Roman  Church 

I  had  already   perished  by  frequent   use).     But  in   any  case,  when   it 

I 

■  befoi 

I  aaw 


'  TIic  authorof  our  Matthew  may  have  used  HaHc'sgwn  copy.  TliisMftrk  would 
naturally  carry  back  with  him  tu  the  Eiist,  whither  he  prabably  relumed  lome  time 
before  his  death.  I.ukc  would  have  arcess  to  the  work  iit  Rome,  where  hia  Gospel, 
as  well  as  Acta,  was  moat  likdy  wriltco. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  I^ 

reached  Asia  Minor  it   probably  found   the  Matthew  Gospel  dxraly 
entrenched  in  general  use  and  regard. 

Compared  with  the  full  and  comprehensive  contents  of  such  a  Gospel, 

especially  as  regards  Christ's  sayings,  Mark's  brief  and  less  artificially 

symmetrical  nairative,  would  naturally  awaken  a  good  deal  of  criticism 

as  an  unsatisfying  and,  as  it  were,  curtailed  account  of  the  Lord's  words 

and  ministry.     To  meet  this  feeling,  Fapias  seems  to  have  inserted 

^io  his  preface  ?)  the  histoiy  of  its  origin  as  derived  from  '  the  Elder ' 

^ose  traditions  he  largely  relies  on.     That  history  tended  to  establish 

the  authentic  nature  and  value  of  Mark's  narrative  as  far  as  it  goes, 

OD  the  ground  that  it  was  a  faithful  account  of  what  Peter  had  actually 

flight  in  his  hearing,  in  the  course  of  his  practical  ministry  of  the 

*Vord.     Thus  Papias  seems  to  have  silenced  objection  in  Asia,  where 

th£  missing   ending  soon  found  a  substitute  in  the  present  'longer 

ending'. 

Our  next  witness  to  the  regretful  feeling  with  which  Mark's  '  meagre ' 

crcDntents,  as  they  were  thought,  were  regarded  even   by  those  who 

^«:<»pted  it  for  the  sake  of  its  apostolic  origin,  comes  from  Rome  itself. 

X^ippotytus,  in  arguing  against  Mardon's  dualism,  writes  (PAt/os.  vii  30) 

^s  follows :  '  Whenever,  then,  Marcion  or  any  one  of  his  d<^s  barks 

Against  the  Demiurge,  putting  forward  the  doctrines  springing  from  the 

^^^ntraposition  of  Good  and  Evil,  one  must  say  to  them  that  neither 

^aul  the  Apostle  nor  Mark  i  KoXo/9o&urrvAos  reported  such  doctrines — 

■o  none  of  these  things  are  written  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark 

^~-but  Empedocles  of  Agrigentum.' 

As  to  the  conjunction  of  Mark  with  Paul  as  an  authority  which  even 
*  Marcionite  must  accept  as  conclusive,  the  note  in  the  edition  of 
■'^cker  and  Schneidewin  is  almost  certainly  right.  '  Videtur  autem 
'^ippolytus  hac  appellatione  [&  xoAo^o&iKrvAov]  ideo  usus  esse,  ut  simul 
^luderet  ad  mutilatum  quo  Marcion  uteretur  evangelium,  quod,  cum 
^Ucae  esset,  Hippolytus  prave  Marco  adscribebat.  Idem,  cum  Paulum 
^Jarco  consociet,  Marcioneum  Novi  Foederis  canonem  complectitur 
^^versum.'  But  even  so,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to 
I^Uncker,  to  whom  we  owe  the  note,  to  question  the  literal  meaning 
^f  the  epithet  altc^ether ;  he  simply  treats  the  metaphorical  allusion 
^  the  *  curtailed ',  or  more  exactly  '  curt-fingered ',  character  of  Mark's 
^lospel,  as  secondary  («/  simul  alluderei).  Yet  surely,  when  we  reflect 
On  it  for  a  moment,  Hippoljrtus  cannot  have  meant  in  such  a  solemn, 
%:gumentative  context  to  introduce  suddenly  and  without  explanation 
a  reference  to  'a  personal  peculiarity  which  had  impressed  itself  on 
the  memory  of  the  Roman  Church'  (Swete,  op.  cit.  p.  xxit).  The  very 
persistence  of  such  a  detail  in  the  local  tradition  down  to  Hippolytus' 
day  is  not  very  likely ;  nor  would  it  in  any  case  be  introduced  in  this 


124  1'"^  JOURNAL  or  THEOLOGICAL   STt 

[lassing  way  into  a  treatise  meant  also  for  rircutation  beyond  Rome. 
Surely  the  term  is  meant  in  a  seif-cxplanator>*  sense,  obvious  to  all  who 
knew  Mark's  Gospel,  transferring  to  the  Evangelist  himself  an  epithet 
proper  to  his  work,  which  seemed  but  a  *  curtailed  '  account  of  Christ's 
ministry,  when  compared  with  the  fuller  Matthew  and  Luke — curtailed 
especially  at  the  extremities,  the  beginning  and  the  end.  That  this 
is  the  true  view  is  further  shewn  by  the  divergent  stories  found  in 
different  prefaces  to  the  Vulgate,  as  to  the  exact  sense  in  which  Mark 
was  literally  'curl-fingered'.  Such  divergence  betra>*s  ihcir  nature 
as  glosses  upon  the  simple  e[Hthet,  the  ultimate  orijjin  of  which  may 
well  be  the  passage  in  Hippolycus.  Thus  I  think  we  may  bid  good-bye 
to  these  stories  as  to  ^ta^k's  physical  peculiarity,  while  we  gain  instead 
fresh  evidence  as  to  how  hard  a  fight  Mark's  Gospel  had  to  wage  uith 
religious  praejudUia.  At  the  same  time  we  are  made  to  realize  afresh 
the  strength  of  the  historical  tradition  which  carried  it  to  victory,  and  the 
deference  paid  by  the  Church  of  the  second  century  to  genuine  tradition, 
even  when  not  quite  in  a  line  with  its  current  notions.  Mr  Burkitt 
speaks  of  'the  fine  instinct— may  we  not  say  inspirationt — which 
prompted  the  inclusion  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St  Mark  among 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament'.  1  would  rather  speak  of  the  fine 
loyalty  to  a  genuine  tradition,  and  to  an  apostle's  witness,  even  wlicre 
its  full  value  and  significance  were  but  dimly  appreciated. 

Vernon  Bartlet. 


125 


REVIEWS 

Acta  PauU,  aus  der  Heidelberger  koptischen  Papfnishandschrift 
Nr.  I,  herausgegeben  von  Carl  Schmidt.  Pp.  viii  +  240  +  80, 
nebst  Tafelband.    (Leipzig,  Hinrichs,  1904.) 

It  is  seven  years  since  the  announcement  was  first  made  that  the 
University  of  Heidelberg  had  become  the  owner  of  an  important  Coptic 
papyrus  containing  the  Acts  of  Paul.  News  of  the  discovery  of  the  MS 
in  Egypt  bad  reached  London  some  time  before  and  it  is  somewhat 
disheartening  to  reflect  that,  were  it  not  that  they  'manage  these  things 
better  in  Germany ',  an  English  library  might  now  be  in  possession  of 
what  must  rank  as  one  of  the  most  inter^ting  of  the  theological  texts 
recovered  within  recent  years.  That  more  detailed  information  and 
the  promised  edition  of  the  text  should  have  been  so  slow  in  appearing 
will  be  readily  understood  and  condoned  by  any  one  who  examines  the 
photographic  plates  wherein  the  remnants  of  a  once  splendid  volume 
are  here  reproduced.  But  one  leaf  has  been  preserved  in  anything 
approaching  completeness  (Taf.  21,  2a);  the  majority  of  the  eighty 
plates  shew  the  results  of  months  of  labour,  the  strain  of  which  is  only 
to  be  fully  realized  by  those  who,  like  Dr  Schmidt,  have  had  to  under- 
take '  joinery '  of  a  similar  kind.  Some  2000  fragments,  many  of  them 
of  less  than  an  inch  in  surface,  had  to  be  dealt  with  and,  if  possible, 
pieced  together  and  assigned  their  proper  positions.  Further  study 
of  the  text  may  suggest  some  rearrangement  in  the  sequence  of  the 
disconnected  fragments,  and  a  revision  of  the  translation  or  of  the 
suggested  completions  of  the  countless  lacunae ;  but  what  Dr  Schmidt 
has  already  accomplished  will  merit  the  congratulations  of  all  who  can 
appreciate  his  ingenuity  and  patience. 

The  MS  dates,  in  the  editor's  opinion,  from  the  sbcth  century  or 
earlier— formerly  he  inclined  to  place  it  a  century  later.  This  is  a 
question  upon  which  avowedly  no  final  judgement  is  at  present  possible. 
The  uncials  in  which  the  text  is  written  shew  some  peculiarities  for 
which  it  is  difficult  to  find  a  parallel.  The  suggested  date  can  there- 
fore, so  far  as  based  on  palaeographical  grounds,  be  accepted  pro- 
visionally. The  Coptic  dialect  which  it  exhibits  is  an  argument  for 
placing  the  papyrus  (or  the  original  whence  it  was  copied)  in  a  relatively 


126         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

early  period;  for  it  appears  to  belong  to  a  transitory  stage  in  that 
developement  passed  through  by  the  ancient  idiom  of  Achmlm  on  its 
way  to  become  the  dominant  classical  language  of  Sa'idic  limatuie. 
Its  phonetic  characteristics  appear  to  roe  to  place  it  in  relation  to  the 
jargon  of  the  Theban  private  and  legal  documents  of  the  seventh  and 
eighth  centuries,  while  it  also  has  points  of  contact  with  the  similar 
texts  from  a  more  northern  district  (Hennopolis).  Both  these  groups 
seem  to  exemplify  a  somewhat  further  stage  in  a  similar  evolution. 

The  final  subscription  closing  the  text  sufficiently  proclaims  its 
contents,  though  doubts  may  arise  as  to  the  editor's  proposed  completion 
of  the  damaged  words  (the  photograph  here,  Taf.  58,  is  among  the 
least  successful).  The  Acts  of  Paul  once  held  an  honourable  place 
among  the  extracanonical  books  of  the  New  Testament  Origen, 
Hippolytus,  and  Eusebius  cite  or  refer  to  them  with  respect;  ancient 
catalogues  of  Scripture  contain  them.  The  Syrian  (and  so  the 
Armenian)  Church  appears  actually  to  have  received  them  as  canonical, 
down,  at  any  rate,  to  the  time  of  Ephraim.  Their  literary  history 
need  not,  however,  be  recapitulated ;  the  importance  of  Dr  Schmidt's 
publication  lies  elsewhere.  The  recovery  of  this  venerable  Coptic 
text  has  been  the  means  of  giving  an  unlooked-for  solution  to  at  least 
two  much  discussed  problems.  For  its  continuous  narrative— the 
editor  successfully  demonstrates  its  unity,  in  spite  of  lengthy  gaps — 
embraces  not  merely  the  Acts,  the  story  of  the  Apostle's  journeys  and 
adventures,  amplified  and  distorted  from  the  canonical  narrative;  but 
it  gives,  as  int^ral  parts  of  these,  the  incident  hitherto  known  inde- 
pendently as  the  'Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla',  then  the  apocryphal 
correspondence  of  Paul  with  the  Corinthian  Church,  which  Zahn  (and 
before  him,  Lacroze)  had  guessed  to  belong  to  some  such  narrative ; 
and  finally  the  apostle's  Martyrdom,  likewise  regarded  previously  as 
an  independent  work. 

To  account  for  the  subsequent  disappearance  of  the  Acts  as  a  whole, 
Dr  Schmidt  has  recourse  to  the  theory  which  he  has  already  defended 
in  discussing  the  ancient  and  eventually  superseded  versions  of  other 
books  of  the  same  class  {Die  a/ten  PetrusakUn,  1903)'.  He  supposes 
the  original  forms  of  such  works  to  have  early  fallen  into  disrepute 
in  catholic  circles  owing  to  their  adoption  into  the  rival  canon  of  the 
Manichaeans.  Favoured  by  heretics,  they  could  no  longer  be  counten- 
anced in  the  orthodox  communities  where  they  had  originated ;  and 
hence  a  revised  version  was  required,  from  which  in  time  particular 
incidents  were  extracted,  to  be  thenceforth  employed  by  the  Church 
in  her  menology.  To  this  revision,  then,  we  should  owe  the  various 
secondary  forms  in  which,  for  instance,  the  story  of  Paul  and  Thecla 
*  V^*  this  Journal  vol  v  pp.  995,  396. 


REVIEWS 


127 


anamed  such  wide  popularity  in  east  and  west.  The  ancient  Coptic 
Kx\.  supported  by  the  shortest  of  the  Greek  versions,  alone  survives, 
Dt  Schmidt  holds,  to  represent  the  original  form  of  the  work.  This 
rinr  of  origins  is  in  direct  opposition  to  that  of  Lipsius,  for  whom 
such  apocryphal  Acts  were  originally  the  product  of  Gnostic  writers — 
a  thecjy  to  which  von  Dobschiitz  and  Htlgcnfcld  have  lent  their 
wppcrt. 

Haring  been  able  to  shew  that  various  stories  in  which  Paul  is  the 
cwnal  figure  are  but  extracts  from  these  voluminous  Acts,  Dr  Schmidt 
cui  apply  the  traditions  as  to  the  authorship  and  date  of  the  parts  to  the 
(Sicussion  of  the  whole.  The  '  presbyter  of  Asia ',  lo  whom  Tertullian 
Muibcs  the  history  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  may  now  Ijc  assumed  to  have 
nmposed  the  whole  work.  The  presbyter  was,  we  are  told,  speedily 
condemned  for  his  misdirected  zeal ;  nevertheless  an  excerpt  from 
fiiiwork  (the  Corinthian  letters)  was  for  a  long  while  able  to  maintain 
its  popularity,  owing,  Dr  Schmidt  thinks,  to  Lhe  applicability  of  its 
ugumcnts  to  the  doctrinal  disputes  of  a  later  age. 

The  date  of  the  Acts  had  been  variously  fixed  by  previous  scholars 
between  laoand  180.  Dr  Schmidt  prefers  the  latest  of  these  limits; 
and  he  suggests  that  'Asia',  whence  the  writer  is  assumed  to  have 
come,  may,  in  view  of  Gcveral  indications  in  the  text,  be  further  narrowed 
to  the  neighbourhood  of  Smyrna. 

In  closing,  a  word  may  be  said  as  to  the  translation  of  the  Coptic 
text  The  translation  as  published  was  made  from  a  lithographed 
reproduction  of  the  text  which  it  was  afterwards  possible  to  revise  and 
indeed  to  replace  by  one  in  type.  The  emendations  standing  below 
the  German  rendering  rnay  therefore  be  ignored,  as  they  are  embodied 
in  the  revised  text  now  printed.  The  reliability  of  Dr  Schmidt's  trans- 
lation may  best  be  tested  in  those  [lassages  where  other  versions  offer 
no  assistance  {e.g.  pp.  52'74).  and  an  examination  of  these  ^hews  that 
his  rendering  fulfils  all  reasonable  demands.  In  these  portions  too 
be  has  been  perforce  less  ready  to  fill  lacunae  than  in  the  pages  where 
parallel  texts  have  now  and  then  tempted  him  to  overboldness  in  this 
respect '. 
^  W.  E.  Crum. 

^^r  '  The  rare  and  obscure  exprraion  wt>/oo|/fp.  ^3noie)occim  in  a  homily  of 

r     CItfTlPttoin,  RosM,  PapitiW  ii  36:  'Then  Cod  cnuvcd  Abrahjimi  to  auy  or  hold  lus 

I       haod  by  s  voice'     Tlic  Greek  {P.  G.  56,  t^iji)  omits  this  phrase.     Also  Paris  MS 

131',  if  ai  '  But  if  Goti  stay  Kia  hmnd  a  little,  fortliwitti  wc  raise  our  bands  in 


I 


Selections  from  the  Literature  of  Theism.     Edited  by  Alfred  Caldecott 
and  H.  R.  Mackintosh.    (Edinburgh,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1904.) 

One  has  so  often  to  lament  the  hardihood  with  which  professed 
teachers  of  religion  are  content  to  approach  and  even  to  discuss  in  m 
authoritative  manner  great  theological  questions  for  dealing  with  which 
Ihey  are  not  qualified  by  any  adequate  first-hand  acquaintance  with 
the  best  that  has  been  thought  on  these  subjects  by  the  uwiny  great 
intellects  which,  from  the  days  of  the  Greeks  downwards,  have  devoted 
themselves  to  such  enquiries ;  so  often  again  to  deplore  their  readiness 
lo  treat  as  of  first-rate  authority  on  these  mailers  some  tjook,  very 
often  admirable  in  its  way,  by  some  person  of  distinction  in  their 
own  church  or  school  of  thought,  which  is  for  the  moment  the  fashion, 
but  which  is  only  made  ridiculous  by  being  elevated  to  a  rank  which 
would  never  be  awarded  to  a  work  of  similar  standing  in  the  world 
of  thought  outside;  that  it  is  with  much  satisfaction  that  one  welcomes 
this  selection  from  acknowledged  masters  in  philosophical  theology, 
representing  a  great  variety  of  points  of  view,  as  likely  to  prove  of  the 
greatest  educational  value  in  the  training  of  men  who  aim  at  being 
representative  of  religion  among  men  of  culture.  While  tt  is  always 
true  that,  as  the  old  saying  has  it,  it  is  not  through  dialectic  that  Cod 
has  been  pleased  to  send  salvation  to  His  people,  there  is  no  reason 
lo  suppose  that  the  in^itrument  of  His  gracious  purpose  is  to  he  sought 
in  the  reproduction  at  third  hand  of  imperfectly  comprehended  results 
of  past  dialectic ;  yet  such  is  much  that  passes  among  us  as  the  deiinite 
teaching  of  revealed  truth. 

The  authors  from  whom  Dr  Caldecott  and  Dr  Mackintosh  have 
made  their  selection  are  the  following :  St  Anselm,  St  Thoma.s  Aquinas, 
Descartes,  Spinoza,  John  Smith  (the  Cambridge  Platonist),  Berkeley, 
Kant,  Schleiermacher,  Cousin,  Comtc,  Mansel,  Loize,  Martineau, 
Janet,  and  Ritschl.  The  few  notes  which  the  editors  have  added  are 
for  the  most  part  excellent.  It  is  possible  to  doubt  whether  they 
do  not  assume  a  more  advanced  philosophical  training  than  is  to  be 
expected  from  those  to  whom  this  book  might  be  of  most  use.  It 
would  have  been  belter,  for  example,  to  explain  (it  could  have  been 
done  quite  briefly)  on  p.  50  the  meaning  of  '  objective '  and  *  formal ' 
in  Descartes.  Every  one  has  not  within  reach  the  two  dictionaries 
of  philosophical  terms  tncithcr  of  them  very  satisfactory)  to  which 
reference  is  made ;  and,  if  they  had,  they  would  not  find  the  accounts 
there  given  particularly  clear. 

It  is  inevitable  that  one  should  feel  in  respect  of  a  selection  of  this 
sort,  that,  had  one  made  it  oneselfj  the  choice  would  have  been  sUghtly 
different.     Tlius   I  should  have  chosen  another    passage  from  the 


REVIEWS  129 

JCrilik  tUr  Uriheilskraft ;  I  should  have  added  a  piece  from  George 
filet's  translation  of  the  Esserue  of  Christiaftity  by  Feuerbach,  a 
•riter  who  had  much  to  do  with  originating  a  line  of  thought  which 
has  been  prominent  in  recent  theok^ ;  and  to  the  importance  of  whom 
iUtschl  bears  witness  in  a  passage  which  is  included  in  the  present 
selection.  I  should  have  been  inclined  to  look  out  something  from 
Pascal  and  something  from  Butler  j  and  I  should  have  liked  to  see 
both  Carlyle  and  Newman  recognized ;  while  it  is  strange  to  6nd 
Hegelianism  quite  unrepresented.  Hegel  perhaps  does  not  lend  him- 
self to  selections,  but,  in  a  book  intended  for  English  readers,  Green, 
whose  influence  on  the  higher  religious  thought  of  this  country  was 
wy  important  during  the  last  twenty  years  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
might  well  have  been  given  a  place  among  the  writers  chosen. 

Some  points  in  the  notes  seem  to  require  correction.    On  p.  31 

Dr  Caldecott  says :  *  In  determining  his  position  Aquinas  mediated 

between  the  Neo-Platonism  of  the  pseudo-Dionysius  (whose  work  De 

^omimhts  was  before  him)  and  such  Aristotelianism  as  was  known 

to  him.'    This  is  misleading.    The  book  De  Divtnis  Naminibus  was 

Act  the  only  work  of  *  Dionysius '  before  St  Thomas ;  and  the  expression 

'  such  Aristotelianism  as  was  known  to  him '  does  not  suggest  that 

C^s  was  the  case)  he  knew  all  the  principal  Aristotelian  writings  that 

s&re  known  to  us,  and  commented  upon  most  of  them.    Of  course  both 

isnthe  case  of  Aristotle  and  in  that  of  *  Dionysius '  he  used  only  Latin 

^^«rsions.     Would  it  not  be  truer  to  speak  of  him  as  mediating  between 

"^^^e  Avenroistic  interpretation  of  Aristotle  and  the  traditional  dogma 

«>* the  Church? 

Again,  on  p.  66,  Dr  Caldecott  seems  to  assume  on  the  part  of  Kant 

^  knowledge  of  Anselm's  'ontolc^cal  argument  as  distinct  from  that 

*^f  Descartes '.    I  do  not  know  what  evidence  there  is  for  this.     On 

T^- 133  the  precise  meaning  of  Vernunft  in  Kant  is  perhaps  insufficiently 

&*sped.     A  very  extraordinary  mistake  occurs  on  p.  313.    Cousin 

^  made  to  speak  of  'that  Eternal  Beauty  of  which  Deotimus  had 

glimpses  and  which  }u  thus  depicts  to  Socrates  in  the  Symposium'. 

*^   italics   are    mine ;   and  the  metamorphosis   of  the    Mantinean 

t^hetess  into  a  man  is  not  Cousin's. 

There  is  a  misprint  of  'in  infinity'  for  *to  infinity'  on  p.  25;  and 
*nother  of  'eternal*  for  'external'  on  p.  327. 

C.  C.  J.  Webb. 


VOL.  VI.  K 


130  THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


TAe  English  Chunk  from  the  Accasion  of  Charles  I  to  the  Death  of  Anne. 
By  W.  H.  HuTTON.    (London,    Macraillan,     1903.    jj.  6^.) 

Mr  Hutton  has  written  a  most  interesting  and  accurate  account  of 
the  history  of  his  period,  from  the  point  of  view  of  one  of  the  contending 
parties.  It  is  a  remarkable  feat  of  imagination  and  sympathy  that  he 
should  have  succeeded  in  throwing  himsdf  into  the  cause  of  the  High 
Churchmen  of  the  seventeenth  centur)-,  and  in  presenting  it  to  us  as 
they  would  have  wished  it  presented,  with  much  of  the  charm  and 
distinction  that  was  peculiar  to  them.  We  must  thanlt  him  heartily  for 
setting  before  us  that  side  of  the  debate  which  most  needs  a  competent 
advocate  at  the  present  time.  But  his  work  suffers  from  the  inevitable 
disad^'anlages  of  advocacy.  He  would  Ik  defeating  his  own  purpose 
if  he  were  impartial.  He  deals  out  stern  justice  to  the  vices  of 
his  enemies.  Archbishop  Williams,  for  instance,  is  belaboured  tin- 
sparingly,  and  the  one  grave  moral  fault  of  William  HI  is  mentioned 
thrici:.  Yet  there  arc  competent  judges  who  recognize  a  better  side  to 
the  character  of  Williams,  and  fiishop  Stubbs  has  set  an  example  uf 
making  allowance  for  the  temptations  of  kings  who  offended  more 
grievously  than  William  III,  whose  misconduct  was  never  permitted 
to  induence  his  public  action.  It  would  be  i^ngracious  to  bring 
forward  the  faults  uf  [tartisans  of  the  other  side,  which  Mr  Hutton  has 
had,  at  any  rate,  the  valid  excuse  of  limited  space  for  omitting.  He 
writes  this  history,  in  fact,  in  the  spirit  in  which  Dr  Johnson  composed 
parliamentary  debates  \  and  it  is  characteristic  that  in  his  kindly  account 
of  the  Nonjurors  he  is  silent  as  to  Dr  Johnson's  account  of  the  morals 
of  those  divines. 

But  sympathy  is  never  allowed  to  disturb  the  course  of  the  narrative. 
In  one  point,  however,  Mr  Hutton  seems  to  have  been  slightly  misled. 
Surely  he  attributes  too  much  importance  to  the  early  successes  of  the 
I..audian  party.  In  every  generation  an  active  minority  raises  funds 
and  excites  alarm  which  arc  out  of  proportion  to  its  intrinsic  strength. 
The  real  cause  of  the  ultimate  victory  was  not  the  work  of  Laud  but 
the  death  of  Charles.  And  in  Mr  Mutton's  very  instructive  statement 
of  the  forces  opposed  to  the  Archbishop  hardly  sufficient  weight  seems 
to  be  given  to  the  most  formidable  of  all.  It  was  less  the  active  hostihty 
of  such  men  as  Lord  Saye  and  Sele  than  the  unwilling  alienation  of  the 
moderate  Puriuins  that  brought  disaster  to  the  Church.  Such  men  33 
Sibbes  and  Goudge  (if  his  name  may  be  spell  as  his  descendants  spell 
it  to-day)  were  as  much  the  normal  Churchmen  of  that  age  as  were 
Latitudinarians  in  the  eighteenth  centuiy. 


i 


REVIEWS  131 

The  time  has  not  yet  come  when  by  the  co-ordination  of  the  results 
of  local  enquiry  we  can  hope  for  a  comprehensive  knowledge  of  the 
fertunes  of  the  clergy  under  Puritan  rule.  But  perhaps  Mr  Hutton 
might  have  been  more  precise.  He  speaks  of  the  activity  of  the 
Committee  for  Plundered  Ministers,  but  he  does  not  tell  us  that  it  was 
fonaed  to  provide  for  duly  ordained  and  beneficed  clergy  ejected  from 
the  counties  of  which  the  King's  forces  were  in  possession,  and  that 
though  its  members  no  doubt  felt  a  sincere  pleasure  in  making  vacancies 
which  their  evicted  friends  might  fill,  they  had  on  their  side  whatever 
moral  advantage  may  lie  in  the  adversary  being  the  aggressor.  And 
Hr  Hutton  is  hardly  justified  in  saying  that  '  it  was  made  practically 
impossible  for  any  Episcopalian  clergyman  to  hold  a  living.'  The  word 
Episcopalian  is  ambiguous ;  if  it  means  episcopally  ordained,  we  must 
remember  that  the  Westminster  Assembly  was  composed  of  elderly 
beneficed  clei^y  nominated  by  the  Members  of  Parliament,  and  that 
they  with  all  that  large  portion  of  the  clergy  who  were  in  general 
sympathy  with  them  were  safe  from  interference  under  Puritan  rule. 
If  any  sectary  refused  to  pay  their  tithe,  the  law-courts  would  enforce  it 
as  strictly  as  they  had  done  in  the  King's  day.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
'  Episcopalian '  is  taken  to  mean  an  upholder  of  the  episcopal  con- 
stitution of  the  Church  as  it  was  before  and  after  the  Commonwealth,  it 
is  surely  remarkable  how  many  prominent  Churchmen  managed  to  gain 
and  bold  livings  during  this  period  ;  Fuller,  South,  Gauden,  Lake  the 
Nonjuror  of  after-days,  to  name  but  a  few.  And  if  men  of  this  rank 
were  numerous,  we  maybe  sure  that  humbler  holders  of  the  same  views 
were  still  more  safe.  In  fact,  the  collapse  of  the  attempt  to  establish 
Presbyterianism  removed  all  restrictions  from  a  man  who  was  at  peace 
with  his  own  parishioners.  The  Independent  system  was  as  favourable 
to  a  High  Churchman  as  to  a  Congregationalist  It  would  be  dai^erous 
for  him  to  use  the  Prayer-book,  though  according  to  a  well-known 
anecdote  he  might  repeat  its  words  by  heart.  But  if  none  of  his  own 
people  complained  to  the  County  Committee,  it  was  the  business  of  no 
one  else  to  interfere,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  the  exercise  of  ordinary 
tact  was  in  many  cases  a  sufficient  protection.  Mr  Hutton  seems  also 
to  overstate  the  number  of  ejections.  He  says  that '  most  of  the  clergy 
were  ejected  from  their  livings.'  Was  this  so  in  the  Eastern  counties  ? 
Elsewhere,  if  a  fairly  wide  induction  from  parishes  in  Wilts  and  Dorset 
may  be  trusted,  the  Puritan  authorities  were  moved  rather  by  secular 
considerations  than  by  zeal,  and  the  occupants  of  poor  vicarages  were 
often  allowed  to  remain,  though  strict  search  was  made  into  the 
malignancy  of  comfortable  rectors.  Yet  even  among  these  there  were 
notable  instances  of  connivence,  probably  due  to  family  or  social  relations 
with  the  country  gentlemen  who  formed  the  County  Committees.    But 

K  2 


133         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

the  points  of  interest  in  this  obscure  period  are  countless,  and  U"w 
unj^racious  to  dwell  upon  points  of  difference.  One  more,  however,  may 
be  mentioned.  No  attack  was  made  under  the  Commonwealth,  except 
in  Wales,  upon  parochial  endowments,  though  plans  were  drawn  for 
division  of  parishes  and  local  adjustment  of  incomes.  Mr  Hunon's 
language  might  be  misunderstood  to  mean  that  the  whole  revenoe  of 
the  Church,  and  not  merely  that  of  the  Sishops  and  Cathedral  and 
CoU^iate  churches,  was  affected  by  legislation. 

It  is  superfluous  to  praise  the  literary  merits  of  Mr  Hutton's  work, 
and  especially  the  skill  with  which  he  marshals  his  facts  and  his  judicious 
selection  of  points  of  local  and  personal  interest  with  which  to  brighten 
hts  narmtive.  And  if  we  are  inevitably  reminded  that  there  are  other 
sides  to  the  story,  that  in  itself  is  a  thankworthy  service.  Kot  that 
he  fails  to  slate  the  problems  of  ecclesiastical  polity  with  sufficient 
definiteness.  When  he  impresses  upon  us  the  Enstianism  of  Charles  I, 
we  are  forced  to  reflect  whether  any  Church  which  is,  or  is  attempting 
to  become,  effectively  national  can  escape  that  chaige. 

E.  W.  Watson. 


Actus  Beati  Frandsdet  Sodemm  etus.   Edidit  Paul  Sabatier.    (Paris, 
Fischbacher,  1902,  10  fr.) 

This  is  the  fourth  volume  of  M.  Sabatier's  CoUuHon  d'itudes  et  de 
doctimenis-,  and,  if  it  is  not  so  valuable  as  some  of  its  predecessors,  it  is 
Blill  full  of  interest.      What  is  the  relation  of  the  Aeius  in  the  Floretum 
to  the  modern  Fioretti'i     It  is  this  question  which  M.  Sabatier  dis- 
cusses in  his  lucid  introduction,  and  his  careful  collation  of  a  very  large 
number  of  MSS  enables  us  to  answer  it  with  some  certainty.    It  is 
true  that  he  is  not  yet  able  to  give  a  critical  edition  which  traces  every 
statement  in  the  Actus  to  its  source ;  he  is  content  with  a  tentative 
enterprise,  which  is,  however,  far  in  advance  of  what  we  have  hitherto 
possessed.     We  have  not  yet  got  the  Actus  in  their  first  state.     But 
we  can  trace  two  dcfmite  sources,  one  enthusiastic  and  fresh,  one 
much  less  vivid  and  more  formal.    Is  the  former  the  work  of  Ugolino, 
the  author  of  the  Fioretti'i    Are  the  later  pages,  full  of  miracles  and  Ji 
conventionality,  without  historical  value?    To  ask  such  a  question^  siyar 
M.  Sabatier,  were  an  unpardonable  error.     The  work  of  Ugohno  him — 
self,  the  editor  would  say.  has  most  value  when  it  deals  with  matter? 
fifty  or  eighty  years  before  his  own  day.     The  Umbrian  people  \ayt  in 
their  hearts  the  best  and  truest  view  of  its  value.    Of  the  strange  alliance 
between  the  Bullandist    Suyskens   and  the  rationalists  M.  Sabatier 
will  have  nothing  favourable  to  say.    As  to  date,  the  latest  ports  of  th« 


riEws  J33 

Jtiiii  must  be  before  1328.  There  is  a  thorough  examination  of  the 
MSSi  an  excellent  index,  and  a  discussion  of  the  fotmaiion  of  the  present 
ten.  The  book  is  indispensable  to  a  critical  study  of  the  'monumcnta 
Fraociscaoa '. 

W.  H.  HUTTOH. 


*■ 


^  DtJiriplion  of  the  Uturgi(al  MSS  ptxserved  in  the  Libraries  0/  the 
Orthodox  East  (Opisanie  Liturgifeskich  Rukopisej  Chranja£<^tchsja  v 
Bibliotekach  Pravosbvnjago  Vostoka),  By  Alexanuek  Dmitriev- 
SKij.    a  vols  Kiev,   1895-1901.   Vol.  ii. 

The  present  review  only  concerns  the  second  volume  of  this  menu- 

enial  work,  relating  to  the  Emhobgia.     The  firet  voIuni<^  relating 
lypica,  1  leave  to  one  more  familiar  with  that  class  of  manuscript 

an  myself.  The  two  volumes  are  indet>endent  of  each  other  and 
admit  of  being  reviewed  apart.  M.  Dmitricv<>kij,  who  has  a  chair  in 
the  Seminary  at  Kiev,  both  supplements  the  Euchologion  of  Goar  and 
makes  what  is,  since  the  Apjiearance  of  Goar's  work,  the  most  important 
contribution  to  our  knowledge  of  the  Greek  rites.  With  indefatigable 
industry  be  has  worked  through  163  codices,  and  prints  all  that  is 
to  be  found  in  them  which  ts  not  in  Goar,  referring  his  reader  to  the 
Utters  work  for  all  texts  that  are  to  be  found  in  iL  This  pkn  has 
Sieved  this  volume  from  being  three,  instead  of  one  thousand,  pages 
in  length.  But  the  student  who  would  use  it  must  have  Goar  at  his 
elbow. 

It  Is  a  pity  that  Mtgne  never  saw  his  way  to  reprinting  the  latter 

bis  Patrologia  Graeca,  for  it  ts  a  rare  and  expensive  book. 

The  student  who  is  ignorant  of  Russian  need  not  be  deterred  from 
purchasing  Dmitrievskij's  work ;  for,  with  the  exception  of  the  first 
twelve  pages  of  preface,  there  is  hardly  any  Russian  text,  and  the 
brief  descriptions  of  the  codices  present  little  diff  culty  to  any  one  armed 
with  a  dictionary.  A  convenient  index  of  contents  drawn  up  in  Greek 
is  sold  with  the  second  volume,  which  can  be  procured  separately. 

Perhaps  the  best  idea  of  the  enormous  value  of  this  work  is  to  be 
conveyed  in  a  list  of  the  codices  arranged  chronologically  which  the 
eciitor  has  used.  2  stop  short  of  the  fifteenth  century  in  making  this 
list. 


Cent.  9-10.     Sinai  cod.  957. 
Cent  10.     Sinai  cod.  956. 
Cent.  10.     Sinai  cod.  958. 
Cent.  11-13.    Athos  PanteL  162. 


Cent.  II.    Sinai  cod.  959. 

Cent.  II  and  12.     Sinai  codd.  962 

and  961. 
A.D.  1153.    Sinai  cod.  973. 


134         THE   JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

Ceril.  13.     Sinai  codd.  1040  and     a.  d.  1332.    Athos  Pbilotheos  cod. 

')<\V  177- 

Ccni.    12-13.    Sinai  codd.   1020     a.  d.  1386.    Athos  Dionysins  cod. 
nnd    1036,  and    Patmos    cod.         99. 

jt  \.  Ceai.  14.    Athos  Vat(q>^  cod. 

(cm.  t,\.     Patmos  cod.  104.  133  (744);  S.  Saba,  now  Pa- 

<\.ii.  wdo.     I»atmos  cod.  709.  triarchate    of  Jerusalem,    cod. 

(Vtil.  1,^     I^tmos  codd.  730, 105,         362  (607);    Sinai    codd.   965. 

•jMi;  Athits  Ksphj-gmene  codex,         994.  99°.  9*3.  99".  9*"  J  Alex- 

tmnuuil»ctt\l :    .\thos  Laura  of         andria  Patriarchate  (in  Cairo) 

AUuiuH.  v%h1.  iS«j:  -^  codex  of        cod.  14^104  (Na  94);  Athos 

llir     Aahinwndrite     .\ntonine         Kutlum.     cod.    491;    Athens 

mm    in   the  Imperial  Library;  National     Library     cod.    356; 

Suwi  i\Hld.  960.  966,  967,  982,  Athos  Kutlum.  cod.  33;  Athos 

i,,^^.  Xenia  cod.    163:    ibidem  cod. 

(Vnl.    13-14-    Sinai   codd.   964,         t6i :  Athos  Laura  Athanas.  cod. 

Q  « I .  unnumbered. 

.\  i>.    1506.     .Athos  EsjAygmene     Cent.  14  (12)  of  the  same  library 
»hh!cx,  unnumbered.  cod.  R  no.  7 ;  of  the  same,  D. 

no.  93. 
The  above  are  the  first  forty-eight  ol  the  codices  used  by  Dmit- 
rievskij.  The  oldest  of  them,  Sinai  957,  conains  the  Baptismal  rites, 
those  of  Marriage,  Prayers  for  animal  sacrifice  and  CoMij  die  Blessing 
of  the  Waters,  Lections  for  certain  Saints'  Days,  and  certain  prayers 
for  use  in  Lent.  The  next  oldest,  Sinai  056,  is  a  roll  containii^  with 
other  matter,  the  Ordinations  of  the  various  grades  and  the  Blessing 
of  the  Waters.  The  third  in  order  of  age,  Sinai  95S.  is  the  first  which 
conuins  the  Eucharistic  Lituigy  of  St  Basil  and  of  the  Presanctified. 
It  contains  the  Baptismal,  Epiphanv.  and  Marriage  rites. 

Among  these  rites  are  two  services  of  supplication  for  the  Rise  of 
the  Nile.  One  <rf  them  is  from  a  Cairo  MS  written  a.  d.  1 790.  This 
is  based  on  the  Epiphany  rite,  from  which  it  takes  most  of  its  lections. 
It  is  appointed  to  be  used  <ni  the  Sunday  of  the  Feast  of  the  318 
Fathers  of  Nicaea,  before  PentecosL  The  other  rite  of  the  kind  is  in 
the  Sinai  codex  974,  written  in  1510,  and  ts  for  use  on  the  same 
ilay :  and  the  lections  are  similar,  but  in  otho*  respects  it  differs.  The 
IX^mcstic,  or  B>-nmtine  Governor  of  the  fences,  presides,  and  the 
Poix'  of  Alexandria  is  present,  Tl>e  rite  begins  with  a  stirring  hymn 
entreating  the  river  to  rise,  oi  which  the  refrain  is  *  Up,  by  the  jffovi- 
.leuiv  and  Whest  of  God.  O  Nile ".  At  the  end  of  the  hymn,  after 
the  t^^^ple  have  cried  these  words,  the  deacon  also  exclaims,  *Up, 
t>  Nilo';  the  people,  'Up.  up,  O  Nile';  the  deacon.  •Up,  up,  O 
Nile';  the  people,  'Up,  u{\  up,  O  Kde',     These  two  rites  deserve 


REVIEWS 


to  6c  compared  with  the  Syriac  rite  of  the  same  kind  published  by 

MrG.  Margohouih  of  the  British  Museum. 
In  this  collection  there  are  several  prayers  for  the  sacrifice  of  animals 

of  a  kind  hitherto  unknown;  for,  although  Goar  must  have  met  with 
the  fire  or  six  contained  in  the  eighth-century  Bar!>erini  Kuchologion 
and  in  the  earlier  codices  of  Grotta  Ferrata,  be  did  not  publish  any 
of  thera.  Dmitrievskij  publishes  one  from  the  Sinai  codex  957  of  the 
ninth  to  tenth  century,  three  from  the  Athos  FantcIe^iDcn  codex  162, 
of  the  tenth  to  eleventh  centur>',  three  from  the  Sinai  codex  973  of  ihe 
year  ti53>  This  last  codex  also  contains  several  other  interesting 
prayers  to  be  used  over  Coiubi  offered  for  the  dead.  Several  of  Uie 
above  sacrificial  prayers  recur  in  a  Constantinople  MS  of  the  year 
1584,  No.  115  in  Dmitrievskij's  enumeration;  and  isimilar  prayers  are 
contained  in  the  Coislinian  MS  of  the  Bihlioth^que  Nalionalc,  No.  231, 
written  in  the  year  1027,  of  which  Dmitrievskij  reproduces  the  con- 
tents at  p.  993,  after  he  has  finished  with  the  Oriental  codices.  This 
last  MS  contains,  beside  the  ordinations  of  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon, 
forms  of  consecrating  the  Emperor  and  Patricians,  Among  many  new 
pieces  may  tie  noticed  a  form  uf  rcnuncialioii  of  heresy  to  l>c  used 
by  Manicheans,  found  in  this  Paris  codex,  fol.  124,  in  which  an 
anathema  is  pronounced  on  Paul  of  Samosata,  '  on  Lukas  and  Btasius 
and  Antonius  and  Rodinak^  and  Anth<l  and  Nicolaus  and  Leon  and 
PetruB  and  on  all  tlic  other  thrice  accursed  teachers  of  ihh  nav  furesy ', 
In  these  words  we  have  a  reference  to  llie  revived  Manicheisni  of  the 
Bogorailes  and  Paulicians,  pourtrayed  in  the  tenth-century  form  of 
Renunciation  preserved  in  the  Vienna  codd.  Thcol.  Gr.  306  and  40, 
and  printed  by  ThalMczy  in  the  Wissenscha/tL  Mitiheil.  aus  Bosnun, 
J895. 
The  misprints  of  the  volume  are  numerous,  and  the  twenty-seven 
of  them  given  at  the  end  of  the  volume  do  not  exhaust  their 

umber.  But  such  mechanical  shortcomings  will  readily  be  forgiven 
to  the  authiir  who  by  his  industry  and  learning  has  put  all  students 
of  liturgies  under  a  perpetual  obligation  to  himself.  Until  his  work 
appeared  no  one  knew  what  materials  for  a  study  of  liturgies  were 
treasured  up  In  the  great  monasteries  of  the  East.  Henceforth  the 
student  who  uses  Goar  and  our  author's  volume  together  will  find 
Dearly  all  that  he  can  want,  with  (he  exception  of  the  liturgies  of  the 
Eucharist,  which  do  not  belong  to  the  J^uchologion  in  its  ancient  form, 
aod  the  Divine  Service,  which  does  not  of  course  belong  to  it  at  alL 

Fred.  C.  Conybeare. 


T36  THE    JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Das  Aifindmahi   in   den    swa   ersim  Jahrkunderttn   neuk    Chrittus. 

Von  Axel  Amdersen.    (Giessen,  J.  Ricker'sche  VerLigsbuch- 

handlung,  1904.) 
In  this  short  work  of  less  than  a  hundred  pages  Herr  Andenen,  who 
is  n  'GymnasiaHchrer'  in  Christiania,  has  essayed  to  deal  with  the 
problems  which  recent  criticism  has  suggested  on  the  subject  of  the 
early  history  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  writes  with  a  wide  knowledge 
of  Ihe  literature  of  the  subject  and  shews  abundant  signs  of  indeix-ndcnt 
study  of  the  sources.  His  standpoint  is  that  of  some  recent  scholars 
who  find  in  the  teaching  of  St  Paul  upon  the  Lord's  Supper  an  advance 
upon  the  original  intention  of  Christ,  and  who  see  in  the  accounts  of 
the  Synoptists  the  influence  of  a  doctrinal  tendetx:)',  which  has  affected 
their  narrative  of  the  Institution,  The  first  section  of  the  work  is 
devoted  to  an  examination  of  the  passage  1  Cor.  xi  20-34,  *'i'li  special 
reference  to  St  Paul's  use  of  the  terms  to  otu/xu  and  irowrr.  The  formex 
of  these  Herr  Andt^rsen  interprets  to  mean  '  the  Church ',  an  ihter- 
pretalion  for  which  he  claims  the  suppon  of  Chr.  Baur,  Pflciderer, 
and  Schmiedel  The  eating  of  the  bread  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
a  means  of  communion  with  the  Church,  while  the  cup  is  a  means 
of  jKirticipation  in  the  new  covenant  founded  upon  Christ's  death.  The 
objection  tliat  the  words  to  wip  v/iwv  are  fatal  to  this  interpretation 
is  disposed  of  by  the  theory  of  a  later  interpolation.  This  latter  theory 
depends  for  its  support  upon  the  absence  of  the  disputed  woids  from 
the  text  of  the  Synoptists  (whose  account  he  regards  as  derived  from  the 
words  of  St  Paul  in  their  genuine  form)  and  Justin  Martyr.  The  words 
too  are  supposed  to  be  inexplicable  in  the  context  in  which  they  occur, 
seeing  that  the  thought  of  the  Church  is  the  dominant  idea  of  the 
passage.  After  this  accumulation  of  improbable  hypotheses,  we  are 
not  surprised  to  find  that  Herr  Andersen  will  not  allow  that  in  ch.  x 
of  the  same  epistle  there  is  any  reference  by  implication  to  the  Christian 
sacrament  in  the  words  -ttvcv^tikmv  tto^  and  ^vtv^-r\M>v  j3^/ui  {the 
parenthetical  remark  of  St  Paul  in  v.  4  that  'the  rock  was  Christ'  is 
dismissed  as  'a  gloss  of  an  old  typologist').  St  Paul  finally  had  no 
conception  of  a  sacramcntiU  character  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  was 
a  feast  in  which  bread  and  wine  were  '  offered '  (so  the  writer  interprets 
iroitu',  which  he  explains  by  Justin's  words  in  Ap.  i  13  juvroZr  Kai  Tot« 
Sfo/ii'w]i«  repfta^iptw)  as  God's  gifts  to  be  eaten  and  enjoyed,  the  Ix)rd'5 
death  was  commi^niorated,  and  the  union  with  the  Church,  the  Body  of 
Christ,  cemented.  Herr  Andersen  maintains  that  St  Paul's  account  is 
independent  of  the  Apostolic  tradition,  and  he  appears  to  have  much 
the  same  opinion  of  its  historical  worth  as  Dr  Percy  Gardner  (see  pp.  53 
foil.). 


REVIEWS 


137 


I 


In  dealing  with  Ihe  Synoptists  Hcrr  Andersen  follows  in  the  steps  of 
rwMt  adnuiced  criticism,  lo  which  the  Abbe  Loisy  has  given  popular 
curmic;,  and  he  raises  problems  which  call  for  careful  handhng. 
Chief  amongst  these  problems  is  the  relation  of  St  Luke's  account 
10  that  of  the  other  Synoptists.  What  are  wc  to  make  of  the 
iixsna  form  exhibited  in  the  Western  text  of  St  Luke,  and  what 
« its  relation  to  that  of  Mk.-Ml.  ?  Ate  we  to  see  in  this,  with 
Htrr  Andersen  and  others  (see  also  Mr  Blakiston's  aitJcle  in  the 
JoWMAL  iv  548  foU.),  indications  of  the  existence  of  an  alternative 
account  of  the  institution  lo  that  exhibited  in  Mk.-Mt.,  omitting  ail 
mention  of  the  Body  and  the  Blood  ?  Such  a  theory  a  beset  with 
many  difliculties,  and  is  a  ])rccanous  foundation  on  wliich  to  build, 
in  new  of  tlie  textual  difficulties  exhibited  in  St  Luke,  and  the  apparently 
CQcllicting  testimony  of  the  shorter  (VVestern)  form  of  the  text.  This 
hlter  dilficulty  is  met  by  the  assumption  that  the  Lucan  text  even  in  its 
siwttet  form  has  suffered  interpolation.  Herr  Andersen,  further,  has 
little  doubt  that  the  account  of  Mk.-Mt.  represents  a  recension  of  the 
original  story,  which  has  been  interpolated  from  St  Paul.  In  the  original 
aoBfce  of  Mk.-Mt.  the  Last  Supper  was  merely  a  parting  meal.  It 
omuined  no  reference  to  the  Body  and  the  Blood,  to  the  Paschal  meal, 
crio  the  saving  efficacy  of  the  death  of  Christ. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  all  the  passages  which  support  the  sacra- 
isoital  significance  of  the  rite,  Hcrr  Andersen  proceeds  to  discuss 
ttie  later  stages  of  its  developement.  His  account  of  the  Didache  need 
not  detain  us,  though  it  contains  some  questionable  theories.  But  his 
tnatment  of  the  Ignatian  epistles  can  scarcely  be  taken  seriously. 
Apon  from  doubtful  exegesis  (c.  g.  the  interpretation  of  oyuTn;  in 
Smym.  6,  of  dyaffo*-  in  Smym.  7,  and  of  the  Eucharistic  passage  in 
£-pk,  jo),  his  exposition  of  tlie  theology  of  Ignatius  is  marked  by  a 
Singular  perversity.  *  Ignatius  makes  no  distinction  between  the  Person 
Jtsiis  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  (spiritual)  organism  of  the  same 
nunc'  (i,  e.  the  Church),  p.  70.  The  expression  ah^^  Xptorow  is  a 
Agnation  of  the  Church  (p.  78}.  He  denies  that  there  is  any  reference 
'o  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  passage  in  Smyrn.  6.  The  false  teachers 
ilwained  from  the  public  gathering  for  thanksgiving  and  prayer,  because 
ttey  denied  that  such  a  gathering  under  the  Bishop's  leadership  coa- 
Oitmed  the  visible  Church,  or  'flesh'  of  Christ!  The  clause  t^v 
*^tuaav  Jt.T.  A,  which  follows  erapxa,  and  which  Herr  Andersen  makes 
*  poor  attempt  to  explain  away,  is  decisive  as  to  the  sense  in  which 
Ignwius  spoke  of  the  '  flesh '  of  Christ  in  this  particular  passage.  There 
U  undoubtedly  a  strain  of  mysticism  in  Ignatius,  which  leads  him  to 
P*c  occasionally  a  mystical  turn  to  such  expressions  as  <ra^  and  ar^ia, 
i^t  to  introduce  gratuitously  such  an  interpretation  into  a  passage  like 


T38  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

Smym.  6  is  to  make  nonsenst:  of  hts  Eanguage.  If  Ignatius  could  thus 
play  with  words,  how  singularly  ineffective  must  his  protcrst  against 
Docetism  have  been !  The  discussion  of  the  thought  of  Ignatius  is 
vitiated  throughout  by  this  uncritical  treatment,  against  which  it  is 
sufficient  to  appeal  to  the  careful  statements  of  Von  der  Goltz  in  his 
excellent   monograph  on   Ignatius   in    Texti  und  Unteraueh.  Bd.  xii 

PP-  73-  74- 

The  conclusion  which  Herr  Andersen  draws  from  the  language  of 
Ignatius  iii  that  the  latter  does  not  go  beyond  the  language  of  St  Paul, 
■when  that  language  is  interpreted  in  the  sense  of  Herr  Andersen  (see 
above).  There  were,  however,  in  the  theology  of  Ignatius,  elements, 
such  as  his  teaching  on  the  incarnate  Christ,  and  the  emphasis  laid  on 
the  reality  of  His  Flesh,  which  prepared  the  way  for  an  identification  of 
the  aZi^  of  which  St  Paul  speaks  with  the  Flesh  of  Christ  (p.  82). 
This  itlentification,  he  maintains,  took  place  between  the  times  of 
Ignatius  and  Justin  and  comes  to  light  in  the  latter  writer. 

The  difficult  question  of  the  Agap^  is  discussed  by  Herr  Andersen, 
who  attempts,  with  no  great  success,  to  controvert  the  assumption  of 
most  modt:m  scholars  tliat  the  Aga[«!  and  the  Eucharist  became 
separated  at  the  beginning  (or  about  the  middle)  of  the  second  century. 
We  may  grant  to  him  that  the  passage  of  Pliny  is  not  decisive.  But 
his  attempt  to  prove  that  Justin  in  his  account  of  the  Christian  service  1 
{^Ap.  i  67)  is  describing  tht:  Agape  in  which  the  Lord's  Supper  found 
a  place  (p.  87),  and  that  the  Agapii  of  TertuUian  also  included  the 
lord's  Supper,  is  far  from  convincing. 

Herr  Andersen  has  a  clear  grasp  of  the  nature  of  some  of  the 
unsolved  problems  which  surround  the  early  history  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  he  certainly  does  not  lack  courage  in  grappling  with  them. 
But  his  work  loses  much  of  the  value  which  it  might  have  possessed  by 
reason  of  the  extravagant  and  arbitrary  manner  in  which  he  treats  the 
docuxnents,  and  the  unconvincing  character  of  much  of  his  exegesis- 

J.  H.  Srawley. 


MISCELLANEA. 


I 


Tkt  Holy  Communion.     The  Rev.  Darwell  Stone  (Oxford  Libtar;  of 

Practical  Tlicology,  Longmans,  1904), 

Mr  Stone  writes  with  a  wide  knowledge  of  his  subject.    At  the 

same  lime  the  method  which  he  has  pursued  in  the  present  volume 

seems  to   be  too  exclusively   historical.      In   a  volume   of  practical 

theology,  intended,  as  we  arc  told  in  the  Editor's  Preface  '  to  traasl2te 


REVIEWS 


139 


lie  xtii  tbeologkal  learning,  of  which  there  is  no  larfc,  into  the 

wnacular  of  everyday  practical  religion  ',  one  would  have  Uked  to  see 

a  laiget  space  devoted  to  ihe  positive  and  practical  aspects  of  the  Holy 

Communion.     In  this  respect  the  present  volume  falls  short.    Nor 

is  Mr  Stone's  presentation  of  the  earlier  hisiorj-  of  the  subject  ahogether 

satiitaaoiy.     His  method  of  quotation  from  the  Fathers,  with  whom 

he  ihews  an  extensive  acquaintance,  docs  not  sufficiently  exhibit  the 

considerable  developement  in  Eucharistic  doctrine  which  took  place 

in  Aote-Kicene  times,  nor  does  it  allow  for  the  different  conceptions 

ittscbed  to  the  same  terms  b^  dJAerent  writers.     The  sicriBcial  sense 

of  the  words  vouly  and  AviZfonym  in  the  New  Testament  is  assumed 

without  any  indication,  either  in  the  footnotes  or  elsewhere,  that  this 

view  has   been  contested    by   many   scholars.     There   is    one    small 

slip  00  p.  74,  where,  in   iltustration   of  the  Eucharistic  doctrine  of 

Euthymius  Zigabenus,  Mr  Stone  quotes  a  passage  from  the  Pano^lia 

DfigmaUta^  which  is  really  a  reproduction  by  Euthymius  of  the  lant^uage 

of  John  of  Damascus.    The  book,  however,  brings  toj^ciher,  in  a  con. 

Tcnient  form,   a  very  considerable  amount  of  information  upon  the 

doctrine  and  adniintstralion  of  the  Sacrament,  which  will  not  easily 

I  be  found  elsewhere. 
I  J.  H.  Srawley. 

Criticai  Questions.   (Brown,  Ijngham  &  Co.,  1903.) 

This  book  consists  of  a  course  of  sermons  delivered  at  St  Mark's, 
Marylebone  Road.  Naturally  the  preachers  cannot  do  more  than 
indicate  the  main  lines  along  which  they  think  that  satisfactory  answers 
to  the  questions  raised  by  niodcrn  criticism  may  be  reached.  But 
the  sermons  arc  admirable  models  of  the  way  in  which  such  questions 
may  be  dealt  with  before  an  audience  of  ordinary  educated  people; 
and  it  is  surprising  what  an  amount  of  ground  is  covered  in  each 
sermon.  'I'he  best  of  the  course  appear  to  me  to  be  Dr  Swete's 
on  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Gospel  narrative,  Dr  Sanday's  on  the 
Virgin  Birth  (in  which  the  character  of  St  Luke's  narrative  is  examined, 
ajid  Joanna,  wife  of  Oiuza,  is  suggested  as  Ihe  possible  channe! 
through  whom  the  narrative  may  have  been  derived  from  the  Blessed 
Virgin)  and  Dr  Headlam's  two  sermons  on  the  Witness  of  St  Paul. 
I  have  found  the  second  of  these  lost,  in  which  the  more  advanced 
teaching  of  Si  Paul  on  Ihe  Person  of  Christ  and  on  the  Church  is 
considered  in  relation  to  his  earlier  Epistles  and  the  oilier  New  Tcsta- 
roenl  writers,  the  most  useful  and  suggestive  in  the  book.  A  short 
bibliography  suggesting  books  for  further  study  is  added. 

E.  W.  M.  O.  DE  LA  Hev. 


140         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

The  Pentecoital  Gift.      (Published  by   the  SooUisli   Church   Sodety, 
J.  Maclehose  &  Sons,  1903.) 

The  Scottish  Church  Society  represents  a  movement,  associated  ia 
most  minds  with  the  late  Dr  Milligan,  within  the  ranks  of  Scottish 
Presbylerianism  for  the  promotion,  among  other  objects,  of  a  fuller 
a|^rehen!;ion  of  'the  Divine  basis,  supernatural  life,  and  heavenljr 
calling  of  llie  Church '.  The  present  volume  consists  of  a  collection 
of  papers  contributed  to  the  Conference  of  the  Society  held  in  June, 
1902.  The  subjects  dealt  with  centre  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  Its  relation  to  the  Incarnation  and  the  Church.  Scripture, 
the  ministry  of  the  WOrd,  prayer,  the  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  Holy 
Communion,  Ordination,  and  Church  discipline  are  ail  viewed  in 
relation  to  this  central  doctrine.  The  several  papers  arc  written  from 
a  common  standpoint  and  exhibit  an  impressive  earnestness.  The 
writers  present  their  views  in  the  form  of  an  eirenie&ft,  in  which  they 
appear  to  have  siiecially  in  view  members  of  the  Church  of  England- 
In  several  respects  they  resemble  in  their  aims  and  objects  the  writers 
of  Lux  Mundi,  as  in  their  desire  'to  defend  and  advance  Catholic 
doctrine  as  set  forth  in  the  Ancient  Creeds',  to  foster  'a  due  sense 
of  the  historic  continuity  of  the  Church  from  the  first',  and  again, 
to  maintain  '  the  neces^iity  of  a  valid  ordination  to  the  Holy  Ministry  *. 
In  their  general  treatment  of  the  Pentecostal  Gift  as  the  extension 
of  the  Incarnation  they  are  at  one  with  the  teaching  of  the  late 
Dr  Moberly.  At  the  same  time  they  slate  clearly  and  well  their 
differences  from  Anglicanism.  There  is  a  criticism  of  Anglican  teaching 
on  Confirmation,  in  which,  however,  the  writer  minimizes  the  significance 
of  the  evidence  derived  from  the  New  Testament.  Ordination  by 
presbyters  is  maintained  as  an  irreducible  minimum,  while  the  position 
of  the  writers  is  defended  against  the  claims  made  for  episcopacy. 
The  reverent  tone  of  the  papers  and  the  evident  signs  of  a  sincere 
desire  for  the  reunion  of  English-speaking  Christians,  on  the  basis 
of  a  faith  which  appeals  to  the  witness  of  Church  history  and  Ihe 
principles  of  Scripture,  are  attractive  features  of  the  book. 

J.  H.  Srawley. 


J^ntfus,  uin  Lebcn  und  IVirken  (von  Prof.  Lie.  Dr  C-  Clemen. 
Giessen,  1 904.  3  \'o1s.  S\-o),  is  a  book  which  attempts  to  fulfil  two  different 
purposes.  In  the  first  volume  Dr  Clemen  claims  to  give  a  scientific 
estimate  for  students  of  the  sources  awilable  for  the  !ife  of  St  Paul, 
in  the  second  he  utilizes  these  for  a  popular  sketch  of  the  Apostle's 
life  and  teaching.  The  method  has  its  drawbacks,  but  the  publishers 
hmTC  attempted  to  meet  one  difficulty  by  allowing  each  volume  to  !>e 
puxcbased  separately,  and  each  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  fairly  independeTit 
of  the  other.  Each,  too,  is  carefully  and  well  done  upon  the  pre- 
suppositions which  the  author  consciously  lays  down  for  himself.  These 
imply  a  iKlief  in  Christianity  as  a  supernatural  revelation  of  God,  but 
a  rejection  of  anything  miraculous  which  cannot  be  brought  into 
relation  with  ordinary  analogies  of  nature,  in  which  the  relation  of 
cau*e  and  effect  is  not  traceable;  be  would  substitute  the  conception 
of  the  mirabik  for  that  of  the  miraculum.  Starting  from  this  basis  he 
examines  the  Pauline  Epistles,  the  Acts,  and  the  Apocr)'phal  Acts.  Of 
the  Pauline  Epistles  he  defends  with  great  fullness  the  authenticity 
of  the  four  greater  Epistles — Galatians  (which  he  treats  as  the  earliest 
of  all),  I  3  Corinthians,  Romans — and  also  accepts  i  a  Thessalonians, 
Cokissians  and  Philemon  (as  written  from  Cnesarea),  and  Philippians 
(as  written  from  Rome),  and  certain  fragments  embodied  in  Titus  iii 
12-14,  I  Tim.  iv  9-31  (as  written  on  the  Third  Missionary  Journey), 
3  Tim.  iv  9-18  (as  written  from  Caesarea),  3  Tim.  i  15-18  (as  written 
from  Rome).  He  rejects  Ephesians  and,  with  the  above  exceptions, 
the  Pastoral  Epistles,  not  on  grounds  of  external  evidence  or  of  style, 
but  of  the  indications  of  a  later  date  in  the  subject-matter.  The  Acts 
is  treated  as  a  late  document  embodying  two  early  contemporaneous 
sources,  one  In  the  early  lialf  anonymous,  the  other,  the  '  wc  '  sections, 
coining  from  St  Luke,  but  the  author  has  overlaid  these  with  oral 
l^endary  traditions  and  with  additions  of  his  own  partly  dependent 
on  Jocepbas,  partly,  as  in  the  speeches,  re-written  from  a  later  point 
of  view.  All  miracles  of  healing  and  all  visions  of  the  I^rd  are 
admitted,  but  such  events  a&  the  death  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  the 


142         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


earthquake  at  Philippic  the  literal  bodily  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  ana 
the  speeches  of  St  Paul  at  Antioch,  at  Athens,  and  at  Miletus  arc  set 
aside.  The  Apocrj-phal  Acts  are  rejected,  as  entirely  devoid  of  historical 
value.  The  Chronology  of  the  Life  is  then  exatnined,  the  Conversion 
being  placed  in  the  year  following  the  CructddoD,  the  death  in  the 
Neronian  persecution  of  64  a.  d.,  and  the  theory  of  a  second  imprison- 
ment is  rejected.  In  this  scctian  Pr  Qeracn  shows  an  openness  of 
mind  and  willingness  to  change  the  views  expressed  in  his  former  books 
in  the  tight  of  later  enquiry :  and  here,  as  throughout  the  whole  book,  he 
exhibits  a  thorough  acquainuiice  with  the  literature  of  the  subject,  and 
great  ingenuity  of  construction.  But  he  seems  to  roe  to  accept  the 
early  date  of  the  Conveniion  and  to  reject  the  tlieory  that  the  Ephesians 
is  a  circular  letter  and  the  indications  of  a  second  imprisonment  at 
Rome  on  inadequate  grounds,  and  altogether  to  expect  to  be  able  to 
have  a  more  detailed  and  exact  knowledge  than  it  is  reasonable  to 
expect  The  second  volume  is  very  pleasant  reiidtng:  the  Gentile  and 
Jewish  surroundings  of  life  are  clearly  pourtrayed ;  the  course  of  the 
Apostle's  work  \s  made  rational  and  vivid ;  the  letters  are  analysed  and 
fitted  into  their  historical  position  with  great  cleverness,  e.g.  the  re- 
construction of  the  relations  between  St  Paul  and  the  Corinthians  is 
admirably  done,  and  the  whole  leaves  the  reader  with  a  clear  conception 
of  a  strong  personality,  enthusiastic,  mystical,  yet  alTectionate,  shrewd 
and  statesmanlike,  working  great  results  by  his  own  activities,  but 
greater  still  by  his  theology.  Yet  there  is  something  lacking:  we 
scarcely  feel  the  sense  of  the  union  with  the  Risen  Christ ;  the  man  who 
bore  about  the  dying  of  Jesus  and  filled  up  the  sufferings  of  the  Messiah 
in  his  flesh  is  not  here ;  and  justice  is  scarcely  done  to  St  Paul's  great 
ideal  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  and  much 
of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  of  a  very  general  character,  but  such  a 
reconstniction  of  the  Apostle's  life  without  them  as  this  book  supplies, 
makes  us  realize  the  loss  of  light  upon  his  thought  and  work  which  their 
rejection  would  imply,  and  stronger  reasoru  yet  are  needed  to  make  us 
accept  that  rejection- 


J 


In  the  Dean  ofWestminster's  edition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 
{St.  PauFi  Epistle  to  the  Epkaians.  A  revised  text  and  translation  wittk 
expofiitiun  and  notes,  by  J.  Armitage  Robinson,  O.D.  Macmillan,  1903. 
8vo,  pp.  314)  we  liave  a  commentary  modelled  upon  and  deserving 
to  rank  with  those  of  Lightfoot,  Westcott,  and  Swete.  In  one  respect, 
indeed,  the  comparison  fails :  there  is  here  practically  no  Introduction, 
no  consideration  of  the  authorship,  the  destination  of  the  Epistle,  or  the 


CHRONICLE 


U3 


which  it  bears  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  and  in  the  light 
'of  ihe  hesitation  sLiU  felt  by  many  critics  in  legarcliny  the  E[)isttc  as  by 
5l  Paul  this  is  to  be  regretted.     But  within  its  own  limits  the  work  is 
ttceflent    We  have  first  a  translation  accompanied  by  a  very  full '  expo- 
utiDQ'  of  earh  section,  which  shews  an  excellent  knowledge  of  the  early 
Kislottsof  the  Epistle  and  of  the  Patristic  commentators,  and  emphasizes 
dearly  the  dependence  of  the  language  and  thoughts  upon  those  of  the 
Old  Testament,  amj  also  throws  into  proper  prominence  the  sense  of  the 
coTponiie  life  and  unity  of  ihc  Church  as  developed  in  the  Epistle.  Then 
follows  1  commentary,  and  after  it  a  few  detached  notes  on  certain  words 
and  various  readings.     While  the  whole  is  lucid  and  scholarly,  I  am 
inditied  to  think  that  the  best  part,  the  most  original  contribution  in 
the  book,  lies  in  the  detailed  examination  of  Greek  words,  partly  in  the 
Expoiiiion  (e.  g.  that  of  srAijpiu/io  pp.  43-45),  partly  in  the  commentary 
(e>^.  that  of  iKXi)(Mir$t}fifv  i  1 1,  irtftamtiftm  \  14,  ai^>/  and  lir\)(npqyta  tv  l6, 
^yppvrria.  V  3,  Xovrpov  and  ^pi  v  26),  but  chiefly  in  the  detached 
(wxes,  nil  of  which  contribute  materials  that  arc  fresh  and  valuable.    On 
the  other  hand  the  discussion  of  draiK^aAauucrucr^ai  t  10  is  scarcely 
adequate,  nor  is  any  real  illumination  thrown  on  the  difficult  jiassages 
IT  j-io,  V  1 1-14  :  in  one  case  l>r  Robinson's  right  desire  to  emphasize 
ihecorpoiate  unity  of  the  Church  seems  to  have  influenced  him  in  adopt- 
ing an  interpretation  which  is  not  convincing.     In  ii  2 1  iruo-a  olko&jui;  is 
translated  'all  building',  'all  building  that  is  being  done',  referring  to 
tbepmcess  ntther  titan  tu  the  result;  and  the  Icanslalicm  of  the  Revised 
Version  '  each  several  building'  is  put  aside  as  offending  the  most  con- 
spicuously of  all  translations  against  the  Apostle's  thought.    This  criticistn 
is  scarcely  jtjst ;  if  the  Apostle  can  speak  of  'all  the  churches  of  Christ ', 
while  he  thinks  only  of  one  ideal  Church,  no  less  can  he  speak  of  all 
the  various  buildings  which  are  united  to  form  one  holy  teinple :  '  each 
several  building'  need  not  only  refer  to  the  distinction  between  Jew 
and  Gentile,  but  also,  as  would  be  natural  in  a  circular  letter,  to  each 
local  church  which  is  added  to  the  whole,  and  this  suits  the  following 
words  more  appropriately ;   it  is  more  imtural  to  speak  of  the  building 
which  results  rather  than  of  the  process  within  the  builder's  mind  as 
growing  into  the  whole  temple.    A  few  minor  suggestions  may  be 
added.    In  ii  11  (p.  56)  I  do  not  think  the  connexion  of  the  thought 
is  'wherefore  remember  the  greatness  of  tlie  victory  gained'  so  much 
as  'wherefore  remember  with  humility  your  former  state  from  which 
you  were  only  rescued  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  therefore  you  cannot 
despise  the  Jcvish  Christians ',  cf.  Rom.  xi  1 7-24  :  so  in  iv  i  the  appeal 
to  himself  as  'prisoner'  seems  to  me  only  to  emphasize  the  appeal 
as  from  one  who  had  suffered  the  worst,  scarcely  to  suggest  '  I  who 
lot  carry  out  my  work  any  longer,  but  must  leave  its  practical 


144         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

realization  to  you '.  This  is  too  subtle,  and  though  it  might  find  some 
support  in  a  Tim.  ii  9,  is  quite  alien  to  £ph.  vi  20,  CoL  iv  18,  Philemon  9, 
which  are  more  contemporaneous  and  analogous.  Again  in  a  Cor.  xii  16, 
quoted  in  the  note  on  iv  14,  St  Paul  cannot  be  said  to  be  playfully 
using  -ravovpyos  of  himself:  he  is,  rather,  bitterly  quoting  a  Cwinthian 
taunt  against  himself,  and  proceeds  to  defend  himself  from  it  On 
p.  129,  line  6  from  the  end,  is  Corinth  a  misprint  for  Coiossaet  It  may 
be  right,  but  there  seems  no  special  reason  for  singling  out  Corinth  in 
this  context 

W.  Lock. 


L'£vangiU  seJon  saint  Jean  {Traduftion  critique,  introduction,  et 
commentaire.  Par  le  P.  Th.  Calmes.  Lecoffre,  Paris.  1904)  is  the 
fourth  volume  of  a  new  series  of  jttudes  Bibliquu  published  in  France 
by  Roman  Catholic  writers.  It  will  certainly  hold  its  place  in  the 
literature  which  deals  with  the  Jolhinnine  question.  The  writer  is 
well  acquainted  with  most  of  the  recent  works  on  the  fourth  GospeL 
His  criticism  of  the  views  of  R^ville,  Wendt,  Baldenspeiger,  and  Loisy 
is  sound  and  sensible  :  and  it  is  marked  by  a  soberness  of  judgement^ 
and  willingness  to  appreciate  the  results  of  modem  critidsm,  combined 
with  a  discrimination  which  is  perhaps  not  always  to  be  found  in  the 
work  of  M.  Loisy.  The  writer's  acquaintance  with  the  earlier  stages  of 
the  controversy  is  not  so  apparent,  though  he  may  well  have  deliberately 
ignored  them  as  lying  outside  the  scope  of  his  work.  He  shews  few 
signs  of  knowledge,  or  at  any  rate  appreciation,  of  what  has  been 
written  in  English  on  the  subject  But  the  book  leads  us  to  hope 
much  in  the  future  from  the  contributions  of  the  French  Roman  Catholic 
School  to  reverent  criticism. 

The  most  important  sections  of  the  Introduction  are  those  devoted 
to  the  consideration  of  the  external  evidence  and  the  historical  value  of 
the  Gospel.  In  the  former  we  may  notice  especially  the  discussion 
of  the  evidence  of  Irenaeus  and  Justin,  and  an  interesting  series  of 
parallels  adduced  between  the  Gospel  and  4  Esdras,  and  also  the  Epistle 
of  Clement.  In  the  latter  there  are  some  useful  remarks  on  the 
author's  love  of  allegory.  The  choice  of  an  incident  because  of  its 
allegorical  value  does  not  necessarily  preclude  its  historical  truth. 
The  discussion,  however,  leaves  us  too  often  in  uncertainty  as  to  what  is 
true  history,  and  what  must  be  r^arded  as  pure  all^ory. 

The  main  part  of  the  book  consists  of  a  translation  of  the  Gospel 
into  French,  printed  in  sections,  each  of  which  is  followed  by  explanatory 
notes.    It  may,  perhaps,  be  questioned  whether  much  is  gained  by 


CHRONICLE 


145 


a  complete  translation  of  the  Gospel.  A  paraphrase  indicating  the 
sequence  of  thought  is  probably  what  the  majority  of  readers  need  most 
to  the  way  of  helps  to  the  study  of  St  John.  The  notes  are  an  admirable 
ipecnnen  of  French  lucidity.  In  most  cases  they  clearjy  delineate  a 
meaning  of  the  passage  which  is  possible  and  intelligible  ;  but  I  am 
bound  to  confess  tha:  after  reading  many  of  them  I  was  left  with  the 
iroprtjsion  that  the  real  difficulties  had  not  been  solved,  and  that  often 
ihey  had  hardly  been  touched.  The  book  will  never  take  its  place  as 
<ii(  Commentary  on  St  John,  in  the  sense  in  which  Dr  Westcott's  did 
forat  least  one  generation  of  English  readers.  It  will  prove  a  useful 
and  suggestive  aid  to  the  study  of  the  Gospel. 

In  cunclusion  two  passages  may  be  cited  which  shew  the  writer's 
saadpoint.  In  dealing  with  the  work  of  M.  Loisy,  which  was  pubhshed 
Uw  late  to  be  used  regtjlarly,  he  says  in  the  Preface,  '  There  are 
kUesories  and  symbols  in  the  Johannine  Gospel,  it  is  true  ;  truer  perhaps 
Ibu  hitherto  we  had  si3p[josed.  But  how  far  do  these  allegories  and 
lyrabols  go?  And  in  what  measure  are  they  destructive  of  the  historical 
wioe  of  the  book?  That  is  the  delicate  question.  To  state  that  the 
cbuicters  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  arc  iyj>es  is  nut  enough  to  enable  us 
t0  draw  the  conclusion  thai  those  types  which  are  unknown  to  the 
Sivoptists,  as  Nathanacl  and  Nicoderaus,  have  no  reality.  We  must  do 
more  than  shew  that  in  the  Bible  seven  is  a  perfect  number,  if  we  are 
to  see  a  mere  s>'mbol  in  each  chronological  detail.'  And  in  his  notes 
oncbap.  xvti  he  says  'According  to  Jilliclier  the  sacerdotal  prayer  is 
the  type  of  the  artificial  discourses  which  the  Evangelist  introduces  in 
his  book  without  any  historical  basis.  We  do  not  pretend  to  agree 
»iih  this  opinion.  But  it  appears  to  us  impossible  not  to  recognize  that 
WE  are  here  in  the  presence  of  dogmatic  developements,  the  explanation 
of  which  must  be  sought  rather  in  the  habits  of  thought  of  the  Evangelist 
llttn  in  the  actual  words  of  Jesus.' 

These  passages  contain  the  soundest  criticism  of  much  that  has  been 
lattly  written  about  the  Fourth  Gospel.     But  the  important  question 
How  far?  remains.    And  M.  Calmes  lias  not  led  us  very  far  towards 
aniaswer. 
^K  A.  E.  Brooke. 

^^^m  Sacred  SfUt  ef  the  Gospels  (by  W.  Sanday,  Lady  Margaret 
^FProfessor  of  Divinity,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford ;  with  the 
I  assistance  of  Paul  Waterhouse.  Oxford,  at  the  Clarendon  Press,  IQ03) 
Dr  Sanday  examines  afresh  the  traditions  of  the  Holy  Places  which  he 
has  recently  visited.  His  attitude  is  sjTiipathetic  as  well  as  critical ; 
and  the  conclusions  of  so  high  an  authority  on  the  New  Testament  and 
VOL.  VI.  L 


146         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

the  early  literature  of  the  Church  naturally  cany  great  weight.     He 

finds  that  there  is  more  evidence  for  the  crucial  period  between  the 

destruction  of  Jertiultim  and  ihe  age  of  Consiantine  than  is  generally 

supposed ;   a  certain   Iwlancc  of  probability  is  still  in  favour  of  the 

traditional  sites  of  Golgotha  and  the  Holy  Sepulchre;   there  is  even 

more  to  be  said  in  favour  of  the  traditional  Coenaculum,  for  the  chain 

of  evidence  for  the  situation  of  'the  upper  room  of  the  holy  and 

glorious  Sion',  'the  mother  of  all  the  churches' — the  CAn'stiafi  Sion 

on  the  western  hill — Ls  remarkably  continuous.    Our  Lord's  trial  and 

condemnation  took  place  in  and  in  front  of  Herod's  palace,  a  part 

of  which  still  remains  near  the  Jaffa  gate.    With  characteristic  fairness 

Dr  Sanday  does  ftill  justice  to  the  advocates  of  the  'Garden  Tomb  *  and 

Gordon's  Calvary,  and  he  decides  unhesitatingly  against  them.   Valuable 

discussions  on   ■  the   land   of  the  Gerasenes ',   Dalmanutha,  Bethany 

beyond   Jordan,  jllustrate  the  important  bearing  of  textual  criticism 

upon  problems  of  topography.    After  weighing  the  rival  claims  of  Khin 

Mtnyeh  and  Tell  Hilm  to  represent  Cai>t:rnaum,  Dr  Sanday  inclines  to 

support  the  former ;  but  he  has  since  announced  his  conversion  to  Tell 

HQm  {J.T.S.,  Oct.  1903,  pp.  42  ff).     In  picturing  to  ourselves  the 

chief  cities  of  Palestine  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  we  arc  bidden  to 

remember  that  externally  they  bore  the  stamp  of  the  dominant  Graeco- 

Roman  civilization  which  had  been  imposed  upon  them.  The  architecture 

of  the    principal    buildings    was    Graeco  ■  Roman.       Mr    Walerhouse's 

admirable  restoration  of  the  Hcrodian  Temple  enables  us  to  realize 

this  very  clearly.     The   style  was   no   doubt   eclectic ;    the   gates  of 

Nicanor,  for   instance,  were   brought   from   Alexandria,  according   to 

Jewish  tradition';   for  the  details  we  may  go  to  such  monuments  as 

the  tomb  of  Helena  of  Adiabene  (the  so-called  Tombs  of  the  Kings). 

The  photographs  which  illustrate  this  attractive  volume  add  much  to 

its  interest. 

G.  A.  Cooks.       . 

i« 

A  Synopsis  of  the  Gospels  in  Greek  with  various  readings  and  Critical 

Notes.    Rev.  Arthur  Wright,  B.D.    Second  Edition,  Revised 

and  Enlarged.     (London,  Macmillan  &  Co.,  1903.) 

It  is  not  improbable  that,  of  books  published  in  recent  years,  the 

first  edition  of  Mr  Wright's  Synapsis  has  done  more  than  any  other  to 

»  Talm.  B.   Yama  38*.     The  tradition  Kens  to  be  confinncd  by  the  JIawilh 
OMtury  recently  Tuund  near  JeruMlcm  boring  the  inBcriptJon  : 

AffTii  Twn  Tcu  H*iitafop/)s  'AA^(afbp4«n  voi^aavrot  r5»  9vpat 

KKtW  -uira 
The  form  mmSm  probably  -  AA.fii  mo.  abbr.  for  AA^^avfl^w.     Clennont-Ganncmi. 
fUc.  d'Airh.  Orunt.  v  (1901)  §  53. 


J 


CHRONICLE  147 

diffuse  a  right  understanding  of  the  composition  and  origin  of  the  first 
three  Gospels.     A  quarto  book,  it  was  yet  not  too  bulky  for  use  in 
lectures,  and  it  had  the  supreme  merit  of  placing  before  students  a  con- 
secutive test  of  St  Mark  conveniently  arranged  in  short  lines,  with  the 
parallels  from  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke  in  adjacent  columns,  and  with 
liberal  marginal  space  for  annotation.    The  book  contained  much  else, 
but  this  alone  would  have  sufficed  to  make  it  indispensable  to  students, 
many  of  whom  must  have  realized  for  themselves  the  truth  of  the 
modem  critical  result  that  St  Mark  is  the  earliest  of  our  three  Gospels 
vith  a  thoroughness  of  conviction  which  could  have  been  gained  from 
no  ordinary  Introduction  to  the  Gospels.     From  this  point  of  view  the 
greater  bulk  of  the  second  edition,  319  p^es  as  compared  with  16S,  is 
not  a  gain.    The  book  so  augmented  is  more  suitable  for  the  study 
than  for  the  lecture  room.    University  students  who  spend  their  morning 
in  attending  lectures  economize  as  far  as  possible  in  the  number  and 
"eight  of  books  which  they  cany  with  them.     Some  of  them  have  to 
economize  also  in  the  matter  of  expense.     Mr  Wright  would  do  these 
an  additional  service  if  he  would  print  for  their  use  the  first  section  of 
fiis  book  by  itself  at  a  low  price. 

But  of  course  the  increase  in  size  brings  with  it  much  additional 

*^ue.    The  book  as  it  now  lies  before  us  contains  an  Introduction, 

^t   Mark's   Gospel   with  the   parallels,   a  collection  of  sayings   from 

^t  Matthew  with  the  parallels,  a  collection  of  discourses  from  St  Luke, 

^    number  of  fragments  common  to  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke  or  peculiar 

*<^  one  of  them,  with  a  few  from  extra-canonical  sources,  and  a  group  of 

;^istorical  narratives  peculiar  to  St  Luke.     There  are  also  Tables  and 

'^*idices,  a  selection  of  variant  readings,  and  a  number  of  critical  and 

^—^^tplanatory  comments.      The  text  with  a  few  exceptions   is  that  of 

^^estcott  and  Hort. 

Mr  Wright  is  an  avowed  champion  of  the  so-called  oral  explanation 

^^^f  the  genesis  of  the  Gospels.     He  believes  that  St  Mark  taught  as 

^^  Catechist  the  lessons  delivered  to  him  by  St  Peter  until  they  assumed 

"^lie  form  of  a  fixed  cycle  of  Gospel  narratives.     This  he  calls  the  proto- 

^klark.   Sections  belonging  to  it  may  be  found  in  St  Mark  and  in  St  Luke 

»■«  St  Mark's  order. 

A  little  later  additional  sections  found  their  way  into  this  cycle. 
These  are  the  deutero-Mark.  Sections  belonging  to  it  are  either  absent 
from  St  Luke,  or  occur  there  in  an  order  differing  from  that  of  St  Mark. 
Still  later  the  cycle  was  committed  to  writing  and  further  details  were 
inserted.  These  are  the  trito-Mark.  Such  details  and  phrases  are  not 
found  in  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke. 

Somewhat  later  than  the  proto-Mark  there  was  circulating  in  Jeru- 
salem a  collection  of  Matthaean  Logia,  i.  e.  sayings  of  Christ  without 

LA 


148  THE  JOURNAL   OP   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

historical  setting.  These  arc  the  proto-Matthew.  'lliis  cycle  lOO 
increased  by  accretion.  Our  first  and  third  Gospels  have  been  jwo- 
duccd  out  of  these  two  cycles  of  Gospel  material.  St  Luke  about  the 
years  70-80  a.  d.  fused  together  the  proto-Mark  with  the  proto-Matthew, 
adding  nialerial  from  3  third  collection  and  from  personal  information, 
and  inserting  detached  fragments  of  the  deutero-Mark.  The  writer 
of  the  first  Gospel  living  perhaps  in  Alexandria  about  75  a.d.  has  wdded 
together  the  deuiero-Marcan  and  deutero-Matthaean  cycles,  adding  other 
oral  truditions. 

We  welcome  Mr  Wright's  insistence  upon  the  weak  points  of  the 
two-document  theorj-  of  the  genesis  of  the  Gospels.  But  it  seems  vciy 
doubtful  whether  his  cycles  of  catechetical  teaching  and  their  develope- 
menl  do  rot  presuppose  a  very  large  amount  of  unverified  conjecture 
as  to  the  early  organiiation  of  the  Church.  Nor  does  it  seem  to  us 
necessary  to  lay  so  much  stress  as  does  Mr  Wright  upon  the  term  OraL 
It  is  clear,  on  the  one  hand,  that  both  the  later  evangelists  had  before 
them  a  form  of  teaching  very  similar  to  that  contained  in  St  Mark.  It 
seems  clear,  on  the  other  hand,  that  our  present  St  Mark  differs  in  some 
details  from  the  St  Mark  used  by  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke,  and  that 
the  copies  of  St  illark  u^cd  by  these  two  evangelists  were  not  always 
identical.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  solve  ihese  difficulties  by  recourse 
to  oral  cycles.  If  e.  g.  St  Mark's  Go5[>el  were  originally  written  in 
Aramaic  (a  view  which  is  gaining  ground  ;  cf  recently  Wellhausen  and 
HoSroann),  and  if  several  or  many  translations  were  current  in  the  early 
Church,  the  copies  used  by  the  writers  of  the  first  and  third  Gospels 
may  well  have  differed  considerably,  not  only  in  phraseology  but  even 
in  content,  as  the  insertion  of  secondary  matter  into  the  caaooical 
Gospels  clearly  shews. 

Again,  it  is  clear  that  much  discourse  material  is  common  to  St  Matthew 
and  St  Luke,  but  it  is  not  cleir  that  they  drew  this  invariably  from  any 
one  single  document,  whether  we  call  it  I^gia  or  not.  There  may  well 
have  been  several  or  many  written  collections  of  Christ's  sayings,  some 
of  them  dispkying  great  resemblances  of  arrangement  and  phraseology. 
In  this  way  a  documentary  theory  of  the  composition  of  Ihe  Gospels 
might  be  built  up  which  would  be  free  fnmi  the  vagueness  and  from  the 
conjectural  character  of  Mr  Wright's  oral  cycles.  No  doubt  the  later 
evangelists  did  incorporate  into  their  Gospels  much  that  had  come  to 
them  from  oral  tradition  and  personal  enquiry ;  but  that  they  did  use 
a  Marcan  document  and  one  or  perhaps  several  documents  of  discourse 
materia!  seems  to  us  to  have  been  conclusively  proved. 

Mr  VV'right's  comments  and  annotations  arc  always  suggestive  and 
helpful  Perhaps  the  language  used  seems  sometimes  to  aim  at  a  rather 
forced  freshness  of  character,  e. g.   at  Corinth,   'the   hungry  navvies 


CHRONICLE 


149 


snatching  at  the  viands*  or  'The  dyaTnj  happily  was  soon  abolished  and 
chorrhes  ceased  to  be  hotels'.  Somflimt-s  also  a  particular  interpre- 
ttiion  is  adopted  wtlhoui  sufficient  qualification,  as  e.g.  the  statement 
liiai  Judas  flung  the  shekels  'into  the  sanctuary  beyond  the  veil'.  See 
s^nst  this  Zahn  ad  loi.  But  after  all  a  S)*nopsis  is  not  an  Introduction 
'waCommentar)-,  and  in  his  presentation  of  the  Gospel  texts  Mr  Wright 
bugiieD  us  mudi  to  be  thankful  for. 

W.  C.  Allen. 


I 


SttUitt  on  the  Gosptis.     By  Vincent  Rose,  O.  P^  Professor  in  the 
University  of  Fhbourg.    Translated  by  Robert  Fraser,  D.D. 

There  are  several  reasons  why  the  critical  movement  of  the  present 
time  presses  less  strongly  upon  members  of  tlie  Roman  dtholic  Church 
ibin  upon  those  who  belong  to  the  Reformed  Churches,  and  the  natural 
ooQKquence  is  that  critical  questions  do  not  receive  so  much  attention 
fiom  Roman  Catholic  writers  as,  perhaps,  they  deserve.  The  fact 
orly  makes  a  really  solid  contribution  from  that  quarter  the  more 
Welcome  when  it  does  make  its  apjicarance,  and  such  a  contribution 
the  book  before  us  may  certainly  claim  to  be.  The  writer  is  a  Domi- 
^rcan  Priest  and  Professor  of  Theology  at  Fribourg,  and  the  translator 
ii  the  Head  of  the  Scots  College  at  Rome.  The  book  comes  therefore, 
mM.  I.oisy"s  did  not.  hearing  the-  /mjfrimatur  oi  i\\e  Ordtr  and  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Westminster  and  may  be  taken  as  a  fully  approved 
treatise  on  the  important  points  with  which  it  deals.  It  has,  therefore, 
flipccial  interest  of  its  own,  appearing  as  it  does  at  the  vcr>'  time  when 
the  condemnation  at  Rome  of  M.  Lotsy's  books  ha.s  led  many  to  think 
thai  such  subjects  cannot  be  fairly  faced  and  honestly  dealt  with  by 
■oy  member  of  the  Roman  obedience  without  running  grave  risk. 

Father  Rose  writes  from  a  conservative  point  of  view,  but  with  a  very 
complete  knowledge  of  what  has  been  said  on  the  other  side.  He 
Irtits  of  alt  the-  burning  questions  of  ihu  day — the  Fourfold  Gospel ; 
Ihe  meaning  of  the  terms  'Son  of  Man  '  and  '  Son  of  God ',  the  Super- 
wtural  Conception ;  the  Empty  Tomb ;  the  meaning  of  Redemption,  &c 
In  every  case  he  stales  the  case  of  the  liberal  critics  fairly  and  well, 
aad  then  proceeds  to  gi%'e  an  answer,  which  his  opponents,  though 
tbey  may  not  be  convinced  by  it,  will  admit  to  be  solid  and  welt 
reisoned.  We  select,  as  an  example,  his  treatment  of  the  Supernatural 
Conception.  He  admits  that  the  mystery  was  known  to  hardly  any 
docing  the  lifetime  of  Jesus.  It  was  universally  supposed  that  He  was 
dit  son  of  Joseph.  '  To  have  divulged  such  a  sixrtt  at  tliat  time  would 
have  been  not  only  useless,  but  imprudent  and  dangerous.'  He  admits 
abo  that  the  genealogies  in  their  original  form  would  inevitably  have 


T50         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIl 

ToUowed  the  general  belief.  But  he  holds  that  the  critics  go  too  tax 
when  they  assert  tliat  the  heticf  originated  in  Greek  aod  not  Jewish 
circles,  and  when  the)*  argue  that  the  Apostles  knew  nothing  of  the 
ni)'stery  and  did  not  include  it  in  their  preaching.  His  answer  rests 
mainly  on  the  fact  that  the  first  two  chapters  of  St  Luke's  Gospel,  to 
far  from  being  Greek  tn  origin  are  the  most  intensely  Jewish  portion 
of  tlie  New  Testament.  '  It  is  impossible  to  concede  that  St  Luke  was 
the  original  author.'  '  Only  a  Palestinian  Jew  could  have  written  those 
pages.'  Moreover,  the  condition  of  afiairs  is  that  which  we  find  at  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century  when '  at  Antioch,  in  Asia,  in  Achaia, 
in  Rome,  and  in  Palestine,  the  supernatural  birth  is  found  as-sociated 
with  the  facts  of  the  passion  and  the  resurrection '.  '  All  the  com- 
munities found(:!d  by  the  Apostles  at  this  lime  believe  in  the  virgin 
birth  ',  and  such  a  result  he  thinks  would  have  been  impossible,  without 
a  revolution  of  doctrine,  which  trust  have  left  traces  behind  it,  unless 
the  virgin  birth  formed  part  of  the  Apostolic  preaching. 

Tlie  book  will  be  found  very  valuable  by  those  who  desire  to  have 
the  conservative  side  on  thc!>c  questions  put  before  them  in  a  «-ay 
that  is  solid  and  learned,  but  at  the  same  time  eminently  readable  and 
interesting. 

A.  S.  Barnes. 


Christianify  in  Taimud  and  Midrash.  By  R.  Travebs  Herford,  B.A. 
(London,  1903.) 

Mr  Herford  has  written  a  comely  volume  printed  in  excellent 
type  and  extending  over  450  pagcu. 

He  gives  translations  of  nearly  150  passages  of  Talmud  and  Midrash, 
which  seem  to  refer  either  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth  or  to  Christianity,  and 
also  a  full  discussion  of  each  passage,  adding  the  origiiul  Hebrew  text 
in  an  appendix,  The  most  important  section  of  the  work,  i.e.  that 
which  deals  with  possible  references  to  our  Lord,  occupies  ground 
already  covered  in  English  by  Dr  Streanc's  translation  of  Dalman 
and  Laiblc's  Jtsus  Christ  in  the  Ta/mud,  Midrash,  Zohar,  and  tke 
Uturgy  of  the  Synagogue.  The  scholarship  of  Mr  Herford  falls  short 
of  I^ble's,  hut  llic  full  coUettion  of  passages  on  Minim  and  Afinuik 
(' Heretics '  and  'Heresy')  cannot  fail  to  be  usefuL  There  are  some 
misprints  and  mistakes  in  the  Hebrew,  e.g.  on  pp.  344  (11.  iS,  21), 
403  (1-  17)-  406  01.  28,  31},  430  (1.  26),  431  (1.  25,  broken  Hesh;  1.  29), 
Mr  Herford  seems  surprised  that  the  Talmud  says  so  little  about 
Christianity  (p.  347),  and  urges  that  it  is  too  much  to  suppose  that 
St  Paul  would  be  wholly  unmentioned  in  post- Biblical  Hebrew  literature 


CHRONICLE  151 

(p.  100).  But  does  not  the  great  success  of  Christianity  among  the 
Gentiles,  coupled  with  the  smaltness  of  its  influence  on  the  Jews,  go 
a  Jong  way  towards  explaining  the  relative  silence  of  the  early  doctors 
of  Jndaism  ? 

W.  Emery  Barnes. 


The  supplemental  volume  of  Dr  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  BibU 
contains  a  number  of  articles  of  importance  and  great  interest  in  regard 
to  New  Testament  study.  New  Testament  Times  by  Prof.  Fr.  Buhl, 
Roads  and  Travel  (in  N.  T.)  by  Prof.  W.  M.  Ramsay  (covering  a 
good  deal  of  ground  and  illustrated  by  maps),  Textual  Criticism 
(of  N.  T.)  by  Dr  Murray,  Sermon  on  the  Mount  by  Prof.  Votaw, 
and  Diaspora  by  Prof.  Schiirer,  are  the  most  important  articles  on 
the  general  subject  Prof.  Ropes  sums  up  the  results  of  recent  work 
on  non-canonical  Sayings  of  Jesus  in  the  article  Agrapha,  but  just 
too  soon  to  include  the  *  New  Sayings ' ;  and  Dr  Kenyon  does  similar 
service  as  regards  Papyri.  Mr  C.  H.  Turner  contributes  a  monumental 
article  of  nearly  fifty  pages  on  Greek  Patristic  Commentaries  on 
THE  Pauline  Epistles— an  article  which,  though  on  one  point 
^  Araiitage  Robinson  adds  something  in  the  present  number  of  the 
Journal,  will  long  be  invaluable.  The  history  of  the  English  Ver- 
sions of  the  Bible  is  admirably  and  fully  told  by  Dr  Lupton ;  while 
^r  Bebb  writes  on  the  Continental  Versions.  Among  other  useful 
^f^cles  are  Apocryphal  Gospels  by  Prof.  Tasker,  Gospel  according 
^  THE  Hebrews  by  Prof.  Menzies,  Diatessaron  by  Mr  Stenning, 
^^  Numbers,  Hours,  Years,  and  Dates  by  Prof.  Ramsay. 

Volume  iv  of  Eneyclopaedia  Biblica  completes  a  work,  the  value  and 
"•^  eccentricities  of  which  have  received  due  notice  in  the  Journal. 
^^^  the  student  of  the  New  Testament  the  masterly  article  on  Text 
***»  Versions  by  Mr  F.  C.  Burkitt  is  probably  the  most  permanently 
'Suable  article  in  this  volume.  The  methods  of  study  and  the  con- 
•^iisions  of  '  advanced '  criticism  of  which  Prof.  Schmiedel  is  a  chief 
'^resentative  are  shewn  in  all  their  vigour  by  his  articles  on  Resur- 
rection and  Ascension  Narratives  and  Spiritual  Gifts.  {He 
also  writes  on  Silas  [Silvanus],  Simon  Magus,  Simon  Peter,  and 
Theudas.) 

A  similar  point  of  view  is  indicated  in  Dr  Cheyne's  additions  ta 
the  article  Temptation  of  Jesus  (by  Mr  J.  Moffat).  The  narrative 
is  explained  as  due  to  the  belief  of  the  early  Christians  that  their  Master 
obtained  control  over  the  demons  by  performing  at  the  outset  of  his 
ministry  a  ceremony  of  initiation  by  which  such  power  could  be 
obtained.    As  an  alternative  explanation  we  can  fall  back  on  the 


152        THE    JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

inythalogical  theory.  What  we  must  not  do  U  'indulge  the  pleasant 
fancy  that  Jesus  himself  inay  have  given  . .  .  some  of  his  nearest 
disciples  glimpses  of  his  early  soul-history'. 

In  Rome  (Church)  and  Romans  (Epistle)  Prof,  van  Manea  com- 
pletes the  statement  of  his  own  position  which  he  had  given  in  earlier 
articles,  insisting  that  the  Epistle  cannot  possibly  be  St  Paul's  and  that 
no  one  has  ever  offered  proofs  that  it  is. 

Mr  Mofl^tt  treats  the  Pastoral  Epistles  from  much  the  same  stand- 
point in  llie  article  Timothy  and  Titus  (Epistles).  In  Thessa- 
LONIANS  (Epistles  to)  Prof.  MoGiffert  accepts  the  Pauline  authorship 
of  both  Epistles,  though  with  some  misgivings  as  regards  the  Second. 
Mr  A.  E.  Cowley  writes  on  Sadducees,  Prof.  Prince  on  Scribes  awd 
Pharisees.  Among  other  articles  bearing  on  the  New  Testament, 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  Stephen  are  by  Mr  Moffatt,  and  Son 
OF  God  and  Son  of  Man  by  Prof.  N.  Schmidt. 

In  F^mn  iMter  to  Spirit  (A.  &  C.  Black,  London,  1903), 
Part  ill  of  'Diatessarica',  Dr  Edwin  Abbott  continues  his  ingenious 
and  interesting  investigations  to  shew  that  the  Synoptic  deWatioos 
proceed  from  mistranslations  of  Hebrew,  making  use  also  in  this 
volume  of  the  analogy  of  the  Targums  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
honesty  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  explanation  of  its  differences 
from  the  other  three  Gospels,  as  regards  the  Baptism,  the  Trans- 
figuration, and  Christ's  prayer,  with  special  reference  to  the  Voices 
from  heaven,  are  the  chief  subjects  discussed  in  this  volume.  Among 
other  resutis  of  his  investigations  Dr  Abbott  concludes  that  the  Voices 
were  spiritual,  of  the  nature  of  'the  word  of  the  Lord'  in  the  Old 
Testament ;  that  Luke  was  right  in  omitting  the  clause  '  Deliver  us 
from  ihe  Evil  One ' ;  and  that  ihe  fonn  of  the  precept  '  take  up  the 
cross'  is  probably  to  be  traced  to  the  fear  thai  the  words  which  were 
really  said,  '  take  up  the  yoke  *,  i.  e.  the  yoke  of  continuous  ser\ice, 
might  be  misunderstood  of  the  (Jewish)  *  yoke  of  the  Law*. 

Paradosis,  by  the  same  author  (A.  &  C.  Black,  lx>ndon,  1904), 
expounds  the  theory  that  the  idea  conve)'ed  by  the  word  to  St  Paul, 
St  Peter  (First  Epistle),  and  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  was 
the  delivering  up  of  the  Son  by  the  Father  for  the  redemption  of  man- 
kind (which  was  our  Lord's  own  meaning  whenever  He  used  the  phrase 
in  predictions  of  his  Passion  and  Resurrection),  but  that  the  earliest 
Gospels  have  occasionally  confused  this  idea  with  the  delivering  up  by 
Judas  to  the  servants  of  Caiaphas  (the  betrayal).  Dr  Abbott  examines 
at  length  the  idea  of  ^anuhsis  in  connexion  with  Isaiah,  with  Jewish 
traditions^  in  early  Christian  thought,  in  our  Lord's  predictions  in  the 
Gospels,  and  at  the  Arrest.  Two  points  only  in  the  exposition  can  be 
noticed  here.  The  argument  leads  up  to  the  thought  of  the  Rcsiurectioa 


CHRONICLE  153 

and  of  the  Eucharist,  and  so  calls  forth  an  attempt  to  explain  the 
meition  of  Galilee  in  the  earlier  accounts  of  the  Resurrection  and  an 
examination  of  the  words  of  the  Institution  to  shew  vhj  the  author 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  apparently  avoids  the  use  of  the  term  '  body ' 
in  his  exposition  of  Eucharistic  doctrine,  using  always  '  flesh '  instead. 
The  chief  explanation  of  the  Johannine  deviation  from  the  Pauline 
and  Synoptic  tradition  is  found  in  different  renderings  of  the  original 
Anunaic  word,  which  Dr  Abbott  supposes  was  Btt3,  used  in  the  sense 
'my  very  «^,  *my  true  se//',  which  might  be  rendered  in  Greek  by 
vifUL ;  and  he  contends  that  thus  the  formula  stands  in  vital  connexion 
with  our  Lord's  life  and  work  as  described  by  the  Synoptists — and 
with  his  doctrine  of  *  losing '  the  soul  or  '  delivering  it  up '  to  death, 
io  the  service  of  men,  the  children  of  God,  in  order  thereby  to  And 
it  again  in  God,  the  Father  of  men. 

The  mention  of  Galilee  is  explained  as  due  to  a  confusion  between 
TJi,  not  always  preceded  by  3  in  Aramaic  in  the  meaning  '  for  the 
sake  of ',  and  V^3  '  Galilee ' ;  so  that  any  one  familiar  with  the  Aramaic 
phtase  without  the  preposition  in  the  sense  'for  the  sake  of  would 
think  that  bbi^  was  a  provincial  form  or  slight  corruption  of  ^^^33  '  in 
Galilee'  or  'into  Galilee'.  Thus  comes  the  interpretation  of  Mark 
vid  Matthew  that  He  promised  to  go  before  them  '  into  Galilee ',  while 
Luke  who  places  the  flrst  manifestations  in  Jerusalem  interprets  the 
promise  as  made  '  in  Galilee  *.  Further,  the  primary  meaning  of  Wa 
being  '  r^ion ',  the  original  promise  might  have  been  read  '  I  will 
80  before  you  /«/»  a  place '  which  would  give  the  Johannine  tradition 
'to prepare  a  place'. 

There  is  also  an  interesting  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  the  words 

'"Wo  iroicTrc  «is  rrpr  ifiijv  ivdfanjtriv. 

,  Of  the  Epistle  of  St  James  we  have  a  vigorous  and  independent 

'''Scussion  by  Mr  R.  St  John  Parry   {A  Discussion  of  the   General 

^Afe  of  St  Janus,  by  R.  St  John  Parry,  B.D.    London.    C.  J.  Clay 

^ns).    Mr.  Parry  argues  that,  so  far  from  being  a  collection  of 

I'^^i-proverbial  sayings  loosely  strung  together,  the  Epistle  is  in  fact 

*  *ery  careful  and  logical  exposition  of  a  single  theme— the  theme, 

°**tiely,  that  the  conquest  of  temptation  ('  allurement  to  sin ')  is  possible 

/^^  is  the  proper  aim  of  a  Christian,  and  that  it  is  to  be  achieved 

.^Ough  individual  effort  by  means  of  faith  and  wisdom.    The  Epistle 

If    thus  *  moralistic ' ;   but  only  as  other  apostolic  writings  are,  being 

^^ed  upon  a  profound  and  Christian  an^ysis  of  human  nature  and 

^^'s  dealings  with   man.     The   great   problem   before   the  earliest 

J~"Hristian  teachers  was  to  find  a  new  basis  of  morality.    They  impugned 

^^  validity  of  the  only  known  bases,  and  they  had  to  provide  a  sub- 

^itute.    They  had  to  define  the  new  facts  and  teaching  of  Christian 


154  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

exjiericnce  so  as  lo  be  at  once  a  rule  and  a  power  of  conduct  They 
found  tills  basis  in  the  Personality  of  Cbhst  Himself  as  the  one 
Standard  and  Power  of  tighleousncas.  The  Epistle  of  St  James  belongs 
to  a  relatively  late  stage  in  this  process,  when  abstract  conceptions 
such  as  'the  truth',  'the  freedom',  'the  perfect  law',  can  be  nsed 
as  matter  of  course — become  legitimate,  at  last,  because  they  represent 
the  actual  experience  of  Christian  life. 

But  the  Epistle  is  still  to  be  placed  within  the  Apostolic  period. 
And  it  is  the  most  general  of  the  General  Epistles,  addressed  to  the 
whole  Christian  Church,  scattered  in  a  world  to  which  they  do  not 
belong. 

Nfr  Parry's  treatment  of  these  and  other  questions  connected  with 
the  Epistle,  and  of  particular  passages  and  phrases,  is  always  inters 
csting  and  suggestive.  On  the  main  points  Jt  is  perhaps  too  original 
to  be  immediately  convincing. 

An  edition  of  the  Second  E[)istle  to  the  Corinthians  by  Dr  Plummcr 
{Greek  Testament  /or  Scheais  and  Colleges,  Univeraity  Press,  Cambridge, 
1903  )  supplies  a  want  that  has  long  been  felt.  Of  the  genuineness 
of  the  Epistle  Dr  Plumnier  has  no  doubt.  'To  put  this  letter  into  the 
class  of  pseudepigmpha  is  to  stultify  onself  as  a  critic'  He  also 
maintains  the  integrity  of  the  whole  of  the  first  part  of  the  Epistle, 
seeing  no  sufficient  reasons  for  severing  either  chap,  viii  or  chap,  tx 
from  the  preceding  chapters,  and  no  need  to  excise  the  paragraph 
vi  14-vii  I.  But  he  has  come  to  adopt,  though  with  much  reluctance, 
the  theory  that  chaps,  x-xiii  were  originally  part  of  another  and  earlier 
letter,  i.  e-  the  severe  letter  (2  Cor.  ii  3,  9,  vii  8)  about  the  effect  of 
which  St  Paul  was  so  anxious.  In  the  careful  discussion  of  the  question 
full  weight  is  given  to  the  arguments  by  which  the  traditional  view  can 
be  defended.  Besides  full  exegetical  notes  there  arc  useful  sections 
in  the  Introduction  on  the  authorities  for  the  text  and  on  the  language 
and  style  of  the  Epistle,  and  appendices  on  the  Apocalypse  or  Vision 
of  St  Paul,  the  trimXMff  r^  trofiHi  ^probably  epilepsy),  and  the  rhetoric 
of  St  Paul. 

We  have  also  received  an  edition  of  the  Gospel  accordii^  to  St  Mark 
(University  Prt;ss,  Cambridge,  1503) — the  Revised  Version — with  intro- 
duction and  notes  for  the  use  of  schools  by  Sit  A.  ¥.  Hort  and  Maty    ' 
Dyson  Hort  (Mrs  George  Chiity). 

In  TAi  Biblical  View  of  tfu  SeuJ  (by  the  Rev.  G.  Waller.     Longmans,   , 
Green  &  Co.,  London,   1904)   Mr  Waller   exhibits  and  classifies  all^ 
the  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New  Testament  in  whiclm^ 
the  words  Nephesli  and  Fsukee  and  Rooagh  and  Pneuma  (so  Mr  Waller* 
prints  the  words)  occur.   To  these  lists  he  adds  over  a  thousand  quotations 
*  An  edition  of  the  English  text  is  published  at  ihe  same  lima 


CHRONICLE  155 

from  the  Bible  in  conflnnation  of  the  thesis  that  'the  doctrine  of  the 
cdstox^e  of  the  soul  or  spirit  of  man  in  happiness  or  misery  after 
death,  independent  of  the  body,  is  nowhere  to  be  found  in  the 
Old  or  New  Testament  Scriptures ;  whilst  in  the  New  Testament  the 
Resuntction  of  the  body  is  everywhere  held  up  as  the  great  central 
bqie  of  the  Christian  Church '. 

7h  Gospels  of  the  Sundays  and  Festivals  vrith  introduction,  parallel 
passages,  notes,  and  moral  reflections,  by  the  Rev.  Cornelius  J.  Ryan 
(Dublin,  Brown  &  Nolan,  1904),  was  originally  written  for  students 
in  the  College  of  the  Holy  Cross,  Clonliife,  and  is  published  in  the 
hope  that  it  may  be  useful  to  priests  in  their  preparation  for  the  onerous 
duty  of  explainii^  to  the  people  the  Gospel  for  the  day.  It  doubtless 
will  be  use&l.  In  the  Preface  the  author  justifies  his  frequent  refer- 
ences to  the  Greek  text  on  the  ground  that,  though  the  text  of  the 
Vulgate  is  generally  decisive,  reference  to  the  original  is  often  necessary 
for  those  who  wish  to  know  fully  the  meaning  intended  by  the  evan- 
gehsts. 

J.  F.  Betrune-Baker. 


ChtnA     Quarieriy    Review,     July    1904    (Vol.    IvUi,     No.     1 16 : 

Spottiswoode  &  Co.).  Man's  place  in  the  universe — Christian  Sanctity 
— Byzantine  architecture  in  Greece— English  poetry  from  Shakespeflre 
to  Dryden— Religious  liberty  in  America — Clement  of  Alexandria — 
Buddhist  India'— The  criticism  of  the  synoptic  gospels:  their  historical 
value  III — Truth  in  History — The  New  Sayings  of  Jesus— Canon 
Hcnson's  Apologia — Short  Notices. 

The  Hibbert  Journal^  July  1904  (Vol.  ii.  No.  4:  Williams  & 
Norgate),  E.  S.  Talbot  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  on  'the  Re-inierpretation 
of  Christian  Doctrine'— A.  C.  Bradley  Heel's  Theory  of  Tragedy — 
T.  Bailey  Saunders  Herder— W.  R.  Sorlev  The  Two  IdcaJi'sms — 
S.  H.  Mellone  Present  aspects  of  the  problem  of  Immortality — W.  F, 
Cobb  L'Hypocrisie  Bibliquc  Britannique— W.  Knight  The  value  of  the 
historical  method  in  Philosophy— St  G.  Stock  The  Problem  of  Evil 
—  C.  MoNTAGPE  Bakewell  Art  V.  Ideas — Discussions — Reviews. 

The  Jaaisk  Quarieriy  RtvietVy  July  1904,  (Vol.  xvi,  No.  64:  Mac- 
millan  &  Co.).  G.  Margoliouth  Spanish  Service-books  in  the  British 
Museum — H.  S.  Q.  HENRiguES  The  Jews  and  the  English  Law  VI  — 
L,  GiNZBERG  Genizah  Studies  I — A.  Wolf  Prof.  Harnack's  'What  is 
Christianity?' — H.  HinscaricLD  The  Arabic  portion  of  the  Cairo 
Genizah  at  Cambridge  (6th  art.) — S.  Schechter  The  Mechilu  to 
Deuteronomy— R.  J.  H.  Gottkeil  Some  Spanish  Documents — M.  N. 
Adler  The  Itinerary  of  Benjamin  of  Tudela  {fontinued) — M.  Steik- 
SCHNEIDER  Allgemeiiie  Einleitung  in  die  jiidischc  Litcratur  dcs  Mittel- 
alters  (continued) — S.  Poznanski  Ibn  ^azm  iiber  jtidische  Seaen— 
Notes,  Corrections,  and  Additions. 

The  Expositor, y)\\^  1904  (Sixth  Series,  No.  55:  Hodder&  Stoughton). 
B,  W.  Bacon  The  '  Coming  One '  of  John  the  Baptist — W.  H.  Bennett 
The  Life  of  Christ  according  to  St  Mark— G.  G.  Findlav  Studies  in 
the  First  Epistle  of  John.     3.  The  Old  and  New  Commandment— 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES    I57 

W.  M,  Ramsay  The  Letter  to  the  Church  in  Thyatira— S.  R.  Driver 
Traasladoos  from  the  Prophets :  Jeremiah  xlvi  i-xlvii  38— A.  R.  Eager 
The  aathorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

August  1904  (Sixth  Series,  No.  56).  W.  M.  Ramsay  The  Letter 
to  the  Church  in  Sardis — J.  Moffatt  Loisy  upon  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount — A-  R.  Eager  The  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — 
].  H.  MouLTON  Characteristics  of  New  Testament  Greek— J.  H.  Dudley 
Matthews  Spiritual  Healing— S.  R.  Driver  Translations  from  the 
Prophets :  Jeremiah  xxviii  29-xlix— G.  G.  Findlay  Studies  in  the  First 
Epistle  of  John.    4.  The  Filial  Character  and  Hope. 

September  1904  (Sixth  Series,  No.  57).  W.  M.  Ramsay  The 
Letter  to  the  Chuich  in  Sardis — J.  H.  Moulton  Characteristics  of  New 
Testament  Greek— G.  G.  Findlay  Studies  in  the  First  Epistle  of 
John.  4.  The  Filial  Character  and  Hope— J.  B.  McClellan  The  Re- 
Tised  Version  of  the  New  Testament :  a  plea  for  hesitation  as  to  its 
adoption — A.  E.  Garvie  Conscience  and  Creed — W.  H.  Bennett  The 
life  of  Christ  according  to  St  Mark — D.  S.  Margoliouth  The  perma- 
nent elements  of  Religion. 

(3)  American. 

Tie  American  Journal  of  Theology^  July  1904  (Vol.  viii,  No.  3: 
Chicago  University  Press).  C.  A.  Briggs  A  plea  for  the  higher  study 
of  Theology— W.  H.  Walker  The  developement  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ  in  the  New  Testament— S.  Z.  Batten  The  Logic  of 
Evolution — H.  G.  Smith  Persian  Dualism — E.  W.  Lyman  Faith  and 
Mysticism — Critical  Notes — Recent  Theological  Literature. 

The  Prinaton  TTuologicai  Review,  July  1904  (Vol.  ii,  No.  3: 
Philadelphia,  MacCalla  &  Co.).  Paul  van  Dyke  Thomas  Cromwell, 
Part  ii— H.  M.  Scott  The  place  of  oucoSo/ii;  in  New  Testament  worship 
"~G.  Macloskie  Mosaism  and  Darwinism — E.  C.  Richardson  Vora- 
KiDe  as  a  preacher — R.  D.  Wilson  Royal  Titles  in  Antiquity :  an  essay 
">  criticism  (and  article)— M.  C  Williams  Old  Testament  Criticism 
^  the  Christian  Church — Recent  Uteralure. 

(3)  French  and  Belgian. 

Revue  BMdicHne^  July  1904  (Vol.  xxi,  No.  3:  Abbaye  de  Mared- 
sous).  G.  MoRiN  Un  travail  in^dit  de  saint  C^saire— J.  Chapman  L'au- 
teur  du  Canon  muratorlen— U.  Berliure  Les  ^v^ques  auxiliaires  de 
Toumai — M.  Festugi^re  Questions  de  philosophie  de  la  nature — H. 

Herwegen  Les  collaborateurs  de  sainte  Hildegarde — Bulletin  biblio- 

grapbique. 


158         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

RevM  Bibligve,  July  1904  (Noiivclle  s^rie,  i'*  annee,  no.  3  :  Paris, 
V.  LecofFre).  E.  Revillout  L'bvangilc  des  xii  apotres,  recemmenl  dc- 
couvert  {Jin) — A.  Van  Hoonacker  I-es  deux  premiers  chapitrcs  de 
Joel:  Joel  i  17 — Condamin  Transpositions  justifite  dans  le  texte  de« 
Prophl'tes — Melanges:  Th.  Macriuv  Le  temple  d'Echmoun  k  Sidon, 
fouillcs  ex^cutees  par  le  musi.'c  imperial  ottoman  :  A.  Jaussen,  R.  Savi- 
GNAC,  H.  Vincent  'Abdeh — Chronique:  A.  Jaussen  Fondation  et 
restauration  de  sanctuaires  ^  I'Orient  de  ta  Palestine :  Fouillcs  anglaises 
i.  Gezer :  Nouvelles  de  Jerusalem — Recensions — Bulletin. 

Hevue  (fHistaire  et  de  Littbrature  Reiigieusts,  July-August  1904  (Vol. 
ix,  No.  4 :  Paris,  74,  Boulevard  Saint -Germain).  S.  Reinach  Les 
apotres  chez  les  anthropophages — P.  Richard  Une  correspondance 
diplomatique  de  la  curie  romaine  k  la  veille  de  la  bataille  de  Marignan 
(1515);  3"  article;  Amiti^  de  diplomate — Chronique  d'histoire  ecclesi- 
astique:  H.  Hem.mer  and  J.  Pasquikr  France  {suite)— V.  Lejav  An- 
cienne  philologie  chretienne :  Ouvrag&s  gen^rauxetouvragesd'ensemblc 
(1897-1904):  I.  Editions;  2.  Bibliographie ;  3.  Ouvrages  g^^raux 
d'histoire  et  de  litt^rature. 

Hevui  de  rOrient  CMtt'en,  April  1904  (Vol.  ix,  No.  2 :  Paris,  A.  Picard 
cl  h\s).  H.  Lammens  Correspondances  diplomatiqucs  entre  les  sultans 
niamlouks  d'Egypte  et  les  puissances  chretiennes — P.  de  Meester  Tut 
dogme  de  I'lmmaculce  Conception  et  la  doctrine  de  I'Eglise  grecqae 
{im'te) — F.  TotJBNEBiZE  Hisioire  politique  et  religieusc  de  I'Ann^nie 
{suite) — L.  Clugnet  Office  de  sainte  Marine:  texte  syriaque — Melanges: 
i  L.  Br^kier  Un  patriarche  sorcier  \  Constantinople:  ii  F.  Nau 
Maroniles,  Mazonites,  et  Maranites :  iii  H.  Lammens  Dennaba  de  S** 
Silvie  et  Dunip  des  monuments  ^gyptiens — Bibliographic 

Revue  d'Nisloire  EedHiastiqjse,  July  1904  (Vol.  v,  No.  3 :  Louvain, 
40,  Rue  de  Namur).  C.  Van  Crombrugghe  La  doctrine  christologique 
et  sot^riologiquc  de  saint  Augustin  et  scs  rapports  avec  le  n^o-plato- 
nisme:  II  I.a  doctrine  soteriologique  de  saint  Augustin  {suite  et  Jin) — ■ 
M(5langes :  P.  de  Puniet  Les  trois  homelies  catccheliques  du  sacra- 
mentaire  gelasien  pour  la  tradition  des  (^vangiles^  du  symbole  et  de 
I'oraison  dominicale  (<i  suivre):  G.  Mollat  Jean  XXII  {1316-1334) 
fui-il  un  avare?{<i  suivre)—CQmpL6s  rendus — Chronique— -Correspon- 
dancc — Bibiiographie. 

(4)  German. 

Thtolog^teke  (^artalsckrift,  August  1 904  fV'ol.lxxxvi,  No.  4 :  Tiibingen, 
H.  Laupp),  DiEKAMP  Das  Glaubensbekenntnis  des  apoHinanstischen 
Bischofs  Vitalis  von  Antiochien— Vetter  Das  Buch  Tobias  und  die 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES     159 

Achitar-Sage — Schweitzer  Der  Pastor  Hermae  und  die  (^a  supere- 
njfaAirw— SagmOller  Eine  Dispenz  papstlicher  Legaten  zu  Vereh- 
lichang  eines  Siebenjahrigen  mit  einer  Dreijahrigen  im  Jahre  1160 — 
Gait  Die  Topographic  des  Buches  Nehemias— Funk  Das  Alter  des 
Kanons  der  rdmischen  Messe — Rezensionen. 

Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie  und  Kirche,  July  1904  (Vol.  xiv,  No.  4 : 
Tiibingen  and  Leipzig,  J.  C.  B.  Mohr).  J.  Kaftan  Zur  Dogmatik: 
7.  Die  Paulinische  Predigt  vom  Kreuz  Jesu  Christi. 

Ziitschrift  fur  wissenschaftltche  Theologie,  July  1904  (Vol,  xlvii, 
N.  F.  xii,  No.  3 :  Leipzig,  O.  R.  Reisland).  A.  Hilgenfeld  Der 
Evangelist  Marcus  und  Julius  Wellhausen  II — W.  Bahnsen  Zum 
Verstandnis  von  i  Thess.  iv  1-12 — A.  Hilgenfeld  Der  unitarische 
Pseudo-Ignatius — F.  GbRRES  Neue  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  des  40- 
jahrigen  Waffenstillstandes  zwischen  dem  Christentum  und  dem  antiken 
Staat  seit  260 — J.  Draseke  Zu  Georgios  Gemistos  Plethon— A.  Hil- 
genfeld Neue  Logia/esu — Anzeigen. 

Zntuhrift  fur  die  neutestanuntliche  Wissensckaft  und  die  Kunde  des 

^nhristentums,  July  1904  (Vol.  v,  No.  3:    Giessen,  J.  Ricker).     W. 

Wrede  Zur  Messiaserkenntnis  der  Damonen  bei  Markus — J.  A.  Cramer 

I*ieerste  Apologie  Justins  II — K.  Lincke  Simon  Petrus  und  Johannes 

Markus — M.   Conrat  Das   Erbrecht   im   Galaterbrief  (iii  15-iv  7) — 

^  Clemen   Miszellen  zu  den  Paulusakten — H.  Gressmann  Studien 

'^  syrischen  Tetraevangelium  I — Miszellen :  E.  Wendling  Zu  Mat- 

^^%  V  18,  19 — J.  Denk  Camelus :  i.  Kamel,  2.  Schiffstau  (Matth.  xix 

'3)-.-S.  Fraenkel  Zu  dem  semitischen  Original  von  'tXairr^pio^  und 

Z^**^ptav—C.  Bruston  La  tfite  ^gorg^e  et  le  chiffre  666— G.  Kruger 

■^^h  einmal  der  getaufte  Lfiwe — E.  Nestle  Zur  aramaischen  Bezeich- 

!r^*ig  der  Proselyten — O.  Holtzmann  Noch  ein  Wort  zur  Ausgiessung 

^  Kelches  beim  Abendmahl. 

^iischrift fur  Kirchengeschichte,  August  1904  (Vol.  xxv,  No.  3  :  Gotha, 

'  A.  Perthes).     C.  Erbes  Das  syrische  Martyrologium  und  der  Weih- 

*^chtsfestkreis  I — K.  Holl  Ueber  die  Gregor  von  Nyssa  zugeschriebene 

thrift  Adversus  Arium  et  Sabellium — P.  Kalkoff  Zu  Luthers  r6mi- 

^hera  Prozesz  II — Analekten  :  Duncker  Zwei  Aktenstiicke  zur  Refor- 

^ationsgeschichte  Heilbronns  aus  der  Zeit  des  Augsburger  Reichstages 

^530,  n. 

Theoiogische  Studien  und  Kritiken,  July  1904  (1904,  No.  4  :   Gotha, 

F.  A  Perthes).     Bewer  Die  Anfange  des  nationalen  Jahweglaubens — 

Scheel  Zu  Augustins  Anschauung  von  der  Erlosung  durch  Christus — 

Weis  Der  speculative  und  der  praktische  Gottesbegriff  Kants — Gedan- 

ken  und  Bemerkungen  :  Kirn  Noch  einmal  Jakobus  iv  5  —Rezensionen. 


l6o        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

Neue  kirckUche  Zeitschrift^  July  1904  {Vol.  xv,  No.  7:  Erlangen  and 
Leipzig,  A.  Deichert).  F.  Hashagen  Rabelais  als  Zeuge  wider  Denifles 
systematische  Schmahung  der  Sittlicbkeit  Luthers — W.  LoTz  Der  Bund 
vom  Sinai  VII — P.  Ewald  Exegetische  Miszellen :   Zu  Eph.  i  i — 

CouARD  Altchristliche  Sagen  iiber  das  Leben  der  AposteL 

Aug.  1904  (Vol.  XV,  No.  8}.  F.  Hashagen  Rabelais  als  Zeuge 
wider  Denifles  systematische  Schmahung  der  Sittlicbkeit  Luthers — 
L.  Ihmbls  Die  Rechtfertigung  allein  durch  den  Glauben,  unser  fester 
Gnind  Rom  gegenuber— W,  Vollert  Einigd  Bemerkungea  zu  Con/ess. 
August,  ii,  xviii,  xix  und  Form.  Cone,  i,  ii,  xi. 


The  Journal 

of 

Theological   Studies 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    AARONITE 
PRIESTHOOD. 

.       ^T"  is  a  well-known  fact  that  whereas  in  the  Dcuteronomic 
^^^^slation  the  clergy  of  Israel  are  referred  to  simply  as  Levitical 
flj^^ats  without  distinction  of  rank,  in  Ezekiel  we  find  two  classesi 
~^^   I>evitical  priests  the  sons  of  Zadok,  and  the  Levites.     It  is 
,^*^o  generally  agreed  [that  this  distinction  arose  from  the  un- 
.     '^'^llngness  of  the  sons  of  Zadok,  the  priests  of  Jerusalem,  to  admit 
like  privileges  with  themselves  the  Levites,  who  until  the  days 
^*     Josiah's  reformation    had   ministered   in  the   various    local 
"  ^*^ctuaries  or  high  places.    Although  the  record  of  this  reforma- 
*^*»i  is  provokingly  meagre  (for  the  circumstantial  account  of 
-J      JCings  xxiii  is  in  its  present  form  the  work  of  a  considerably 
-.^^*er  period),  yetj  from  a  comparison  of  a  Kings  xxiii  9  with 
*~^^vit.  xviii  6-8  and  with  Ezek.  xliv  9-15,  it  is  scarcely  possible 
^-*    doubt  that  the  intention  of  the  original  reformers  (viz.  that 
^'^^  priests  who  were  thrown  out  of  employment  by  the  abolition 
^*  the  country  sanctuaries  should  have  the  right  to  earn  a  livelihood 
V"  ministering  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem)  was  thwarted  by 
^*^e  sons  of  Zadok,  who  were  not  at  all  disposed  to  view  with 
■^Vour  the  influx  of  a  considerable  body  of  men,  probably  of 
^mewhat  inferior  social  position,  who  would  share  their  revenues. 
The  plea  on  which  these  country  clergy  were  ousted  from  their 
^nct  I^al  rights,  was  that  they  had  been  guilty  of  idolatrous 
practices ;   and  though,  doubtless,  the  worship  at  the  country 
sanctuaries  had  been  marred  by  many  grave  corruptions,  never- 
theless, judging  from  Ezekiel's  account  of  idolatry  at  Jerusalem, 
VOL.  VI.  U 


l62  THE  JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

the  sons  of  Zadok  were  hardly  in  a  position  to  throw  stones. 
From  Ezeklel's  emphatic  declaration  that  the  country  clci^y 
must  be  degraded  we  may  infer  that  from  the  year  621  B.C.  till 
the  destruction  of  the  Temple  a  pretty  severe  struggle  had  raged 
in  Jerusalem  between  the  dispossessed  clergy  and  the  corporation 
of  the  sons  of  Zadok ;  a  struggle  in  which  the  latter  had  given 
practical  illustration  of  the  adage  that  possession  is  nine  points  of 
the  law. 

But  in  this  controversy  the  point  at  issue  is  not  the  descent  of 
the  contending  parties.  The  sons  of  Zadok  are  represented  as 
superior  to  the  ordinary  Levites,  not  by  reason  of  their  descent 
from  Zadok.  but  by  the  fact  that  they  only  have  remained 
faithful  to  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem  now  regarded  as  alone 
orthodox.  It  is.  so  to  speak,  not  so  much  a  question  of  canonical 
ordination  as  of  canonical  behaviour  after  ordination.  It  is  there- 
fore the  more  remarkable  that  little  more  than  a  century  after 
Ezekiel  the  distinction  between  the  two  orders  of  clergy  h 
represented  as  entirely  one  of  family  ;  and  the  first  rank  claim 
their  privileges  not  as  sons  of  Zadok,  but  as  sons  of  Aaron,  the 
brother  of  Moses.  Why  is  it  that  the  Priestly  Code,  while 
maintaining  the  distinction  of  the  lower  grade  ofclergy,  the  Levites, 
on  the  one  hand,  on  the  other  hand  designates  the  higher  grade 
not  sons  of  Zadok,  but  sons  of  Aaron  ? 

In  the  first  place  it  may  be  regarded  as  certain  that  the 
Jerusalem  priests  in  the  days  of  Ezekiel  did  not  base  their  claim 
to  exclusive  privileges  on  the  ground  of  descent  from  Aaron. 
Had  they  done  so,  they  would  have  been  compelled  to  admit  at 
least  many  who  had  never  ministered  at  Jerusalem  ;  since  it  was 
never  pretended  that  the  family  of  Aaron  was  UmiUd  to  the 
house  of  Zadok  ;  and  it  would  scarcely  be  safe  to  infer  from 
Ezra  ii  62  that  a  son  of  Aaron  might  be  put  out  of  his  privileges 
as  such  without  losing  also  his  status  as  a  Levite.  Obviously 
descent  from  Aaron  was  a  new  claim  in  the  fifth  century  B.  C 
This  of  course  must  not  be  understood  as  implying  that  the 
name  of  Aaron  was  unknown  before  that  period  ;  but  only  that 
about  this  time  it  acquired  a  new  importance. 

Wc  therefore  come  to  the  enquiry,  Who  was  Aaron  ?  and  this 
question,  simple  as  it  seems,  is  not  easily  answered.  The 
traditional  view,  which  rests  entirely  on  the  Priestly  Code,  is,  as 


<s  wcl!  known,  altogether  impossible  in  the  face  of  statements  in 
the  older  portions  of  the  Pentateuch.  U  cannot  be  too  strongly- 
insisted  upon  that  the  description  of  the  sanctuaiy  in  Exod. 
xxxiii  7-1 1  not  only  makes  no  mention  of  Aaron,  but  leaves 
absolutely  no  room  for  him,  at  all  events  as  priest.  In  this 
section  Moses  is  obviously  chief  priest  (for  the  functions  dis- 
charged by  the  priests  in  the  older  portions  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  precisely  those  of  Moses  here) ;  and  Joshua,  his  sole  assistant, 
n  what  we  may  describe  as  an  apprentice  priest,  and  In  that 
rapacity  is  represented  in  another  passage  also  (Exod.  xxtv 
*3t  I4)  as  accompanying  his  master  at  least  some  distance  up 
the  ascent  of  the  holy  mountain,  and  waiting  for  him,  apart  from 
t-hc  people,  till  his  return.  This  description  of  Moses'  priesthood 
is  generally  assigned  to  E,  which  mentions  Aaron  indeed,  but  in 
'  connexion  which  seems  to  imply  that  he  and  Hur  were  elders 
or  seers,  sheikhs  rather  than  priests.  (Sec  Exod.  xxiv  14, 
xvij  IO-I3.)  This  representation  of  Aaron  in  E  is  parallel  to 
'^'iat  in  y ,  where  he  occurs  in  conjunction  with  Nadab  and  Abihu 
*«ld  seventy  of  the  elders  of  Israel  (Exod.  xxiv  i,  a).  Well- 
*^ausen  long  ago  pointed  out  that  in  the  earlier  stratum  of  y,  in 
^^nnexion  with  Moses,  Aaron's  name  th'd  n^t  originally  occur  at 
^11,  and,  where  it  is  found  in  such  connexion,  seems  to  be  the 
^^ork  of  a  redactor.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  J  mentions  other 
^^t^riests  as  associated  with  Moses,  but  Aaron  is  not  one  of  them 
,^xod.  xxiv  1,  2)1 

That  the  Judacan  tradition  down  to  the  time  of  the  exile 

^^ontaincd  no  reference  to  Aaron  as  a  priest  associated  with  Moses 

*-i  made  probable  also  by  a  study  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 

^1*0  any  one  acquainted  with  the  narrative  of  JE  it  would  appear 

i  ^conceivable  that  Moses  in  a  retrospect  of  his  own  life  could 

^sossibly  ignore  Aaron.     Yet  Aaron's  name  is  found  in  the  whole 

X:>ook  only  in  three  places,  viz.  chap,  ix  ao,  in  connexion  with  the 

golden  calf  {though  in  vv.  12, 16,21 — cf.  Exod.  xxxii  3^ — the  calf 

is  made  not  by  Aaron  but  by  the  people),  and  x  6  and  xxxii  50, 

I'vherc  his  death  is  mentioned.     In  view  of  this  scanty  mention 

«f  Aaron  in  Deuteronomy  it  is  not   unreasonable   to  suppose 

that   his  name   was  there   introduced   by  one  of    the   several 

editors,  who  endeavoured  to  .supply  what  must  have  seemed  to 

all  later  readers  an  obvious  omission.     It  has  already  been  noticed 

M  % 


164         THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

that  Deuteronomy  recognizes  only  Levitical  priests  and  knows 
nothing  of  any  sons  of  Aaron. 

Moreover,  outside  the  Pentateuch  the  only  pre-Deutcronomic 
passage  in  which  Aaron  is  mentioned  is  Mic.  vi  4.  Here  one 
is  surety  tumptcd  to  regard  the  name  of  Aaron,  if  not  of  Miriam 
also,  as  the  addition  of  a  later  editor.  On  the  whole,  however, 
the  very  strangeness  of  the  combination,  Moses,  Aaron,  and 
Miriam,  makes  it  unsafe  to  omit  either  name.  But  Micah's 
words,  if  genuine,  are  no  proof  that  the  prophet  regarded  Aaron 
as  priest.  It  is  possible  that  he  refers  to  some  exploit  of  Aaron 
omitted  in  the  Pentateuch,  owing  to  the  fact  that  he  is  there 
transformed  into  a  priest. 

Note.  This  last  passage  is  further  remarkable  for  theoccurrcnce 
of  the  name  Miriam.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  only  other 
passage  of  the  Old  Testament  which  hoks  back  to  Miriam  is 
Deut.  xxiv  9,  where  the  connexion  with  the  context  is  by  no 
means  obvious  ;  for,  as  Mr  S.  A.  Cook  remarks,  *  It  is  ditficult 
to  see  how  Miriam's  punishmtnt  was  a  warning  for  Israel  to 
observe  the  orders  of  the  Invites  in  the  case  of  an  outbreak  of 
leprosy.  The  difHculty  in  the  reference,  implying  a  discrepancy 
in  the  tradition,  suggests  that  Num.  xii  1-15  has  been  pretty 
thoroughly  revised  by  Rp.  (the  seven  days'  seclusion  v.  15  reminds 
one  of  the  Levitical  enactment,  Lev.  xiii  5) '  Eftc.  Bibl.  art- 
'  Miriam  '. 

This  paucity  of  references  to  Aaron  is  in  complete  harmony 
with  the  impression  of  the  character  of  Aaron  which  we  get  from 
the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole.  Whatever  our  views  may  be  as  to 
the  historical  reality  of  the  Old  Testament  worthies,  there  can  be 
no  question  that  in  the  great  majority  of  instances  they  are  made 
to  live  and  move  by  the  art  of  the  narrators.  Abraham,  Isaac, 
Jacob,  Saul,  David,  and  others  stand  out  before  us  as  real  person- 
ages, men  of  flesh  and  bone,  and  of  like  passions  with  ourselves. 
Yet  though  the  name  Aaron  occurs  again  and  again,  who  has 
any  conception  of  the  man  Aaron  ?  Aaron  is  in  fact  a  creation 
without  personality;  a  mere  puppet  which  performs  certain 
priestly  functions  when  the  machinery  ts  set  in  motion  by  Moses. 
In  three  instances  only  is  Aaron  represented  as  acting  apart  from 
Moses'  direction,  viz.  in  the  making  of  the  golden  calf  (Exod. 
xxxii),  in  the  omission  to  eat  the  goat  of  the  sin-offering  (Lev.  x  16), 
and  in  the  quarrel  with  Moses  (Num.  xii  i).   The  second  of  these 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE  AARONITE   PRIESTHOOD     165 

"iree  instances  is  evidently  only  intended  to  give  a  rule  of  practice 

for  a  priest  visited  with  a  great  calamity.     In  the  third  instance 

Aaion  occupies  a  position  subordinate  to  that  of  Miriam,  and  it 

would  seem  that  to  the  original  story  of  Miriam's  jealousy  of  Moses 

tlie  name  Aaron  was  afterwards  added,  to  account  for  the  fact 

(see  verses  6-8}  that  to  Moses,  not  Aaron,  Jehovah  made  His 

revelation.     It  is  surely  significant  that  the  punishment  falls  on 

Miriam  only,  and  that  Aaron,  after  deprecating  Moses'  wrath 

against  them  both  in  v.  11,  makes  entreaty  for  Miriam  only  in 

V,  12.     In  Exod.  XV  20,  indeed,  Miriam  is  called  'the  sister  of 

Aaron ',  but  this  is  quite  consistent  with  the  mention  of  Aaron  as 

an  elder,  and  in  no  wise  confirms  the  traditional  view  of  him. 

But  in  the  first  of  the  three  instances  the  case  is  altogether 

different.     Here  Aaron  acts   on  his  own  responsibility.    The 

golden  calf  is  his :  he  demands  the  material  of  which  it  is  made : 

be  &shions  it :  and  he  presents  it  to  the  people,  and  dedicates  it. 

Certainly  if  any  of  the  recorded  acts  of  Aaron  be  historical,  the 

episode  of  the  golden  calf  can  best  claim  to  be  so  considered. 

■^  X.  is  an  episode  which  no  one  in  the  later  period  of  Israelitish 

*"^ligion  would  ever  have  been  tempted  to  invent.    The  writer  of 

■^^  romance  would  not  invent  sins  for  his  saints.     It  is,  moreover, 

*"«markable  that  whereas  Jeroboani  the  son  of  Nebat  is  branded 

^Vn*  all  time  as  the  man  '  who  made  Israel  to  sin ',  Aaron,  who 

'"*^as  guilty  of  exactly  the  same  sin,  escaped  all  punishment, 

"Plough  it  is  not  recorded  that  he  in  any  way  repented  of  it. 

"^Only  in  Deut.  ix  lo  is  it  implied  that  Jehovah  was  angry  with 

-■^aron  on  account  of  the  calf;  whereas,  according  to  Num.  xx 

^3-24,  Aaron  was  excluded  from  Canaan  not  for  the  idolatry  of 

the  golden  calf,  but  on  account  of  a  sin  at  the  waters  of  Meribah. 

Moreover,  in  the  narrative  of  the  golden  calf,  there  is  another 

inconsistency  with  the  traditional  view.    The  sin  is  committed  by 

Aaron,  a  Levite  (Exod.  iv  14),  and  indeed  a  chief  among  the 

Levites ;  but  it  is  the  Levites  who  are  most  zealous  for  orthodoxy 

(Exod.   xxxii   28).    Three   thousand   men  are  slain  for  their 

idolatry,  but  the  author  of  the  idolatry  escapes  unpunished. 

It  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conviction  that  in  its  original  form 
the  story  of  the  golden  calf,  so  far  from  being  a  blot  on  the 
memory  of  Aaron,  rather  redounded  to  his  credit.  It  must  be 
remembered  that,  as  far  as  we  know,  Hosea  was  the  first  to 


THE   JOURNAL    OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

denounce  the  worship  o(  images,  and  that  Isaiah  had  preached 
at  all  events  for  some  years  in  Jerusalem  before  the  temple 
itself  was  cleansed  of  idols.  The  prohibitions  of  image  worship 
in  ^E  cannot  well  at  the  carhest  be  dated  before  the  age  of 
Hezekiah,  and  it  may  safely  be  inferred  that,  whereas  an  old 
tradition  assigned  the  making  of  the  golden  calf  to  Aaron,  the 
orthodoxy  of  a  later  generation  added  the  story  of  Moses'  WTath 
at  the  discovery  of  the  image  and  of  his  destruction  of  it. 

That  the  worship  of  the  brazen  serpent  was  no  new-fangled 
thing  in  the  lime  of  Hezekiah,  but  had  been  going  on  from  the 
time  of  Moses,  is  the  natural  meaning  of  3  Kings  xviii  4 ;  and  it 
may  thi:refore  be  concluded  that,  at  all  events  down  to  the 
middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  the  making  of  a  golden  calf  for 
worship  would  have  been  regarded  as  a  meritorious  action  rather 
than  as  a  sin. 

In  ihc  light  of  these  facts  we  arc  surely  justified  in  maintain- 
ing that  an  Aaron  was  honoured  in  the  pre-Isaianic  period  as 
the  founder  of  the  cult  of  the  golden  calf.  We  say  an  Aaron, 
for,  though  not  improbable,  it  is  not  certain  that  the  Aaron  of 
golden  calf  fame  is  the  same  as  the  Aaron,  the  elder  and  seer, 
the  associate  of  Hur.  Where  then  is  the  legend  of  this  Aaron 
to  be  placed?  Obviously  the  natural  place  to  look  for  it  would 
be  one  of  the  sanctuaries  which  possessed  golden  calves  ;  of 
which  we  are  acquainted  with  two,  Dan  and  Bethel  ^.  The 
post-Deuleronomic  author  of  i  Kings  xii  2^-33  ascribes  ihe 
institution  of  these  sanctuaries  with  the  golden  calf  at  each  to 
Jeroboam  ;  and  from  his  words  it  would  naturally  be  inferred 
that  down  to  the  time  of  Jeroboam  neither  Dan  nor  Bethel  had 
possessed  either  sanctuary,  image,  or  priesthood. 

'  True,  Hoses  (viii  5)  Bcecns  to  speak  or  «  cair  t>clcingin^  to  Suiurii,  but  as 
there  is  no  »-tdenec  of  any  sanrluiiry  »t  the  dty  of  Sanmria,  it  is  probable  tliat  the 
name  SajnaTia  is  used  lo  denote  the  northern  kingdym,  and  thai  the  rcfcrcncr  is  to 
Bethel,  which  Amoa  calls  ihe  ro>'al  sAiictuary.  In  x  5  also  HoBca  mentions  ihe 
tmhu  of  Belh-aven.  But  the  feminine  [ilural  rnSjr,  whith,  hi  this  connexioB, 
ocrun  h(?re  only,  is  most  suspicious,  and  the  Tollowing  suffixes,  referring  to  the 
idol,  are  in  the  masculine  singular.  It  is  noteworthy,  as  a  proof  that  die  calf  of 
Samaria  is  really  the  c»1f  of  Bethel,  thai  Hosea  says,  'The  inhabitants  of  Saaaria 
shall  be  in  terror  for  the  calf  of  licth-avca '.  The  contemptuous  allcration  f^  it*  1*2 
into  pK  m  amy  be  ultimately  due  lo  Amos  v  5.  The  sarcasm  in  Hoa.  xiU  a, 
though  somewhat  obscure,  seems  to  he  directed  agaimt  Ihe  prisciple  of  idoUtiy, 
rather  thao  against  any  particular  locality. 


THE   ORIGIN    OF    THE   AARONITE    PRIESTHOOD      167 

But  we  have  the  express  testimony  of  Judges  xviii  that  at  Dan 
a  sanctuary  with  an  image  or  images  of  some  sort  had  existed 
from  the  early  days  of  the  Judges,  and  that  the  guild  of  priests 
who  ministered  there  *  until  the  day  of  the  captivity  of  the  land ' 
honoured  as  the  founder  of  their  order  a  person  of  no  less 
distinguished  descent  than  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Gershom,  the 
son  of  Moses.  It  is  noteworthy  that  Dan,  as  also  Shiloh  and 
Jerusalem,  unlike  Bethel  and  Beersheba,  is  not  connected  with 
the  story  of  any  patriarch  or  judge,  and  hence  there  is  good 
reason  for  accepting  the  account  of  the  sanctuary  there  as  in  the 
main  accurate. 

Whether  the  image,  or  one  of  the  images,  at  Dan  was  a  golden 

calf  is  doubtful.    To  be  sure  it  is  possible  that  Jeroboam  may 

have  reoi^anized  an  existing  sanctuary,  presenting  to  it  a  new 

idol :  but  there  is  no  evidence  in  support  of  such  a  supposition 

beyond  the  statement  of  the  compiler  of  the  Book  of  Kings ;  and 

considering  his  complete  ignorance  of  the  origin  of  the  priesthood 

at  Dan  as  it  is  given  in  the  book  of  Judges,  his  statement  can 

iiave  but  little  historical  value.     It  is,  however,  evident  that  he 

considered  Dan  and  Bethel  to  have  been  the  chief  sanctuaries  of 

^e  northern  kingdom,  and  in  this  respect  his  opinion  is  confirmed 

"by  other  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  e.g.   Judges  xviii, 

•2  Sam.  XX  18  (Lxx),  Amos  vii  13. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  that  Bethel  was  a  sanctuary 
from  the  time  of  the  Israelite  conquest  of  Canaan.  This  is 
evident  not  only  from  the  belief  that  the  place  had  been 
consecrated  by  the  revelation  there  made  to  Jacob  (Gen.  xxviii), 
but  also  from  its  mention  in  connexion  with  other  primitive 
sanctuaries,  as  in  1  Sam.  vii  16. 

But  if  the  writer  of  i  Kings  xii  26-33  was  misinformed,  or 
drew  a  wrong  inference,  as  to  the  founding  of  the  sanctuary  at 
Bethel,  he  was  probably  right  in  regarding  Bethel  as  a  chief 
seat  of  calf  worship,  and  indeed,  since  the  story  of  Judges  xviii 
makes  it  doubtful  whether  the  image  at  Dan  was  a  calf,  the  chief 
seat  of  that  worship.  On  the  other  hand,  while  we  know  that  at 
Dan  a  single  guild  of  priests,  viz.  that  instituted  by  Jonathan  the 
grandson  of  Moses,  ministered  '  until  the  day  of  the  captivity  of 
the  land ',  we  have  no  trustworthy  evidence  as  to  the  guild  of 
priests  at  Bethel. 


l68         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

Seeing  then  that  there  is  clear  evidence  of  the  worship  of  the 
golden  calf  at  one  sanctuary  only.  viz.  Bethel,  and  no  evidence 
as  to  the  priesthood  who  ministered  before  it,  while  we  have  an 
ancient  tradition  of  an  Aaron  who  made  a  golden  calf,  is  it 
too  daring  a  conjecture  that  the  originator  of  the  cult  of  the 
golden  calf  at  Bethel  was  in  N.  Israel  believed  to  be  Aaron, 
and  thai  the  sons  of  Aaron  performed  at  Bethel  the  functions  of 
the  priesthood  ?  Certainly  if  Dan  and  Bethel  be  sister  sanctuaries, 
the  priests  of  Bethel  would  naturally  be  regarded  as  in  some  sort 
brothers  of  the  priests  of  Dan.  And  if  the  pric^ood  of  Dan 
be  derived  from  Moses,  and  the  priesthood  of  Bethel  from  Aaron, 
we  get  a  new  light  on  Exod.  iv  14,  '  Is  there  not  Aaron  thy 
brother  the  Levite?  '  ' 

But  here  a  difficulty  arises.  If  the  northern  tradition  honoured 
Aaron  as  the  founder  of  the  cult  of  the  calf,  and  believed  that  he 
lived  during  the  Exodus,  how  are  we  to  account  for  the  fact  that 
the  tradition  of  the  Judges  takes  no  account  of  his  priesthood 
nor  of  the  golden  calf  which  he  made  ?  It  is,  however,  unnecessary 
to  point  out  that  the  greatest  uncertainty  prevailed  as  to  the 
exact  time  when  certain  legendary  or  eponymous  heroes  had 
flourished,  and  legendary  events  had  taken  place.  Thus,  for 
example,  Jair's  colonization  of  eastern  Manassch  is  recorded  in 
Num.  xxxii  41  as  occurring  during  the  lifetime  of  Moses;  but 
in  Judges  x  3-5  as  later  than  tlic  time  of  Abimcicch.  Similarly 
the  name  Hormah  was  given  in  the  days  of  Moses  according  to 
Num.  xxj  3,  but  according  to  Judges  i  17  after  the  beginning  of 
the  conquest  of  western  Palestine.  Nor  was  this  uncertainty 
confined  to  the  very  early  period.  A  comparison  of  the 
summaries  of  the  reigns  of  Saul  and  David  shews  that  certain 
military  achievements  were  assigned  to  the  days  of  those  two 
kings  ;  but  whether  Saul  was  the  hero  in  them,  or  David,  appears 
to  h,^ve  been  quite  uncertain. 

But  assuming  that  the  view  set  forth  above  is  true,  viz.  that 
Aaron  was  originally  the  founder  of  the  Bcthelite  priesthood,  we 
have  yet  to  enquire  how  it  came  about  that  the  founder  of  a  priest- 
hood of  a  '  high  place ',  and  that  a  non-Judaean  one,  came  to  be 

*  The  prnbabltf  wnncxion  of  Axron  with  Bethel  hu  been  pointed  out  by  other* : 
>ee,  for  example,  EitoffofiMdia  Sibii'ai,  art. '  Aaron  '.  The  caaclusJon  here  set  Carth, 
however,  has  been  arrived  at  quite  independeally. 


J 


THE  ORIGIN   OF  THE   AARONITE   PRIESTHOOD 


regarded  as  the  head  and  source  of  the  only  orthodox  priesthood 
in  Jerusalem?  To  answer  this  question  it  is  necessary  to  review 
briefly  the  religious  history  of  Palestine  from  the  middle  of  the 
eighth  century  B.C.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  reformation 
under  Josiah  was  not  the  outcome  of  a  tendency  that  had  suddenly 
arisen.  Reforming  ideas  had  been  '  in  the  air ',  and  gradually 
gaining  force  for  more  than  a  century.  Amos,  Hosca,  Isaiah, 
Micah,  and,  in  all  probability,  many  another  prophet  had  had 
visions  of  a  worslilp  oftcred  to  Jehovah  neither  at  Jerusalem,  nor 
10  any  other  mountain,  whether  in  Judaea  or  in  Samaria,  but 
manifested  in  righteousness  and  mercy.  It  is  now  generally 
recognized  that  prophetic  activity  was  greater  in  N.  Israel  than 
in  Judaea :  and  since  no  prophet  was  ever  a  mere  vox  clatttans  in 
deserto  (for  in  that  case  his  words  would  utterly  have  perished),  it 
is  a  fair  inference,  notwithstanding  the  statements  of  the  Book 
of  Kings,  that  there  were  in  the  kingdom  of  Samaria  at  the  time 
of  its  ^1  a  considerable  number  of  people,  albeit  a  minority  of 
the  nation,  who  cherished  the  teaching  of  Amos  and  Hosea. 

Nor  must  we  go  beyond  the  statements,  whether  of  the  Bible, 
or  of  the  monuments,  in  imagining  an  a,lmoBt  complete  depopula- 
tion of  X.  Israel.  That  the  ranks  of  the  fighting-men  had  been 
sorely  thinned,  that  all  the  aristocracy  and  priests  and  many  of 
the  bourgeois  class  were  transported,  Is  probable  enough  from  the 
later  experience  of  Judah ;  but  after  subtracting  all  these  it  is 
evident  that  there  must  have  remained  a  very  considerable 
population,  poor  indeed,  and  with  no  strong  political  feeling 
(since  they  had  always  belonged  to  a  class  whose  fate  it  had 
been  to  be  governed  rather  than  to  govern),  but  not  necessarily 
less  religious,  or  less  likely  to  be  influenced  by  the  teaching  of 
the  prophets  than  those  who  were  carried  into  exile.  Wc  have 
the  emphatic  testimony  of  Jeremiah  a  century  later  that  in 
Jerusalem  the  great  men  were  as  bad  as  the  simple  and  poor. 
The  narrative  of  2  Kings  xvii  24-41  implies  the  destruction  of 
all  the  N.  Israelite  sanctuaries.  This  is  no  doubt  an  unintentional 
exa^eratlon,  but  it  is  certainly  highly  probable  that  the  chief 
sanctuaries  of  Jehovah  were  destroyed.  And  since  Bethel  was 
the  royal  sanctuary  of  Israel,  we  may  consider  it  certain  that 
Bethel  shared  the  fate  of  Samaria. 

But  doubtless  there  were  left  here  and  there,  in  out-of-the-way 


I 


170        THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

places,  altzn  of  Jehovah  which  had  been  too  poor  to  attract  ffie 
vengeance  of  the  Ass>Tians,  where  it  was  still  possible  for 
Jehovah's  devout  worshippers  lo  render  to  Him  the  firstfruits 
of  His  ground.  It  would  seem  that  from  time  to  time  during  the 
first  half  of  the  seventh  century  B.  C.  vanous  groups  of  colonists 
from  other  portions  of  the  Assyrian  empire  were  settled  in  the 
province  of  Samaria,  notably  on  the  site,  or  in  the  neighbourhood, 
of  the  ruined  Bethel.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  much  of  the  land 
had  gone  out  of  cultivation,  wild  beasts  bad  increased  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  become  a  scourge  to  the  inhabitants ;  and  this  trouble, 
naturally  enough,  was  understood  to  be  a  sign  of  the  wrath  of  the 
god  of  the  district.  The  Jehovah  worshippers  represented  the 
calamity  as  due  to  the  wrath  of  their  slighted  God,  Jehovah,  and 
doubtless  argued,  as  Haggai  did  in  a  somewhat  parallel  case. 
How  could  the  land  prosper  when  the  temple  of  its  Deity  lay 
waste  ?  The  result  was  that  a  petition  was  addressed  to  the 
King  of  Assyria,  ostensibly  on  behalf  of  the  non-Isractite  portion 
of  the  population,  that  facilities  might  be  given  iJiem  for  learning 
the  customary  law  of  Jehovah,  who  was  now  recognized  as  the 
undisputed  God  of  the  land.  Since  these  settlers  could  not  be 
.supposed  to  have  any  very  strong  national  feeling,  the  petition 
was  granted,  and  a  priest  was  allowed  to  reside  at  Bethel. 
Whether  this  priest  really  was  a  member  of  the  original  guild 
of  priests  at  Bethel,  or  not,  it  is  impossible  to  say  with  certainty  ; 
but  it  is  at  least  probable,  and  in  any  case  continuity  with  the 
former  priesthood  would  almost  certainly  be  claimed  for  the- 
restored  priesthood. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  in  the  seventh  century  B.a  the  worship 
of  Jehovah  was  maintained  in  the  province  of  Samaria,  and  that 
at  Bethel,  the  old  royal  sanctuary,  a  priesthood  derived  from  the 
old  stock  ministered  with  the  sanction,  and  presumably  under 
the  protection,  of  the  Assyrian  governor.  Truly  the  promise  to 
Elijah  was  fulfilled,  Jehovah  had  left  to  serve  Him  seven  thousand 
in  Israel. 

But  meanwhile,  if  the  worship  of  Jehovah  was  reasserting  itself 
in  Samaria,  there  seemed  a  danger  of  its  being  suppressed,  at 
least  as  the  prophets  understood  it.  in  Judah.     Under  Manasseh 
^a  strong  reaction  had  set  in  against  the  reformers.     The  re- 
actionary party  strove  relentlessly  to  exterminate  their  opponents, 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE   AARONITE    PRIESTHOOD      I7I 

and  3  persecution  ensued,  in  which  many  were  put  to  death.  But 
ifManasseh  determined  that  in  his  own  kingdom  he  would  have 
no  ocw-fangled  notions,  such  as  were  associated  with  the  name  of 
Isaiah,  his  jurisdiction  extended  but  a  very  short  distance  north- 
ward from  Jerusalem.  An  hour  and  a  half's  walk,  or  thereabouts, 
and  the  persecuted  Judaean  found  himself  beyond  the  reach  of 
Manasseh's  clutches,  where  under  the  aegis  of  Assyria  he  had 
freedom  to  worship  God.  When  we  remember  the  long  reign  of 
Manassefa,  and  the  proximity  of  Bethel  to  Jerusalem,  we  cannot 
doubt  that  many  worshippers  of  Jehovah  fled  to  the  former  place 
for  refuge,  carrying  with  them  their  traditions  of  their  Judaean 
fordatfaers,  and  of  the  mighty  works  which  Jehovah  had  wrought 
in  Judah  in  the  time  of  old. 

It  is  not,  of  course,  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  worship  at 
Bethel  was  of  a  very  high  degree  of  spirituality.  Men  may  be 
ready  to  face  exile  for  their  faith,  and  yet  be  far  removed  from 
the  spirituality  of  a  Jeremiah.  But  though  the  community  at 
Bethel  may  not  have  contained  a  Jeremiah,  it  is  in  accordance 
with  probability  to  suppose  that  it  was  at  least  animated  by 
a  desire  to  serve  the  Lord  in  a  better  way  than  of  old ;  it  was, 
to  use  a  metaphor  of  Jeremiah's,  ground  cleared  of  thorns  and 
ploughed,  ground  ready  to  receive  the  seed  which  should  be 
sown  in  it. 

If  the  supposition  that  persecuted  Judaeans  found  a  refuge  in 
Bethel  be  correct  we  have  an  explanation  of  the  comparative 
tenderness  with  which  Jeremiah  speaks  of  Samaria.  Israel  had 
shewn  herself  more  righteous  than  Judah ;  for  Judah  had  per- 
secuted the  saints,  and  Israel  had  offered  them  an  asylum. 

Note.  It  may,  perhaps,  appear  to  some  that  the  possibility  of 
an  asylum  for  persecuted  Judaeans  in  Bethel  is  precluded  by  the 
story  of  Josiah's  desecration  of  Bethel.  It  will  doubtless  be  felt 
by  some  that,  if  Josiah  was  free  to  work  his  will  on  Bethel, 
Manasseh  may  have  been  able  to  do  the  same.  But  the  whole 
story  of  Josi<di's  pollution  of  the  altar  at  Bethel,  as  related  in 
3  Kings  xxiii  15-20,  is  shewn  to  be  a  later  addition  by  a  com- 
parison with  ver.  8,  which  states  that  Josiah  carried  out  his  reforms 
from  Geba  to  Beersheba.  Bethel  therefore  lay  outside  Josiah's 
jurisdiction,  and  the  story  of  its  desecration,  so  far  as  it  is 
historical,  belongs  to  a  later  date. 

But  to  return  to  Judah.      In  the  e^hteenth  )rear  of  King 


17a         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGtCAL  STUDIES 

Josiah,  when  Jeremiah  had  preached  in  Jerusalem  for  five  years, 
the  reforming  party  in  Judah  again  b^;an  to  lift  up  their  heads. 
Although  it  is  probable  that  comparatively  few  were  willing  to 
go  to  the  lengths  to  which  the  great  prophets,  Amos.  Hosea, 
Isaiah,  Micah,  and  possibly  Jeremiah,  had  gone,  it  was  evident  to 
all  who  were  in  the  least  imbued  with  their  teaching  that  some- 
thing must  be  done  to  reform  sacrificial  worship.  The  result  was 
the  well-known  compromise  embodied  in  the  legislation  of 
I>euteroaomy,  by  which  the  local  sanctuaries  wqtc  abollslied  ; 
the  clei^  who  ministered  at  them  being  given  the  privilege  of 
joining  the  community  of  the  sons  of  Zadok  at  Jerusalem.  Of 
the  manner  in  which  the  reform  was  carried  out  we  have  no 
details.  It  certainly  was  not  accomplished  without  friction :  in 
particular,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  sons  of  Zadok  resisted 
strenuously,  and  more  or  less  successfully,  the  attempt  to  foist 
strangers  upon  their  close  corporation.  With  one  party  demand- 
ing a  more  radical  reform,  with  another  party  ready  to  denounce 
the  reformers  as  impious  desecrators  of  Jehovah's  sanctuaries, 
with  a  fierce  quarrel  raging  between  the  clerg>',  the  latter  years 
of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  must  have  been  as  troublous  from  the 
religious  as  from  the  political  point  of  view. 

At  last  peace  came,  but  it  was  the  peace  of  the  stricken  field. 
The  menacing  arm  which  had  been  so  long  stretched  out  against 
Judah  descended  in  two  fearful  blows.  The  history  of  N.  Israel 
repeated  itself  again  in  Judah.  Jerusalem,  and  to  a  great  extent 
all  Judah,  lost  the  flower  of  the  population ;  king,  aristocracy, 
nc^Ies,  merchants,  and  the  better  sort  of  artisans  were  swept 
away,  the  fortifications  of  Jerusalem  were  razed  to  the  ground, 
and  the  sons  of  Zadok  were  left  to  enjoy  as  best  they  could  in 
a  foreign  land  their  victory  over  the  country  Levites. 

It  is,  however,  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  bulk  of  the 
population  were  carried  off  to  Babylon.  There  must  have  been 
a  considerable  number  of  inhabitants  left,  or  it  would  not  have 
been  worth  while  to  appoint  Gcdaliah  go^xmor.  And  even 
when  we  have  made  allowance  for  those  who  were  murdered  at 
Mizpah,  and  for  those  who  subsequently  took  refuge  in  Egypt,  it 
is  evident  that  there  still  remained  in  Judah  a  by  no  means 
inconsiderable  body  of  inhabitants.  Judah,  though  ruined  and 
bereaved  of  many  of  the  best  of  her  sons,  was  still  regarded  as  ft 


THE   ORIGIN   OF  THE  AARONITE   PRIESTHOOD      173 

'iving  state.  Those  who  lived  there  were  still  considered  Jehovah's 
ptople.  In  the  stirring  address  of  the  great  unknown  prophet, 
tie  exiles  in  Babylon  are  bidden  not  to  take  comfort  for  that  they 
tiemselves  shall  be  restored  to  their  ancestral  home,  but  to  givg 
Comfort  to  the  poverty-stricken,  distressed  population  of  Judah 
3nd  Jerusalem,  because  their  help  is  n^r. 

Assuming  then,  as  we  may,  that  a  considerable,  though  sadly 
diminished  population  remained  behind  in  Palestine  what  in- 
ferences may  be  drawn  as  to  their  religious  condition?  That  the 
bulk  of  this  population,  in  name  at  all  events,  acknowledged 
Jehovah  as  the  only  God  may  be  considered  sufficiently  proved 
.  from  the  absence  of  any  attempt  after  the  return  from  Babylon 
I  to  set  up  the  Worship  of  any  foreign  deity.  It  was  a  population, 
moreover,  which  had  been  compelled  some  thirty-four  years 
b^ore  to  perform  its  official  worship,  i.e.  worship  which  necessi- 
tated a  priest,  at  one  sanctuary  only,  viz.  that  of  Jerusalem.  No 
doubt  much  that  was  heathenish  went  on  notwithstanding  the 
law  of  the  one  sanctuary ;  but,  for  the  matter  of  that,  sacrifices  to 
earth  gods,  and  like  superstitions,  lingered  on  in  out-of-the-way 
districts  in  England  even  within  living  memory.  Deprived  then 
of  their  priests  or  Levites,  with  the  sole  sanctuary  which  the 
reformation  of  Josiah  had  spared  lying  in  ruins,  those  who 
remained  behind  in  Palestine  were,  as  to  religious  observances,  in 
much  the  same  case  as  those  who  had  been  transported  to 
Babylon.  They  were  indeed,  to  use  Wellhausen's  words  of  the 
exiles,  *  living  under  a  sort  o(  vast  interdict  * ;  with  this  difference, 
however,  that  whereas  the  community  of  Jews  in  Babylon  had 
with  them  a  priesthood,  but  a  priesthood  that  could  do  nothing, 
or  next  to  nothing,  apart  from  a  sanctuary,  those  that  remained 
behind  had  the  holy  site,  and  needed  but  a  priesthood  to  resume 
the  religious  life  of  the  last  thirty-four  years. 

In  these  days,  when  the  distinction  between  sacred  and  secular 
is  so  strongly  marked,  we  are  perhaps  apt  to  foi^et  that  in  a 
more  primitive  state  of  religion  there  is  no  such  distinction,  but 
the  welfare  or  ill-success  of  a  man  depends  upon  the  due  observ- 
ance of  certain  religious  rites.  One  thing  is  certain ;  every  man, 
whether  good  or  bad  as  ju)%ed  by  prophetic  standards,  was  con- 
vinced of  the  desirability,  and  indeed  the  necessity,  of  having 
a  priesthood.    Now  no  one  willingly  consents  to  go  without 


K 


174  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

what  he  considers  necessary,  or  even  highly  desirable,  and  in 
such  a  case,  if  the  supply  is  possible,  the  demand  is  pretty  sure 
to  produce  it.  If  Jerusalem  had  been  depri\*ed  of  its  priests. 
there  flourished  a  body  of  priests  at  Bethel,  only  ten  miles  off. 
And  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  country  districts  of  Judah,  whose 
Levites  had  by  the  enactment  of  Josiah  been  given  the  same 
stattis  as  the  sons  of  Zadok,  these  priests  would  appear  as  good 
as  those  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  had  carried  off.  Rigid  views  of 
Aaronite,  or  Zadokitc,  or  any  other  succession  did  not  yet  exist. 
Nothing  would  therefore  be  more  natural  than  that  the  thoughts 
of  those  who  missed  the  priests  of  Jerusalem  should  be  directed 
to  the  prie^its  of  Bethel.  And  since  in  all  probability  there  was 
a  steady  influx  of  people  bto  Jerusalem  when  the  first  panic  was  J 
over,  so  that  the  population  there  was  at  least  equal  to  that  of 
Bethel,  the  invitation  may  well  have  been  given  to  the  priests  at 
Bethel  to  forsake  their  sanctuary  in  that  place  and  to  migrate  to 
Jerusalem.  There  must  have  been  many  who  remembered  the 
invitation  which  Jeremiah  had  cried  to  the  north  to  the  back- 
sliding children  of  N.  Israel  to  return  to  Jehovah,  The  time  I 
had  come  for  mutual  help  by  mutual  compromise.  It  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  the  law  of  a  single  sanctuary  had,  to  a  great 
extent  been  Imposed  upon  N.  Israel  by  the  consequences  of  the 
Assyrian  conquest,  and  therefore  the  great  obstacle  to  the 
religious  union  of  the  two  provinces  had  already  been  removed. 

Note.  It  may  perhaps  appear  that  due  weight  has  not  been 
given  to  the  statement  of  jer.  xli  5,  that  'there  came  certiia 
from  Shechem,  from  Shiloh,  and  from  Samaria,  even  fourscore 
men,  having  their  beards  shaven  and  their  clothes  rent,  and 
having  cut  themselves,  with  oblations  and  frankincense  In  their 
hand,  to  bring  them  to  the  house  of  the  Lord*.  It  is  certainly 
not  a  fair  Inference  from  this  statement  that  Shechem,  Shilo  and  I 
Samaria  already  recognized  Jerusalem  as  the  religious  metropolis ;  ■ 
for  it  would  teem  that  these  men  were  Jewish  refugees,  not 
natives  of  the  northern  province.  This  at  least  is  the  natural 
inference  from  the  statement  that  'ten  men  were  found  among 
them,  that  said  unto  Ishmael,  Slay  us  not:  for  we  liave  stores 
hidden  in  the  field,  of  wheat,  and  of  barley,  and  of  oil,  and  of 
honey '.  Even  if  Ishmael  had  been  willing  to  go  as  far  as  Shiloh 
for  forage,  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  he  would  have  gone  to 
Shechem  or  Samaria ;  nor  is  it  obvious  why  the  natives  of  these 
places  should  have  hidden  tlieir  stores  in  the  field. 


THE  ORIGIN   OF   THE   AARONITE   PRIESTHOOD     175 

Oo  the  assumption  therefore  that  the  priests  of  Bethel  became 
^  priests  of  Jerusalem,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  law  of  the  one 
sanctuary  became  the  law,  not  only  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  but 
also  of  a  considerable  district  besides.     We  need  not,  however, 
suppose  that  the  whole  province  of  Samaria  was  at  once  united 
for  religious  purposes  with  Judah.     The  curious  appendix  to  the 
Deuteronomic  law  in  Deut.  xxvii,  which  enjoins  the  erection  of 
an  altar  on  Mount  Ebal  and  the  plasterii^  over  of  certain  great 
stones,  that  the  words  of  the  law  may  be  inscribed  upon  them, 
looks  very  much  like  a  compromise  arrived  at  with  the  natives  of 
Sfaechem,  when  they  also  agreed  to  recc^nize  Jerusalem  as  the 
one  Intimate  sanctuary.     In   this  way  the  reputation  which 
Shechem  had  possessed  from  time  immemorial  would  be  fully 
respected  without  detriment  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.     In 
such  a  compromise  the  priests  who  had  formerly  ministered  at 
the  sanctuary  on  Ebal,  would  probably  be  incorporated  with  the 
sons  of  Aaron  at  Jerusalem  in  accordance  with  the  provision  of 
Deut.  xviii  6-8.    The  right  of  sanctuary  which,  of  course,  She- 
chem had  enjoyed  in  the  past  was  preserved  to  it.    It  is  extremely 
probable  that  a  compromise  similar  to  that  which  was  made  with 
Shechem  was  subsequently  made  with  the  inhabitants  of  Gilead. 
The  story  contained  in  Joshua  xxii,  of  the  great  altar  which  the 
diildren  of  Reuben  and  the  children  of  Gad  and  the  half  tribe  of 
Maoasseh  had  built '  in  the  region  about  Jordan',  though  scarcely 
historical  in  its  present  form,  probably  rests  on  a  foundation  of 
fact    An  altar  is  a  strange  erection  if  it  is  only  to  be  used  as 
a  monument.     If,  however,  an  altar  actually  existed,  and  the 
religious  sensitnlities  of  those  who  had  worshipped  there  were 
shocked  by  the  proposal  to  demolish  it,  a  compromise  may  well 
have  been  arrived  at,  by  which  the  altar  itself  was  preserved  but 
devoted  henceforth  to  a  new  purpose. 

On  the  hypothesis  elaborated  above,  it  seems  possible  to  explain 
what  must  certainly  be  admitted  as  a  most  remarkable  fact,  that, 
for  some  reason  or  other,  the  province  of  Samaria  accepted  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  before  the  return  from  captivity.  Whether 
the  statements  of  the  Book  of  Ezra  are  strictly  historical  or  not, 
one  thing  is  absolutely  certain  ;  unless  Samaria  had  received 
Deuteronomy,  the  whole  story  of  the  quarrel  between  the  Jews 
and  the  Samaritans  is  unintelligible.     It  is  inconceivable  that  the 


amarU  should  voluntarily  have  talcen  upo 
the  burden  of  the  whole  law,  if  they  had  not  been  fi 
for  it  by  the  acceptance  of  Deuteronomy. 

Note.  Such  a  conlpromisc  as  that  set  forth  above  would 
certainly  not  be  efiectcd  without  a  very  considerable  amount  of 
opposition.  It  is  probable  that  the  author  of  a  Kings  xviii  22 
is  putting  into  the  mouth  of  Rabshakeb  the  gist  of  the  protests 
which  were  still  being  made  in  his  own  day  by  the  discontented 
section  of  the  population  in  Samaria.  The  causes  of  the  opposi- 
tion which  Nehemiah  encountered  are  never  clearly  act  forth. 
In  all  likelihood,  however,  there  were  not  wanting  in  Jerusalem 
in  the  days  of  Zerubbabel  those  who  aimed  at  making  Jerusalem 
the  civil,  as  well  as  the  religious,  metropolis  of  all  Palestine,  in 
defiance  of  the  strong  national  sentiment  still  existing  in  many 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  province  of  Samaria.  The  words  of 
Neh,  ii  10  are  perfectly  natural  in  the  mouth  of  a  man  who 
is  convinced  of  the  superiority  of  the  government  of  his  own 
party,  and  imagines  that  all  right-minded  men  must  be  convinced 
of  it  also. 

On  the  assumption,  then,  that  the  above  hypothecs  is  tenable, 
at  what  point  in  the  list  of  high  priests  are  we  to  place  the 
introduction  of  the  line  of  Aaron?  In  1  Chron.  vi  13-15  the 
genealogy  of  Jchozadak,  the  father  of  Joshua  the  high  priest  in 
the  days  of  Zerubbabel,  is  given  as  follows :  *  and  Shallum 
be^t  Hilkiah,  and  Hilkiah  begat  Azariab ;  and  Azariah  begat 
Seraiah,  and  Seraiah  begat  Jehozadak;  and  Jchozadak  went 
inta  captivity,  when  the  Lord  carried  away  Judah  and  Jerusalem 
by  the  hand  of  Nebuchadnezzar' :  J<Khua  being  thus  directly 
connected  with  the  pre-exilic  Jerusalem  priesthood  of  Zadok. 
But  this  genealogy  is  so  obvious  an  inference  to  any  one  who 
starts  with  the  Chronicler's  assumption  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  of  a  succession  of  high  priests  in  accordance 
with  its  requirements,  that  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  suppose  that 
the  Chronicler  found  it  in  any  ancient  document.  For  Haggai 
makes  it  plain  that  Joshua  was  the  son  of  Jehozadak  ;  and 
3  Kings  XXV  18  (cf.  Jer.  Hi  24)  states  that  the  name  of  the 
chief  priest  who  ministered  under  Zedckiah.and  was  put  to  death 
by  Nebuchadnezzar,  was  Seraiah.  Since  Seraiah  had  been  chief 
priest  up  to  the  year  587  B.C  and  the  Chronicler  believed  Joshua 
to  have  become  chief  priest  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  it  was 
natural  to  conclude  (since  there  u-as  room  for  but  one  generatioa 


THE  ORIGIN   OF   THE   AARONITE    PRIESTHOOD     177 


tKtween  the  two)  that  Jehozadak,  the  father  of  Joshua,  was  the 
son  of  Seraiah.  But  since,  according  to  the  above  theory,  Joshua 
nay  be  regarded  as  an  Aarontte.  not  a  Zadokite,  his  father' 
Jdiozadak  must  be  an  Aaronite  also,  the  Chronicler  having  at 
^_    this  point  gi-afted  the  Aaronite  branch  on  to  the  Zadokite  stock. 

^P  N"oTE.  No  apolc^is  needed  for  treating  the  priestly  genealogies 
r  in  Chronicles  as  unhi'storical  artificialities:  see,  for  example^ 
^_  ^«Or.  Bibt.  art.  '  Genealogies  '. 

^f  Whether  Joshua,  or  Jebozadak,  or  the  father  of  Joshua,  was 
the  first  Aaronite  priest  to  minister  at  Jerusalem  cannot  be 
determined  with  certainty ;  it  is,  however,  probable  that  Joshua 
vas  not  the  first  of  his  line,  and  that  he  owes  his  prominence  to 
the  peculiar  circumstances  of  his  priesthood.  Opinion  is  still  by 
no  means  unanimous  as  to  the  amount  of  weight  which  is  to  be 
assigned  to  the  account  given  in  Chronicles— Ezra— Nehemiah  of 
the  return  under  Zcrubbabcl ;  and  it  is  Impossible  adequately 
to  discuss  the  matter  here.  As,  however,  the  whole  theory  now 
set  forth  assumes  that  It  is  unhistorical,  the  present  writer  must 
briefty  state  his  main  reason  for  so  r^arding  it,  which  is  the 
intense  difficulty,  if  not  the  impossibility,  of  reconciling  it  with 
the  statements  of  the  contemporary  prophets  Haggai  and 
Zechariah.  For  not  only  do  these  prophets  refer  the  desolate 
condition  of  the  sanctuary  entirely  to  the  selfishness  and  slackness 
of  the  community,  and  say  nothing  of  any  opposition  from 
outside,  but  they  absolutely  ignore  the  wonderful  fulfilment  of 
prophecy,  if  such  a  fulfilment  really  had  come  to  pass,  of  the 
first  year  of  Cyrus.  Nor  can  this  difficulty  be  lightly  brushed 
aside  on  the  ground  that  Haggai  and  Zechariah  do  not  mention 
the  Return  because  they,  in  common  with  those  to  whom  they 
preached,  had  taken  part  tn  it.  Which  of  us  that  is  a  preacher, 
in  exhorting  a  congregation  to  trust  God's  grace  for  the  future, 
would  ignore  a  notable  manifestation  of  that  grace  given  to  them 
and  to  himself  some  sixteen  years  before  ?  Of  what  use  would  it 
be  to  affirm  that  God's  power  still  will  lead  us  on,  unEess  we 
acknowledge  that  it  has  blest  us  hitherto?  But  given  a  belief  ia 
the  literal  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  and  in  the  historical  accuracy 
of  Scripture,  such  as  the  Chronicler  probably  held,  and  such  as 
most  adult  Christians  were  probably  trained  in  as  children,  can 
we  wonder  at  the  Chronicler's  inference  that,  since  the  book  (rf 
VOL.  VI.  N 


178        THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Isaiah  names  Cyrus  as  deliverer,  therefore  C>tus  must  have  been 
the  deliverer  ?  And  what  idea  of  a  deliverance  could  the  Chronicler 
have  had,  other  than  of  a  return  from  captivity  ?  And  if  he 
should  have  known  something  (as  he  well  may  have  done)  about 
the  decree  of  Cyrus  authorizing  the  restoration  of  the  gods  to 
their  shrines,  how  natural  an  inference  to  one  in  the  Chronicler's 
circumstances  to  conclude  that  the  zeal  of  Cyrus  really  was 
directed  to  the  restoraiion  of  Jehovah's  house  at  Jerusalem  1 

Not  that  we  must  necessarily  go  to  the  other  extreme  and 
suppose  that  no  one  came  to  Judah  from  Babylon  in  the  time 
of  Cyrus.  The  various  officials  who  were  appointed  to  the 
government  of  the  province  of  Judah  may  have  broi^ht  with 
them  as  interpreters  and  the  like  a  certain  number  of  men  of 
Jewish  birth,  while  it  is  also  probable  that  some  priests  returned 
with  Zerubbabel :  and  In  this  way  the  exiles  in  Babylon  would 
be  to  some  extent  kept  in  touch  with  Palestine.  But  passing 
over  the  reign  of  Cyrus,  of  which  we  have  no  definite  information, 
and  not  stopping  to  discuss  the  much  vexed  question  of  the 
identity  of  Sheshbazzar,  we  emerge  into  clearer  light  with  the 
reign  of  Darius,  and  the  preaching  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah. 
Now  the  fact  that  after  a  long  interval  of  silence  two  prophets 
begin  to  prophesy  simultaneously  is  a  pretty  sure  indication  of 
the  recent  occurrence  of  some  very  striking  event  in  the  political 
world.  And  when  we  consider  the  glowing  hopes  which  Zechariah 
associates  with  Zerubbabel,  it  h  difficult  to  resist  the  conviction 
that  it  was  the  appointment  of  Zerubbabel,  the  first  governor  of 
the  old  royal  stock  since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  so 
kindled  the  fire  of  the  prophet's  aspirations.  Zechariah  anticipates 
that  Zerubbabel  wilt  be  a  king  upon  bis  throne  (Wcllhauscn's 
restoration  of  the  text  of  Zech.  vi  9-15  is  here  followed),  and 
that  following  upon  his  coronation  *  they  that  are  far  off  shall 
come  and  build  in  the  temple  of  the  Lord ' ;  in  other  words  the 
restoration  of  Zerubbabel  is  an  earnest  of  a  much  greater 
restoration  of  exiles  still  to  come.  Only  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua 
and  all  the  people  of  the  land  must  recognize  the  paramount 
sovereignty  of  Jehovah.  His  house  is  far  more  important  than 
any  house  of  Zerubbabel's  ;  if  that  be  built,  He  will  complete  the 
work  which  He  has  begun. 

But  what  can  we  leani  irom  Haggai  and  Zechariah  about 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    AARONITE    PRIESTHOOD      X79 


ahua  the  son  of  Jehozadak  ?    In  the  Book  of  Hapgai  he  is 

iply   mentioned    with   Zcrubbabcl  ;    and   we  can    draw   no 

inferences  as  to  his  personality.     In  the  Book  of  Zcchariah, 

however,  wc  learn  two  very  .significant  facts  about  him.     In  the 

praphet's  vision  in  chapter  iii  Joshua  is  presented  to  us  as  upon 

his  trial  before  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  the  Satan  standing  upon 

his  right  hand  to  be  his  adversary.     To  have  the  Satan  standing 

at  one's  right  hand  means,  as  Wcllhauscn  says,  to  be  visited  with 

sotnc  misfortune.     It  is  true  that  Zechariah  does  not  state  the 

nature  of  this  misfortune  ;  but  the  very  rcm-irkable  language  which 

he  uses  in  chap,  vi  9-15  may  possibly  furnish  a  clue  both  to  the 

nature  of  Joshua's  trial,  and  the  prophet's  reticence  about   it. 

Again  it  must  be  remembered  that  Wellhauscn's  restoration  of 

the  text  is  here  followed,  according  to  which  only  one  crown  is 

made,  which  is  placed  upon  the  head  of  Zenibbabel ;  after  which 

the   prophet  proceeds  as  follows:   'Thus  sptakeik  tite  Lord  of 

^fs,  saying.  Behold  the  fnan  whose  name  is  the  Sprout ;  and  he 

skali  sprout  forth  out  of  his  plate,  and  he  shall  build  the  temple 

<tftftf  Lord  .  .  .  and  he  shall  bear  the  glory,  and  shall  sit,  and  rule 

tipoft  his  throne  ;  and  Joshua  shall  he  a  priest  at  his  right  hand: 

nd   the  counsel  of  peace  shall  be  bet^vceti  them  both.'     In    this 

emphatic  assertion  of  JosJiua's  position  as  priest  at  Zerubbabel's 

right  hand,  and  in  the  significant  addition  that  the  counsel  of 

peace  shall  be  between  them  both,  may  we  not  read  between 

the  lines  that  the  counsel  of  peace  had  not  always  been  between 

Zcrubbabel  and  Joshua  ?   that  the  position  of  Joshua  had  not 

been  hitherto  altogether  assured,  and  that  an  attempt  had  been 

made  by  Zenibbabel  and  his  party  to  oust  Joshua   from  his 

position?    It  would  be  almost  inevitable  that  Zerubbabcl,  having 

been  brought  up  in  a  country  where  the  influence  of  the  sons  of 

Zadok  was  paramount^  should  look  with  suspicion  on  any  other 

priestly  guild.     However,  if  this  Is  the  true  explanation  of  the 

jealousy  between  Zerubbabcl  and  Joshua,  the  prophetic  party  in 

Palestine,  while  recognizing  tht;  former  as  head  of  the  community, 

would  not  tolerate  any  deposition  of  Joshua  from  the  priesthood, 

and  such  of  the  sons  of  Zadok  as  had  returned  with  Zerubbabel 

were  compelled  to  accept  him  as  their  head.     If,  therefore,  as 

secfns  likely,  Zerubbabel  was  not  strong  enough  to  carry  hts 

point  against  the  opposition  of  the  population  of  Judah,  the  result 

N  a 


l8o         THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

would  be  the  ultimate  strengthening  of  Joshua's  position  ;  since 
he  would  have  been  recognized  not  only  by  the  Palestinian 
remnant,  but  also  by  one  who  was  regarded  by  the  exiles  !a 
Babylon  as  their  accredited  chief.  And  when  the  news  was 
carried  to  Babylon,  as  it  soon  would  be,  that  the  sons  of  Aaron 
had  been  recognized  as  legitimate  priests  by  Zerubbabel  himself, 
and  that  henceforth  there  would  be  no  room  for  the  sons  of 
Zadok,  except  they  should  consent  to  be  merged  in  the  guild  of 
Aaron^  the  title  'sons  of  Aaron  '  would  in  the  phraseology  of  the 
Jewish  lawyers  in  Babylon  take  the  place  of  the  title  '  sons  of 
Zadok ',  and  Aaron  would  be  associated  with  Moses  in  a  brother- 
hood that  should  endure  for  ever  '. 

But  the  objection  will  doubtless  be  made  that  this  assumptioa 
leaves  unexplained  the  fact  that,  notwithstanding  the  postulated 
supplanting  of  the  sons  of  Zadok  by  the  sons  of  Aaron,  the 
former  ultimately  prevailed  ;  for  in  the  New  Testament  the  high 
priest  and  his  party  belong  to  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees.  How- 
ever, if,  as  seems  probable,  the  Sadducees  are  the  same  as  the 
sons  of  Zadok,  it  is  by  no  means  difficult  to  account  for  their 
coming  into  prominence  again.  Whatever  views  be  held  of  the 
return  under  Zerubbabel,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Ezra  was 
accompanied  by  a  considerable  following,  which  consisted  m 
great  measure  of  priests.  These  who,  though  from  a  legal  point 
of  view  they  were  sons  of  Aaron,  were  also  of  course  sons  of 
Zadok,  were  very  probably  more  numerous  than  the  priests 
actually  ministering  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  it  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  they  would  be  superior  to  the  latter  in  oducatton. 
Friction  would  almost  inevitably  ensue  between  these  new- 
comers and  the  priests  whom  they  found  In  possession ;  and 
considering  the  temper  of  Ezra  and  Nehemlah,  such  friction 
would  be  not  unlikely  to  result  in  an  open  quarrel.  There  was 
no  Zechari^h  to  recommend  that  the  counsel  of  peace  should  he 
between  the  two  factions.  And  thus  once  more  the  old  tribal 
jealousy  would  break  out  in  absolute  schism,  and  the  more 
independent  spirits  would  return  to  the  spot  which  their  fathers 

'  Nehcmiah  tncations  LtviUs  aa  present  at  JcniMlem  on  Uic  occastoa  of 
bit  first  visit,  and  u  building  som«  of  the  city  wall.  It  is  not,  however,  clear 
whether  the  distioction  between  Lcvitcs  nntl  priests  was  already  recugaizcd  in 
Jeru-ulem,  or  due  to  Nchcnuah  himscir.  Nch.  vii  i  makes  the  latter  explaaUioa 
pobible. 


THE  ORIGIN   OF  THE   AARONITE   PRIESTHOOD      l8r 


^ 


^Ld  accounted  ho!y,  founding  there  a  sect  of  dissenters  that  has 
c-ojitinued  to  this  day  *. 

In  any  attempt  to  reconstruct  history  from  the  fragmentary 

nrK^terials  of  the  Old  Testament,  there  is  of  necessity  great  room 

fo  K- subjectivity ;  and  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  proof,  such 

a..^   the  mathematician  demands,  is  impossible.   But  as  the  anatomist, 

."wrlno  from  a  few  scattered  bones  reconstructs  a  whole  skeleton 

— — always  provided  that  such  a  skeleton  is  in  accordance  with  the 

a-^^xrtained  facts  of  comparative  anatomy — may  be  considered  to 

**^Te  given  a  correct  restoration  of  the  original  skeleton,  until 

s<^«rc  other  bone  be  found  which  will  not  fit  into  it ;  so  a  theory, 

ii*^liich  gathers  into  a  whole  the  ascertained  facts  of  criticism,  may, 

i**    the  absence  of  any  proof  to  the  contrary,  be  considered  as 

ffixring  in  the  main  a  correct  view  of  history. 

And  it  may  be  further  claimed  for  this  theory  that  it  not  only 
o^ers  a  solution  of  the  problems  with  which  it  more  directly 
d^als,  it  also  supplies  a  perfectly  natural  explanation  of  the  com- 
P<:>sition  of  the  Pentateuch.     It  is  impossible  here  to  give  more 
''■lian  the  most  meagre  outline ;  but  s;jch  an  outline  will  probably 
^^  enough  to  answer  an  objection  which  will   present  itself  to 
^^Uny  people.     Since  it  is  generally  considered  that  the  Book  of 
l^uteroncmy  rests  upon  the  united  composition  JE,  and  Deuter- 
onomy is  usually  regarded  as  prc-exilic,  a  theory  which  assigns 
to  the  exile  the  compilation  q>\JE  maybe  thought  to  be  wrecked 
OD  this  rock.     In  the  first  place  then,  is  it  in  any  way  necessary 


'  It  is  by  no  means  improbable  that  a  breach  between  the  Samaritans  and  Judah 
bad  occurred  before  tlie  lime  of  Nehemiah.  The  litncntable  condition  of  Jerusalem 
in  ibc  days  of  Nehcmiah  seems  scarcely  explicable,  except  on  the  assumption  that 
MOM  disaster  had  occurred  subsequent  to  tbe  prophecies  of  Hnggai  Rnd  Zcchariah, 
If,  as  seems  probable,  Ibe  glowing  hopes  which  the  latter  prgphct  h«d  expressed 
for Zembbabcl  had  awakened  an  expectation  of  tbe  revival  of  the  Davtdic  mgaarchy, 
the  inhabitants  of  Samaria  may  have  resented  tlic  claim  of  the  house  of  David  tu 
lord  it  over  all  Pale«line,  and  may  themselves  have  attaebed  Jerusalem  ;  or,  by 
representing  it  aa  guilty  of  treason  to  the  Persian  government,  they  may  have 
induced  the  King  of  Persia  to  intervene.  It  is  at  least  remarkable  thai  in  a  number 
of  passages  which  may  reasonably  be  assigned  to  the  period  between  Zerubbabel 
and  Nchrmiah  (e.  g.  3  Sam.  vii,  Ps.  xviii,,  A:c.)  we  6tict  bright  bopea  expressed  for 
tbe  dynasty  of  David,  hopes  which  seem  to  go  beyond  the  language  of  Zccbariah. 
About  the  same  time  wc  have  Psalms  which  speak  of  the  godly  as  oppressed  by 
%vicXcd  men  who  seem  at  all  events  to  pose  as  Israehtcs  (cf.  also  i  S^am.  ii  9).  But 
uich  a  strue^e,  if  it  look  place,  woutd  be  due  rather  to  pohlical  than  to  religious 
jealousy. 


l82         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

to  suppose  that  Deuteronomy  is  pre-exi'lic?  It  has  often  been 
supposed  that  it  was  the  possession  of  this  book  which  made  it 
possible  for  the  Jewish  exiles  to  preserve  their  religion  in 
Babylon.  But  it  is  surely  a  most  remarkable  fact  that  the  man 
who  of  all  others  might  be  expected  to  have  drunk  in  the  teach- 
ing of  Deuteronomy  shews  no  acquaintance  with  it.  This  has 
reference  to  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  not  to  the  law  enshrined 
in  it. 

Ezckicl  was  a  priest  of  that  sanctuary  which  owed  its  unique 
position  to  the  Deuteronomic  law ;  he  was  engaged  in  combating 
the  very  superstitions  against  which  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
contains  such  solemn  warnings ;  and  yet  he  never  backs  up  his 
o^^n  words  by  an  appeal  to  the  one  book  which  on  the  common 
theory  was  considered  authoritative  scripture,  nor  is  there  any 
indication  that  his  language  was  in  any  way  influenced  by  its 
remarkable  phraseology.  This  is  a  matter  which  deserves  fuller 
treatment,  but  space  forbids. 

Probably,  however,  it  will  still  be  objected  that  in  whatever  way 
the  diversity  of  Ezekiel  and  Deuteronomy  be  explained,  there  is 
no  explaining  away  the  testimony  of  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  ;  the 
common  view  being  that  Jeremiah  shews  the  influence  of  Deuter- 
onomy on  every  page.  But  without  stopping  to  enquire  whether 
the  Book  of  Jeremiah  or  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  the  earlier, 
it  must  be  insisted  upon  that  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  as  it  stands 
cannot  be  appealed  to  as  consisting  of  the  ipsissima  verba  of 
Jeremiah.  In  the  words  of  so  sober  a  critic  as  Dr  A.  B.  David- 
son :  'The  literary  style  of  Jeremiah  can  scarcely  be  spoken  of, 
because,  strictly  speaking,  we  have  no  literature  from  him.  The 
narrative  pieces  in  the  book  are  not  from  his  own  hand ;  and 
even  when  fragments  of  his  speeches  arc  reported  in  these 
narratives,  they  have  Jn  many  cases  passed  through  the  narrator's 
mind,  and  may  have  been  somewhat  modified.  The  presence  of 
some  or  many  characteristic  phrases  of  Jeremiah  in  the  reports  is 
not  proof  of  their  literal  fidelity.  And  in  any  case  such  reports 
are  mere  compcnds,  in  regard  to  which  the  question  of  style  can 
hardly  be  raised.  The  only  parts  of  the  book  on  which  a  judge- 
ment in  respect  of  style  can  be  formed  are  the  chapters  dictated 
to  Baruch,  chapters  i-xvii,  and  any  other  passages  which  apj^car 
to  come  directly  from  Ji;remiah's  own  hand.    Even  the  dictated 


A 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    AARONITE    PRIESTHOOD     183 


passages  are  mere  outlines  and  skeletons ;  the  prophet's  object 
vas  to  preserve  and  present  to  others,  the  matter,  the  religious 
contents  of  his  oracles — he  was  little  solicitous  about  the  form. 
No  doubt  something  of  Jeremiah's  literary  manner  will  be 
reflected  in  these  fragments,  but  they  represent  very  inadequately 
what  he  was  capable  of  as  a  writer.' 

But    though  we   may  not    have  the  ipsissima  verba  of  any 
complete  discourse,  it  can  surely  hardly  be  doubted  that  isolated 

E  sayings  have  come  down  to  us  with  substantial  accuracy.  And 
if  this  be  granted,  we  can  surely  form  some  estimate  of  the 
prophet's  language.  When  we  coasider  Jeremiah's  phrases  which, 
as  Dr  Davidson  says, '  haunt  the  ear  ',  when  we  take  into  account 
the  exquisite  elegies  enshrined  in  the  book  which  bears  his  name, 
as  well  as  the  outpourings  of  his  personal  religion,  can  we  refuse 
to  recognize  that  he  was  not  only  a  prophet,  but  also  a  poet — 
a  poet  down  to  his  finger-tips.  Jeremiah  is  no  mere  stringer 
together  of  devotional  tags,  but  an  original  thinker:  and  if  this 
t*  recognized,  there  will  be  little  difficulty  in  deciding,  not  that 
Jeremiah  quotes  Deuteronomy,  but  that  the  phrases  of  Dculer- 
^''^Omy  arc  due  to  the  pennanent  impression  which  Jeremiah  left 
^^  the  religious  language  of  his  people.  Space  forbids  an 
^^boration  of  this  contention ;  but  the  present  writer  cannot 
''^frain  from  stating  that  a  careful  comparison  of  Jeremiah  with 
^^utcronomy,  undertaken  with  reference  to  this  very  question, 

k"*^  only  strengthened  his  conviction  '. 
If,  however,  Jeremiah  is  not  inBucnccd  by  Deuteronomy  but 
■«  versa,  there  is  no  need  to  date  the  composition  of  the  latter 
°*^>ok  before  the  exile,  and  we  find  ourselves  in  a  position  to  form 
^"^lic  idea  of  the  way  in  which  the  various  documents  of  the 
'^ntateuch  were  put  together.  The  age  of  Jeremiah  was 
*Pparenlly  the  age  of  law-writing,  just  as  the  age  of  St  Luke 
^^s  the  age  of  gospel-writing.  And  the  parallel  probably  holds 
3<>od  also  in  respect  of  the  subject-matter.  Just  as  *  many  took 
•^  hand  to  draw  up  narratives '  which  in  all  probability  the 
^Hurch  could  not  have  accepted,  so,  doubtless,  many  took  in 
*^nd  to  draw  up  law-books,  setting   forth   each  one  his  own 

*  The  vordiag  of  Deuteronomy  xviii  6,  *  from  any  of  thy  fjaies  out  of  all  Isra^el ', 
A  much  more  nitura],  if  for  purpaacs  of  worship  JuiJaih  and  Samui*  h«d  been 
^^^^^Igamated,  than  if  Uie  Uw  of  Deuteronomy  wa»  intended  for  Judub  only. 


1 


184  THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

particular  ideas.  May  it  not  be  of  some  such  unauthorized  law- 
books that  Jeremiah  declares  that  the  deceitful  pen  of  scribes  has 
been  busy  in  deceit?     (Jcr.  vtii  8.) 

It  is  not  improbable  that  the  code  of  y  represents  an  early 
effort  of  the  reforming  party  to  formulate  a  law  for  Judah  ;  and 
the  persecution  of  the  reformers  and  their  flight  into  N-  Israel, 
which  we  have  seen  to  be  probable,  may  not  improbably  have 
given  the  impetus  to  a  similar  movement  in  the  latter  country. 
It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Deuteronomy  or  any  portion  of  it 
was  the  book  which  was  found  in  the  temple  and  read  before 
Josiah.  It  may  have  been  the  code  of  J.  For  the  reform  when 
once  bc^n  may  well  have  gone  beyond  the  law  which  gave  to  it 
its  original  impetus.  It  may,  however,  have  been  a  prophetical 
■work,  e.g.  Micah.  The  whole  account  of  Josiah's  reforms, 
although  not  all  of  one  date,  is  probably  all  later  than  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  which  has  coloured  the  language  through- 
out. In  all  likelihood  the  code  of  Deuteronomy  merely  crystal- 
lizes and  gives  a  permanent  legal  form  to  the  reforms  which 
Josiah  had  already  inaugurated. 

At  the  religious  union  of  Judah  and  Samaria,  which  certainly 
took  place  during  the  exile,  and  which  has  been  assigned  above 
to  a  migration  of  the  sons  of  Aaron  from  Bethel  to  Jerusalem^ 
a  difficulty  would  arise  that  each  province  had  its  own  law-book  ; 
the  code  of  7  being  authoritative  in  Judah,  E  in  Samaria.  In 
such  a  case  we  may  be  pretty  certain  tliat  neither  province  would 
consent  to  give  up  its  own  law-book,  and  adopt  that  of  the  other, 
and  a  compromise  would  be  necessary.  Such  a  compromise  we 
not  improbably  have  in  the  combined  work  of  yjj. 

But  since  the  writing  of  the  component  parts  o^  yE  a  great 
change  had  come  about  in  religious  feeling.  Jeremiah's  leachii^, 
little  as  the  prophet  him.sclf  suspected  it,  had  been  slowly  pro- 
ducing its  effect  on  religious  thought.  The  leaven  of  his  doctrine 
had  been  hidden  in  many  measures  of  superstition,  but  now  the 
whole  lump  was  leavened.  The  result  would  be  a  desire  for 
something  more  prophetical,  more  spiritual  than  the  mere  dry 
bones  of  a  code  of  laws.  To  &uch  a  desire  Deuteronomy  would 
seem  to  owe  its  origin.  It  formulates  the  law  indeed,  but  by 
dwelling  on  Jehovah's  goodness  as  the  chief  motive  of  1 
to  the  law,  it  seeks  to  change  the  law  into  a  gospel. 


3f  obedience    j 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   AARONITE    PRIESTHOOD      185 

WTjcther  any  of  Deuteronomy  was  written  before  the  Exile,  or 
whether  the  book  itself  with  its  successive  prefaces  and  additions 
is  entirely  an  exilic  production,  cannot  perhaps  be  determined 
»ith  certainty.  The  tcrin  exilic  must  of  course  be  understood  of 
the  date,  not  of  the  locality.  That  Deuteronomy  is  a  Palestinian 
^■wlc  is  sufficiently  proved  not  only  by  internal  evidence,  but  also 
by  the  fact  that  it  has  had  no  influence  on  the  language  of 
Erekicl. 

The   Palestinian    community   would    therefore    possess    two 

canonical  law-books,  the  one,  JE,  holding  a  position  not  unlike 

that  of  St  Mark's  Gospel  among  the  four  Gospels,  the  other, 

I      Deuteronomy,  roughly  corresponding  to  St  Matthew's  Gospel. 

■  It  remains  to  be  shewn  how  these  two  books  came  to  be  combined 

H  with  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch. 

"     WiTiilc  the  development  of  the  taw  just  described  was  going  on 

in  the  west,  the  Jewish  Church  in  Babylon  was  also  engaged  in 

setting  in  order  the  priestly  traditions  of  the  sons  of  Zadok.    The 

wiginator  of  this  movement  would  seem  to  he  the  prophet  Ezekiel, 

who,  however,  did  not  confine  himself  to  merely  recording  primitive 

oagc,  but  freely  introduced  alterations  when  it  seemed  advisable 

to  do  so.     Ezekiel's  initiative  appears  to  have  been  followed  by 

others,  who  worked  out  the  laws  of  Israel  in  relation  to  the 

traditions  of  the  ancestry  of  Israel ;  probably  enlarging,  and  to 

some  extent  correcting,  the  legends  by  the  help  of  the  parallel 

Babylonian  stories.     The   redactor  or  redactors  of  this  priestly 

tradition  would  seem  to  have  been  in  ignorance  of  the  Palestinian 

books  ^£"and  Deuteronomy  ;  or  at  any  rate,  if  a  copy  had  reached 

Babylon,  it  appears  not  to  have  been  considered  canonical.    The 

result  was  that  each  division  of  the  Jewish  people  had  its  own 

law :  the  western  what  m^y  be  described  as  a  prophetical,  the 

eastern  a  priestly  law. 

|p  It  is  related  of  Ezra  that  he  came  to  Jerusalem,  having  '  set  his 

rieart  to  seek  the  law  of  the  Lord,  and  to  do  it,  and  to  teach  in 

Israel  statutes  and  judgements '.    But  in  carrying  out  this  intention 

he  would  find  a  very  serious  obstacle  in  the  fact  that  those  to 

■whom   his  mission  was   directed  were   tn  possession  of  a  law 

differing  in  many  important  particulars  from  that  in  which  he 

himself  was  so  well  versed.    It  would  have  been  impossible  to 

induce  them  to  give  up  their  own  law,  even  if  Ezra  had  desired 


l86         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

to  do  so ;  and  we  may  be  sure  that  he  had  do  thought  of  ghring 
up  his  own.  But  since  it  was  absolutely  necessary  that  the 
Church  of  Israel  should  have  but  one  authoritative  law,  if  it 
were  not  to  be  permanently  split  into  two  Actions,  a  com- 
promise was  resented  to  similar  to  that  which  had  resulted  in 
the  book  JE,  The  priestly  law  of  Babylon  was  combined  with 
the  law  of  the  Palestinian  community.  This  law,  published  as  it 
was  in  Jerusalem,  by  the  accredited  representatives  of  the  Church 
of  the  eastern  dispersion,  was  universally  accepted  as  the  law  of 
the  Jewish  race ;  and  when  we  consider  the  enormous  influmce 
it  has  had  in  separating  Israel  from  the  pollutions  of  the  heathen, 
we  may  surely  rea^^nize  in  its  complicated  history  the  working 
out  of  God's  eternal  purpose.  The  law  hath  been  our  tut(H-  to 
bring  us  unto  Christ,  so  that  the  law  is  holy,  and  the  command- 
ment holy,  and  righteous^  and  good. 

R.  H.  Kennktt. 


i87 


SUGGESTIONS  ON  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  GOSPEL 
ACCORDING  TO  ST  MATTHEW. 

In  September  and  October,  1 904,  I  published  in  the  Monthly 
Revmv  two  articles  on  the  subject  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels, 
bat  dealing  exclusively  with  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark.  The 
Uieory  which  was  set  forth  in  those  articles  must  be  briefly- 
presented  here  in  outline  in  order  to  render  what  is  said  on 
St  Matthew  more  easily  intelligible. 

I  argued  that  the  reason  why  the  various  traditional  accounts 

of  the  origin  of  St  Mark's  Gospel  appear  to  be  confused  and 

incompatible  one  with  another  was  because  they  do  not  all  refer 

to  the  same  edition,  as  we  should  now  call  it,  of  the  Gospel ;  and 

I  suggested  that  there  were  three  editions  of  St  Mark,  all  put 

forth  by  the  evangelist  himself,  but  at  different   periods — the 

first  at  Caesarea  about  a.d.  42,  the  second  some  years  later  at 

Alexandria,  and  the  third  at   Rome  after  the  martyrdom  of 

St  Peter,  say  in  A.D.  68  or  thereabouts.    The  first  of  these 

editions  was  used  by  St  Luke,  the  second  is  incorporated  into 

St  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  the  third  is  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark 

as  we  have  it  now.     I  shewed  that  this  theory,  though  at  first 

sight  it  may  seem  rather  wild,  finds  support  in  the  writings  of 

the  earliest  centuries,  and  has,  therefore,  so  much  at  least  of  solid 

basis  to  rest  on.     Moreover  such  a  theory,  if  it  can  be  admitted, 

would  go  far  towards  the  solution  of  many  of  the  more  obvious 

difficulties  of  the  Synoptic  Problem.     For  detailed  evidence 

I  must  be  content  here  to  refer  to  my  articles  in  the  Monthly 

Revuw.     My  present  object  is  to  carry  the  investigation  a  step 

further,  and  to  see  how  far  it  is  possible,  with  the  help  of  this 

hypothesis,  to  contribute  something  towards  the  solution  of  the 

difficult  problem  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Gospel  which  has  come 

down  to  us  connected  with  the  name  of  St  Matthew '. 

'  In  my  study  of  the  subject  I  have  derived  most  help  firom  Wright's  ^ynopsi$f 
Bacon's  IntmitKiioH,  and  Godet,  who  has  the  clearest  aUtement  that  I  have  seen 


l88        THE   JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

In  the  first  place  we  have  to  notice  that,  according  to  the 
unanimous  testimony  of  antiquity,  St  Matthew  wrote  His  Gospel 
not  in  Greek,  but  in  Hebrew — that  is  to  say  in  the  Aramaic 
dialect  which  was  the  spoken  language  of  Palestine  in  our  Lord's 
tinne.     Not  only   is    that   the   testimony   of  Papias,   who   was 
almost  a  contemporary,  but  it  is  corroborated  by  every  writer  of 
the  earliest  centuries  who  touches  upon  the  matter ;  and  they    ■ 
seem  in  most  instances  not  to  be  dependent  only  on  Papias  for 
their    information.      Unless   we   are    to  throw  over    primiti\'e 
traditicm    altogether    we    must    be    prepared    to    admit    that 
St  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew  and  not  in  Greek,  and  therefore     l 
that  the  Gospel  which  we  call  by  his  name  to-day  is,  so  far  as  it     i 
represents  his  original  work,  a  translation,  possibly  indeed  made 
by  himself,  but  far  more  probably  by  another  hand. 

But,  secondly,  our  present  Greek  Gospel  is  not  a  translation 
at  all,  at  least  it  is  not  in  its  entirety  a  translation  of  a  single 
work  originally  WTitten  In  another  language.  That  is  a  point 
which  it  is  quite  within  the  power  of  criticism  to  decide,  and  it  is 
one  on  which  critics  arc  unanimous.  The  Greek  Gospel, 
therefore,  is  not  a  mere  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel 
originally  written  by  St  Matthew.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
a  composite  work,  and  incorporates  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark 
practically  entire.  If)  therefore,  we  are  to  find  in  it  a  translation 
of  the  Hebrew  Gospel  written  by  St  Matthew  it  is  to  the  ii 
remaining  and  non-Marcan  portions  that  we  have  to  look.  For  } 
it  may  be  that  the  Gospel  bas  received  its  title,  'according  to 
St  Matthew',  not  because  St  Matthew  himself  is  to  be  regarded 
as  the  original  author  and  composer  of  the  whole  of  the  book 
as  we  now  have  it,  but,  a  principaii  partr,  because  the  book 
contains  incorporated  in  it,  as  its  most  important  constituent, 
the  work  which  St   Matthew  actually  did  compose.     In   that 

about  tbe  dmaion  of  the  Logia  into  five  books.  Sir  John  Hawkins  (^Herm 
Syttopbtat  p.  131)  has  noted,  in  regard  to  the  Sve  collections  of  Discourses  in 
St  Matthew,  that  Papias  also  divided  bis  Expostttotu  of  tk*  OraHa  o/Uu  Lord  into 
fiw  books ;  and— since  this  article  was  in  type — I  learn  that  Dr  Nestle  has 
drawn  attentton  to  tbc  probability  of  connexion  between  the  work  of  Papiaa  and 
the  five  collections  of  Discourses  in  St  Hntthew,  suggesting  that  a  coUcctian  of  the 
DbcoorscE  of  our  Lord  in  five  books  was  the  basis  of  his  Exposition  as  also  of  oor 
First  Gospel  [see  hit  article  '  Die  FcinfteUuDg  im  Werk  dca  Papias  uad  im  entca 
Evsjocelium' — Z*itxkw.J.  Jit  mitltU.  Wintnuk.  Bd.  1  (1900),  S.  ^S*-*^). 


ORIGIN  or  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST  MATTHEW       189 

case  the  position  would  be  analc^ous  to  that  of  the  book  of  the 
Psalms,  which  are  called  '  the  Psalms  of  David ' — not  because 
David  wrote  the  whole,  for  he  certainly  did  not,  but  because  the 
psalms  which  David  did  compose  are  included  in  and  form  the 
most  important  part  of  the  whole  book.  Another  instance 
m^ht  be  found  in  'the  Proverbs  of  Solomon',  which  include, 
beside  Solomon's,  collections  of  proverbs  the  authors  of  which 
are  actually  named  as  Agur  and  Lemuel  (Prov.  xxx  and  xxxi). 

Taking,  then,  this  theory  of  incorporation  as  our  working 
hypothesis,  we  proceed  to  the  examination  of  the  text  of  the 
Greek  Gospel  with  a  view  of  reconstructing  from  it,  if  we  can, 
the  substance  of  St  Matthew's  Hebrew  composition.  It  caa 
hardly  have  been  a  'Gospel'  in  our  modem  sense,  and  is 
possibly  accurately  described  by  Papias  as  Logta,  which  is 
most  naturally  translated  as  meaning  a  collection  of  discourses^. 
The  fidelity  with  which  the  editor  has  preserved  the  substance, 
and  in  very  many  cases  the  actual  words  of  St  Mark,  leads  us  to 
suppose  that  he  will  in  all  probability  have  been  equally  careful 
in  dealing  with  the  text  of  his  other,  and  in  some  ways  his 
principal,  authority. 

We  begin  by  going  through  the  Gospel  and  striking  out, 
paragraph  by  paragraph,  and  verse  by  verse,  all  those  portions 
which  are  also  to  be  found  in  St  Mark's  Gospel,  and  which  are, 
therefore,  indisputably  Marcan  in  origin.  These  portions  may 
be  set  aside  for  the  purposes  of  our  present  enquiry,  though,  of 
course,  we  must  not  foiget  that  there  is  always  a  possibility  that 
the  Marcan  Gospel  and  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  St  Matthew  may 
have  overlapped,  and  that  the  same  matter  may  have  been  found 
in  both.  We  must  not,  therefore,  finally  conclude  that  because 
a  particular  passage  is  found  in  St  Mark  it  cannot  also  have 
been  contained  in  the  original  St  Matthew.  But  for  the  present, 
while  our  ideas  are  still  so  undecided,  we  put  the  whole  of  the 
Harcan  matter  aside. 

The  remainder  of  the  Gospel,  when  the  Marcan  narrative  has 
been  abstracted,  presents  an  amorphous  and  confused  appearance. 
The  Gospel  of  St  Mark  has  formed,  so  to  speak,  the  backbone, 

*  No  doabt  the  term  Logia,  as  Lightfoot  has  shewn,  tutd  not  exclude  narrative 
matter ;  but  still  the  other  is  the  more  prob^e  interpretation,  and  as  such  it  adopted 
throughout  this  article. 


190         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

around  which  the  rest  has  been  grouped,  and  taking  it  away  has 
resulted  in  leaving  the  rest  without  any  clear  connexion  or 
cohesion.  But  we  can  do  something  still  to  bring  our  remaining 
materials  into  order.  There  Is  a  well-marked  group  of  narratives 
included  among  them  which  have  a  character  quite  distinct  from 
the  rest,  and  are  short  narratives,  each  complete  in  itself,  which 
seem  to  have  been  interpolated  from  elsewhere  into  the  Marcan 
text,  of  which  they  were  not  originally  part.  This  group 
comprises  the  whole  story  of  the  birth  of  our  Lord  contained  in 
the  first  two  chapters  of  St  Matthew's  Gospel ;  and  also  the 
narratives  of  St  Peter  Vi*alking  upon  the  sea  (xiv  38-32),  the 
coin  found  in  the  mouth  of  the  fish  (xvii  24-27),  the  suicide  of 
Judas  (xxvii  .3-8),  Pilate's  wife's  dream  (xxvii  19),  Pilate 
washing  his  bands  before  the  people  (xxvii  34-35),  the  earth- 
quake at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion  and  the  rising  of  the  saints 
(xxvii  51-53),  the  guard  set  on  the  tomb  (xxvii  62-65),  and 
the  bribing  of  the  soldiers  (xxviii  11-15);  besides  several  single 
verses  of  lesser  importance.  If  the  position  of  any  one  of  these 
narratives  in  St  Matthew's  Gospel  be  carefully  studied,  it  will 
be  seen  that  it  has  simply  been  inserted  into  the  text  of  St  Mark 
in  such  a  way  that  if  it  is  taken  away  or  bracketed  out,  the  text 
that  remains  will  be  practically  identical  with  that  which  is 
found  in  St  Mark's  Gospel.  We  will  take  one  instance  as  an 
example  to  shew  what  we  mean. 

St  Mark.  St  Matthew. 

XV  14.  And  Pilate  said  unto  xxvii  33.  And  he  said.  Why, 
them,  Why.  what  evil  hath  he  what  evil  hath  he  done?  But 
done?  But  they  cried  out  they  cried  out  exceedingly, 
exceedingly.  Crucify  him.  saying,  Let  him  be  crucified. 

(24,  25.  Pilate  washes  his 
hands.) 
15.  And  Pilate,  wishing  to  26.  Then  relea.sed  he  unto 
content  the  multitude,  released  them  Barabbas :  but  Jesus  he 
unto  them  Barabbas,  and  de-  scourged  and  delivered  to  be 
livered  Jesus,  when  he  had  crucified, 
scoufged  him,  to  be  crucified. 

It  is  quite  clear  in  these  cases  that  the  relations  of  these 
narratives    are    more    probably   with    the    Marcan    source    of 


ORIGIN  OF  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST  MATTHEW       191 

'^  Matthew's  Gospel  than  with  the  source  which  we  are  now 
^"Viag  to  recover.  They  seem  to  be  additions  drawn  from  some 
**"tlier  source  and  inserted  into  the  original  text  of  St  Mark  at 
^Ome  time  between  the  date  of  its  first  composition  and  that  of 
'ts  union  with  the  other  source  or  sources  to  form  the  Gospel 
of  St  Matthew,  and  we  therefore  strike  them  out,  just  as  we  have 
done  already  with  the  more  purely  Marcan  matter,  as  not  being 
useful  for  our  present  purpose,  which  is  to  recover,  if  it  be 
possible  to  do  so,  the  original  non-Marcan  writing  which  has 
been  combined  in  this  Gospel  with  the  text  of  St  Mark. 

The  usual,  and  one  might  almost  say  the  invariable,  course 
which  has  been  followed  by  the  critics  in  their  endeavours  to 
attain  their  object  has  been  to  take  as  the  basis  for  further  investi- 
gation those  portions  of  the  non-Marcan  matter  in  St  Matthew's 
Gospel  which   are   also  found,  either  actually  or  at  least  in 
substance,  in  St  Luke's  Gospel.     They  have  assumed,  that  is  to 
say,  that  the  authors  of  both  St  Matthew's  Greek  Gospel  and 
St  Luke's  Gospel  have  had  access  to  and  have  made  use  of  the 
book  of  the  Logta  which   Papias  tells  us  was  composed  m 
Aramaic  by  St  Matthew,  and  have  accordingly  endeavoured  to 
reconstruct  this  original  writing  from  those  portions  which  are 
found   in   both  of  these   two    Gospels,  and  yet    cannot  be 
shewn  to  be  drawn   from  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark.     But  this 
method  has  not  succeeded  in  giving  us  any  clear  and  definite 
ideas ;  on  the  contrary,  it  can  only  be  said  to  have  proved  itself 
*  feilure.    The  resulting  collection  of  material  is  not  uniform 
titfaer  in  matter  or  in  style,  and  does  not  lend  itself  to  such 
a  description  as  that  of  '  The  Discourses  of  the  Lord '.     Such 
invariable  failure,  even  in  the  hands  of  the  ablest  scholars,  to 
attain  definite  results,  or  to  throw  any  clear  light  on  the  problem 
they  are  trying  to  solve,  suggests  strongly  that  they  have  missed 
the  way  and  have  wandered  down  a  path  which  will  not  lead 
them  to  the  discovery  of  the  truth.     We,  therefore,  put  this 
method  altogether  aside,  and  cast  about  to  see  whether  we  can- 
not find  some  other  clue  which  may  guide  us  to  more  satisfactory 
results. 

There  are  two  directions  in  which  such  a  clue  may  possibly  be 
found.  The  one  is  in  a  careful  comparison,  one  with  another,  of 
those  non-Marcan  passages  which  are  found  both  in  St  Matthew 


192        THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

and  St  Luke,  and  the  other  is  in  the  internal  evidence  afToi 
by  St  Matthew's  Gospel  itself.  For  it  is  clear  from  the  very 
name  that  it  is  in  St  Matthew's  Gospel  rather  than  in  St  LukeV 
that  we  shall  expect  to  find  the  clearest  traces  of  St  Matthew's 
earlier  collection  of  discourses  in  Aramaic.  If  wearc  not  mistaken, 
it  is  quite  possible  to  find  such  clues  in  each  of  these  examinations 
— clues  which  lead  in  the  same  direction,  and  therefore  give  a 
strong  probability  to  the  conclusions  which  follow  from  their 
pursuit. 

The  non-Marcan  passages  of  St  Matthew,  when  carefully 
compared  with  St  Luke,  fall  readily  into  three  classes  very 
clearly  marked  off  one  from  another.  The  first  class  %vill  consist 
of  those  passages  which  arc  to  a  considerable  extent  verbally 
identical  with  the  parallel  passages  in  St  Luke.  In  these  cases 
there  must  be,  in  some  way  oi  other,  dependence  upon  a  single 
Greek  source,  and  almost  certainly  a  written  source,  for  the  only 
otlier  alternative,  namely  that  one  evangelist  has  directly  copied 
from  the  other,  is  quite  inadmissibte  for  other  reasons.  The 
second  class  will  include  all  pass£^es  reproduced  in  substante  but 
not  verbally.  In  these  cases  there  is  obviously  some  literary 
connexion  between  the  two,  but  it  need  be  nothing  more  than 
oral  tradition,  which  has  reached  the  two  evangelists  in  different 
ways  and  through  difierent  channels.  The  third  class  will 
consist  of  those  passages  which  arc  to  be  found  in  St  Matthew's 
Gospel  only,  and  of  which  there  is  no  counterpart  to  be  found  in 
St  Luke. 

The  passages  which  show  verbal  identities,  and  which  must 
therefore  be  due  to  the  use  of  a  common  Greek  source,  are  vciy 
easily  distinguishable  by  the  aid  of  any  good  Synopsis  of  the 
Gospels.  The  following  must  certainly  be  assigned  to  this 
class: 

Matt,  iii  7-12     Luke  iii  7-9,  17,  The  Baptist's  Preachir^. 

iv  3-11  ivg-13,  The  Temptation, 

vi"  5~'3  vii  i-io,  The  Centurion*s  Servant, 

viii  i8-3i  1x57-60,  Would-be  Disciples. 

xi  3-19  vii  I  ^z$,  The  Baptist's  Message,  &c 

XI  ao-7  x  13-16,  21-3  Woe  to  Chorazin,  &c. 

In  tlbe  same  category  we  iQust  probably  place  a  passage  in 


ORIGIN  OF  GOSPEL   ACCORDING   TO   ST   BIATTHEW      193 

chapter  vi  23-33,  °"  worldliness,  and  a  good  deal,  though  it  is 

difficult  to  say  exactly  how  much,  of  chapters  xii  and  xxiil, 

wlu'cfa  are  mostly  concerned  with  deAunciations  of  the  unbelief 

of  the  Galilaean  cities  and  of  the  Pharisaism  of  the  day.    Taken 

all  tc^ether  these  passages  have  strongly  Marcan  characteristics 

•tnd  affinities,  and  we  should  have  no  hesitation  in  assigning 

tiiem  to  that  source  were  it  not  that  they  are  either  missing 

altogether  from  St  Mark's  Gospel,  or  else  are  found  there  only 

in  a  very  much  shorter  form.      Still  they  obviously  are   not 

sufficiently  continuous  or  connected  to  justify  us  in  assuming 

another  and  a  separate  source,  nor  do  they  seem  likely  to  have 

belonged  to  the  collection  of  *  discourses '  of  which  we  are  in 

search.     We  will,  therefore,  without  at  present  considering  the 

question  of  their  origin,  strike  them  out  in  their  turn,  as  not 

being  of  interest  for  our  present  purpose. 

If  at  this  stage  we  pause  and  examine  our  much  reduced 
Gospel  of  St  Matthew  we  shall  find  that  we  have,  almost 
-nritbout  knowing  it,  attained  a  very  interesting  result.  For 
the  remaining  portion,  leaving  isolated  verses  out  of  considera- 
tion, proves  to  be  composed  of  a  number  of  large  blocks  of 
material,  and  these  of  a  singularly  homogeneous  character. 
We  have  struck  out  practically  the  whole  of  the  first  four 
chapters,  and  we  have  the  5th,  6th,  and  7th  chapters  left  to 
us  almost  entire. 

After  the  7th  chapter  we  have  the  loth,  a  good  deal  of  the 
13th  and  22nd,  and  almost  all  the  24th  and  25th,  and  that  is 
all.  Everything  else  has  been  struck  out  Under  one  or  other 
of  the  headings  of  which  we  have  treated  above. 

On  looking  closely  at  these  remnants  which  we  have  thus  sifted 
out  from  the  whole  Gospel,  we  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  with  the 
uniformity  of  the  matter  of  which  they  are  composed.  They 
consist  entirely  of  discourses  spoken  by  our  Lord,  the  Sermon  oil 
the  Mount  forming  the  first  portion,  and  the  rest  being  either 
parables  or  else  discourse  matter  of  a  similar  character.  There 
is  absolutely  no  narrative  remaining  now  that  the  Marcan  founda- 
tion on  which  these  discourses  have  been  built  up  has  been 
removed.  Altogether  we  could  not  possibly  find  anything  which 
would  answer  more  perfectly  to  such  a  description  as  Papias  has 
given  us  of  St  Matthew's  work.    We  have  here  *  The  Discourses 

VOL.  VI.  O 


194         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

of  the  Lord '  in  a  collected  form,  and  unmixed  with  any  cxtran^ 
matter.     It  hardly  seems  necessary  to  carry  our  invcstigati 
further  to  discover  the  other  source  which  has  been  combin^^ 
with  St  Mark  to  form  our  present  Gospel.    And  since  it       ^ 
manifest  that  the  compiler  of  our  present  Gospel  has  been  carefc-3 
to  preserve  the  whole  of  St  Mark's  work  so  far  as  it  was  known  Cro 
him,  we  have  every  reason  to  suppose  that  he  will  have  dealt  ixJ 
a  similarly  conservative  spirit  with  his  other  principal  source, 
so  that  we  have  here  not   merely  extracts  from  the  L<^a  of 
St  Matthew  but  an  incorporation  of  the  whole  of  this  earlier 
work.     We  have  the   more   reason   to  think   this  because  the 
Greek   Gospel    now   bears  the    name  of  St  Matthew,   and   this 
could  hardly  have  come  to  be  unless  St  Matthew's  work  were 
fully  represented  in  it. 

It  will  be  felt  by  almost  all  who  examine  theae  discourses  that 
in  their  unity  of  treatment  and  in  the  completeness  of  the  subject- 
matter  is  involved  a  very  considerable  probability  that  we  have 
in  them  a  full  representation  of  the  original  work,  but  this 
probability  is  very  much  increased,  and  our  ideas  of  the  original 
form  and  contents  of  the  book  of  the  Logia  are  made  very  much 
clearer  by  a  remarkable  peculiarity  in  the  actual  text  which  we 
may  now  proceed  to  notice.  This  peculiarity  consists  in  a  kind 
of  refrain,  or  recurring  formula,  which  is  placed  by  the  evangelist 
at  each  of  the  places  at  which  he  resumes  the  ordinary  narrative 
after  the  longer  passages  of  discourse  material.  This  formula 
recurs  five  times,  precisely  at  the  close  of  those  five  long  dis- 
courses which  we  have  already  separated  out  from  the  rest  of 
St  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  is  almost  identically  the  same  in  every 
case,  *  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jesus  had  finished  these  sayings' 
(vii  a8,  xi  I,  xiii  53,  xix  i,  xxvi  i).  The  only  variations  are  that 
at  the  end  of  the  series  of  parables  the  formula  runs '  When  Jesus 
had  finished  these  parables',  and  that  in  the  last  case  (xxvi  1}  it 
is  '  When  Jesus  had  finished  all  theae  sayings'.  One  Ls  naturally 
led  to  the  idea  that  we  have  in  these  five  great  discourses — thus 
definitely  marked  off  and  indicated  by  the  compiler  of  the  Gospel — 
the  five  parts  of  an  earlier  book,  antecedent  to  our  present  Gospel 
and  now  separated  and  distributed  in  tlie  larger  work.  Nor  is  it 
necessary  to  do  anything  more  than  simply  to  bring  them  t<^cther 
to  reconstruct  what  was  apparently  the  complete  work  in  five 


I 


ORIGIN   OF   GOSPEL   ACCORDING   TO   ST   MATTHEW      195 

chapters  or,  as  in  those  days  they  would  have  been  called,  five 

books.    Collected  tc^ether  they  form  a  complete  treatise  on  the 

teaching  of  Christ  concerning  the  new  kingdom — a  treatise  which 

contains  all  that  part  of  His  teaching  which  was  of  a  permanent 

and  legislative  character,  and  from  which  all  that  was  merely 

local  and  temporary  has  been  excluded.     The  whole  treatise 

seems  designed  to  serve  as  a  manual  of  the  New  Law  for  the 

use  of  the  Church  at  laige,  drawn  exclusively  from  the  teaching 

of  our  Lord  and  expressed  wholly  in  His  words.    Its  contents 

will  be  as  follows : 

Book 

I  (v,  vi,  vii.    The  Sermon  on  the  The  New  Law. 

Mount). 

II  (x.    Mission  of  the  Twelve).  The  Rulers  of  the  Kingdom. 

III  (xiii,  xxii).  Parables  of  the  Kingdom. 

IV  (xviii).  Relations  of  the  members  of  the 

Kingdom  one  with  another. 
V  (xxiv,  xxv).  The  coming  of  the  King. 

The  single  note  of 'the  Kingdom',  and  'the  New  Law'  runs. 
^^irough  all  the  five  discourses  and  gives  its  character  to  the 
^^hole.  The  imity  and  completeness  of  subject  is  so  striking 
'^  ^t  it  is  impossible  that  it  can  be  merely  due  to  chance,  and 
^»*e  may  with  considerable  confidence  assume  that  we  have  here 
^^  complete  earlier  work,  and  in  all  probability,  therefore,  the 
Actual  book  of  the  *  Discourses  of  the  Lord '  to  the  existence  of 
^hich  Papias  has  borne  witness. 

It  is  worth  while  too  to  notice  the  number  of  the  chapters  into 
which  this  book  seems  to  have  been  divided.  We  can  understand 
that  as  there  were  five  '  books '  of  Moses  and  five  '  books '  of  the 
Psalms,  so  also  it  would  have  seemed  right  in  the  eyes  of  a  Jew 
of  that  period,  to  whom  the  symbolism  of  numbers  meant  so 
much  more  than  it  does  to  us,  that  there  should  also  be  five 
'books'  of  the  Sayings  of  the  True  Prophet  whose  coming  Moses 
and  David  had  foretold.  It  is  also,  perhaps,  worth  our  while  to 
notice  that  the  *  Explanations  of  the  Sayings  of  the  Lord '  which 
were  published  by  Papias  were  also  divided  into  five  books,  as  we 
ieam  from  Irenaeus.  It  suggests  that  the  basis  on  which  those 
'  Explanations '  were  built,  the  text  in  fact  to  which  they  served 
as  a  commentary,  was  no  other  than  the  Logui  of  St  Matthew, 

03 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDtES 

aod  that  each  '  book '  of  the  Explanations  corresponded  to  and 
commented  on  one  of  the  'books'  into  which  the  original  work 
of  St  Matthew  was  divided. 

Now  if  the  L(^ia  must  thus  be  restricted  to  the  five  great 
discourses,  two  very  interesting  and  important  conclusions    im- 
mediately follow.    The  first  is  that  the  whole  class  of  matter  which 
shews  ivr/5a/ coincidences  between  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke,  and 
which  is  not  contained  in  St  Mark  at  all,  cannot  have  formed  part 
of  the  Logia.    We  shall  have,  therefore,  now  to  return  to  the  con- 
sideration of  this  part  of  the  Gospel  in  the  hope  of  determining 
whence  it  actually  was  drawn.    The  second  conclusion,  which 
follows  as  a  corollary  to  the  first,  is  that  St  Luke  cither  does  not 
reckon  the  L(^a  at  all  among  his  sources,  or  if  he  does,  it  is 
through  a  different  translation  than  that  which  is  contained  in 
St  Matthew.    This  is  proved  to  be  so  by  the  fact  that  no  part 
of  the  Logia  material  contained  in  both  Gospels  shews  vert>al 
coincidences. 

We  go  back,  then,  to  the  consideration  of  the  passages  we  have 
already  noted  as  she^^'ing  a  close  verbal  connexion,  and  which  are 
enumerated  on  p.  192.  If  they  are  not  from  the  Logia  whence  da 
they  come  ?  The  obvious  answer  is  that  they  are  Marcan  in  origin. 
For  in  every  way  they  conform  to  what  we  have  learnt  to  expect 
in  those  portions  of  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke  which  are  drawn 
from  that  source.  They  greatly  resemble  St  Mark's  Gospel  both 
in  their  style  and  in  the  nature  of  their  contents-  They  are  not 
inserted  into  the  text  as  later  interpolations,  but  are  closely 
connected  with  and  grow  naturally  out  of  the  portions  that  arc 
Marcan  beyond  dispute.  Moreover,  they  shew  constant  verbal 
coincidences  with  the  corresponding  passages  in  St  Luke,  and 
therefore  they  must  either  be  Marcan  in  origin  or  else  we  are 
compelled  to  invent  another  Greek  written  source  which  has 
been  used  by  both  evangelists.  If  we  do  assume  the  existence 
of  such  a  source,  wc  have  still  to  explain  how  it  comes  about 
that  both  have  preserved  these  disjointed  fragments  of  this 
source  and  nothing  more,  and  why  they  have  both  joined  them 
on,  independently  of  one  another,  in  several  instances  to  exactly 
the  same  phrases  of  St  Mark.  Obviously  it  will  be  a  far  more 
simple  explanation  if  only  we  can  consider  them  as  Marcan.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  how  can  they  possibly  be  Marcan,  if  St  Mark's 


ORIGIN  OF   GOSPEL  ACCORDING   TO    ST   MATTHEW      197 

Gospel  has  not  got  them  ?    The  answer  is  that  this  is  possible  in 

oiHway,  and  in  one  way  only.     It  is  possible  only  if  there  were 

several  editions  of  St  Mark,  of  which  editions  our  present  St  Mark 

is  the  latest,  while  the  other  evangelists  made  use  of  earlier  ones. 

h  is  possible,  that  is  to  say,  only  if  we  can  conceive  that  St  Mark 

Glided  them  in  his  earlier  editions,  and  that  thence  they  found 

^OT  way  into  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke,  but  that  they  were 

deliberately  cut  out  from  his  last  edition  by  St  Mark  himself. 

?Tw  theory  of  the  three  editions  of  St  Mark  once  more  supplies 

^  with  a  possible  solution  of  a  problem  that  is  otherwise  very 

'i^rd  to  solve. 

If  we  consider  the  passages  in  question  in  this  light  we  shall 

^«e  at  once  that  many  of  them,  however  suitable  for  a  Gospel 

"^^nitten  in  Palestine  in  A.D.  43,  might  be  less  valuable  for  Roman 

*"<ad€rs  after  A«I>.  70.     The  figure  of  John  the  Baptist  and  his 

^^::>reaching  were  of  less  importance  for  Gentiles  who  had  never 

%neard  of  John  than  for  those  to  whom  his  name  and  teaching 

"^vere  familiar,  and  who  possibly  were  already  prepared,  with 

~Yhe  Jews  thernselves,  to  hold  him  for  a   prophet.    The  same 

-argument  applies  to  the  denunciations  of  the  unbelief  in  Galilee, 

•and  of  the  legal  narrowness  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.     We 

can   understand   that  none  of  this  would  seem  important  or 

interesting  in  the  eyes  of  Roman  readers  who  knew  little  of 

Jewish  sects  and  parties.     On  the  other  hand  it  is  hard  to  see 

grounds  for  the    omission  of  the   healir^  of  the  centurion's 

servant.    Still  the  hypothesis  that  all  this  material  did  originally 

form  part  of  St  Mark's  Gospel  is  by  far  the  simplest  that  presents 

itself,  and  does  not  seem  open  to  any  very  serious  objection. 

I  surest,  then,  that  St  Matthew's  Gospel,  in  its  present  form,  is 
the  result  of  a  fusion  of  two  earlier  documents.  The  first,  and  by 
far  the  longer,  of  these  documents  was  a  form  of  St  Mark's  Gospel, 
earlier  and  also  more  extensive  in  its  contents  than  our  present 
St  Mark,  which  had  also  been  enriched  by  a  number  of  additional 
narratives  which  had  been  inserted  into  its  text.  The  second 
document  was  a  Greek  translation  of  the  Logia  of  St  Matthew, 
a  work  consisting  of  five  chapters,  each  of  which  chapters  has 
been  inserted  almost  intact  and  fitted  on  to  some  appropriate 
portion  of  the  Marcan  narrative  without  any  great  attention  to 
exact  chronological  order. 


THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

The  locality  where  this  fusion  of  the  two  documents  was 
carried  out  can  be  fixed  with  a  good  deal  of  certainty.  In 
the  first  place  it  is  hardly  possible  that  it  was  Jerusalem, 
though  Jerusalem,  oddly  enough,  has  been  the  place  most 
commonly  fixed  upon  by  those  who  have  ventured  conjectures 
on  the  point.  There  is  no  time  either  before  or  after  the 
catastrophe  of  A.I>.  70  when  the  production  of  a  Greek  Gaspel  of 
this  kind  is  likely  to  have  taken  place  at  Jerusalem  itself. 
Moreover  there  is  a  kind  of  detachment  and  aloofness  about  the 
whole  feeling  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  most  difficult  to  reconcile 
with  the  idea  that  it  had  its  origin  in  the  very  tnidst  of  the 
stormy  scenes  which  preceded  the  destruction  of  the  city. 
Geographical  indications  tend  in  the  same  direction.  The 
author  speaks  of  Palestine  as  'Syria'  (iv  24),  which  was  the 
name  of  the  Roman  province.  Nor  is  there  the  exactness  of 
topographical  detail  which  we  should  expect  in  a  book  compiled 
in  the  very  spot  in  which  look  place  so  many  of  the  principal 
events  of  which  it  is  treating.  The  book,  too,  is  clearly  written 
for  Jews,  and  the  language  of  Jews  in  Jerusalem  was  not  Greek 
but  Aramaic.  Its  readers  need  translations  of  words  like 
Golgotha,  and  were  therefore  not  Jews  of  Jerusalem  but  of  the 
dispersion.  It  is  to  some  large  centre  of  Greck-spealdng  Jews 
outside  the  Holy  Land,  rather  than  to  Jerusalem  itself,  that  we 
must  look.  Alexandria  is  the  obvious  place  which  meets  all  the 
requirements.  There  was  a  large  colony  of  Jews  in  that  city, 
and  Greek  was  the  language  that  they  spoke.  Moreover  there 
was  a  flourishing  Christian  Church  there  from  very  early  times, 
and  this  Church  must  have  needed  a  Gospel  in  its  own  language. 
It  did  possess  one  such  of  its  own,  for  St  Mark,  as  tradition  tells 
us,  either  carried  his  Gospel  there  or  else  actually  wrote  it  out 
for  them  on  the  spot.  Now  the  Marcan  portion  of  St  Matthew 
seems  to  be  precisely  this  second  or  Alexandrine  edition  of 
St  Mark,  for  it  is  demonstrably  later  than  the  parallel 
pas.<iages  in  St  Luke  and  earlier  than  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark 
itself.  If,  then,  the  edition  of  St  Mark  which  was  used  in  the 
preparation  of  St  Matthew's  Gospel  was  this  Alexandrine 
edition,  it  is  only  natural  to  suppose  that  Alexandria  was  the 
place  in  which  St  Matthew's  Gospel  was  composed,  especially  as 
it  fits  in  so  well  with  all  the  other  requirements  of  the  case. 


ORIGIN  OF  GOSPEL  ACCORDING   TO   ST   MATTHEW      199 

There  is  an  indication  that  this  was  really  so  to  be  found  in 

Justin  Martyr's  '  Apology '.     St  Matthew's  Gospel  speaks  of  the 

Wise  Men  as  having  come  from  'the  East'.      But  St  Justin, 

apparently  using  some  other  and  more  exact  tradition,  speaks 

of  them  in  three  separate  places  as  having  come  '  from  Arabia '. 

He  was  born  in  Nablous  or  Samaria,  and  Arabia  would  not,  of 

cwKse,  be  properly  designated  to  any  dweller  in  Palestine  by 

the  expression  '  the  East ',  but  rather  *  the  South '.     If,  then, 

St  Justin  is  using  a  true  tradition  when  he  sajrs  that  the  Wise 

Men  came  from  Arabia,  and  if  St  Matthew's  Gospel  consequently 

means  Arabia  when  it  speaks  of '  the  Blast ',  it  follows  necessarily 

that  that  Gospel  was  composed,  not  in  Palestine,  which  lies  to 

the  north  of  Arabia,  but  in  that  country  which  lies  to  its  west — 

that  is  to  say,  in  Egypt     For  it  is  in  Egypt,  and  nowhere  else, 

that  Arabia  would  naturally  be  designated  by  the  general  phrase 

'the  East'. 

If  we  grant  that  Alexandria  was  the  place   in  which  the 

Gospel  according  to  St  Matthew  assumed  its  present  form,  we 

^all  not  have  much  difficulty  in  arriving  at  a  very  probable 

^^Onjecture  as  to  the  way  tn  which  this  came  about     It  must 

'^^inain  little  more  than  a  conjecture  because  there  is  little  or  no 

**irect  evidence  to  guide  us;  but  it  will  at  least  afford  us  a  possible 

^Xitline  of  the  facts,  which  may  perhaps  be  allowed  to  stand  until 

*Virther  evidence  enables  us  to  make  a  still  closer  approximation 

*^^  the  truth. 

St  Mark,  according   to  tradition,  came  to   Alexandria,  in 
^ibedience  to  St  Peter's  directions,  somewhere  about  the  year 
-^.D.  4a.     At  Alexandria,  and  for  the  benefit  of  his  Egyptian 
^wnverts,  he  wrote  down  again  the  risumi  of  St  Peter's  preaching 
Xvhich  we  call  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark.     This  Gospel,  we  can 
understand,  naturally  became  the  official  Gospel  of  the  Church 
of  Alexandria.     Other  places  had  other  accounts  of  the  life  and 
teaching  of  our  Lord.     Those  places  which  owed  their  conver- 
sion to  St  Paul  must  have  had  left  with  them  some  written 
gospel  narrative,  a  narrative  which  probably  had  some  relation 
to  the  later  Gospel  of  St  Luke.     So,  again,  Jerusalem  had  its 
own  records.    But    the  record   preserved    at  Alexandria,  the 
original  '  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians ',  was  a  form  of 
the  Gospel  of  St  Mark. 


200        THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Most  probably  this  Gospel  was  actually  Icnown  as  the 
'Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians'.  Professor  Harnaclc  is 
no  doubt  right  when  he  tells  us  that  the  territorial  titles 
'according  to  the  Hebrews*  and  'according  to  the  Egyptians' 
are  earlier  tlian  the  later  titles  which  are  founded  on  author- 
ship. But  he  is  surely  wrong  when  he  goes  on  to  infer 
that  the  later  apocryphal  Gospel,  which  usurped  the  name, 
must  have  existed  before  the  canonical  four.  The  original 
'Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians'  must  have  been  the 
Gospel  which  was  given  to  them  by  St  Mark,  who  first  preached 
the  Gospel  to  them,  and  then,  after  the  title  had  become  disused  in 
the  second  century,  a  second  and  apocryphal  Gospel  appropriated 
the  name,  the  original  history  of  which  was  by  that  time  for- 
gotten. It  is  pi-ccisely  what  we  see  happening  in  the  case  of  all 
the  apocryphal  writings.  They  always  tried  to  obtain  acceptance 
by  sailing  under  false  colours,  and  endeavouring  to  pass  them- 
selves off  as  other  and  more  ancient  documents  than  they  really 
were.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  existence  of  an 
•po<Typhal  writing  in  the  second  century  almost  always  pre- 
suppoL'ics  and  points  back  to  the  existence  of  an  earlier  and 
genuine  writing  for  which  it  desired  to  be  mistaken. 

We  may  suppose  that  this  Gospel  of  St  Mark,  in  its  second  form, 
was,  from  at  least  the  year  50  A. D., the  official  record  of  the  Churches 
of  Egypt,  and  was  read  in  the  public  assemblies  of  the  Christians 
on  the  Sunday,  just  as  the  Jews  had  been  long  accustomed  to 
read  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  in  the  synagogues.  It  would 
have  been  regarded  as  a  very  precious  and  authentic  document, 
but  not  as  inspired  Scripture  in  the  same  sense  as  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  time  for  that  was  not  yet,  for  '  the  living  voice ',  to 
use  the  phrase  of  Papias,  still  remained  with  the  Church,  and 
men  were  not  solely  dependent  on  any  book  for  authentic  informa- 
tion about  our  Lord.  So  we  can  understand  readily  enough 
that  when  from  time  to  time  there  arrived  at  Alexandria  other 
documents  which  were  guaranteed  as  trustworthy  records,  there 
would  always  be  a  tendency  to  incorporate  them  with  the  exist- 
ing Gospel,  and  lo  enrich  it  with  this  additional  information.  It 
is  in  this  way  that  we  may  suppose  that  the  Birth  narrative  of* 
the  first  two  chapters  came  to  be  prefixed,  and  that  the  other 
short  passages  which  have  been  interpolated,  especially  into  Che 


ORIGIN   OF   GOSPEL  ACCORDING   TO   ST   MATTHEW     20r 

stofy  of  the  Passion,  came  to  be  added.    They  were,  in  the 
judgement  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  as  authentic,  as  worthy 
to  be  read  in  the  churches,  as  was  the  Gospel  of  their  founder 
St  Mark.    Why  should  they  not  be  added  in,  in  the  places  to 
which  they  naturally  belonged,  and  thus  provide  the  faithful 
with  a  fuller  and  a  richer  narrative  of  the  life  of  Christ  ?    They 
need  not  have  come  all  at  once,  but  may  have  arrived  separately. 
More  probably  they  are  extracts  from  other  documents  of  the 
Church,  and  have  been  selected  from  a  larger  mass  of  material. 
But,  be  that  as  it  may,  the  point  to  be  kept  clearly  in  remem- 
brance is  that  the  Church  of  Alexandria  judged  them  to  be 
authentic,  and  to  be  worthy  of  being  added  to  the  Gospel  as 
read  in  the  churches  of  Egypt,  and  that  to  that  judgement  they 
owe  their  present  portion- 
But  one  document  which  came  in  this  way  to  Alexandria 
was  c^  such  length  and  importance  that  it   hardly  lent  itself 
to  this  procedure.      It  was  the  Logia^  the  collection  of  the 
Discourses  of  Christ  which  had  been  drawn  up  by  St  Matthew 
in  Hebrew,  and  bore  his  name.     As  it  stood  it  was  not  useful  in 
Alexandria,  for  the  language  in  which  it  was  written  would  have 
been  understood  only  by  a  few.     Before  it  could  be  used  it  must 
Ix  translated  into  Greek,  and  this  we  may  suppose  was  done  at 
^n  early  date.    Then,  perhaps  for  a  number  of  years,  the  two 
)>ooks  would  probably  have  existed  side  by  side,  each  held  in 
^ual  honour  and  both  alike  read  in  the  churches.    After  a  time 
^e  inconvenience  of  having  two  books  would  b^n  to  be  felt, 
and  the  idea  of  combining  both  into  a  single  continuous  narrative 
would  be  entertained,  and  in  that  way  our  present  Gospel  would 
naturally  come  into  existence.    It  is,  in  fact,  the  first  of  the 
'Harmonies',  the  initial  product  of  that  tendency  which   led 
afterwards  to  the  compilation  of  Tatian's  Diatessaron^  and  which 
has  ever  since,  all  through  the  ages,  been  producing  countless 
volumes,  the  object  of  which  has  been  to  gather  into  a  sii^le 
story  all  that  is  told  us  in  the  various  records  of  the  life  and 
teaching  of  our  blessed  Lord. 

The  compilation  was,  however,  no  mere  affair  of '  paste  and 
scissors'.  It  took  place  at  a  very  early  date  indeed,  when  as 
yet  there  was  no  special  reverence  for  the  actual  words,  as 
distinct  from  the  substance  of  the  sacred  books.    Everything 


202  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


contained  in  the  two  books  seems  to  have  been  carefully  pre- 
served, but  in  many  cases  there  have  been  considerable  abbrevia- 
tions, and  also  constant  alterations  for  the  improvement  of  style. 
The  whole  Gospel,  from  end  to  end,  bears  the  impress  of  a  single 
mind,  and  is  the  work  of  one  who  spoke  Greek  6ucntly  and  is 
master  of  a  good  Greek  style.  The  literary  ability  which  has 
woven  together  into  a  single  narraUvc  of  striking  unity  materials 
of  diverse  origin,  and  has  done  this  with  so  little  interference 
with  the  materials  themselves,  is  of  no  ordinary  kind. 

The  date  at  which  the  Gospel  was  compiled  can  be  assigned 
with  some  confidence  to  withtn  a  few  years,  one  way  or  the 
other,  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Hamack  puts  It  at  about 
A.D.  75,  being  influenced  by  the  thought  that  St  Mark's  Gospel 
was  not  composed,  according  to  tradition,  till  after  St  Peter's 
death,  and  that  some  years  must  be  allowed  before  it  can  be 
supposed  to  have  been  incorporated  into  a  later  gospel.  But  if, 
as  I  have  tried  to  shew,  it  was  not  the  linal  and  Roman 
St  Mark  which  was  thus  incorporated,  but  an  earlier  edition 
which  probably  had  existed  since  A.D.  45,  this  reasoning^  loses 
its  force.  The  internal  evidence  of  the  Gospel  itself  is  much 
more  readily  compatible  with  an  earlier  date.  For  instance, 
it  is  hard  to  understand  why  the  solemn  warning  'Let  him 
that  rcadeth  understand '  (xxiv.  t^)  should  be  retained  in 
a  redaction  made  after  the  cause  for  the  warning  had  been 
removed  by  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.  This  reasoning  is 
made  still  more  clear  by  a  comparison  of  the  whole  passage  as  it 
is  given  in  each  of  the  three  synoptics.  St  Matthew  seems  to  be 
earliest  and  to  have  written  when  no  part  of  the  prophecy  had 
been  fulfilled.  St  Mark  is  later,  for  the  word  'immediately', 
almost  certainly  a  Marcan  word  originally,  for  St  Mark  uses  it 
constantly,  has  been  removed,  and  so  the  two  prophecies  arc 
distinguished  one  from  another.  The  part  which  has  to  do 
with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  fulfilled :  the  part  dealing 
with  the  end  of  the  world  is  still  future.  St  Luke  is  later  still, 
for  he  explains  'the  abomination  of  desolation,'  to  mean  the 
Roman  armies  of  the  siege,  and  interposes  '  the  time  of  the 
Gentiles ',  during  which  Jerusalem  is  to  be  trodden  down,  between 
the  two  events. 

Turning  to  tradition  we  find  two  dates  assigned. 


Eusebius    J 


ORIGIN  OF   GOSPEL   ACCORDING   TO   ST   MATTHEW     203 

{H.  E.  iii  34)  sajrs  that  *  Matthew,  having  first  preached  to  the 
Hebrews,  when  he  was  about  to  go  to  others  delivered  to  them 
his  Gospel  written  in  their  own  language '.  This  we  may  take 
as  referring  to  the  Logia  and  embodying  a  true  tradition.  The 
occasion  of  the  writing  of  the  Logia  was  the  departure  of  the 
apostles  from  Jerusalem,  to  b^n  their  more  general  missionary 
work.  The  date  traditionally  assigned  for  this  departure  is 
about  A.D.  43.  Irenaeus,  however,  gives  a  dlHerent  date.  He 
says  that  '  Matthew  produced  a  written  Gospel  among  the 
Hebrews  in  their  own  dialect  when  Peter  and  Paul  were  preach- 
ing and  founding  the  Church  of  Rome'.  The  date  when 
St  Peter  and  St  Paul  were  both  at  Rome  is  just  before  their 
martyrdom  in  A.D.  67;  and  this  is  too  late  a  date  for  the 
ccHnposition  of  the  Logia,  but  fits  in  admirably  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  Greek  GospeL  If  we  may  suppose  that  Irenaeus 
has  confused  the  two  events,  just  as  I  have  already  suggested 
must  have  happened  in  the  parallel  case  of  St  Mark,  there  is  no 
reason  why  this  date,  say  A.  D.  66,  should  not  be  accepted  as  the 
date  of  the  amalgamation  of  the  two  great  evangelical  documents 
at  Alexandria  to  form  the  Greek  *  Gospel  according  to  St  Matthew'. 
In  that  case  we  have  once  more  found  Catholic  tradition  to  be  easily 
reconcileable  with  the  results  of  modern  critical  study.  Nor 
need  any  orthodox  and  conservative  reader  be  terrified  at  what 
has  been  su^rested.  St  Matthew's  Gospel,  even  if  only  part 
of  it  is  actually  St  Matthew's  work,  may  rest  throughout  on 
apostolic  authority,  and  was  probably  compiled  within  the 
apostolic  period.  It  comes  to  us,  as  I  have  tried  to  shew,  on 
the  authority  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  con6rmed  at  a  later 
date  by  the  acceptance,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
of  the  Universal  Church. 

A.  S.  Barnes. 


^^■4  ""^     JUUKHAL.     KJt      jnCLTlAJUII, 

I  THE   HISTORICAL  SETTING 

f    OF   THE   SECOND   AND   THIRD   EPISTLES 

OF   ST  JOHN. 

In  his  ingenious  and  often  suggestive  study  of  the  above  subject 
in  two  recent  numbers  of  this  Journal,  Dom  Chapman  says, 
d  propos  of  one  main  problem  for  which  he  seeks  the  solution, 
'If  others  disagree  with  my  results,  I  trust  they  will  continue 
the  search  for  a  better '.  I  certainly  disagree  very  widely  from 
his  results,  while  thinking  him  to  have  called  attention  to  one  or 
two  points  generally  overlooked  in  the  consideration  of  the 
problems  connected  with  these  epistles.  And  I  desire  to  set 
forth  the  results  to  which  a  fresh  study  of  them  in  the  light  of 
Dom  Chapman's  papers  has  led  me,  with  a  like  hope  that  others 
may  follow  up  the  scent,  till  all  the  available  data  have  been 
made  to  yield  us  their  true  and  full  meaning.  In  so  doing 
I  must  begin  by  a  running  criticism  of  certain  parts  of  our 
author's  exegesis  and  of  the  historical  inferences  drawn  therefrom, 
before  proceeding  to  a  fresh  synthesis  which  appears  to  me  at 
present  to  cover  all  the  relevant  facts. 

First,  then,  Dom  Chapman  errs  in  referring  the  news  that 
Gaius '  was  walking  in  truth  '  to  his  practice  of  '  St  John's  favourite 
virtue  of  charily',  and  to  any  one  special  occasion.  For  the 
writer  dwells  first  on  his  friend's  general  good  record  brought 
from  time  to  lime  *  by  brethren  visiting  his  church  and  reporting 
on  their  return, '  Gaius  is  a  true  Christian  *.  It  is  only  with  the 
next  paragraph  that  any  specific  instance  emerges.  There  we 
learn  of  his  loyal  action,  to  which  certain  brethren  had  recently 
witnessed  before  the  writer's  own  church,  in  the  way  of  hospitality 
shewn  them  by  Gaius.  And  the  immediate  occa.sion  of  the  Elder's 
letter  is  to  bespeak  a  repetition  of  such  kindness  at  his  hands,  in 

'  The  frMjuesMlivc  force  of  the  pi-ueiit  participles  J^x°W>'W  . . .  «ai  $»apTvpairrMr, 
tloBf  wiUi  mfii/t .  . .  ■t^aaTm,  bius  escaptrd  our  lutbor's  notice. 


I! 


HISTORICAL   SETTING   OF   II   AND   III    ST   JOHN        205 

rtting '  these  same  brethren  '  Torward  '  on  their  fresh  mission  in 
a  manner  worthy  of  God,  on  whose  service  they  came.  He  then 
aclfJs  a  special  reason  for  such  hospitah'ty. 

"       •  For  they  went  out  for  the  Name's  sake,  taking  nothing  of  the 

0  entiles.' 

Here  we  reach  a  critical  point  in  Dom  Chapman's  reading  of 

■*His  letter,  and  so  of  its  feliow  epistle.     He  insists  (hat  i-nif}  too 

^woparor    i^\0av    must    mean    that    these   men    had    fled    from 

■persecution  on  behalf  of  the  Name,  probably  persecution  at  Rome 

■Under  Nero.     I  will  not  stay  to  airgue  that  t^iXBav  in  this  context 

points  less  naturally  to  going  forth  from  a  city,  than  to  going 

forth  from  the  inner  life  of  a  Christian  community,  such  as  the 

1  Writer's  own  church  just  alluded  to ;  and  that  this  sense  is  borne 
otit  by  the  analogous  i$i}\Oaii  el?  Tor  jcrffffioi',  used  of  certain 
'deceivers'  in  the  companion  letter  (compare  i  John  ii  19  i^rtf-^v 

^^kBav).     For  indeed  the  sense  of  the  clause  as  a  whole,  unep 

Too  di-rf/iarof  i^fikdav  ^*)8<i'  Xa^ijiavoirrt^  Auh  r<2j^  Wi»i*oJr,  seems  to 

be  lucf  clarius.     Dom  Chapman  says  'the  words  '*for  the  Name's 

sake  "  imply  some  hardship,  if  not  persecution,  and  could  not  be 

the  equivalent   of  "to  preach  the  Name"'.     Surely  this  is  to 

Overlook  the  distinction  between  vslp  and  Iva.     The  latter  might 

suggest  what  he  maintains;   the  former  rather  denotes  'in  the 

interests  of  the  Name",  and  exactly  suits  the  idea  of  going  forth  on 

an  evangelizing  mission  among  the  heathen.     Further  this  reading 

is  demanded  by  the  conjunction  of  fi*j8ii»  Xa^^imvrti  K.r.X.,  which 

Dom  Chapman  never  actually   renders  in   its  connexion   Avith 

^^^Ad<u>,   but   which  he  apparently   takes  as  if  it  were  a  past 

^Harticiple.     Thus  he  says:  'Wcstcott  must  be  right  in  explaining 

that  the  words  refer  to  the  Gentile  converts  to  whom  the  strangers 

,     had  preached.'     Here  Dr  Westcott's  sound  patch  only   makes 

the  unsoundness  of  our  author's  exegetical  garment    apparent. 

For  a  rent  in  grammar  results,  when  we  read  continuously,  '  they 

went  forth  {to  avoid  danger),  tiking  nothing  of  the  Gentiles'  to 

whom  they  had  preached.     That  would  demand  Aa>3uW<s,  not 

Ao^i/JdiwiTfs,  which   really   expresses  a   principle    or   '  habitual 

fulc'(as  Westcott  says),  dependent  upon  the  step  described  by 

^\\9o,v.     Thus  Dom  Chapman's  exegesis  of  this  clause  fails  to 

r  scrutiny  J   nor  do  the  words   refer,  as  he  makes  out,  to 


ao6        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

a  *  goiag  forth '  prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  journey  which  ihc 
Elder  is  asking  Gaius  to  further.  The  i^^XBaii  is  an  epistolary 
aorist.  He  is  speaking  of  their  present  policy  of  obvious  dis- 
interestedness in  relation  to  those  whom  they  were  to  evangelize; 
and  he  urges  that  they  should  be  saved  from  all  expense  whilst 
among  Christians,  iaUr  alia  that  their  funds  may  hold  out  the 
better  when  they  actually  reach  the  iOvuioi  whom  they  had  in 
view  in  setting  out.  Indeed  this  reading  is  required  to  satisfy 
the  idea  of '  fellow  workers  *  in  the  next  verse. 

But  not  only  docs  Dom  Chapman's  exegesis  of  this  pass^e 
break  down ;  with  it  Roes  the  bulk  of  the  historical  setting  so 
ingeniously  constructed  for  the  two  epistles  under  examination. 
Yet  uhile  this  is  so,  we  hasten  to  add  tluit  a  guod  deal  remains 
from  the  ruin  in  the  way  of  valuable  materials  for  a  theory  based 
on  a  truer  reading  of  this  verse.  The  ttwfi/  of  martyrdom 
disappears,  and  with  it  much  else  that  before  was  sufficiently 
precarious,  including  the  Roman  destination  of  the  Icttei-s.  But 
the  observations  connected  with  the  personality  of  Demetrius 
can  be  considered  apart,  and  will  repay  attention,  if  only  for  the 
one  which  constitutes  the  centre  of  them  all — and  the  abiding 
merit  of  the  whole  discussion — namely,  the  proper  stress  laid  on 
the  attestation  of  the  man's  claim  to  be  received  as  a  genuine 
'  brother '  in  the  Lord.  To  this  we  shall  come  shortly,  in  due 
course. 

'  I  wiole  a  few  words  to  the  Church  ;  but  he  that  loveth  to  have  the 
preeminence  among  them,  Diotrephes,  doth  not  receive  us.' 

Here  Dom  Chapman  puts  aside  the  probable  view  that  '  the 
few  words'  are  our  a  John,  in  favour  of  'a  former  letter  of 
recommendation  given  to  the  strangers  on  their  first  visit '.  Then 
he  goes  on  to  say  that  Diotrephes  'can  hardly  have  disregarded 
St  John's  recommendation  of  these  Christian  teachers  unless  he 
had  something  against  them  personally'.  That  is  by  no  means 
obvious.  St  John  says  '  Diotrephes  doth  not  receive  «j,  with 
wicked  words  prating  against  us'  {<p\vapvv  ijfiai)  ;  which  points 
rather  to  a  rejection  of  the  Apostle's  own  fellowship.  This  would 
help  to  explain  why  the  Aposlie  felt  specially  apprehensive  lest 
Diotrephes'  church  should  harbour  the  '  deceivers  '  dealt  with  in 
2  John— probably  '  tlie  few  words "  which  the  writer  expected 


HISTORICAL   SETTING  OF   II    AND   III   ST  JOHN        307 

Diotrephes  to  try  to  suppress.  In  it  he  hints  that  a  section  of 
the  church  was  not  '  walking  in  truth '  and  might  be  ready  to 
welcome  the  '  deceivers '  to  the  very  hospitality  Diotrephes  had 
refused  St  John's  friends.  Hence  the  attitude  of  Diotrephes  to  those 
strange 'brethren'  was  due  to  hostility  to  the  Apostle  himself.  '  He 
receiveth  not  us ',  and  so  '  he  receiveth  not  the  brethren '.  As  to 
the  length  to  which  Diotrephes  went  in  his  high-handed  opposition 
to  hospitality  being  extended  to  these  visitors,  he  was  for  casting 
their  hosts  out  of  the  Church,  and  presumably  Gaius  among  the 
rest  Dom  Chapman  assumes  that  he  had  actually  achieved  his 
end ;  but  the  presents  fcwXvet  and  iK^6\K«i  hardly  necessitate 
such  a  view.  In  fact  the  tone  of  3  John  (especially  i,  4,  la  f) 
points  the  other  way. 

Passing  by  one  or  two  dubious  oditer  dicta  \  we  come  to  the 
most  suggestive  point  in  Dom  Chapman's  papers.  He  calU 
attention,  and  most  properly  so,  to  the  peculiarly  impressive 
iQaiiner  in  which  Demetrius,  probably  both  the  bearer  of  the  letter 
and  the  leader  of  the  mission  in  question,  is  commended  to  Gaius 
^  worthy  of  all  confidence  as  a  Christian  brother. 

'Demetrius  hath  witness  borne  to  him  by  all,  and  by  the  Truth 
'**^lf;  yea,  we  also  bear  witness;  and  thou  knowest  that  our  witness 
"true- 
On  this  our  author  observes :    '  It  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
*^'^»nmonly  recognized  that  this  emphatic  sentence  is  not  set  down 
*  ^opos  de  bottes'     So  far  all  must  go  with  him,  whether  they 
^^^cept  his  explanation  of  the  phenomenon  or  not     The  com- 
mendation is  too  laborious  and  iterative  to  be  merely  the  usual 
^rtificate  of   good    Christian    standing.     The  Apostle   '  doth 
protest  too  much '  not  to  have  a  special  reason  for  so  writing, 
especially  in  a  letter  else  so  terse  and  brief.    But  is  that  reason  to 
be  found  in  a  'close  connexion  with  the  rest  of  the  Epistle',  so 
that  Demetrius  *  is,  in  fact,  the  one  whose  character  has  been 
called  in  question  by  Diotrephes'?     I  doubt  it,  as    also  what 
lies  behind  it  in  Dom  Chapman's  mind.     For  he  has  worked  out 

^  e.  g.  the  suggestioQ  that  ^ipta&xntpos  Id  relation  to  St  John  was  the  equiralent 
of  the  later  Patriarch  or  Metropolitan,  whereas  it  was  really  a  fairly  common 
generic  term,  u  we  gather  from  Papias  and  Irenaeus;  and  the  judgement, 
*  St  Paul  was  more  of  the  thinker  than  of  the  administrator  %  to  which  many 
besides  Prof.  Ramsay  could  not  give  unqualified  asaenU 


THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


what  he  considers  a  highly  probable  idcntiAcatJon  of  this 
Demetrius  with  Demas,  who  forsook  St  Paul  at  Rome  when 
danger  began  to  thicken:  and  it  is  this  which  determines  hia 
reading  of  the  emphatic  commendation  and  its  raison  d'etre. 
Space  will  not  allow  of  a  detailed  criticism  of  the  circumstantial 
evidence  which  makes  this  theory  seem  probable  to  its  author. 
I  will  only  set  over  against  it  one  which  appears  to  me  more 
probable,  in  the  hope  that  others  may  concur  in  this,  as  well  as 
in  the  reading  of  the  whole  situation  into  which  it  seems  to  fit. 

Let  us  assume,  then,  that  St  John's  Demetrius  is  the  same  as 
the  Ephcsian  silversmith  of  Acts  xix  23.  Such  an  identification 
has,  to  begin  with,  the  advantage  in  point  of  locality,  especially 
on  what  I  have  argued  is  the  true  view  of  the  mission  on  which 
Demetrius  came,  namicly  one  to  some  region  beyond  the  city 
ill  which  Gaius  is  resident.  An  Ephcsian  cnterjirisc  of  this  sort 
is  not  likely  to  have  gone  westwards,  to  Macedonia  or  beyond, 
as  we  should  expect,  if  the  Dcmas  who  'went  to  Thessalonica  ' 
were  in  question.  As  to  the  fact  th.it  the  Demetrius  of  Acts  was 
hostile  to  the  Gospel,  this  is  not  against  the  identification,  but 
rather  in  its  favour.  For  the  special  emphasis  of  the  Apostle's 
testimony  to  his  friend's  botiafidt  Christianity  suggests  that  there 
was  some  grave  antecedent  ground  for  suspecting  the  contrary '. 
Suppose  that  Demetrius,  who  was  widely  known  as  the  stirrer-up 
of  tumult  against  St  Paul,  had  only  comparatively  recently 
become  a  zealous  adherent  of  the  faith  he  once  opposed  (on  trade 
grounds)  ;  or  that  at  least  his  Christian  record  was  not  a  matter 
of  sufficient  notoriety  to  have  cancelled  his  bad  name  in  all  the 
Churches  of  the  province,  even  those  most  remote  from  Ephesus. 
That  would  give  us  just  the  situation  calling  for  the  exceptional 
testimony  here  given.  For  Gaius  would  need  to  be  armed  with 
absolute  proof  of  the  good  standing  of  Demetrius,  if  he  were  not 
to  compromise  himself  at  any  rate  in  the  eyes  of  the  local  church, 
especially  with  a  Diotrephcs  ready  to  seize  on  any  plausible 
excuse  for  excluding  the  Elder's  friends  from  Christian  communion. 
I^ut  with  such  a  testimony  Gaius  would  be  forearmed  against  all 
reasonable  challenge.     That  this  Demetrius  had  the  qualities  of 

'  Surely  ^M^uifrrvpiToi  (nnt  ^«i(iT\ip*W<ii)  Itnh  mknoif  \%  more  emphatic  even  than 
the  trsuslAtion  <juot£d  above  would  suggest  'Hath  a  reputation  resting  on 
universal  intimuijy ',  mould  perhaps  give  the  sense  more  fairly. 


I 


I 


I 

I 
I 

\ 
I 

I 


HISTORICAL   SETTING   OF   II   and   III   ST  JOHN        209 

^ership  the  story  in  Acts  itself  seems  to  imply ;  and  these 
iQay  well  have  been  utilized  (as  also  perhaps  his  large  means) 
n  such  mission  work  as  is  hinted  at  in  our  letter.  Any  such 
identification,  indeed,  is  not  of  the  same  moment  to  my  general 

tlieory,  as  Dom  Chapman's  is  to  his  complex  Roman  hypothesis. 

But  quantum    valeat  it   appears  the  more    probable    of   the 

two. 

*  I  had  many  things  to  write  to  thee ;  howbeit  I  do  not  wish  (o5  ^cXai) 
to  write  to  thee  with  ink  and  pen.  But  I  hope  to  see  thee  shortly,  and 
"We  will  speak  face  to  face.  Peace  be  to  thee ;  the  friends  salute  thee ; 
salute  the  friends  by  name.' 

*  Gains ',  says  our  author,  '  has  many  friends  at  Ephesus,  and 
St  John  has  friends  in  the  Church  where  Gains  lives  *.    This  seems 
a  just  inference,  so  long  as  we  do  not  assume  complete  parallelism 
between  the  two  cases,  that  of  Gaius  and  that  of  St  John  respec- 
tively.  For  while  the  salutation  from  'the  friends'  at  Ephesus  to 
Gaius  may  simply  represent  *  the  brethren '  who  had  given  him  so 
excellent  a  character '  before  the  Church '  (6,  cf.  3) ;  the  individualiz- 
ing addition  of  '  by  name '  in  the  writer's  own  salutation  of  '  the 
^n'ends'  at  the  other  end,  suggests  that  he  had  visited  them  in 
the  past.     Thus  it  is  probable  that  '  the  friends  *  in  question  are 
^e  pro-Johannine  section  of  Gaius's  church.    In  fact '  our  friends  * 
^Ould  represent  the  sense  better  in  both  cases  \ 

Now  let  us  turn  to  see  what  light  2  John  has  to  contribute. 

'The  Elder  to  one  who  is  an  elect  lady,  and  her  children,  whom 
^  love  in  truth ;  and  not  I  only,  but  also  all  they  that  know  the  Truth  j 
for  the  Truth's  sake  which  abideth  in  us — and  it  shall  be  with  us 
for  ever.' 

Most  will  agree  with  Dom  Chapman  that  *  elect  lady'  here 
means  a  Church  (cf.  i  Pet.  v  13  h(m&CtTat  tSfiSs  ^  ^i*  Ba^SvXuvt 
ovvtKktKT^,  a  passage  which  may  even  ha\re  set  the  fashion  of 
so  speaking— see  a  John  13  AoTrdferof  ere  t^  riKva  t^s  dSeAi^^y  <rov 
T^r  iKKtKT^t — as  our  author  rightly  notes).  But  when  he  adds 
that  '  a  famous  Church '  is  meant,  •  for  it  is  loved  by  all  that 

>  Tbis  does  not  exclude  a  possibility  that  the  use  of  the  phrase,  'the  friends', 
was  part  also  of  the  prudential  reserve  to  which  are  due  phrases  like  'the  elect 
lady',  'the  children  of  thy  elect  sister',  in  a  John,  and  the  postponement  in  both 
letten  of  other  matters  to  future  oral  Intercourse. 

VOL.  VI.  P 


relatively,  viz.  as  relative  to  a  limited  area  which  is  otherwise 
known  to  be  in  the  author's  thoughts.  Such  an  area  was  the 
province  of  Asia,  the  special  sphere  of  the  Apostle's  own  influence, 
and  that  to  which  he  confined  himself,  as  far  as  appears  from  his 
other  writings.  Thus  when  in  the  Apocalypse  he  writes  (ii  23), 
'and  all  the  Churches  shall  recognize  that  I  am  He  that 
searcheth  the  reins ',  he  has  primarily  in  view  the  Seven  Churches 
of  Asia.  So  also  is  it  here.  He  is  speaking  of  the  sphere  of 
his  own  special  observation  and  knowledge,  and  says  of  it  quite 
naturally  'all  they  that  know  the  Truth ',  i.e.  in  our  part  of  the 
world.  This  of  course  implies  that  the  Church  addressed  itself  I 
falls  within  the  area  of  his  special  purview,  and  is  not  at  a  great 
distance.  But  that  is  the  most  natural  assumption  to  make, 
unless  the  contrary  is  clearly  indicated.  At  least  we  cannot 
grant  Dom  Chapman  his  opposite  assumption  to  build  on. 
Therewith  another  main  support  of  the  Roman  destination  of 
this  letter  is  removed.  And  further  unsoundness  in  the 
foundation  of  this  theory  comes  to  light  in  the  very  next 
paragraph,  where  he  comments  on 

'  I  rejoice  greatly  that  I  have  found  of  thy  children  walldog  in  TruUi, 
even  as  we  received  commandment  from  the  Father.' 

*  Here ',  says  he, '  the  meaning  is  plainly:  "  I  rejoiced  greatly 
when  I  heard  that  some  of  your  children  had  practised  some 
remarkable  virtue,  according  to  the  Katlicr's  commandment ". 
What  was  this  particular  act  of  virtue?'  We  need  not  trouble 
to  reproduce  the  rather  over-subtle  argument  by  which  he 
decides  that  '  the  act  of  virtue '  was  '  the  glorious  martyrdom 
of  some  of  the  sons  of  the  Church  to  which  he  writes".  For 
grammatical  considerations  alone  forbid  the  notion  that  a 
'  particular  act '  of  any  kind  is  in  view.  Observe  that  the  above 
paraphrase  has  substituted  the  aorist,  'when  1  heard'  for 
Wcstcott's  correct  perfect  'that  I  have  found  *  (possibly  by 
repeated  experience),  and  the  aorist  'had  practised'  for  the 
imperfect  participle  'engaged  In  walking'  (inpiTraTovvras,  comp. 
3  John  3,  where  the  force  of  7r<;)t7rar<is  is  also  missed  by  our 
author}.    The  Apostle   simply  utters  his  joy   at    the    moral 


HISTORK 


SETTING    OF    I!    AND   III   ST  JOHN        211 


integrity*  shewn  by  certain  members  of  the  Church  addressed, 

and  goes  on  to  express  the  earnest  desire  that  this  Church  as 

a  whole  will  act  similarly  in  the  essential  matter  of  mutual  love, 

understood  in  the  only  sense  recognized  by  John  as  real,  namely 

practically,  according  to  God's  definite  precepts  of  love  (^ard  rds 

JtToAa;  avToi).     This  is  evidently  what  he  has  in  mind,  when 

he  goes  on  to  exhort  the  Church  not  to  lose  the  reward  of  what 

h  had  wrought,  by  departing  from  the  true  path  as  outlined  in 

E'the  teaching  of  the  Christ '  (fi^  tiivatv  fp  rfj  5(5«x,^  '""'^  Xpttnov). 
That  were  no  real  '  progress '  (sSs  o  tipoiyojv  kcu  ftif  fi^vuv  k.tA.), 
however  it  might  claim  to  be  so  in  the  mouths  of 'deceivers', 
who  taught  an  'advanced'  doctrine  about  Jesus  Christ,  as  one 
whose  coming'  was  not  really  •  in  flesh  ',  and  knowledge  of  whom 
was  not  an  elementary  matter  of  doing  the  precepts  of  'the 
teaching'  handed  down  as  having  come  from  His  bodily  lips. 
A  true  knowledge  of  Christ.  '  not  after  the  flesh '  but  after  the 
spirit,  these  men  seem  to  have  said,  left  a  man  much  freer  than 
that,  much  more  a  law  unto  himself.  This,  replied  the  Apostle, 
was  to  open  the  door  wide  to  lapse  into  'evil  works'.  Such 
a  reading  of  the  passage  dealing  with  the  crrcrists — according  to 
which  'the  teaching'  wherein  men  ought  to  abide  was  the 
practical  teaching  handed  down  from  Christ,  but  virtually  set 
aside  by  the  new  Docetic  theory  of  His  person — finds  an  almost 
exact  parallel  in  the  'Teaching  of  the  Lord  through  the  Twelve 
Apostles'.  There  we  read  (xi  j,  2):  '  Whosoever,  then,  cometh 
and  teacheth  you  all  the  aforesaid,  receive  him.  But  if  he  who 
tcacheth  himself  turns  round  and  teaches  another  teaching,  to 
the  undoing  [of  the  former),  listen  not  to  him.*  In  like  manner 
John  writes:    '  If  anyone  cometh  and  beareth  not  this  teaching, 

'  U*f*waT4ir  h  dAqtfttf  may  pcrb^pft  be  so  rendered  here  Mai  in  3  John  3.  '  The 
phrase ',  says  WestcoU, 'b  not  idontical  with  "walking  in  the  truth"  (wtpn*.  if  rj 
dx^ftfiifi,  3  John  4),  It  describes  the  Kcncral  character  o(  Ihe  life  as  conducted  "  in 
trutli  '*,  really  and  in  vrry  <Jced  in  a  certain  fashion ',  defined  In  both  instances  by 
the  cnAvi  K.rA.  following. 

'  Ut  fi^  dfioKr/t^t^tt  'iTtfovf  X^ffrdf  ipx^^*'^'^  '"  ^'^P*^-  Here  tlie  emphatt's  is 
not  upon  the  mere  puit  fact  of  His  coming  {iXr\kv9i/ra,  i  John  iv  i)  having  been 
'  in  llesh  ',  but  upon  the  essential  sphere  of  His  manifestation,  whether  iu  the  past 
or  at  any  other  lime.  Over  against  thca,  John  inhisted  that '  love '  with  Him  was 
lor^-c  embodied  tn  action  to  men  in  the  body  {iyaa[m!):  and  llishistoriral  'teaching' 
(&Ia)^,  ef.  Rom.  xvi  i;  cmonup  toJ.»  rdi  BjjfiW'afffoj  .  .  .  woful  jif  iiiaxh'  ^  tputt 
ilinBttt  rvwmt.  Tit.  i  9,  cf.  Acts  ii  4^),  us  expressed  in  dclinitc  precepts  {ItrrvKai), 
required  the  like  cmbodtment  of  love  in  deed  from  His  followers, 

P3 


212         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

receive  him  not. . . .  For  he  who  saith  to  him  "  God  Speed  * 
hath  fellowship  with  his  evil  works.* 

Dom  Chapman's  theory  rests  on  an  unsound  exegesis  of 
2  John,  as  of  3  John.  But  before  attempting  to  gather  up  the 
positive  data  for  a  better  synthesis  which  seems  to  emerge  firom 
our  discussion  as  a  whole,  a  word  must  be  said  on  the  confirma- 
tion of  that  part  of  his  theory  which  regards  Rome  as  the  desti- 
nation of  3  John,  found  by  our  author  in  the  Latin  version  of  the 
Hypotyposes  of  the  Alexandrine  Clement.     The  passage  runs : — 

'  Secunda  loannis  Epistola  quae  ad  viigines  scripta  est  simplidssima 
Scripta  vero  est  ad  quamdam  Babyloniam  Electam  nomine ;  significat 
autem  electionem  ecclesiae  sanctae.' 

Nothing  could  be  more  precarious  than  the  use  of  this  as 
evidence  of  a  Roman  destination.  For  apart  from  the  possibility, 
not  to  say,  probability*,  that  Clement  wrote  wpds  FTtipdovs  (cf.  the 
ad  Partkos  of  St  Augustine  and  others),  and  that  this  shews  the 
sense  in  which  Babyloniam  should  here  be  taken ;  Dom  Chap- 
man gets  over  the  formidable  objection  that  his  reading  of  the 
passage  demands  Romanam  far  too  lightly.  There  was  no  good 
reason  why  Clement  should  put  the  thing  figuratively,  instead  of 
literally  and  plainly,  in  a  commentary.  And  in  any  case,  even  if 
Babyloniam  did  here  mean  Romanam,  there  is  no  proof  or  even 
likelihood  that  Clement  was  doing  other  than  make  an  arbitrary 
identification,  on  the  basis  of  the  one  other  analogy  in  the  New 
Testament  for  ^kAcki-iJ  as  used  of  a  church.  Such  ex^esis  would 
be  verbal  and  historically  worthless. 

As  to  the  '  Additional  Considerations ',  for  which  our  author 
himself  does  not  claim  much  (two  being  given  '  for  curiosity,  not 
for  argument '),  I  think  we  can  afibrd  to  pass  them  by  without 
comment.  Our  space  is  needed  for  the  statement  of  another 
synthesis  which  Dom  Chapman's  discussion  has  helped  to  su^;est. 

Gains,  a  man  marked  by  integrity  of  life  according  to  the 
Johannine  principle  of  brotherly  love  as  ruling  all  conduct,  had 

'  Dom  Chapman  has  to  start  his  argument,  even  os  the  bass  of  the  reading 
wapSivovt,  with  an  over-confident  emendation  :  'for  aJ virgints  we  should  certainly 
read  advirgintm*.  Many  will  feel  the  meUphor  intolerably  harsh  and  mixed,  in 
spite  of  the  attempted  apologia;  'Why  ad  virgintm,  since  the  elect  lady  has 
children!    Clearly  because  Clement  is  about  to  explain  that  a  church  is  meant'. 


HISTORICAL   SETTING   OF   II   and   III   ST  JOHN        213 

*>n  a  recent  occasion  welcomed  a  group  of  brethren  from  the 

*^"ter's  own  church  (Ephesus).      On  their  return,  these  had 

^toessed  to  his  practical  love  before  the  church,  contrasting  it 

With  the  attitude  of  the  most  influential  person  in  the  church  to 

M/hich  Gains  belonged,  one  Diotrephes.    Not  only  had  this  man 

Mrfthheld  hospitality  himself;  he  had  even  tried  to  deter  others 

'Vvho  were  for  giving  it,  to  the  point  of  using  all  his  influence  to 

get  them  extruded  from  the  local  church.     In  this  he  had  not,  it 

seems,  fully  succeeded ;  though  probably  he  had  produced  an 

acute  division  of  feeling,  to  judge  from  the  writer's  use  of  avriip 

in  v.  9,  and  from  the  restricted  salutation  to  certain  individuals  as 

*  our  friends '.     But  in  any  case  there  was  danger  lest  Diotrephes* 

example  should  influence  the  future  conduct  of  Gaius  and  others 

prqudicially,  whether  as  regards  future  hospitality  or  factious 

church  methods. 

The  reason  of  Diotrephes'  attitude  to  the  stranger  brethren 
iras  apparently  his  determination  not  to  have  communion  with 
the  writer  or  those  who  belonged  to  his  circle  (ovk  iintixrrai  ^m^s). 
This  determination  sprang  from  his  own  ambitious  and  masterful 
spirit  {6  4)t\ovpti}T€vo>v)t  which  resented  the  spiritual  authority  of 
the  Elder  outside  the  church  in  which  he  dwelt  (v.  6)  as  menac- 
ing the  independence  of  his  own  church,  as  he  conceived  it.  The 
way  in  which  he '  prated  at '  the  Elder  was  probably  somewhat  like 
this.   *  It  is  time  that  some  limit  were  put  to  the  constant  assump- 
tions of  "  paternal  government  "  put  forward  by  and  in  the  name 
of  this  man,  styled  by  himself  and  others  "  The  Elder  ",  as  if  the 
fact  of  his  being  an  original  eye-witness  of  the  Christ  gave  him 
the  right  to  lord  it  over  the  consciences  and  minds  of  all  men, 
nay,  the  churches  of  a  whole  province.    Where  is  the  freedom 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free,  if  each  church,  with  its  own 
leaders,  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  settle  all  matters  touchiI^:  the 
meaning  and  practice  of  the  Gospel  without  authoritative  direc- 
tion or  denunciation,  it  may  be,  from  outside?    Things  have 
come  to  a  pretty  pass  in  these  latter  days.     There  used  to  be 
room  for  the  Spirit  to  lead  and  rule,  as  Paul  was  wont  to  teach, 
but  now  we  are  coming  under  a  new  slavery  to  man.     I,  for 
one,  will  have  no  more  of  it.     And  as  the  *'  brethren  "  passing  to 
and  from  the  centre  of  his  influence,  are  practically  his  emissaries, 
the  partisans  of  his  ideas  and  claims,  I  will  do  all  I  can  to  keep 


THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

them  from  infecting  the  local  loyally  of  our  church  life  with  therf 
leaven  of  this  ambitious  old  man's  inHuencc.' 

A  masterful  nature  is  generally  ihe  first  to  suspect  ambition  at 
the  heart  of  great  spiritual  influence  in  another.  And  it  was 
Diotrcphes,  the  man  who  tried  to  override  the  wishes  of  a  con- 
siderable section  of  his  ohti  communion  by  coercive  methods, 
who  most  deeply  distrusted  the  Elder's  motives.  There  is  no 
sign  that  he  held  any  office  giving  him  a  natural  primacy  of 
authority  in  the  local  church  ;  rather  the  reverse.  Though  only 
one  of  several  local  cheers,  '  presbyters '  in  functions,  if  not  in 
name,  he  so  pushed  his  own  views  as  virtually  to  claim  to  be 
primus  inter  parrs.  Here  wc  have  not  a  monarchical  bishop* 
(of  any  dimensions),  not  even  in  germ,  as  far  as  recognized  status 
is  concerned  ;  but  rather  those  conditions  of  ambition  working 
among  the  college  of  presbyters,  which  Jerome  with  true  instinct 
recognized  as  bringing  about  the  developcment  of  the  episcopate 
of  a  local  chief  pastor,  as  the  legitimate  centre  of  local  unity,  the 
antidote  to  the  evils  created  by  the  Diotrcphes  spirit. 

As  Wcstcott  obser\'es,  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  Dio- 
trcphes held  false  opinions.  Had  he  done  so,  it  is  probable  that 
this  would  have  been  clearly  indicated.  But  it  is  probable  that 
the  unethical  temper  in  which  he  is  described  as  holding  the 
faith,  would  make  him  very  liable  to  side  with  those  who  sat 
loosely  by  the  historical  tradition  of  Christ's  practical  teaching 
(2  John  8-1 1  ;  cf.  3  John  11),  over  against  their  antagonist, 
the  Elder,  in  whose  unbending  opposition,  leading  to  their 
having  to  '  go  forth '  from  his  communion,  Diotrcphes  would 
readily  find  a  fresh  instance  of  the  '  lording  it  over  others '  of 
which  he  complained.  For  this  reason  the  Elder  may  well  have 
felt  the  danger  lest  Diotrcphes'  church  should  welcome  the 
Docctists  to  be  specially  great,  and  so  have  written  to  it  as  he 
has  in  3  John. 

Into  such  a  situation  the  peculiarly  emphatic  testimony  to 
Demetrius  fits  most  naturally.  For  Diotrcphes  would  be  on  the 
look  out  for  anything  in  the  persouel  of  the  visiting  brethren 
which  might  seem  to  justify  refusal  of  a  brotherly  welcome. 

'  Had  it  hvvw  otherwise,  it  would  have  been  futile  to  write  to  the  church.  For 
the  letter  would  Iiavc  been  delivered  to  Diotrcphes  u  a  natter  of  course,  and  would 
xunply  have  been  »uppre»ed. 


Historical  setting  of  ii  and  hi  st  john      215 

And  certainly  the  record  of  Demetrius,  if  he  were  indeed  PauFs 
old  Ephesian  opponent,  would  furnish  a  fair  excuse  of  the  sort 
desited    So  much  may  be  said  with  confidence,  though  we 
caaoot  treat  the  identification  as  more  than  the  most  probable 
open  to  us  and  a  good  workii^  hypothesis. 

But  has  the  Epistle  nothing  more  to  tell  us  about  Gaius? 

I  think  it  has.     It  seems  probable  that  he  was,  like  Diotrephes, 

a  presbyter  of  his  church  ;  but  what  is  of  more  interest  to  us, 

lie  was  pretty  certainly  a  personal  convert  of  the  Elder's.     This 

seems  implied  in  v.  4,  where  the  writer  classes  him  among  his 

«wn  *  children'  (ri  ifi^  r^itro,  and  Westcott's  note),  and  is  borne 

«ut  by  the  intimate  tone  of  the  letter,  with  its  repeated  use  of 

'beloved'.     Indeed  from  the  injunction  'salute  our  friends  in- 

tlividually '  (kot  Svofta),  it  is  probable  that  the  writer  had  himself 

visited  this  church  in  time  gone  by.     Can  we  go  any  further? 

Only  if  we   may  see  in  the   fuller  p^eting  in  v.  a  a  playful 

fusion  to  Gaius's  other  name,  according  to  a  not  uncommon 

habit  of  ancient  letter-writers.    The  verb  tvobovtrStu,   '  to    be 

prospered '  (on  one's  way),  rather  attracts  attention.    What  if 

^he  Elder's  friend  was  known  also  as   Euodius,  the  masculine 

^Orm  of  a  name  found  in  Phil,  iv  2,  and  one  which  was  borne 

^y  Ignatius's  predecessor  in  the  episcopate  of  Antioch.     Indeed 

^hen  I  first  read  Dom  Chapman's  papers  and  had  not  yet 

<^riticized  his  statement  that  the  church  addressed   in  3  John 

xiiust  be  a  world-famous  one,  and  so  was  led  to  work  out  the 

situation  in  terms  of  his  alternative  *  Rome  or  Antioch ' — where 

^ome  seemed  to  me  totally  to  fail — I  was  greatly  tempted  for 

^  moment  by  the  striking  coincidence  which  this  fact  seemed 

to  offer.     'Yes,  John  came,  as  he  promised, and  caused  his  friend 

Gaius   to  be    appointed    bishop,  to  the  setting   aside   of   the 

ambitious   doings  of    Diotrephes.     There   we   have  the   inner 

history  of  how  Euodius   became  the  first  bishop  of  Antioch.* 

And  if  there  were  good  reason  to  look  outside  'the  Churches  of 

Asia ',  and  as  far  afield  as  Antioch,  for  the  Lady  of  2  John, 

I  still  think  the  hypothesis  would  deserve  attention. 

As  it  is,  whether  Gaius  was  also  a  Euodius  or  not,  the  question 
remains,  to  which  quarter  of  John's  Asian  sphere  of  influence 
should  we  look  for  the  church  of  Gaius?  I  see  no  reason  for 
looking  beyond  the  seven  representative  churches  addressed  in 


2l6         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

the  Apcxa.lypse ' ;  for  our  church  was  one  well  known  and  of 
good  standing,  being  beloved  of  'all  those  who  know  the  truth' 
within  the  writer's  special  Christian  world.  We  can  further 
narrow  down  the  probabilities  by  noticii^  that  it  was  a  church 
on  the  route  to  be  taken  by  those  on  mission  to  unevangelized 
regions  (3  John  7}.  This  leaves  us  with  Sardis,  Philadelphia, 
Peigamum  and  Thyatira,  of  which  the  first  seems  the  least  likely 
by  position.  Finally,  when  we  consider  their  internal  character 
as  revealed  in  the  letters  to  the  churches,  and  as  recently 
studied  by  Professor  Ramsay,  Thyatira  commends  itsdf  to  me 
personally  as  most  likely  of  all  to  have  been  the  home  of  Gaius 
and  Diotrephes,  where  part  of  the  church  was  quite  as  John 
would  have  them,  while  yet  there  were  s^rns  that '  the  deceivers* 
might  find  more  of  a  welcome  from  the  church  as  a  whole  than 
they  deserved.  But  here  one  is  poaching  on  Professor  Ramsa/s 
preserves:  and  to  him  I  gladly  refer  the  point  for  further 
consideration. 

It  is  enough  to  have  thrown  out  some  suggestions  towards 
the  historical  appreciation  of  these  interesting  little  letters.  The 
rejection  of  their  Johannine  origin  seems  to  me  hypercriticism, 
and  finds  its  parallel  in  the  old  Tiibingen  sacrifice  of  Philemon 
to  the  ex^encies  of  polemic  against  the  authenticity  of  Colossians 
which  it  underpropped.  Similarly  a  and  3  John  underprop  the 
traditional  authorship  of  i  John,  and  so  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

Vernon  Bartlet. 

*  So,  too,  thought  th«  author  of  Apoal.  Const,  vii  47,  wheo  he  made  Gaius  fint 
bishop  of  Pcrgamum,  and  Demetrius  of  Philadelphia. 


217 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES 

THE    OLD    LATIN    TEXTS    OF    THE 
MINOR  PROPHETS. 

APPENDIX. 

I  AH  indebted  to  the  Rev.  John  E.  Gilmore  for  kindly  drawing  my 
Attention  to  two  further  sources  from  which  some  verses  of  the  Old 
^^tin  are  to  be  obtained.    These  sources  are : 

(a)  A  manuscript  in  the  Bodleian  {Auct.  F.  4,  32) ;  this  contains, 
^xnong  various  other  works,  a  small  collection  of  biblical  passages; 
these  do  not  all  belong  to  the  Old  Latin  version :  those  that  do  are 
Appended.  There  is  no  title-page  to  that  portion  of  the  MS  which 
crontains  the  passages  in  question,  but  there  is  a  heading  which  runs : 
*  Incipiunt  pauca  testimonia  de  profhetarum  libris  graece  et  latine'; 
t}iis  beading  is  written  in  red  letters '.  The  MS  was  written  by  a  Welsh* 
man  in  the  ninth  century ;  it  is  difficult  to  decipher,  the  forms  of  the 
letters  being  very  antique.  This  MS  is  referred  to  by  Westcott  in  an 
article  on  the  Vulgate  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

{d)  The  Mozarabic  Breviary  contains  a  targe  number  of  biblical 
passages ;  I  have  examined  all  those  from  the  Minor  Prophets  (there 
are  extracts  from  nearly  every  book),  but  only  two,  which  had  already 
been  pointed  out  to  me  by  Mr  Gilmore,  are  Old  Latin,  viz. :  Jonah  ii, 
which  occurs  in  the  service  In  Laudibus  for  the  Thursday  after  the 
fifth  Sunday  in  Lent,  and  Hab.  iii  in  the  same  service  for  the  third 
Sunday  in  Advent  The  Mozarabic  or  Gothic  Breviary  is  to  be  seen 
in  Migne's  edition  (tom.  86)  and  in  the  edition  of  Cardinal  Ximenes. 
Jonah  ii  occurs  on  fols.  cxc-cxci  in  Xim.,  cols.  535-536  in  Migne; 
Hab.  iii  on  fol.  xtii  in  Xim.,  cols.  8 1-82  in  Migne. 

{c)  I  have  also  come  across  an  O.  L.  text  (Nah.  i  9)  in  Morin's 
Anecdota  Maredsolana  Vol.  Ill  Pars  iii  (Parker,  1903)  p.  9.  There 
are  other  O.  L  texts  in  this  work,  but  they  agree  with  the  texts  already 
printed  in  earlier  numbers  of  the  Journal. 

*  For  these  details,  as  well  as  for  the  text  of  the  passages  referred  to,  I  faare 
to  express  my  thanks  to  the  Rev.  A.  J.  Miller,  Vicar  of  S-Frideswide's,  Oxford, and 
his  son,  W.  A.  HiUer,  Esq. 


2r8         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


J 


In  ihe  following  App.  Crit.  Bodl.=  the  MS  referred  to  above ; 

M.^  theMozarahic  Breviary; 
^«.  j|/iinf^.=  Anecdoia  Maredsolana,  ed 
Dom  Morin. 

HOSEA. 

^orf/-      X.  I  a  Serile  vobis  ad  iustitiam  vindiitiiate  fructum  vitac  inlumina' 
vobis  lumen  scientiae. 

MiCAH. 

VII.  6,  7  •  Quoniam  filius  non  honorificat  patrem  6Iia  insurrcxil  super 
TimtrcDi  suam  nurus  super  socrum  suam  inimia  omnis  viri  qui  in 

7  domo  ipsiua  sunt  "^  Ego  autem  in  dno  contemplabor  toUerabo  in 
dno  salvilicatorc  meo. 

Obadiah. 
15  Quia   prope  est  dies  dm  super  omnes   gentes  quemadmodum 
fecisti  sic  fulurura  erit  ttbj  retributio  tua  retribuetur  tibi  in  caput 
tuum. 

Nahum. 

An.Mnftd.      I.  9  ,    .     .    Non  enlm  vindicabit  Dominus  bis  in  idtpsum. 

Habakkuk. 

M.      III.  a'    ....  dum    appropinquaverint   anni    innote- 

sceris:    dum  advenerit  tempus  pstenderis:    cum  conturbata  fuerit 

3  anima  mea  in  ira  misericordia  tua  memorabis  mei.  '  Deus  a  Libano 
veniet  et  sanctus  a  monte  Opauco  et  condense         .... 

6  •Sieierunt  et  commoia  est  terra.    Aspexit  el  .        .        .        .        . 

1  itinera   saecularta   eius   ''  pro   labotibus-     Vidcrunt   te    tabernacuU 

8  Aethiopum  et  expavescent  tabemacula  tcrrae  Madian.  'Numquid 
in  fluminibus.  ira  lua  Domine?   aut  in  man  impetus  tuus?     Qui 

Hos.  X  IJ.  vindjmiate]  +  irm  Btptaaxf  IL  +  tavrmt  A  fructum]  fir  <n  G  (owl 

<iit  155)  Mic  vii  6.  filii]  firitiu  A  insurrexit]  tmrafrn^tToi  G^  (m  a'  attiffn]- 
tfiT«i  Q^  »TtaittirrTjM*v  1         niinis  super  socrum  siiAin]  ont  &5  l»S  omnis  viri] 

mfrit  ofSpot  B  wafTK  oi  BfJpH  AQ*  26  103  Miwttt  avifios  w  arS^t  t,  Q'^0'*t  57  91 
7.  tgo  antcoi]  »m  02  147  in  diiu  1']  in  ro/ arvfxov  ffi)!}  «i- rw  wi  S.^  in  d£o 
J'J  *wi  ToiSea/  @  m  rai  ttvptaj  Compl 

Otud.  15.  est]  om  da     futumm  erit]  «7r<u  A  (mtoi  G)     tibi  1*]  am  fi  JH  (JumA  %) 

N«h.  J  9.  Non  . .  .  idipsum]  om  H*  {Jiah  tt''"!**) 

Hab.  iii  1.  in  ira]  out  Compl  tua]  cm  H         mei]  om  fS  j.  ■  I°]  i«  S 

(avoK'-'i  *■')  Libano]  ffoipai'  {&  Stfutr  K  Compl  \i»ot  ti2  86  147  Opauco] 

ifMpai'  tS  C"***  M  "■  "•  **• '  22  SS  4fi  61  &8  »1 153)  ct  condense]  «crra(r«ioi'  flavfot  {-attif 
HAQ*  -atm  Q*om  iaatoi  61  62  147  Compl)  ffi  condenso]  +  9<«ypaAf>a  4S  (non 

inst^om  )!{)>icrado^)}  Sia{^<iAfMir«s  62  147  &•  stctcnint]  <c7ij  ffi  ciui]  om  S8  158 
7.  pro)  +  e«  K*-"  <"''  (poatea  raa)  86  «5  185  Le]  om  E  «]  om  ffi  cxpav«- 
Bcent]  WTinjSijnoyrai  tS[  raftaxSij/iDfTai  Cornpl  tubernaculu  ]°]^rinuG  (om  51  95 

165  Compl]  M&dian]  MaSiaju  (Si  (MuAiaK  tt*  "uf*  t^'"}  +  ^tifoAfm  A  8  in 

lua]  wfTiv^Ti  i7 K  <ip7io9';i  IL  .^  <?         >ut]  frii  tr  xara^mr  o  0v/ioi  ffov  fi  Mat  in 


J 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  219 

9  ^.scendit  super  equos  tuos  et  equitatus  tuus  sanitas.    'Intendens, 

Ci^endens  arcum  super  sceptra,  dicit  Dominus         .... 

'  3  *•    .         .         .  Misisti  in  capita  iniquorum  mortem :  resu- 

*4  scitasti  vincula  usque  ad  bellum.  '^  Praecidisti  in  pavore  capita 
potentium :  movebuntur  in  ea  gentes,  et  aperient  ora  sua,  edens 

>6  pauper  in  absconso "Custodivit  me,  et  expavit 

venter  mens  a  voce  deprecationis  labiorum  meorum.  Et  introivit 
timor  in  ossa  mea,  et  desuper  turbata  est  virtus  mea.  Requiescam 
in  die  tribulationis :  et  ascendam  ad  tabemacula  transmigrationis 

19  xneae.  ..."  Dominus  virtus  mea :  statuet  pedes  meos 
in  consimimatione.  Super  excelsa  imponet  me,  vincam  in  claritate 
eius. 

'"^ri  impetus  tuus]  om  M*  (Ad&  K*-  *)  qui]  oti  S  9,  extendena]  crrfi-cit 

t^-^t *'^  AQ%fi  wTuytu  B        arcum]  +  eov  ffi        Dominus]  +  StoifraA/ui  ffi  {om 

^  3^)  13.  Misisti]  BaXw  B  tfiaXas  K'-'i'-^  -^  tPaXtt  IL^^  mt/i^s  Compl 

^*l>ita]  w^aXtj¥  Compl      vincula]  +  aov  Q  20  49       usque  ad  bellum]  mw  TpaxT^ov 

tS*     ~*  tuufaXiia  S  {om  Q  *a  nXot  HtcafnXfia  H"'  "  49  96  185  233)  -f-  tit  t<Am  1,]^  + 

*'*   "W  TfAot  Compl  14.  praecidisti]  Siftcoftar  tS  (Skxovcu  K*  -^at  K**  ^)  IhtKO^y 

'^^    (,-ilnt  Q*)      gentes  et]  om  fi      edens]  oic  (v0wf  G  (wf  ftrftwvXilQK*' <■  [postea 

*|*~    viTfew])  16.  custodivit  me]  t^Xafa/triw  ®  tfukafa  CompL       venter]  Mapita 

*-3^K«-''i«-*{«wAia«)    a]  ^^  ««■".«'•►    eta"]©**!**'-"  •■*    timor]  +  ^  ««■-.••« 

^■"^k^  «•■  *)       desuper]  +  /mw  ft      virtus]  «f«  ffi  {tcxyt  H'- '  22'  106)      tribulationis] 

juHi  31}  ascendam]  +  fu^  tabemacula]  Xaov  fi  transmigrationis] 

^m^oucuu  fi  19.  Dominus]  +  0  0tos  (S  ( +  o  tf<of  /tov  %,  tt*- "  [/lov  postea  ras]) 

mpit  o  9tot  A         statuet]  prxatG         in  consummatione]  ut  fAo^wr  22  61  wffci 

'  '^«3^v  96  186       Super]  pr^Vf-"  (postea  ras)  86  49  96  106  185  Compl       vincam] 

j^**  riinjffai  (  +  fic  |^  «""  •  improb  X*'  *  -4 )  ®         in  claritate]  w  nj  wft}  ffi  (a'  r^  o8o« 

** -*[«*,(«''■»]) 

Appended  are  the  additions  to  the  Apparatus  Criticus : — 

HOSXA. 

II.  18.  illis]  eis  Bodt  volatilibus]  volucribus  .5(>i^  IV.  I.  sermoaem] 

^^crbum  Bodl  Domini]  dno  Bodl  incolas  terrac]  eos  qui  inhabitam  temun 

^-SK')  Bodl         sit]  om  Bodl  2  exsecratio]  maledictum  Bodl         caedea]  cede 

•'^odl  diffusum  est]  effusa  sunt  Bodl  sanguinem  sanguini  supermiscent]  et 

^anguina  super  sanguina  miscunt  BotU         3.  idcirco]  ea  (?)  Bodl        cum  universq 

Kncolis  suisj  cum  omnibus  qui  inhabitant  in  ea  BoiU  VI.  1.  in  tribulatione]  otn 

•^odl        convertamur]  revcrtamur  Bodl      lacsit  et  salvavit]  eripiet  et  sanabit  Bodt 

Vios]  +  percutiet  et  mJserebitur  nostri  Bodl  6.  quam  sacrifidum]  om  BotB 

holocauU]  bolochaustomata  Bodl  VIII.  5.  inimicum]  ut  iniqum  {ate)  Bodl 

persecuti  sunt]  +  ipsi  Bodl  4.  regnaverunt]  rege  futurunt  Bo^         egerunt] 

obttauerunt  Bodl  nescienint  roe]  non  ex  me  Bodl  qucmadmodum  ad  nihil 

redigantur]  nt  dispereat  Bodt 

MiCAH. 

IV.  5.  <£r]  pr  Am  Bodl  V.  a.  Et  tu  bethlem  domoa  iUius  e&hita  exigua  es 

ut  sis  in  milia  iuda  ex  te  mihi  prodeat  ut  sit  in  principem  israhel  Bodl  VI.  8. 

exquirat  aliud  nisi  ut  facias]  exposcit  a  te  nisi  facere  BotU         diligas]  diligere  Bodl 
paratus  sis  ut  eas]  paratum  esse  ut  vadaa  Bodl 


extdwrt  Tocem  mu' 
voccm  incaai  cuiudisti  Jtf  4.  altJtoiJiiiem]  altitBdiiK  M         circaniicrustj  zM    ' 

cuindedcrunt  if         lurbalentA]  excels*  M  5.  fonitun  ■pponanij  forailmn  & 

•didun  M      in]  ad  JV        6.  »qna  mibi]  tr  M      dmMt]  drcamdedit  iV       n< 
+  pcbfiM  coopcrait  opat  meum  it       postreno]  noviatiBie  M       famrMl 
M  7.  et  t']  ofM  M        temml  term  M        v«ctes]  Bene  U        «t  ascmdal 

Jfff.  oMw.]  et  uccndat  d«  cormptiune  vita  tnca  wl  te  Donrinum  Deuai  locuin  l^^^ 
8.  ia  hoc  quod]  in  co  dutn  M  a  me]  om  Jf  <^^]  +  ^^  ^  memontoajL^ 
corani«raorauu  M        vcnuit  ad  tc]  venict  H        in  j*]  ad  Jf  9.  mam] 

la  cum]  in  M       tupplico]  ucriScabo  M      quaecumque  »tl/ut.  mm.]  reddam  quod 
vovi  MurificiBai  aalvatari  atco  Doniao  M 


Hasaxsus. 

IL4.  atitcm]  -f  mcua  Bodl  in«a]  o—  BaO  vtvii]  v{v«t  i«inper  Bo£  III.  x^ 
extinui]  timui  M  Cousideravi]  pr  Domioc  Af  excJdi  mcDtel  expavi  Af  duartm] 
dlium  JV  3.  tcxit]  OfKTuil /fai^  Jf  laudis]  laudatioiu.t  Ao(£/ laude  Jf 

4.  flplendor  ciiis  nt  lux  eritj  fttl^r  illius  quasi  Iurkq  crtt  M  enint]  sunt  M  et 
Dlic  cooBUbilJta  eit]  llUconflrmata  est  M  constitact  dil«ctioiieni  valtdam]  posuit 
claritatem  firmam  M  5.  preec«det]  exivit  M        secu&dmn  grcges  siio«1  pedes 

eitts  M  6.  dcfluxerunt]  fluxcruot  M         quassati  sunt  monies]  djssoluti  !<unt 

ncntcs  M  liqacfacti  sunt]  dclluxcnuit  M  ^  disruupelur]  scindctor  M 

10.  ndcbunt  aJ.fim.  mm.']  videbunt  gvntes  ct  dolebont  popult  asp«r^ni  aquas  con- 
Uadiclionis  dcdit  abyiaoi  vocem  xuatn  ab  altitudinc  phanlasiae  aua«  M  1 1,  coa- 

sUtil  ]  alctcrunt  M  auo  ordinc  ^tr  M  in  luccm  aJ  Jm.  €9»n.  ]  ia  lumiac  splcn- 
doris  iacula  tua  ibunt  tn  luce  coniscationis  armaCara  tua  M  \\.  In  camminatione 
tiia  ad  fiM.  con*.]  indif^natione  toa  exicrminabU  leiratn  et  in  furore  tno  duces  genlea 
M  li.  popnii  luij  pkbit  tuac  M      ad]  at  if      bdcndos]  facias  M      Chrislva 

tuoa]  electos  tuos  JV  15.  Impoauisti]  niisiali  M  i;.  ficusj/rquoniam  if 

■dCeret]  aOerct  M  fnaclum]  fmclua  J/  dbum)  cibos  Af  a  pabtiio]  ab  csca  if 
in  pracsipibus]  ad  praescpU  M  18.  cxulCabo]  glonabor  M 


1 


THE  PESHITTA  VERSION  OF  2  KINGS. 

In  two  books,  entitled  respectively  ^n  .4pparattiS  Critieus  to 
Chronicles  in  the  Peshitta  Version  (Cambridge,  1897)  and  The  Peshitta 
PscUler,  edited  with  an  Apparatus  Critirus  (Cambridge,  1904),  I  began 
an  investigation  into  the  rctacion  of  the  printed  texts  of  the  Old 
Testament  Pcshilta  to  the  original  authorities  as  far  as  they  were 
accessible  to  nic.  The  results  obtained  were  somewhat  (liflTcrcnt  in 
the  two  cases.  In  the  books  of  Chronicles,  the  Bible  printed  at  Umii 
the  American  missionaries  in  1852  (cited  below  as  IT)  proved 
be  substantially  no  better  than  the  Bible  printed  in  London  by 
luel  Lee  in  1823  {cited  below  as  Z).  It  was  otherwise  with  the 
Psalter.  The  Amencan  text  of  the  Tsahns  is  superior  to  Lee's,  what- 
e^xr  early  authorities,  Ncstoriao  or  Jacobite,  be  taken  as  a  standard 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


23T 


of  excellence.     Even  judged  as  a  Jacobite  lext,  Lee's  is  bad;  the 

posthumous  work  of  the  great  Putchman  van  Erpc  (Erpenius)  given 

to  the  world  in  1625  is  a  far  better  representative  of  the  Western  text. 

^P     The  inferiority  of  the  text  of  Chronicles  in  f/^  admits  of  an  easy  ex* 

^^laoation.   The  Neslorians  did  not  receive  Chronicles  into  their  Canon, 

and  MSS  containing  this  hook  were  ^-anting  at  Umii.    The  Americans 

therefore     took     Chronicles     (together    with     Ezra     and     Neheniiah, 

^_  I  believe)  from  some  printed  text,  Lee's  or  the  Polyglot,  and  reissued 

^Kt  with  a  few  corrections  of  small  importance.    The  Ncstorian  MS 

at   Berlin,  'Sachaugo',  which  contains  1,2,3  Maccabees,  Chronicles, 

Eira-Nehemiah,  &c.,  written   in  the  seventeenth  century,  is  doubtless 

^■derived  ultimately  from  Jacobite  ancestors. 

^  The  fact,  however,  that  the  quality  of  the  text  of  U  varies  so  greatly 
from  the  Psalter  to  the  Rooks  uf  Chronicles  raises  our  curiosity  as  to 
the  quality  of  the  text  in  other  books,  and  though  L  was  found  wanting 
in  both  cases,  it  is  interesting  to  learn  whether  more  or  less  trust 
is  to  be  given  to  it  in  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  No  doubt 
the  edition  of  the  Peshitta  which  is  promised  by  two  German  scholars, 
Drs  Brockelmann  and  Jacob,  will  one  day  satisfy  our  enquiries,  but 
H^  the  meantime  it  may  be  worth  while  to  record  the  results  of 
^^  partial  and  tentative  examination  of  the  text  of  z  Kings.  The 
choice  of  this  book  was  made  independently  of  critical  reasons  con- 
nected with  the  Syriac  Old  Testament. 

I  The  three  following  MSS  have  been  used  for  the  present  enquiry ; — 
(«)  The  Codex  Ambrosianus,  published  in  facsimile  by  Dr  Ccriani, 
lilan,  T876-1883  <cited  as  'A').    6th  or  yth  century. 
{P)  The  Buchanan  Bible  (Gimb.  Univ.  Library,  Co.  i.  i,  2,  cited 
ere  as  *  B ').    Jacobite,  1 2th  century. 

(<*)  Camb.  Univ.  Library,  Add.  1964.     Nestorian,  15th  century 
^  (dted  as  'N'). 

I  It  may  be  remarked  that  though  both  A  and  B  are  Jacobite,  there 
is  good  reason  for  believing  that  they  are  independent  authorities. 
Certainly  B  varies  from  A  considerably  both  in  the  Psalter  and  in 
Chronicles.  !n  2  Kings  the  headings  used  in  the  two  MSS  differ 
from  one  another;  so  ii  i ;  18;  xiii  13. 

I  have  also  used  the  Scholia  of  Barhebraeus  {ed.  A.  Morgenstern, 
Berlin,  1895,  cited  as  'bH^),  and  the  Homilies  of  Aphrahat  (ed. 
W.Wright,  IjjncJon,  r86g).  The  Syro-Hexaplar  (S)  and  the  Massoretic 
Hebrew  (^ij)  are  also  compared.  In  the  case  of  S  some  discrimination 
is  needed,  and  I  have  sometimes  stated  its  testimony  within  brackets  as 
doubtful  Where  the  general  wording  of  a  verse  differs  considerably 
between  &  and  the  Peshitta,  it  is  very  diCGcult  to  decide  whether 


1 


222        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

coincidence  in  a  single  word,  or  even  in  a  short  clause,  is  significant,  ■■ 
unless  the  expression  in  question  is  an  unusual  one. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  result  of  a  comparison  of  the  printed 
text  or  texts  with  the  three  MSS  enumerated  above  lies  in  the  relatively 
large  number  of  places  in  which  the  text  oX  LU,  or  at  least  of  Z,  agrees 
with  ?^,  often  with  '^%,  where  the  MSS  on  the  contrary  shew  dis- 
agreement. Plainly  the  later  MSS  on  which  L  (and  to  a  certain  extent 
U  also)  depends  have  been  corrupted  from  2,  or  in  some  cases  from  ^ 
through  some  other  channel  than  2.  The  following  passages  should 
be  consulted :  (a)  cases  in  which  L  agrees  with  ^  or  with  )^2,  though 
codices  ABN  disagree ;  ii  14 ;  [iii  7  ter\ ;  iii  2 1 ;  iv  5  ;  iv  39 ;  vi  1 2 
bis\  33;  [cf.  vii  6  \a\  ILi^];  viii  z;  14;  29  (order  of  the  words): 
ix  25  *«;  26;  34;  X4;  9;  [16];  24;  31;  33.  (*)  cases  in  which 
L  U  agree  with  ft  or  with  ftS,  though  codices  ABN  disagree  :  [i  3  ; 
ii  14];  iii  7;  17;  iv4;  .  .  .X  14J  &c. 

The  cases  in  which  L  differs  from  ffi  and  also  from  ABN  are  very 
few;  vi  15  is  perhaps  a  very  late  corruption. 

The  most  curious  reading  (implying  perhaps  the  influence  of  some 
Midrash)  I  have  found  occurs  in  iv  4  where,  according  to  codd.  ABN, 
Elisha  says  to  the  widow,  P<mr  into  all  these  vessels  water.  True,  the 
collocation  \laa  )j)je  arouses  the  suspicion  that  the  words  are  an 
instance  of  dittography,  but  the  turn  is  quite  Midrashic  The  new 
reading,  and  there  was  not  anything  in  the  cauldron  (iv  41),  puts  quite 
a  different  complexion  on  the  narrative.  It  is  possible  that  the 
translators  of  the  Peshitta  regarded  w.  38-41  not  as  the  account  of 
a  separate  miracle  but  simply  as  the  introduction  to  the  account  of  the 
miracle  given  in  w.  42-44. 

The  following  collations  are  not  intended  to  be  complete,  even  for 
3  Kings  i-xiii ;  they  are  meant  to  be  merely  illustrative. 

i    3.    yOt^.ttmo  Z  =  B 

yo^AOttD  (ut  Jud,  iii  23)     U=     AN    2 
3.  Ato  [po«]  LU    ft 

l«w  ABN 
9.  o^mIo  Z  =     BN 

Molo  Cr=     A     ft 

ii  I.  Jooio  LU^^     B 

pr.  U^tt  o>a^a»     AN 
Xl?  Z 

o^llo  U=     ABN     & 
8.  et^A-^aa:^  LU  [)Utaik  JS] 

«A^^  ABN 


223 

'*•  om.  ABl' 

otn.  A. 

om.  «^  ^ 

'^-  ^"^"^  om.  U     ^P^" 

"^  ^1    15  [S  -^  ^ 


224         'THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

5.  It-Io  L    ^Z 

pr.  fc.:^j».o  (7=     ABN 

6.  ^;^  uo?  (sine  add)  Z    ?!?  [5  m^  o^mIo] 

add  oust  U-     ABN 
8.  \U  L 

lUo  C'=     ABN    ^ 
la  ^bo  (sine  add)  L    )9 

add  a»^   U^     ABN     [S  cik  ,aJki] 

22.    I-^It    -£ 

i^?  (7=     ABN 
84.  VdL  Z£r=     BN     S 

UL     A 
27.  )»o^  (sine  add)  LU    ^% 

add  JLaoidf  ABN 
.^a-  ZC^=     ABN 

•.u-^to?  Aph"* 
29.   )lA^  X 

)ta^  CA=     ABN     S 
31.  li^cw  Z=     Brtd     J^ 

«;^a-   C/=     AN 
Do  Z 

Vato  [?7om.  0]=     ABN 
33.  iflBi^A  L    [N  /  sup  ras]  [n 

ctfpfc^ia   £/*=     A     )9 

39.  lLA«.f  Z    il? 

JLa^   £?■=     AB^WN     % 

41.  «^f  [^f^]  LU    "^     \_^  \\t.M^  Ib-^k-ao] 

om.  A<Af     ABN 

42.  OM  LU=     BN    1$ 

0901     A     £ 

V  3.  ^fjOAsf  ZC^    £ 

^i-w%  ft^It  ABN 
If-  ^jo  Z 

Jf.^   C/-=     ABN 
6.  ^aoij  ylo^  Z  {U  e<*AJ^]     [S  =  C^j 
^y>mS   ^  ABN 

7-  ui?  Z 

U>?   C=     ABN     bH 
UtUo  ABN 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  325 

13.  e^aole  Z     [Z  cum  ast.] 

^ijclo   £/=ABN 
ta^l?  Z 

j-^*^   Cr=     ABN 
Mflto  (sine  add)  ZC/    SS 

add  Uaoi  ^a^o  yOei!^A»  '•.dfiLA.e  ABN 

14.  loiXit  U^r  (»J>a^b^  7«?  ZC^    19  [£  ^^A-^If  Ibs^^  y/] 

om.  ABN 
17.  fli^  tJoto  Z 

om.  0.^   C/=     ABN     £ 
UuA^  (sine  add]  LC/    ^& 

add  wetetO'-^A  ABN 
31.  J&sasue  Z     ^S 

eiU^j^   C/=     ABN 
33.  Mote^a^  Z 

^mo-wTSn    27=     ABN 
weiajo^  ZC^    ^S 

0.-WV   ABN    bH 

24.  oL|e  LU 

\l\e  ABN     bH     }$£ 
j*a^?  U^  Z 

om.  jko^j   C^=     ABN     i^S 

25.  01^  woio  (2<>)  Z 

om.  oCi.   ;/=     ABN 

26.  oC^  (sine  add)  ZC/" 

add  >fc*-^('    ABN 
^  U0LO  Z 

dm.  ^  27=     ABN 

Vi  i.  o»a  (sine  add)  Z     [i9S] 

add  Utoi  C/=s     ABN 
3.  yOMja^  Z 

om.  C'=     ABN    ft 
Is.  uelo  Z     ft% 

Ui.6  27=     ABN 
«>«iOt^^  (sine  add)  Z     ftS 
add  ijote  (/=    ABN 
"tiA*^^  (sine  add)  Z 

add  00.  &*=     ABN 
X.tfc«L.U?  Z[C/]    »£ 
V.wv-It    AB[N] 
VOL.  VI,  Q 


226         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

15.  fMm  L 

fy»Q  U=    ABN    )95S 

17.  ,^«Ai^^  (1*0)  zi/   ^ 

add  l^r  ABN    bH    £ 

18.  ol^^o  L=     A    )9£ 

k^o  27=     BN 
L 
U^    ABN    bH    S 
20.  eV  X  [*  /.  B 

qX^  £^=    an    S 
33.  )Ub>Aje  Z 

JUiii,  £^=     ABN 

om.   U^     ABN 
29.  Ubo^  Z     [£] 

U>a^   C/'s     ABN 
32.  la^  v>  LU=     ABN     [?»S] 

loJk.  v>  Aph** 

ni  I.  (•(naIa  Z 

U:^i&»  £/'=     ABN     bH 

Juo^  2/=     ABN    bH«> 
4.  t^*.  Xlli  Z 

om.  ^  27=     ABN 

om.  27=    ABN 
6.  Uaf  ,  .  Ual  Z     99 

tr.  verba  27=     ABN 

U»  [)U]  z   i& 

|x^  U=     ABN 
.  .  |-f-»?  .  .  l-k^?  Z     [»«] 
tr,  verba  U=     ABN 

8.  W^LU    ^\%\iA-^ 
)ia^  ABN 

9.  »OMf   Z 

»oaj;  27=     ABN 

10.  %.0  Ho  Z 
^^o  27=     ABN     ft 

11.  QAlAO    Z 

oij>o  27=    ABN    [ft  ?.».] 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  227 


13.   JlAfJAA   L 

Ita^a   U=     ABN 

13.  laoAw  L 

%m  U=    ABN 

14.  oju.  o^kf  .  .  »^e  L  \_U^     #  [cf.  JS] 

om.  ABN 

15.  )b<^o  JjUd  Z 

tr.  subst  U=    ABN 

16.  uV><B^  L 

}^^ —  £/*=     ABN 

17.  !*:<>.  Z 

)f>i^    C^=     ABN 

•duof  Z 

aS  U^^f  £/'=     ABN 

18.     «^]^a«B)i9     Z 

KNm->  27=     ABN 
^?V  Z 

^fW   f7=     ABN 
19.  )wi^  Z 

I«u^  C7=     ABN 
3o.  «»^  Joeio  Z2/    99  [£  cum  ast] 

om.  M^  ABN 

viii  3.  MiwAO  Z    99  [5] 

gtUo  yiao  27^     ABN 

6.  e»:^  A«MO  ZI7    ^% 

)u>o  (sine  e»^}    ABN 

pr.  :^  ABN 

7.  OmOmO  Z 

mokuomO  C^=     ABN 

8.  Mfoiiaa  Ijm  Z 

tr.  verba  ?7=     ABN 

9.  tikfeikao  \im  L 

tr.  verba  £/■=     ABN 

14.  WO^    (3<Io)      Z      ?9S 

pr.  Ua«  £?■=     ABN 

15.  AAJ  (sine  add)  Z2/    ftS 

addV-lj-    ABN    bH 


Qa 


c»:kAjo  U=    ABN    bH 


2a8         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

i8.  |U.f«U  L 

U»oU  U^     ABN     99S 
19.  MWttitN  LU    [iS] 

"S:^  ABN    99 

31.  |tf  ^o  Z2/    [S] 

««o  ABN 

)k.^£^a  e;--    ABN 
U»e  ABN    bH 
ji»a«  ABN 

dw/  v>  U=     ABN 

«b^boe  27=     ABN 
^ta«  i»  LU    99  [2] 

om.  ABN 
V^»^U  Z    ?95^ 

ad  fin.  ver.  27=     ABN 

ix  3.  b^oa  Z 

lU.^  C^=     ABN 
7.  jwjLIo  Z27=     AN     ?9 

^lU  B     [£  •^Ue] 
16.  ^»a«X  (sine  add)  LU    ^%    [+.»-/  *»  AN] 
add  V^»JmU  ]e«  <»'^r     ABN 

32.  )w  Z     £ 

.omJU  27=     ABN 
oCk  ^to  Z     [W[ 

add  08M  C''-     ABN    [S  om.  «:^] 

35.  ^lo  \,}  L    ^S> 

post  ^o«  27=     ABN 
^4«tafe  Z 

^tafo   27=     ABN 
JLiAX>  Z    ^Z 

\jA^^   U=.     ABN 

36.  |»i^?  (sine  add)  Z     i^^ 

add  \^^^iu}  LoAj)   oiLdLw>A   w«to|fi<ko    U-- 
[B  MO».fjbe]  N 
34.  -V-.U  ^^^  Z    [WS  '^io] 

Jb'.AA^e  .m  'fcS'ftS,   U=.     ABN 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES  229 

X  I.  ^baoAS  (sine  add)  LU    ^% 

add  yO«t^  oo«  ^tJ0  Ifc^iAf  Usiole  ABN 

om.  ABN 
2.  "-^'""'^  L 

V>^%  \%^:^M=»  V=     ABN 

4.  Q^»te  (sine  add)  LU    ^% 

add  ]u^  ABN 
^  (sine  add)  L    »  [S]     [U  ^  c^} 
add  o.^.^*,  jO  U^    ABN 

5.  ..J^e  Z  =     A    9r 

a..:kAO  U=.     BN     5S 
f,jee  Z     [?$] 

'^  (sine  o)  C=     ABN 

6.  Us)  Z 

t,^   C/^=     ABN 

om.   £;■=     ABN 

XO.   ^fJD  'S^   Z 

"Vs  ^  ABN     \U  f^  '^a  ^] 
II. -^  L 

'^Ai*.   U^     ABN 

14.  *i^  i-a?  LU    [»]  [S  ,*^  i-»j] 

om.  ABN 

vfi  t»  c^=   ABN  a 

MAStlo   Z      ?9 

ooUio  £/■=     ABN     % 
17.  t^l^l?  Z     99  [i&  oAaU-it] 
,^^^\\   U=     ABN 
Ua:^  L 

01&...AA  £^=     ABN 
.a^^  Z 

Ai^If  27=     ABN 
i8-  d»^  Z 

n.S'tS    £/■=     ABN 
19.  woiesaeas  *  .  mmom^A  Z     |tp 
tr.  verba  «/=     ABN 
ij  Z  (per  errorem) 
ouei  U=     ABN 


230         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDII 


90.  e»^>a  Iaia  L 

UiA  -'^*^    U=     vVBN 
sj.  UoA^  .  .  .  »M^  LU 

om.  ABN 
34.  f»A\  L 

add  o^   i/=     ABN     » 
lA^  ^  (sine  add)  L    ^  [S] 
add  UU  %^  U=    ABN 

iLe  U=>f     ABN 

•Aoaj  (gine  add)  Z     )9 

add  yoeu.30  £/=     ABN    [S  ram  obd^ 
37.  [U^i^ae]  fcJla^  Z 

W»  £/=     ABN 
19.  mwoo.^  ^  L    [£] 

wo.6a»i..iA   6^=     ABN     [79] 
X^L    % 

ll^t  i7=     ABN 
jit  ib^Ata*  (sine  add)  Z    99 

add  ^  i^  e/^=    ABH    [£] 
33.  wwtlwi.  Z     j& 

mw^  ^   U-      A[B]  N    [^o  B] 

JUf  l^.ft4P  £^=     ABN     [S  cum  obel-] 

xi  a.  «t— ^o  (j-So)  Z£^    S 
«.fc^to  ABN 
4.  <«kt«a*  (sine  add)  L    99 

Aild  li^  £/=     ABN    % 
Uu*f  <ib.«A^  (sine  add)  L    % 


add  Uuet  «iV.^->  y^}  «bk»|e  £/: 


ABN 


S,  »*4Bta»lte  LU^     N     £ 
MaaSaSMO      A 

It,  L^  «i*«u  ZC^ 

fcik.tf  l.^A     ABH 

.^AAl^^la  »a&-M»«    f/=      [A -SI]  BN 

1^  ^  f*  zr 

om.  ^  ABN 
?  Z 

Vm    ABN 


C 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES  23^ 

i6.  ai«U  Z  =     N     i9 
^Le   U=     AB 

17.  -^k^a*  (sine  add)  LU    i^ 

add  ij«a  ABN 
|n\^N  LU    »[S] 

om.  ABN 
(jco^  U^^  b.^0  L    ft  [JS] 

Ul^o  Ulkao  b^r  e^^     ABN 

18.  ytUttl^e  Z 

^]h..x^e  £/-=:     ABN     % 

19.  o^^o  Z  =     N     192 

%:ke  27=     AB 

xii  4  Uirtaft  L 

Ua^oa:^  &*=     ABN 

10.  M^af  (sine  add)  L    ft£ 

add  «^  U^     ABN 

11.  iaaiA  Z 

U^a:^  £/=     ABN 

12.  JUltVo  Z 

J1a*(JJIo  [i7]  =     AB  [N  om.  *] 

13.  )j)jeo  L 

\j\x  ol  U^     ABN 

14.  eik^?  UtA  ZC^    ft 

eii^^A  (tantum)     ABN 
18.  U?aA  yeo»:M  Z27    ftS 
om.  yOo»^A  ABN 
».i0.1.Io  I^l/=     AN     ft 
u^mLIo  B 
31.  talo*  Z 

;dfcu   ;;'=     ABN    bH    ftfi 
fcJk.aft»  Z27    ft 

fc.\w   ABN    Z 

MOlOiAilO    Z£^      ft£ 

(^Llo  ABN 
xiii  3.  *»9toit^  ^]^  Z    ft 

*.eiOe4^    U~      ABN 

5.  Uetft  "^luA*))  Z    ft  [£  ^.  r.] 

tr.  verba  £7=     ABN 

6.  u^M  Z  =     A 

aa^ai  U=     BN 


232         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

7.  sa^o  LU    WS 

^uBj^o  ABN 
21.  (fin.)  -^A^/  jii^  i  =     B  [Ueest  £7=  ^ 

\\^uA  )la.^aA  Aol    A 

In  conclusion  I  may  perhaps  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  *" 
interesting  Lucianic  (perhaps  Midrasbic)  reading  of  ii  14  is  found  in  *^ 
Syro-Hexaplar ;— '  And  he  took  the  cloak  of  Elijah  which  fell  upon  t"** 
and  smote  the  waters  and  they  were  not  dwided,  and  he  said,  ^\^le^^^  * 
the  IxiRO  the  God  of  Ehjah,  d^w?  And  he  smote  the  waters,  »-* 
they  were  divided  hither  and  thither,  and  Ehsha  went  orer.*  T"^^ 
words  in  italics  are  found  also  in  some  texts  of  the  Latin  Vulgate. 

W.  Emkky  Barnes.     -*- 


RHYTHM    rN   THE  BOOK  OF  WISDOM. 

In  the  first  edition  of  his  Grammatik  d*s  NeutestamtntHchin  Gnr»''^\ 
rAtsek  (J  8  J,  3)  Professor  Blass  remarked  on  the  occurrence  of  fragment^  ^^{ 
of  verse  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     So  frequent  arc  they  tha  ^^ 
he  was  disposed  to  think  that  they  were  not  the  result  of  pure  accident.-*      . 
Since  that  edition  appeared  he  has  discovered  a  rhythmical  principW:!^^  *. 
which  runs  through  the  whole  Epistle.     This  principle  is  desciibctrf--^' 
in  the  second  edition  of  his  Gramma/ii  as  follows.     *  If  the  fragment 
of  vene',  he  says,  'are  not  purely  fortuitous,  at  any  rate  they  are  noc^" 
the  essential  point.    This  consists  tather  in  a  mutual  assimilation  of^- 
beginnings  and  endings  of  sentences  and  clauses  nmning  through  th 
Epistle.    EtKling  may  correspond  to  ending  and  beginning  to  beginning, 
also  ending  to  beginning,  especially  if  contiguous.      Rhythm  of  this 
kind  must  have  been  tatight  in  the  rhetorical  schools  of  Greece  and 
Rome  of  the  time,  and  the  author  of  this  Epistle  must  have  passed 
through  such  a  scbo(^'    To  take  a  single  instance,  in  the  openbig 
sentence  we  have  a  clause  ending  with  (nrpaVu*  &  ▼«««  wpa^jnx 
followed   by  a  clause  ending  with  (iXaX^)tnv  ^ylf  ir  vi^   L&  twice 

^ u ,  the  omission  of  the  definite  article  before  vi^  being  due 

to  metrical  ooosideraiions.    The  subject  has  been  worked  out  in  detail 
by  Professor  Blass  elsewhere '. 

In  view  of  the  numy  points  of  resemblance,  especially  in  matters 

*  !■  naAy.  StteJkm  aWJCnttlM,  1901,  p|i.  410-61,  •l>ie  rhjdiabc^  Coaip». 
iMm  4m  tfclxfcrtricfci ',  wbcrc  a  aOrfldns  akntraboa  ben  Ckcro  is  qmlad. 
CX  H«ri«.  Mr  mMt  Kmmtf^vsm.  Leifii^.  |S(8,  Bd.  U,  ArnUa^  U,    fiber  «« 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES  233 

^^  Style,  between  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Book  of  Wisdom, 
•^oth  books  being  pieces  of  highly  artistic  prose,  it  was  not  surprising 
**^  find  that  the  same  rhythmical  principle  holds  good  for  the  apocryphal 
"Ook.  The  book  of  Wisdom,  as  has  often  been  pointed  out,  is  replete 
^th  figures  of  speech.  Instances  of  chiasmus,  paronomasia,  alliteration, 
^^alance  of  clauses,  and  the  like  abound.  But  the  existence  of  the 
Rhythmical  feature  in  question  appears,  so  far  as  the  present  writer 
Is  aware,  to  have  hitherto  escaped  notice. 

The  assimilation  in  scansion  in  this  book  is  seen  chiefty  in  the  termi- 
nations of  the  trrixoi.  Assimilation  in  the  openings,  though  not  wanting, 
IS  not  nearly  so  frequent.  The  instances  of  assimilation  between  the 
dding  of  one  clause  and  the  beginning  of  the  next  noted  by  the  present 
^rriter  are,  apart  from  the  last  chapter,  comparatively  few. 

The  attempt  to  assimilate  the  endings  of  the  ortxot  runs  through 
the  whole  book,  but  is  much  more  evident  towards  the  close,  where 
tlie  writer  abandons  the  more  Hebraic  manner  of  the  early  chapters 
and  gives  ft-ee  play  to  his  own  genius*.  Out  of  upwards  of  eighty 
oases  noted  of  pairs  (triplets)  of  trrixot  with  corresponding  endings,  thirty 
Occur  in  the  last  three  chapters.  In  the  earlier  p£^  of  the  wQrk  tbe 
a.'verage  is  about  four  pairs  to  a  chapter. 
Instances  in  the  first  chapter  are : — 

14  .  .  .<KaTaxp«)<(»a/ia/>Tw)  _^_^_ 
.  .  .  ^cv^ot  S6X0V  J 

15  ...  {\oy)urfiMV  ifrwinav  ■ 

.  .  .  (hr(X.$)ovtnf^  a£ucCai   > <-f  w  y  — 

1  6  •  •  •  yop  TTvnfAa  votpiia      f 

18  •  •  •  a&iK  ovSctf  firj  XaffTg         )  _ 

.  .  .  (av)Tov  ikty^ova-'  ^  8uetj  J 
i  14  ...  (<t>dp)fiaKOv  dUepov     ^  j.  v*./ww- 

rt  Y»si 


.  .  .  {fituTi)Xtov  [so  A]  hrl  y^s- 
1  16  ...  lTaKri(rav 

.  .  .  (W«v)to  vpof 
.  .  .  (jit)piSm 


>       .        1 
irpos  avTcJv  >  w  —  — 

cTvtu  j 


Also  in  i  15, 16,  if  we  read  ir/xK7-«ito\«o-oTo  with  K*,  substituting  Axnfi^ 
*^x  JitnficK  for  the  sake  of  the  sense,  we  get 


{8iKCuo)<rvvjj  yap  &6dvaTK  itmy  \      _ 
.  .  .  XoyoK  vpotrtKoXicrai'  a^tjv  J 


It  is  needless  to  go  through  the  whole  book  pointing  out  similar 
iostances :  the  existence  of  the  principle  may  easily  be  verified.    One 

*  See  Fairar  in  the  Sp*aktt's  Comm.,  Apocrypha,  voL  i  p.  405. 


234         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


17 
17,  18 


xvii  18,  19 

«9 
so 
xviii  I 


other  passage  must  suffice.    On  p.  638  (voL  it)  of  Dr  Swete's  tot  v* 
have  the  following : — 

XVil  16  ...  {i)K€i  Karawamov  \ 
•  (f^»c)r^  KaraicXcurdcts  J 
.  iyV  TW  ^  TCM^^    \ 

.  (t^^tytv  AvayKtfv    \^^ 

.  (s'av}rcs  ISidi/a-av  J 

with  which  we  should  perhaps  join  the  next  orfxoc  '• 

■  *  (5)X«  tv/wXiTS 

.  .  (Ka)Ta/»Tro/to'<i>v  irtrpoiv 
.  '  {o.)Bfiaprirot       ) 

•  .    \&7j)pUl>V   ^4llV1J  ) 

.  .  (Ka)rfAa^7rcT0  i^tori  1       _^         _  y 
.  .  (Twet^rro  Ipyoi^         ) 
.  .  (da'()oi5  irov  /irytorov  ^  ^ws  1  __ 
.  .  jiop^n^  Si  ov;^  opwvm  J 

Moreover  xvii  21*  and  210  balance  each  other: 

.  .  .  {hri)TaTO  fiaptia  vv( 
■  .  .  ^apvTtpoi  (Txorovc 


!(w  —  w)  w  —  w  — 


^  O  k>*J  — W"" 


and  21*  (fucuv  TOW  ^'AXovros  avrous  Stoi^etrlScu  o-k^tow)  May  be  a 
Christian  interpolation.  In  any  case  the  three  <mxoi  in  verse  21  end 
with  an  iambic,  and  all  the  frrCxot  in  the  page  (from  xvii  16  to  xviii  4)  with 
the  exception  of  the  two  last '  fall  into  couplets  or  triplets  having  at 
least  the  two  final  syllables  of  their  component  crrtxot  identical  in 
scansion. 

The  frequent  occurrence  of  the  phenomenon,  especially  in  the  closii^ 
chapters,  and  the  length  to  which  the  agreement  is  sometimes  carried 
make  it  impossible  to  attribute  it  to  accident.  The  improbability  of 
a  fortuitous  origin  increases  with  the  number  of  corresponding  syllables. 
Couplets  with  seven  or  eight  syllables  of  equal  scansion  are  fairly  common. 
An  instance  with  eleven  syllables  is : — 

VUI  3  ...  (So)^a^»  truuSiiMro'  tfeoO  ^yovcra    \  ^, 

,  n        ,         ,    ,  ,    ,    ( «-' w— *.*— « 

.  .  .  iravru>y  ocmron^s  ijyaTnja-a'  avnqv  J 

*  Here  the  loss  is  compensated  by  the  assimilation  of  the  ending  of  verse  3 
Qti'irtt)at  wap4axn  with  the  opening  of  the  two  following  crix^  ■  ^«>*  l^»  .  .|  •* 
MriMcA<fff(roM)  ,  .  (—  w  —  — ), 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


235 


1 

>    U  —  \J   —   \J\J\^i^\^^ 


With  nine  syllables  we  have  j— 

ix  16  ...  [uJ)Xi;  tiKaZnutv  ra'  cttl  yns     ] 

...  y(<pJ<T<v  n'puTxofuv  fum  irovov  J 

Other  instances  where  the  assimilation  is  well  sustained  are  xi  14"  with 
,Z^  oj^eleven  syllables;  possibly  14*'  and  i4<=  formed  a  single  tm'xoe)  and 
X-i-^  19  (ten  syllables)  if  leaXiov,  a  form  for  which  there  is  authority  in 
CS-reek  literature,  be  read  : — 

.  .  .  Kfxtrawri  ^ovXafutvtK  Afiiam. 

,  .  .  OfJUHOTTfT    «rt  TO  liaX{\)u>V 

In  some  cases  it  looks  as  if  alternafe  crrixpi  had  been  made  to 
C^MTrespond :  see  iv  19  {AytHavnxjv  trpijvtU  —  (av)Tou?  /«  BtfuXiiay  — 
%JlpKfii)<Ti»^^(n^at — (i)cro»Ttu  iv  a&vrg  and  xviii  I7f.  /w»*  iwi/nuv— («£eTo)« 

The   most   frequert   ending   for  couplets  is   that   of  a   hexameter 

t-^^v^*- .    Next  conies  C=^)  — >-• ,  and  almost  as  frequent  is  the 

termination  with  •^ ,  which  also,  it  may  be  noted,  is  found  seven 

titx&es  in  the  opening  verses  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (Blass; 
C^^namm.*  $  82,  3).  The  tendency  to  accumulate  short  syllables  is 
■loticcablc,  c.  g.  in  iii  19  with  i?  i  and  xiv  rg  (quoted  above).  Nordcn 
C<5?*.  a'f.)  notes  that  this  tendency  was  characteristic  of  the  later  artistic 
P'Osc :  Demosthenes  avoided  the  sequence  of  more  than  two  short 
syUiibles. 

In  the  assimilation  in  the  openings  of  clauses — which,  as  was  stated, 
**  less  frequent  than  in  their  terminations — the  iambic  metre  is  the 
■^odcl  usually  followed.  Instances  occur  in  vi  10,  vi  17  (|  x  4,  6,  13, 
^^^  5  f.  Instances  in  the  last  chapter  of  assimiblion  between  termina- 
**Oti  and  opening  are  xix  6  -axBufo-tv  afiXafitU,  with  7  >j  rijr  ^^aptf^^akip' 
'  •  -,  7»  and  7  '',  10 1*  and  10 «,  11  •  and  11  \  17*^  and  r5». 

In  one  case  the  writer  nearly  succeeds  in  can7ing  the  assimilation 
through  the  whole  of  two  lines  from  beginning  to  end : — 

^H'3CT  7  Kal  yap  KfftafLfvs  avaXjiv  yrjv  6ki\^uiV  €Trt/uix$av 

irXAatiti.  vpot  JTnj  \pttTiav  t^^cLv  iv  cnuTTut', 

^f  the  passage  is  divided  as  marked,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  forms  three 
rperfcct  anapaestic  lines. 

'  SJ101I  syllables  src  as  a  rule  elided  except  in  words  like  rd :  cp. 
jnriii  II     ,  .  &na  U^TwiTf}  KoXaaOfit      -i 

.  .  Biurl^ti  tA  <iirA  wAvx*"    Jwv  —  w  —  *-<— ^ 


1 


AfuAviiahiy  Si  mArju  . .  . 


(Aaacrcontic  metre). 


I 


agS        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

The  rhythmical  principle  considered  in  this  paper  has  at  least  a» 
practical  use  for  the  critic.    It  affords  a  valuable  criterion  as  to  the 
true  text  in  cases  of  doubt.    Thus,  as  was  said  above,  the  speQinK 
paxj-Ouw  which  A  adopts  in  i  14  is  probably  to  be  preferred  to  PaaOuaef 
of  B  K-     Similarly  in  iii  1 1  the  spelling  of  B  *  K  diwi^rM  (for  i^amjin^  is 
explained  on  metrical  grounds : — 

.  .  .  ^{ov^cKuv  raXalinapot  \ ^ 

.  .  .  t«u  <M  KOTot  SvwvTini  J 

In  vii  3        (carnreffov  of  B  A  is  to  be  preferred  to  Karcr«ra 

of  K :  ...  (6/UHora)^  KaTtwrov  y^  \ 

.  ,  ,  nwiy  ura  kAouov  / 

The  first  aorist  formation  in  tra  is  especially  common  in  the  IX^ 
in  the  case  of  the  verb  wi'wrw;  the  writer  of  Wisdom  selected  the  secot**' 
aorist,  not  only  because  it  was  the  classical  form,  but  also  became  *' 
suited  the  metre.  In  vii  39  read  Axrriputv  with  A  for  3orpav  of  ^  * 
(cp.  V.  19):— 

.  .  .  {a«}Ti;  thwprtrtfTrip  ^Xtbv     ) 

.  .  .  (u)Ti/>  imrav  Aaripmv  Qitrai ) 

In  z  13  the  scansion  pf  the  second  line  shews  that  the  imperf**^^ 
^KaWXctTrn'  of  A  is  the  right  reading  in  the  first  line.     Metre,  as  '^^^^ 
as  sense,  shews  in  xii  20  that  Suo-cuk  of  K  is  to  be  preferred  to  Scijcrr^'^S^ 
of  B  (a  triplet  ending  with  anapaests).     In  xv  7  quoted  above  li-  shou^ 


be  inserted  with  K  A  C-    In  xviii  16  the  perfect  /ScySijKc  should  probabl 
be  read  for  fitfirJK€i : — 

.  .  .  (^Xijp(i>)crc  Tci  ipovra  Otwarov  1 
.  .  .  (twt*)™,  ^i^iiKt  S*  inl  y7«      / 

It  may  perhaps  be  of  some  service  to  have  traced  another  linl^^ 
between  Wisdom  and  Hebrews.     Of  course,  if,  as  appears  to  be  th^" 
case,  the  practice  which   has  here  been  considered   was  taught   in 
the  rhetorical  schools,  no  inference  can  be  drawn  as  to  identity  of 
authorship.    But  it  is  a  legitimate  inference  that  both  writers  came 
under  the  same  training.     Their  agreement  in  this  respect  can  hardly 
be  explained  by  imitation.    It  would  be  interesting  to  know  at  what 
date  the  practice  first  came  into  vogue.    The  instance  which  Blass 
quotes  from  Cicero  shews    that  it  was  taught  as  early  as  the  first 
century  b.  c. 

H.  St  J.  Thackeray. 

PS. — Since  the  above  note  was  in  type,  the  writer  has  had  the 
advantage  of  receiving  the  comments  of  Professor  B^iss.  While  accept- 
ing the  general  conclusion  as  *  manifest ',  he  points  out  some  errors.  I 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES  237 

kai  rather  flagrant,  in  the  prosody  of  some  passages  quoted,  e.  g.  that 

the  a  in  iBayarot  and  the  I  in  KaX{X)uav  are  always  long.     He  adds  :  *  I 

ifaoald  think  that  any  writer,  who  wrote  in  rhythm,  observed  the  same 

prosodical  rules  :  a  vowel  which  may  be  elided  musf  be  elided,  a  long 

Knrel  (or  diphthong)  before  a  vowel  must  be  shortened.'    This  would 

effect  some  of  the  instances  quoted  above.     '  But ',  he  adds,  '  on  the 

other  hand  the  number  of  correspondences  may  be  increased  almost  in 

ioiportance,  although  I  doubt  whether  rhythms  are  (as  in  other  writers) 

'oiifitutaJ/y  employed.    The  text  is  not  in  a  very  good  condition.' 


NOTE  ON  MATT.  XX  33  AND  MARK  X  40. 

In  the  First  Gospel  our  Lord  is  reported  to  have  said  to  the  sons  of 
Zebedee— 

To  KoSurat  ix  St^uav  ftov  kcu  i^  cvAtvv/uiiy  ovk  2oth'  Ifwv  iowai,  dXX*  ole 
^tfoifuurrai  vira  tov  ffurpov  futv. 

The  parallel  passage  in  the  Second  Gospel  runs — 

tA  Ka0i<rtu  Ik  Sc^v  ftov  ^  i^  cvcuvu/ujv  nix  Strrof  l/ibv  Stn/vai,  dAA'  olc 

Vt.  U.  are  not  important  In  the  former  passage  CDA  &c.  insert 
Totrro  after  Samtu. 

The  familiar  English  of  A.  V.  is — 

'  To  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left  is  not  mine  to  give,  but 
it  shali  be  given  to  them  for  whom  it  is  prepared  of  my  Father.' 

The  rendering  of  St  Mark  is  similar,  with  *  and '  for  ^  aild  with  the 
omission  of  *  of  my  Father '. 

For  this  the  R.V.  of  1881  substitutes  :— 

'To  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left  is  not  mine  to  give,  but  it  is 
for  them  for  whom  it  hath  been  prepared  of  my  Father',  and  so  for 
St  Mark  with  the  same  variation  as  in  A.  V. 

Do  these  translations  convey  the  sense  of  the  original?  The 
importation  of  the  words  in  italics,  it  will  be  observed,  makes  a  material 
change  in  the  force  of  the  sentence.    Why  were  they  introduced? 

*  To  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left  is  not  mine  to  give,  but  for 
whom  it  is  prepared '  is  clumsy  English,  but  intelligible  English.  If  we 
draw  out  the  force  of  the  relative,  and  make  it  contain  the  antecedent, 
as  the  construction  requires,  we  may  render  '  but  to  them  for  whom  it  is 
prepared '. 

Here  the  English,  in  accordance  with  a  very  common  use  of  our  but 
(but  =  be  out),  implies  that  the  privilege  of  sitting  on  the  Lord's  right 
band  and  on  His  left  band  is  His  to  giye»  but  His  to  give  to  none  but 


afi        THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

fit  recipients :  i.  e.  not  His  to  give  save  or  except  to  those  for  whom       ->  k 
is  prepared.     A.  V.  and  R.  V.  on  the  contrary  imply  that  this  privili 
is  not  His  to  give,  but  that,  in  some  way  not  specified,  it  shidl  be 
to,  or  is  reserved  for,  those  for  whom  it  is  prepared. 

For  which  of  these  two  statements  did  the  writers  of  the  Go^>e==^t 
intend  to  make  the  Speaker  responsible?  Did  they  wish  to  desait^^w 
our  Lord  as  here  asserting,  or  as  repudiating,  the  power  to  assign  big —   h 

places  in  His   Kingdom  which  is  claimed  in  Rev.  iii  21?     Is  thei 1 

anything  about  their  Greek  original  text  necessitating  the  interpoIatio^^Hi 
of  an  explanatory  clause  involving  a  change  of  meaning  so  important? 

'Yes',  say  the  translators  and  commentators  represented  by  A.\^^- 
and  R.  V.,    '  there  is.     dXKd  never  equals  *l  /t^ '.      So  in    the   mo^^Ht 
popular  manuals  of  Greek  Testament  exegesis   is  to   be  found  th:-^  * 
solemn   dictum   reverently   propounded :    iAAa   never  =  cl  ^17.       S— ^* 
the  Cambridge  Bible  St  Matthew;  so  the  Cambridge  Bible  St  Mark   — ^J 
the  annotators  in  each  case  supporting  their  position  by  reference  ti^'"* 
Winer  §  566.      Even  the  last  important  commentator  on  St  Marlu    ^ 
Dr  Swete,  apparently  hesitates  to  deviate  from  this  supposed  grammatica^^^ 
orthodoxy. 

But  is  not  this  reputed  unimpeachable  canon  really  arbitrary  anc:^^ 
baseless  ?  So  far  from  iAAa  never  equalling  *l  /<^,  such  a  use  is  U^'J* 
be  found  in  every  age  of  Greek  literature.  It  is  true  that  Blan  in  \as^  ^^ 
Grammar  0/ N,T.  Grtek  ignores  it.   It  is,  however,  enough  to  quote: 

Odjfssey  xxi  70 

0£&'  Ttv  £U^ 

dXX*  ifiJi  u'^CKOt  y^/UK  6iv0<u  T«  yvmiuaL : 

Soph.  O.T.  1331 

*Erai<r«  S*  avraxtift  vty  ovn(  oXA'  ryw  rXa^uir ; 
ArisL  EiA.  Nic  X  5.   10  "HSui  2*  owe  Irrw  oAXa   Tcnmm    n! 

and  last,  but  not  least  in  significance, 

St  Mark  ix  S  ov«M  ov&mt  *\io¥  tUJkA  rov  1<7(rovf  ft6M»,  where  to 
insist  upon  interpolating  a  second  tlSm  would  surely  be  a  puerile 
pedantry.  Even  the  cautious  and  halting  R.V.  so  fat  forgets  itself  as 
here  to  i»eserve  the  familiar  '  save '. 

St  Paul's  oix  ifAt  XtKvryftfr  iXX'  &n  pipvtK  (z  Cor.  ii  5)  Toxf  be 
another  N-T.  example,  but.  if  R.V.  is  here  right,  and  the  antithesis 
is  really  between  J/m  and  I'/uc,  it  cannot  be  adduced. 

The  Greek  then  does  not  seem  to  furnish  any  ground  for  a  **v^^<i% 
u  awkward  as  it  is  erroneous  though,  curiously  enough,  it  was  not  till 
their  latest  issues  that  Liddell  and  Scott  gave  due  prominence  10  an 
enploytDcnt  of  <iAAa  long  recogoixed  and  admitted  by  scholars. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  239 

What  is  the  origin  of  the  gloss  ? 

The  Vulgate  has  '  non  est  meum  dare  Tobis  sed  quibus  pantum  est 
%  Patre  meo '.  Here  the  interpolation  of  vobis  makes  '  sed '  follow 
C^Uurally  rather  than  '  nisi ',  but  does  not  tell  against '  quibus '  standing 
for  *  lis  quibus '  after '  dare  *,  and  so  preserving  the  Saviour  as  the  Gvns, 
In  St  Mark  Wordsworth  and  White  omit '  vobis ',  but  it  was  in  f.,  which 
Bay  have  represented  the  text  corrected  by  Jerome. 

Erasmus  unfortunately  went  astray  with  *  iis  continget  quibus '.  Beza 
objected  to  'continget'  and  introduced  'dabitur',  with  the  remark  that, 
as  it  was  understood  in  Greek,  he  expressed  it  in  Latin.  Of  the  great 
English  Versions^  Wicklif  followed  the  Vu^te : — 

'  To  sit  at  my  ri^t  half  or  left  half  it  is  not  mine  to  jere  to  you,  but 
to  whiche  it  is  made  redi  of  my  fodir.' 

Tyndale  accurately  renders  the  Greek : — 

*  To  syt  on  my  ryght  hond  and  on  my  lyft  hond  is  not  myne  to  gere, 
but  to  them  for  whom  it  is  prepared  of  my  Father.' 

Cranmer  infelicitously  reproduces  the  'continget'  of  Erasmus  :— 

'To  syt  on  my  right  hande  and  on  my  left  is  not  myne  to  geve, 
but  it  shall  chaunce  unto  them  that  it  is  prepared  for  of  my  Father.* 

The  Geneva  Bible  first  shews  the  present  *  it  shall  be  geven  *. 

The  Kheims  Version,  like  Wicklif,  follows  the  Vulgate.  The  error, 
therefore,  appears  to  have  been  imported  into  English  by  Cranmer  and 
the  Genevan  translators  from  the  latin  of  Erasmus  and  Beza. 

Bengel,  at  all  events,  did  not  regard  our  Lord  as  denying  His 
prerogative:  *hac  sive  oppositione  sive  exceptione  (nam  res  eodem 
reddit)  non  negat  lesus  suum  esse  dare  (vide  Apoc.  iii  21)  sed  limitat, 
declaratque  subiectum  cui  daturus  sit  et  tempus  ordineroque '. 

Had  readers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  understood  the  Greek 
in  the  sense  of  the  gloss  of  the  Dutch,  French,  and  English  reformers, 
it  is  easy  to  imagine  what  a  Megiddo  ground  of  controversy  it  might 
have  become,  like  the  famous  Prov.  viii  22  of  the  LXX,  or  John  xiv  aS. 
So  &r  as  my  own  reading  has  gone,  I  do  not  know  of  its  being  ever 
quoted  quite  in  the  sense  of  A.V.  There  is,  indeed,  an  interesting  note 
on  Matt  XX  23  in  St  Basil's  fourth  book  against  Eunomius,  but  St  Basil 
cites  the  verse,  without  a  suspicion  that  any  one  would  regard  it  as  more 
than  a  limitation  of  the  prerc^tive  of  the  Son  to  assign  the  thrones, 
and  only  to  point  the  need  of  active  goodness  on  the  part  of  disciples. 
'  He  is  able  to  give,  though  the  request  be  unjust'  A  similar  hortative 
use  of  the  passage  is  to  be  found  in  the  fifth  Festal  Letter  of  Athanasius, 
§  3,  and  in  the  twenty-seventh  Oration  of  St  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  $  14. 

St  Chrysostom's  treatment  of  the  passage  in  his  eighth  Homily  against 
the  Anomoeans  and  his  .sixty-fifth  Homily  on  St  Matthew  is  curious. 
He  takes  £XAa  to  mean  sed,  not  nisi,  but  the  antithesis  is  between  the 


240         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Lord  who  is  not  a  giver — at  least  not  a  mere  giver — and  the  figfaten  in 
the  battle  of  life,  on  whose  conduct  the  result  depends  : — Acuownr  on 

ovrt  airm  ovrt  toC  mrrpot  iAX'  irtpuiv  rtvSiy.  ,  .  .  run  84  •^Toifimrnu ;  rm 
ixh  tS>v  ipytav  fiwa/uFWC  ytvia^oi  XofLirpois.  Ata  roSro  ouk  ebro' "  Out 
lany  ifiov  8mhtu  aXXa  rov  irarp6t  fwv  ",  Tya  /tii  dtr^ovu'  /hjSJ  Arway  abiir 
^>aii}  rtf  VfKK  rip'  dvTtSocriV  dXXa  xw; ;   "  ovx  imv  iftJw  dAA'  immtr  all 

ifniiuaareu. ".  Theophylact's  comment  on  the  passa^  in  St  Matthew  is 
o£k  loTW  tfioy  Sovvtu  xara  x^P"'  ''^*'  <rTi<l>avov  dXX'  ^  ^rotfuurrcu,  rovrim 
r^  BpafwvTi  tcaX  vuajartim.  On  St  Mark,  where  the  Latin  version  and  the 
punctuation  in  Migne's  edition  indicate  the  editors'  adoption  of  die 
reading  preserved  in  R.V.,  the  Greek  is  ovk  i<my  Ifiov  tov  Sucatbv  xptnu 
ri  Sovy<u  v/w*  koto,  xdpty  t^v  nfiip'  ravn/K,  ob  yip  &y  Sucatoc  eXi/v'  iXXi  f" 
Aytovurdfuvoi^  iKciyoK  ijroifieuTTai  rj  Ttfti)  avn/> 

The  true  sense  of  the  original  is  well  put  by  Bishop  Walsham  H^** 
in  the  S.  P.  C  K.  Commentary,  and  is  admitted  by  Alford  and  by  «*** 
Speaker's  Commentaryi 

Blomfield  JacksoN' 


tHE    ORIGINAL    HOME    OF    CODEX 
CLAROMONTANUS    (DPAUL). 

On  deciding  to  examine  the  character  of  the  text  used  by  Ambro-' 
siaster  as  the  basis  of  his  commentaries  on  the  Pauline  epistles,  I  con-^ 
suited  Mr  F.  C.  Burkitt  about  the  best  way  to  study  it.     On  his  advic^ 
I  collated  first  the  text  found  in  all  the  Pauline  quotations  in  Lucifer 
of  Cagliari  and  the  text  in  Ambrosiaster  with  the  Vulgate;    second, 
the  text  used  by  Cyprian's  TesHmonia  ad  Quirinum  (codex  Lauresha* 
mensis)  in  all  its  quotations  and  that  of  Ambrosiaster  with   the  Latin 
of  Codex  Claromontanus  {d^.    Having,  on  the  completion  of  my  work, 
submitted  the  results  to  Mr  Burkitt,  I  was  advised  to  add  V, '  to  such 
variations  from  the  Vulgate  as  appeared  in  the  first  apparatus,  and 
'vg*  to  those  differences  from  d^  which  were  noted  in  the  second.     He 
kindly  started  this  double  work  for  me  by  noting  several  instances 
of  agreement  and  called  my  attention  to  some  agreements  between 
Lucifer  and  d.^.    I  have  since  noted  that  he  refers  to  this  kinship 
in  his  important  article  in  the  Encyclopedia  Biblica. 

I  make  this  personal  explanation,  because  any  truth  there  may  be 
in  the  theses  about  to  be  propounded  is  ultimately  due  to  Mr  Burkitt's 
advice,  while,  if  the  theories  should  be  decided  to  be  erroneous,  he 
may  be  entirely  absolved  &om  responsibility. 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES  34I 

Briefly,  then,  I  believe,  as  the  result  of  my  complete  investigation 

(a)  The  Latin  of  Codex  Claromontanus  is,  with  the  undernoted 
*^^servation,  a  copy  of  the  same  text  as  Lucifer  of  Cagliari  employed, 
^Od  that  this  bilingual  MS  belonged  originally  to  Sardinia. 

(i)  The  solitary  MS  of  Lucifer  is  a  good  one. 

(c)  The  text  of  </,  can  be  emended  from  Lucifer. 

(d)  Lucifer's  quotations  can  be  emended  from  d,. 

If  I  can  prove  the  truth  of  {a),  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  prove  the 
truth  of  the  other  three  /A^ses. 

It  is  impossible  in  this  place  to  print  my  entire  collations.  They 
are  printed  in  full  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  my  forthcoming  Study  of 
^mdrosiaster  (Texts  and  Studies).  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Latin 
text  of  D  P*"!  has  been  contaminated  with  the  Vulgate  in  the  longer 
l*auline  epistles.  The  other  epistles,  however,  shew  no  such  con- 
tamination. It  looks  as  if  the  copy  from  which  the  Latin  of  Qaro- 
xnontanus  was  made  had  been  so  far  corrected  by  the  Vulgate,  but 
&hat  at  a  certain  point  the  scribe's  patience  had  fortunately  become 
exhausted.  Every  experienced  collator  of  manuscripts  will  have  seen 
cases  where  an  elaborate  scheme  of  alteration  has  been  begun,  only 
to  be  dropped  after  two  or  three  quaternions. 

The  fact  that  Corssen  found  close  points  of  contact  between  d^  and 
the  text  in  Ambrosiaster,  while  he  makes  no  mention  of  Lucifer,  will 
shew  how  stringent  a  test  I  am  emplojring.  The  texts  in  Lucifer  and 
Ambrosiaster  are  contemporary  texts,  removed  from  one  another  by 
the  short  distance  between  Sardinia  and  Rome.  Yet,  the  former  con- 
stantly agrees  with  d^  against  the  latter.  Let  me  take  two  long  passages 
out  of  a  large  number  to  prove  the  truth  of  my  statement  liie  main 
text  is  in  each  case  Vulgate. 

Eph.  iv  7-18  (Lucif  p.  200  ff  von  Hartel) 
tini  cuique  autem  nostrum  data  est  gratia  secundum  mensuram  dona- 
tionis  Christi.  propter  quod  dicit  ascendens  in  altum  captiuam  duxit 
captiuitatem  dedit  dona  hominibus.  quod  autem  ascendit  quid  est 
nisi  quia  et  descendit  primum  in  inferiores  partes  terrae  ?  qui  descendit 
ipse  est  et  qui  ascendit  super  omnes  caelos  ut  impleret  omnia,    et  ipse  5 

I  digtutionis  Ludf  a  domini  nostri  (om  nostri  eodd^)  lesu  omU  Christi  Andtrat 
iscendit  eodtf         4  et]  etiam  Ambnt  om  primum /.hc^ (></,)  :  priaaAmbrsi 

inferiors  Luc^ Ambnt  (  -i<^,)        et  anU  qui  Lua/       5  et  qui]  qui  et  Arnbrtt ;  qui 

*  By  eocU  is  meuit  either  one  or  both  of  the  Bodleian  H5S  of  Ambrosiaster'a 
commentaries,  BodL  756  (saec,  xi),  and  Bodl.  689  (aaec  xii).  By  a  careful  use  of 
them  one  can  elicit  from  them  almost  as  good  a  text  aa  the  ninth-century  HSS 
provide^ 

VOL.  VI.  R 


343         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

dedit  quosdam  quidera  aposTolos  quosdam  autem  prophetas  alios 
euangclistas  alios  autem  pastores  c:  doctorcs  ad  consuminationem  san- 
ctorum in  opus  mini&terii  in  aediBcadonem  corporis  Christi  donee  ocojf' 
ramus  omnes  in  unilatcm  fidci  et  agnitionis  filii  dei  in  uirum  p«rfectun» 

10  in  mensuram  actatis  pkniiudinis  Christi  ut  iam  non  simus  paniuli 
fluctuantc-s  et  circuraferamur  omni  uento  doctrinae  in  nequitia  hominuai 
in  astutia  ad  circumuenlionem  erroris  ueritatcm  autem  facientes  in 
caritate  crescamus  in  illo  per  omnia  qui  est  caput  Christus  ex  quo 
totum  corpus  conjiartum  et  confxum  ptr  omnem  iuncturam  submiw- 

15  straiionis  secundum  operationem  in  mensuram  unius  cuius<;ue  membn 
augnientum  corporis  facit  in  aedificationcm  sui  in  caritate.  hoc  iginir 
dico  et  lestiiicor  in  domino  ut  iam  non  ambuletis  sicut  et  gentcs  ambu- 
lant in  tianiiaic  sensus  sui  tcnebris  obscuratum  habentes  inteUecium 
alicnati  a  uita  dei  per  ignorantiam  quae  est  in  illis  propter  caecitateci 

u  cordis  ipsorutn. 

Tit.  I  5-14  (Lucif  pp.  196,  277  von  Hartel) 

huius  rei  gratia  reliqui  tcCretaeut  ea  quae  desunt  corrigas  tx  constitua* 
per  ciuitates  presbyteros  sicut  et  ego  disposui  tibi  siquis  sine  crimine 
est  unius  uxoris  uir  niios  habens  6deles  non  in  accusatione  hixunae 
aut  non  subdilos  oportet  enim  cpiscopum  sine  crimine  esse  sicut  twi 
5  dispensatorem  non  superbum  non  iracundum  non  uinolentum  ("* 
percussorem  non  turpis  lucri  cupidum  sed  bospitalem  bcnignum  506010" 
iustum  sanctum  continentem  amplectentem  cum  qui  secundum  doc*"- 
nam  est   fidelem  sermonem  ut   potens  sit  cxhortari  in  doctriiu  sa"* 

tetU     tdimjiiatt  Lnti/(  =  d,)  6  quosdam  Lna/(~^d,)      uttcm  d,       qvotd*" 

Luq/Ambnf{  —  d,)         ucvo  Ambrst       7  aia^islroa  AtMAnt  9  uniutc  I«<y 

agnitione  Lucif:  AgnjUonem  Ambnt      ont  Tilii  Lucif        to  con  Um  </, ;  ulu^  M* 
Atnbrst  IE   t\imiiaiiirs]  ncnae  (\.  Amhrst         ts  nmcdiuta  Lua/Ambrtt(^»V 

13  «U)je«mur  WmArif :  Kugcumui  codd  ip^oAmbrst:  jpsum  racU  pero*^ 
eodJ  14  ottt  omnem  Ltidf  i£  ofM  $ccuDdum  cpcrationem  Lueif(,»d^  tti^ 

■pa.TXhLtci/Amhr:H{  —  d,)  ifi  incremcalum  Lucif  Afnbnl  {  —  d^  ud  Amdid 

ilaque  £mo/(=i^}^  :   tcf[o  Ambnt  17  ttstor  Ambrat  non  BBplius /jm^ 

0m  itsa  Ambnl  l8  mentis  suae  Lttetf  Ambrst  f  — ■/,)         om  tcncbris  L^ 

Ambnt{  =  dt)  obacnrali  in  intdkctu  (afias  Insensati)  Lueif  obscunili  Jntdlectu 
ArmbrsI  (■'■d,)  iq  otn  tt  rodd  6Ae  Ambrtl  ftmpter  Antbnt  Ign.  q. e. It 
propter  om  Lutif  alias         \pfaA  Ambnl         propter}  ct  Ambrft  duritiaci  add 

JO  illorara  AmhrsI 

I  d'ccruit  Luti/{-=d,)  2  preabylcrium  Ltta/  (-^,)         om  et  L»iaf{mi^ 

tibi  dispoMui,  Lucif  ("d,'}  Ambnt  ut  sine  crimine  Lurif  (=rf,)  Amtbnt 

3  mulicns  Ambnt  accusallonem  Lurif  (^d^)  4  non  subiecrara  Lueif:  non 
subJectos^:  tnobsequeates  ^mAr^  5  dispenAstorcm  dei  Lucif  pro- 

teruum  Luet/{=df)  Ambrst         uino  dedilum  Ambni  6  turpis  lucri  cupidum] 

tarpilutrum   Lttd/  l-d!,):    tur[na   luer*  adpeteatem  Ambnt  prudentcn 

jimbrst  7  tenaccm  Ambrit         cum]  id  Lw^^-d^)         cius sennoois  Ambrd 

qui]  quod  Ludff^^d^  S  cat  fidem  nerbi  Lmaf:  est  fidelis  ucrbt  d,  ;  fiddis  ex 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES  243 

^  eos  qui  contradicunt  arguere  sunt  enim  multi  etiam  inoboedientes 
^^Qoqui  et  seductores  maxime  qui  de  circumcisione  sunt  quos  oportet  10 
•"edaigui  qui  uniuersas  domos  subuertunt  docentes  quae  non  oportet 
*Urpis  lucri  gratia  [dixit  quidam  ex  illis  proprius  ipsorum  propheta] 
Cretenses  semper  mendaces  malae  bestiae  uentres  pigri  [testimonium 
boc  uerum  est]  quam  ob  causam  increpa  illos  dure  ut  sani  sint  in  iide 

Oon  intendentes  ludaicis  fabulis  et  mandatis  hominum  auersantium  15 

se  a  ueritate  \ 

■^mbrat  Sana  om  Ludf  9  eoa  qui  contradicunt]  contradicentes  Ltmf{^d{i 
■^iMbrst  rvaiazKrc  Ludf  {^ d^  Ambrsl :  se  uincere  eodtf  Ki\»m\  otn  Ambrst : 
et  eodddf  non  subditi  Lucif^^d^  i  non  oboedientes  Ambrst  10  deceptorea 
X.udf  ii  (hi  (bii)  codd)  qui  Atnbrst  ex  circumcisione  sunt  Ludf  ( ■>  </i)  =  ^^"'^  ^^ 
crircnmcisione  ^mArs/  11  eueiiuot  Z.i«i/(x/j)  14  causam]  rem  Z. mo/' 

argue  Ambnt        acriter  Ludf  ( *  d^        simt  codd 

These  passages  were  chosen  as  long  as  possible  and  from  the  shorter 
epistles,  so  that  the  test  might  be  severe.  An  examination  of  the  texts 
and  variants  shews  that  there  is  a  connexion  between  the  texts  used  by 
Lucifer  and  Ambrosiaster,  whatever  the  nature  of  that  connexion  may 
be.  Yet  we  find  that  rf,  hardly  ever  agrees  with  Ambrosiaster  against 
Lucifer.    The  texts  used  by  Lucifer  and  j/,  are  the  same  text.. 

Sardinia  had  been  taken  by  the  Romans  from  the  Carthaginians  in 
238  B.  c. ;  so  that  in  Lucifer^s  time  the  country  had  been  in  the 
occupation  of  the  Romans  for  six  centuries.  The  island  must  have 
been  thoroughly  Romanized,  and  even  after  the  fall  of  the  Western 
Empire  the  speech  of  the  people  continued  Latin.  Sardinia  has  never 
played  a  large  part  in  the  history  of  Europe,  and  has  been  more  or  less 
isolated  from  the  Continent.  The  version  used  by  Lucifer  probably 
continued  in  use  in  Cagliari  long  after  Lucifer's  death. 

But  in  the  sixth  century,  actually  533,  Sardinia  came  into  the 
possession  of  the  Eastern  Byzantine  empire,  the  language  of  which 
was  Greek.  Hence  the  necessity  for  a  Greek  version  of  the  Bible 
in  the  island.  The  inhabitants  spoke  I.atin,  the  invaders  Greek. 
A  bilingual  bible  was  a  necessity  for  Church  services.  Such  a  codex 
I  believe  Claromontanus  to  have  been.  It  is  remarkable  that  our  three 
great  bilingual  codices,  Claromontanus  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  Codex 
Bezae  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  and  Laudianus  of  the  Acts,  are  all 
attributed  to  the  sixth  century.  Laudianus  is  known  to  be  a  Sardinian 
book.  May  not  all  these  have  been  prepared  in  Sardinia  to  meet  the 
historical  situation  to  which  I  have  referred  ? 

Alex.  Soxtter. 

^  The  parts  within  square  brackets  are  not  quoted  by  Lucifer,  and  therefore  no 
variants  from  AmbrsI  or  d^  are  given  in  the  notes. 

R3 


THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


A  NOTE  ON  THE  ACTA   PAULL 

Has  the  possibility  ever  been  seriously  considered  that  the  .rf^<* 
Pauii  are  wholly  a  continuation  of  the  Canonical  Acts,  and  do  «3"t. 
in  parts,  come  parallel  to  ihetn?  Tt  has  been  generally  assumed  *^l 
at  any  rate  most  of  the  episodes  previous  to  the  Martyrdom  are  meifl''' 
to  be  intercalated  In  the  gaps  left  by  the  author  of  the  Canonical  AcR 
But  1  am  anxious  that  the  question  should  be  put  and  answerd- 
whether  the  narrative  of  the  Acta  Pauii  is  not  aii  to  be  regarded  ^ 
following  upon  that  of  Luke. 

Objections  of  course  spring  to  the  mind  at  once.     Docs  not  F^si'J* 
refer  to  the  fight  with  beasts  at  Ephesus  in  i  Cor.  xv  as  a  jiasi  cve*^*' 
and  did  not  an  account  of  that  fight  occur  in  ^c  Acta  Paulit    C-J"" 
doubtedly  ;  but  I  would  a.slc  as  a  counter-question :  Is  it  likely  that     ^^ 
author  of  the  Acta  Fault  liad  formed  any  idea  of  the  chronolofT*  ^ 
order  of  the  Epistles?     Is  it  not  quite  probable  that  he  regarded  tim  -*"* 
as  having  all  been  written  within  a  short  time  of  the  Apostle's  der^^*"" 
(like  those  of  Ignatius) ;  and  that  he  assumed  any  event  mentior""^ 
in  the  Epistles  and  not  in  the  Acts  to  have  occurred  subsequently^^  ^ 
the  period  enibraced  in  that  book? 

The  reasons  which  have  led  me  to  reflect  seriously  upon  the  po-'  ^'' 
hility  I  have  mentioned  are»  first,  considerations  of  analogy,  deri'^^^™ 
from  the  study  of  this  literature  as  a  whole,  and  secondly,  indicati^^^"** 
in  the  te\t  of  these  particular  Acts. 

With  regard  to  the  first,  it  is  obrious  that  the  other  Apocryphal  A— ^^ 
are  aJt  continuations  of  the  New  Testament  narrative.     When  it     » 
desired  to  introduce  detail  belonging  to  the  sphere  of  the  Gospds     <" 
the    Canonical    Acts,    retrospect    is    employed.     Such    Fctraspectvn 
episodes  are  the  account  of  our  Lord  In  the  Acts  of  John^  the  Etibtr^^ 
story  in  Peter,  and  the  miracle  of  the  Sphinx  In  Andrew  and  Matthew  ■' 
the  Ckmentine  Recognitions^  too,  contain  much  retrospective  matter. 

The  indications  which  the  Acta  Pauii  themselves  give  are  puzzling. 
I  will  cite  in  the  first  place  the  case  of  the  Thccia  epiwxle-  All  ibit 
part  of  the  penonnd  of  this  episode  which  is  deri%'ed  from  the  Pauline 
Epistles  (viz.  Demas,  Hermogenes,  Onesiphonis,  Tiius)  is  from  one 
F.pistle,  obviously  written  late  in  Paul's  career,  viz.  2  Tim.  It  pre- 
supposes, moreover,  a  visit  of  Titus  to  Iconiura;  we  read  thai  Titus 
had  told  Onesiphonis  what  Paul's  appearance  was  ({  2).  Accordii^ 
to  the  view  which  I  am  stating,  therefore,  Paul's  visit  to  Iconium  is 
meant  to  be  placed  quite  late  In  his  life. 

Almost  the  only  other  episode  in  the  Acta  Pauii  (before  the  Mctriyrium) 


i 


I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  245 

^^icb  brings  the  Apostle  to  a  place  which  he  visits  also  in  the  Canonical 
**cts  is  the  Philippian  section,  where  Paul,  imprisoned  at  Philippi,  writes 
^  letter  to  Corinth.  This  visit  to  Philippi  cannot,  surely,  be  identical 
^U  that  of  Acts  xvi.  The  imprisonment  of  Paul  is  the  result,  not 
^  the  exorcising  of  the  prophesying  maiden,  but  of  the  conversion 
Cprobably)  of  Stratonice,  the  wife  of  ApoUophanes.  And  there  are 
indications  that  it  is  not  a  first  visit  which  is  being  narrated ;  brethren 
%e  mentioned  as  rejoicing  at  Paul's  arrival 

Another  point  is  that  the  Church  at  Corinth  is  evidently  a  mature 
auid  well-established  organization.  There  are  deacons,  who  bring  the 
Corinthian  letter  to  Paul,  and  elders  who  write  the  letter.  One  of 
these  is  Stephanas,  who,  one  can  hardly  doubt,  is  the  Stephanas  of 
I  Cor.  i  16.  All  this  must  mean  that  Paul  had  already  resided  at 
Corinth,  and  founded  a  Church.  But  in  the  Canonical  Acts  his  first 
visit  to  Corinth  is  subsequent  to  the  visit  to  Philippi. 

Another  sentence  in  the  same  section  seems  to  shew  that  we  are 
dealing  with  events  quite  late  in  the  Apostle's  life,  at  a  time  when  his 
death  was  looked  for  as  somewhat  imminent :  '  £s  waren  namlich  in 
grosser  Betriibnis  die  Korinther  wegen  Paulus,  dass  er  wiirde  aus  der 
Welt  gehen,  ohne  dass  die  Zeit  ist '  (Schmidt  p.  73).  Possibly  it  was 
only  his  peril  at  Philippi  that  caused  the  fear ;  of  this  I  am  not  satisfied. 

Again,  a  sentence  in  the  Corinthian  letter  may  perhaps  be  taken  as 
referring  to  Paul's  deliverance  from  imprisonment  at  Rome.  *Denn 
wir  glauben,  wie  offenbart  ist  der  Theonoe,  dass  der  Herr  dich  gerettet 
hat  aus  der  Hand  (?)  des  Gesetzlosen  (m-o/ios) '  (Schmidt  p.  75).  Is  not 
the  Syofiot  likely  to  be  meant  for  the  Emperor  ? 

It  is  urged  that  the  arrival  of  Paul  at  Rome  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Martyrium  is  represented  as  his  first  visit  to  that  city,  and  that  the 
prophecies  of  Cleobius  and  Myrte  (Schmidt  pp.  83,  83)  are  also  to  be 
interpreted  as  referring  to  a  first  visit.  I  can  see  no  necessity  for  this. 
The  incident  of  Cleobius  and  Myrte  is,  I  cannot  doubt,  copied  from 
that  of  AgabuB  in  Acts  xxi,  which  refers  to  what  was  by  no  means 
Paul's  first  visit  to  Jerusalem  :  I  can  detect  nothing  in  the  language  of 
Cleobius  or  Myrte  which  is  incompatible  with  the  idea  that  Paul  had 
already  been  at  Rome  once.  I  must  say  the  same  of  the  Martyrium : 
but  here  it  is  quite  clear  that  Nero  at  any  rate  had  never  seen  Paul 
before. 

To  complete  the  theory  which  I  am  putting  forward  to  be  knocked 
down,  I  must  add  a  sketch  of  what  it  requires  us  to  assume  as  the 
general  outline  of  the  Acta  Fault. 

At  the  beginning  we  should  have  been  told,  perhaps  very  much  in 
the  fashion  of  the  opening  words  oi  i\it  Acts  of  Feler  {Actus  Vercelltmes\ 
bow  Paul  was  released  from  imprisonment  at  Rome,  and  then,  possibly, 


246         THE    JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

how  he  set  out  for  Spain.  Any  account  of  the  Spanish  journey  rousts - 
have  been  short ;  there  is  just  a  possibility  that  some  relrospectirc^ 
reference  to  it  may  have  been  inEnniuced  into  the  body  of  the  book. 

The  detailed  narrative  evidently  began  nearer  the  writer's  own  horned*  *^'^ 
in  Asia.  The  story  of  Ancliares  is  quite  likely  to  have  been  the  fint:*-^='t 
of  its  kind  in  the  book  (it  occurs  on  the  ninth  page  of  the  mannscript).  — ^  )■ 
Then  follow  Thecla.  Hermocrates,  ihi;  Sidonian  and  T)TiaJi  epi&odei,  ^^^'^ 
and  then  the  gap.  Into  this  must  be  fitted  the  fight  with  beasts  at  .^-** 
Ephesus,  Paul  in  the  mines',  Paul  at  Jerusalem,  and  then  a  retun  M-*^ 
westward,  which  brings  Paul  to  Philippi  and  to  .Athens,  as  I  believe  ^^^"^ 
(for  I  still  hold  to  the  speech  in  John  of  Salisbury  as  a  citation  of  the  -^:»  *^ 
Acta).  Wlietiier  this  intervened  between  the  prophecy  of  Cleobiu»  ^  '^^ 
and  Myrte  and  the  Martyriunty  we  can  hardly  tell- 

It  is  quite  Hkely  that  I  have  missed  some  points  which  would  put 
this  theory  out  of  court  completely  and  in  a  moment.  I  cannot  say 
that  I  am  a  decided  supporter  of  it :  I  only  put  furn'ard  the  suggestion 
of  its  possibility,  and  ask  that  it  may  be  entertained  along  with  others. 
I  should  like  to  add  an  expression  of  the  warm  admiration  which  I,  in 
common  with  all  students,  feel  for  the  way  in  which  Dr  Carl  Schmidt 
has  brouglit  order  out  of  chao^  in  dealing  with  the  mass  of  fragments 
to  which  his  manuscript  had  been  reduced. 

M.  R.  JAXBS. 


PROLEGOMENA  TO   THE    TESTIMONJA   OF 
ST  CYPRIAN. 

On  two  points  there  can  be  no  division  of  opinion  among  patristic 
students :  the  importance  of  the  evidence  of  St  Cyprian  and  especially  of 
his  book  of  'Testimonies  *  to  the  earliest  form  of  the  Latin  Bible,  and 
the  unsatisfactory  nature  of  the  only  critical  edition,  lh.n  of  Hartel  (a.d. 
1868)  in  the  Vienna  Corpus  Scriftarum  Ecclesiasticorum  Latinontm. 

Hartel  used  for  the  TiUimoma  only  five  MSS,  A  (Sessorianus  Kiii  in 
the  library  of  Santa  Croce  in  Gerusalemme  :  now  3tc6  in  the  Biblioteca 
Vittorio  Emanuele),  B  {Bamberg  476),  L  (Vienna  96a  :  originally  at 
l^rsch),  M  (Munich  ao8),  W  (Wurzburg  theol.  145):  and  of  these 
he  piimed  his  faith  predominantly  to  A,  which  appeared  to  him  to  give 
the  most  consistent  text,  though  he  carefully  guarded   himself  from 

*  With  reference  lo  chU  story.  I  should  Gk«  to  suggest  the  pouibaitj  thst 
Franijna  is  dead,  and  (hat  tbc  casting  down  over  the  precipice  wbs  a  local  naode  ot 
burial. 


L 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  247 

Asserting  that  it  was  the  true  one.  Subsequent  research  has  proved 
^^^ond  the  shadow  of  doubt  that  the  biblical  text  is  best  preserved  in 
^  worst  in  some  ways  in  A ;  and  these  facts  alone  would  seem  to  make 

*  new  edition  imperative.  For  such  an  edition  preparations  have  been 
'^^ade,  during  some  time  past,  under  Dr  Sanday's  direction  at  Oxford : 
^r  Mercati  has  been  called  into  consultation,  and  has  provided  us 
^vi.th  all  the  material  that  can  be  recovered  (and  he  has  recovered 

*  great  deal)  as  to  the  readings  of  the  lost  Verona  MS  (V),  together  with 
''Ough  collations — which  he  wishes  specially  to  say  are  not  to  be 
<^onsidered  more  than  very  rough  collations — of  the  two  Vatican  MSS 
K.  (Vat.  Reginae  116)  and  T  (Vat.  Reg.  118) :  I  myself  have  recollated 
-^  at  Rome  and  L  with  photographs,  and  have  added  a  collation  of  F 
^i'aris  lat.  1647  A)  *,  a  sister  MS  of  L :  for  the  first  few  chapters  of  the 
*tiiid  book  I  collated  at  Troyes  Q  (Trecensis  581),  the  sister  MS  of  M, 
^.nd  I  have  also  a  good  many  notes  of  the  Oxford  MS  O  (Bodleianus  Add. 
<l;  15  :  for  those  from  the  first  two  Books  1  am  myself  responsible,  but 
Kkiost  of  those  from  the  third  are  due  to  other  hands).  The  readings  of 
^te  Morbach-Crawford  MS  X  (now  at  Manchester,  and  apparently 
inaccessible)  I  derive  from  my  own  copy  of  the  collation  made  by 
^  friend  during  Lord  Crawford's  ownership,  when  the  MS  was  deposited 
\3y  his  kindness  at  the  Bodleian. 

Partly  because  it  will  be  a  long  time  before  the  Oxford  edition 
appears,  and  partly  because  it  is  useful,  before  finally  deciding  on  the 
readings  of  individual  passages,  to  put  something  like  a  general 
conspectus  of  parallel  cases  into  shape,  I  have  determined  to  publish 
in  the  Journal  of  Theological  STtnoiES  some  provisional  results, 
together  with  the  evidence  that  appears  to  support  them.  It  must  be 
understood  that  both  these  results  and  the  evidence  for  them  are  here 
given  quite  in  the  rough,  and  are  liable  on  maturer  reflection  and  further 
knowledge  to  modification  :  but  even  with  this  proviso,  they  may  I  hope 
prove  of  some  assistance  to  students  of  the  early  Latin  Bible.  The 
present  instalment  confines  itself  entirely  to  the  formulae  of  quotation. 

With  regard  to  the  relative  importance  here  attached  to  the  various 
MSS,  it  may  perhaps  be  necessary  to  state  that  there  seems  to  be 
some  danger  of  excess  in  the  reaction  from  Hartel's  estimates  now 
generally  prevailing.  That  L  gives  by  far  the  best  biblical  text  there 
is,  as  I  have  said,  no  doubt  at  all :  but  I  believe  that  the  scribe 
compensated  for  his  faithfulness  in  that  respect  to  his  exemplar  by 
allowing  himself  some  licence  of  alteration  in  other  respects,  and  that 
in  particular  he  is  no  safe  guide  in  the  formulae  of  quotation.  That  A 
gives  a  systematically  revised  bible  text  (especially  in  the  Psalms,  and 

'  It  should  be  noted  here  once  for  all  that  P  is  deficient  from  near  the  beginning 
of  Tiat.  ii  ao  to  the  end  of  the  preface  to  Book  iii  (Hartel  87.  19-toi.  19), 


248  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

also  in  several  other  booksX  there  is  again  no  doubt :  but  in  other 
matters,  and  particularly  in  the  orthography  of  proper  names— ^bere 
Hartel  often  docs  not  cite  its  evidence  at  all — I  believe  that  is  not 
infre(]iiently  right  against  ail  the  other  MSS  put  together.  Nor  is  this 
really  strange,  seeing  that,  apart  from  the  lost  Verona  MS,  A  is  in  ^ 
the  earliest  of  all  our  MSS  (a  date  between  700  and  750  a.d.  cannot 
be  far  wrong ')  and  except  N  the  only  Italian  one  :  L  X  (and  perhaps  0) 
come  from  the  Rhine  country,  BMW  from  Germany,  P  Q  R  T  ftom 
France. 

The  MSS  used  may  be  approximately  classified  according  to  dates  a 
follows : — 

Seventh  century :  V  (probably). 

Eighth  century:  A  (first  half  of  the  century);  W  (probably):  X:  Q 
(second  half  of  the  century). 

Ninth  century  :  L  :  M  :  R. 

Tenth  century  :  O  :  P  :  T. 

Eleventh  century :  B. 


4  I.   FOKMULAB  OF   QUOTATION   FOR   OlD   TESTAMENT   BOOKS. 


1 


In  Qenoai  51.  22  :  67.  7 :  68.  11  :  74.  9 :  85.  7  &c' 

InExodo  38.  22  :  67.  14:  80.  a:  83.  13  &c 

In  Leuitico  (Ijeuuitioo)  136.  7:  173.  is:  176.  10  [in  173.  i7t 
19  and  174.  2  the  title  '  in  Leuitico'  should  be  struck  out  of  the  text 
altogether].  The  si^clling  *in  Leuuitico'  is  constant  in  A,  and  is 
perhaps  right:  in  173.  12  it  is  supported  also  by  P. 

In  Numeris  55.  8  :  74.  18  :  88.  15*. 

In  Deutdronomlo  39.  6:  55.  10:  83.  16. 

Apud  leau  Naue  45.  15;  82.  17:  86.  7.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  '  lesu '  is  the  right  reading,  for  it  is  supported  in  each  place 
by  A  L  M,  in  the  tvro  former  places  by  O,  and  in  the  two  latter  places 
by  the  Erasmian  edition  and  tx  st'/enfja  by  V :  Hartel  with  the  other 
MSS  reads  *  lesum*.     In  45.  15  A  has  'Nauae*. 

In  libro  ludicum  3(1.  7. 

With  regard  to  the  book  of  Ruth,  it  may  be  noted  that  it  is  included 
under  ihc  general  title  of '  the  Law ' ;  for  in  86.  S-i  1 ,  *  erat  enim  in  kg^ 

'  This  wt!!  Ihc  strong  imprvasion  Irfl  on  me  as  I  coIUted  i'e,  Hai  lifted  it  in  the 
seventh  century :  Reiflcncheid  dgblh  to  ninth.  But  RcilTcnchcid  ••  often  u  not 
dates  pre>Carolin«  HSS  t  century  too  Ute. 

*  All  rer«rcnccs  iltc  to  the  pasc«  and  lines  of  Hartel's  edition.  For  those  who  do 
not  happen  to  have  that  edition  at  command,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  Book  i  con* 
mcncca  on  p.  37,  Book  ii  on  p.  60,  Book  iil  on  p.  101. 

'  From  here  onwards  I  rontent  myself,  in  casn  where  the  readinf  aod  spcUing 
u  Bcrtaia,  with  some  thre«  reference*  for  each  book. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  349 

ut  qoisque  nuptias  recusaret  calciamentum  deponeret,  calciaretur  uero 
ille  qui  sponsus  futunis  esset ',  the  reference  is  to  Ruth  iv  7,  8. 

In  Baailion  [primo*]  50.  17 :  53.  9:  83.  17,  20:  117.  3 :  142.  14: 
146.4:  157.  2. 
In  BasUion  [secundo]  49.  7  :  75.  so. 
In  BaoLlion  [tertio]  40.  6 :  167.  i :  173.  6. 

The  reading  '  Basilion '  in  all  these  cases  is  indubitably  correct : 

though  in  all  but  three  of  them  (83.  17,  20:   167.  i)  Hartel  reads 

'  R^;norum  *.     Substantially  he  followed  the  practice  of  his  favourite 

MS  A,  which  reads  'Basilion'  only  once  (83.  17);  'Regnonim'  in  full 

in  40.  6,  49.  7,  75.  20, 117.  2;  Regii  in  83.  30,  142.  14,  146.  4,  157.  3; 

"Reg  in  50.  17,  53.  9,  173.  6 ;   'Genesi'  in  167.  i  and  originally  (but 

the  correction  is  made  by  the  same  hand)  in  173.  6 :  it  would  seem 

that  its  exemplar  must  have  used  some  abbreviation  of  Regnorum  such 

as  RGN,  which  must  have  puzzled  the  scribe  and  su^ested  Genesi. 

'Basilion'   is  the  invariable   reading   of  the  other   MSS :    the  only 

exception  that  I  have  noted  is  that  R  has  'regnorum'  in  83.  17,  20. 

T  sometimes  has  the  spelling  '  Basileon '. 

In  Faralipomenon  142.  3.     R  spells  '  Paralypomenon '. 

In  Hesdra  40.  11  :  166.  8.    So  spelt  in  40.  11  by  ALPBV,  in 

'66.  8  by  L  P  T  :  the  evidence  in  the  former  instance  seems  conclusive, 

but  in  the  tatter  *  Esdra '  may  be  right     The  first  passage  comes  from 

^ehemiah  ix  26  [ = 2  Esdras  xix  26] :  the  second  apparently  Is  a  reference 

to  Ezra  {=  2  Esdras)  x  3 ', 

In  MachabeiB  117.  6  :  128.  9:  151.  2  :  155.  15.    In  117.  6  A  has 

tbe  striking  variant,  not  noted  by  Hartel,  '  in  Macchabeorum ',  which 

■Would  bring  the  formula  of  quotation  for  these  books  into  line  with 

*  in  Basilion  '  '  in  Faralipomenon  ' :  but  it  is  quite  unsupported  either 

h>Y  the  other  MSS,  or  by  A  itself  in  other  places,  and  I  have  not  ventured 

to  adopt  it.  In  151.  2  Hartel  has  followed  W  M  in  reading  *  in  Daniele': 

but  A  L  P  V  R  0  T  X  all  dte  the  Maccabees,  and  in  fact  the  words  that 

rollow  are  not  a  general  allusion  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  but  a  definite 

quotation  of  i  Mace  ii  59  '  Annanias  Azarias  Misahel  credentes  *  liberati 

sunt  de  flamma '.    As  between  the  forms  '  Macchabcis '  '  Machabeis ' 

*  Macchabaeis '  '  Machabaeis '  it  is  not  easy  to  decide,  for  no  one  of  our 

leading  MSS  appears  to  be  consistent.    V  leans  to  the  double  c,  A  L  O  to 

the  single  c :    with  regard  to  the  penultimate  syllable,  a  is  inserted 

in  one  (but  only  one)  of  the  four  quotations  by  A  O  P  V  respectively. 

Probably  -eis  is  right,  rather  than  -aeis :  but  as  between  Macchabeis 

and  Machabeis  the  choice  can  only  be  provisional. 

'  For  a  discussion  of  the  genuineness  ol  the  further  references  to  the  individtwl 
books,  ■  primo ' '  secundo ' '  tertio  *,  see  below  in  (  5  of  these  Prolegomena. 

*  Or  perhsftt  the  equivalent  passages  in  i  Esdras,  viii  90,  ix  36. 

*  Hartel  is  in  error  in  saying  that  L  adds '  deo '  after  *  credentes '. 


250  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

J  Apud  Tobiam  109.  4 :  166.  4 :  in  both  cases  without  nrant 
\  In  Tobia  53.  16  :   119.  31.     In  the  fiist  of  these  two  instaooes 
there   is   no  variant ;   and  in  the  second,  thou^  there  are  sereol 
variants   in   the  minor   MSS  ('ad  Tobiam'  O,  'in  Tobiam'  B,  'ia 
Tobian  *  M  R),  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  true  reading. 

f  Apnd  lob  108.  24*:  118.  21 :   127.  3:  156.  6:   18a.  5. 

\  In  lob  173.  7.     The  only  variant  is  W*  'in  lotras*. 

In  psalmo  i,  &'£.* 

Apnd  Solomonem  41.  17  (Prov.):    [53.   21  (Wisdom)]:   118.  15 
(Ecclus.):   122.  12  (EccL):    125.  19  (Ecclus.):    143-  16  (EccL):  i8i- 
SI  (Ecclus.).     In  the  latter  passage  diere  may  be  some  doubt  of  the     \ 
reading,  since  LPT  omit  the  words  *apud  SolonKmem*:  but  thgtf^ 
found  in  AWBMORVX,  and  are  peiiiaps  genuine. 

item  apnd  eoudem  155.  10  (from  Wisdom  to  Proverbs) :  155-  *  ^ 
(to  Ecclesiastes) ' :  155.  12  (to  Ecclus.). 

apnd  Sfdomonem  in  paroenuis  62.  3:  64.  8:  120.  9:  154-  ^^ 
168.  9:  173.  9:  176.  17:  179.  15:  180.  15:  181.  2.  Also  »p*^^ 
•undem  in  paroemiia  1 10.  3.  ^^ 

apnd  Solomonem.  in  eooleaiaate  174.  6.  So  LT*  (T*  ecclesiasC^^ 
W  ecclesiasten),  and  this  is  probably  right,  for  the  quotation  actua/-^ 
comes  from  EccL  x  9,  10.  Omission  of  the  two  words  '  in  ecdesiast^^ 
would  be  attractive,  but  is  suf^wrted  by  X  alone :  and  X  towards  th^^ 
end  of  Book  iii  systematically  omits  anything  after  *  apud  SotomoDem 
ABMOPRVread'in  ecclesiastico '. 

apnd  Solomcaiem  in  eooleodastioo  147.  18:  154.  11:  164.  17  ^ 
177-  T-  17^-  3 :  181.  5.  Also  apnd  enndem  in  eodeaiastioo  62.,^ 
14:  176.  18.     Of  these  164.  17  really  beloi^  to  Ecclesiastes  (t  9). 

apnd  Solomcmem  in  a^iientia  109.  20  :  155.  9.  The  former  of 
these  two  quotations  comes  from  Prov.  xix  17,  and  accordingly 
WB  MQT  read  '  apud  Solomonem  in  paroemiis':  but  LPORXread 
'  apud  Salomonem  in  sapientia '  (sapi^mtiam  K\  and  this  is  borne  out 
by  A  '  in  «apiemia  Solomonis '.  V  appears  to  read  *  apud  SolonKwan ' 
without  addition. 

in  aapientia  Solonumis  79.  11 :  119.  22  :  138.  2:  128. 13:  134.  4: 
156.  17  :  158.  31 :  160.  7.  Oddly  enough,  no  less  than  three  of  these 
eight  quotations  (119.  22  :  iz8.  13:  156.  17)  belong  really  to  the  Book 
of  Proverbs ;  not  to  mention  the  doubt  as  to  what  passage  is  meant  to 
be  dted  in  134.  4. 

*  A  has '  in  lob  * ;  bat  the  sobstitntioo  of  <  in  *  for  '  apud '  is  ooe  of  its  commoiMSt 
errors,  see  p^  359  below,  and  it  is  quite  nnsapported  bere, 

*  ForthcquotationsfromtbePsaInisseefortherini4oftbeseProlegomeDa,p.>64. 

*  '  itein  spud  enndem '  is  the  reading  here  of  L  (Hartd  gives  tbc  reading  of  L 
wrongly)  PRTWZ,aadisiudotibtedl7  r%ht 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  35I 

i>i  SBpientia  168.  18.  This  is  the  nght  reading,  given  by  LPVR 
^  T  VV  B  :  *  apud  Sotomonem  in  paroemiis '  occurs  earlier  in  the  chapter 
'^^S.  10),  but  two  citations  from  the  Psalms  intervene.  The  instances 
"^Xt  following  will  shew  that,  where  the  name  of  Solomon  has  preceded 
''ttliout  interval,  such  a  formula  is  not  uncommon. 

is  eoolesiaatioo  181.  10  (in  181.  13,  16,  the  same  words  recur  in 
f^artel's  text,  following  A,  but  are  not  genuine),  after  'apud  Sotomonem 
'^   ccclesiastico '. 

item  in  paroemiis  164.  18  (after  'apud  Solomonem  in  ecclesia- 
^lic»').  Similarly  in  paroemiis  eiusdem  134.  6  (after  'in  sapientia 
^olomonis ')  :  V  B  O  omit  eiusdem. 

item  in  eoolesiastico  no.  8  (after  'item  in  paroemiis',  see  just 
*-l>cve) ;  176.  19  (after  '  apud  eundem  in  ecclesiastico '). 

In  regard  to  orthography,  the  spelling  Solomon  is  universal  in  A,  with 
'  think  only  one  exception  128.  13  'in  sapientia  Salomonis*.  On  53. 
^  X  Hartel  notes  that  W  regularly  gives  Solomon :  and  the  same  is, 
I  think,  true  of  P.  L  (^^ways)  and  X  (ustmlty)  give  Salomon  :  but  the 
Evidence  of  the  latter  is  ex  siientio,  as  Salomon  is  always  given  in  Hartel's 
l^xt.  As  far  as  we  can  gather  from  Latini's  procedure,  V  must  have 
Consistently  pven  Solomon.  For  orthographical  purposes  the  evidence 
of  A  V  W  P  far  outweighs  that  of  L  X,  and  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
giving  *  Solomon '  as  St  Cyprian's  reading  throughout. 

*  Paroemiis'  is  the  form  I  have  printed  above  as  St  Cyprian's  equivalent 

for  QapotfiMK.     A  deserts  tis  here,  as  it  r^ularly  substitutes  'prouerbiis': 

from  the  fact  that  Hartel  in  the  later  chapters  of  book  iii  gives  no 

variant  in  his  apparatus,  it  must  not  be  deduced  that  the  other  MSS 

begin  to  agree  with  A,  but  only  that  Hartel  tired  of  recording  their 

difference.     Outside  of  A  there  is  absolutely  no  eariy  evidence  in  the 

MSS  of  St  Cyprian  for  '  in  prouerbiis ',  except  that  Latini  records  it  in 

his  mai^inal  notes  on  several  occasions  from  164.  18  onwards:  and 

it  is  possible  that  the  erratic  MS  V,  which  tried  one  variant  'in  para- 

bolis '  in  154.  4,  and  omitted  the  word  altogether  in  120.  9  and  176.  17, 

experimented  also  on  *  in  prouerbiis ' :  but  Dr  Mercati  thinks  it  likely 

that  Latini  was  here  drawing  on  a  secondary  MS  of  his  which  agreed 

in  its  type  of  text  with  A. 

Unfortunately  the  defection  of  A  makes  the  decision  in  the  question 
of  orthography  sensibly  more  difficult.  V  perhaps  gave  in  general 
paroemiis^  as  Latini  has  noted  no  variant :  and  perhaps  Hartel's 
apparatus  may  be  trusted  as  evidence  that  W  uses  the  same  spelling. 
R  too  has  paroemiis,  except  on  one  or  two  occasions  (62.  3:  173.  9), 
where  it  gives  paroemis :  O  is  divided  about  equally  between  the  two 
forms  paroemiis  and  paroemis.  Our  other  MSS  all  introduce  the 
aspirate :  P  invariably  reads  parhoemiis  (and  this  is  the  form  given 


25a         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

in  the  Quirinian  fragment,  on  which  see  just  below,  in  134.  6),  L  as 
invariably  parhoemis  :  the  first  hand  of  T  generally  agrees  with  L,  the 
second  invariably  with  P.  The  Crawford  MS,  X,  finds  the  word  par- 
ticularly puzzling,  and  rings  various  changes,  until  it  solves  the  problem  b; 
omitting  the  word :  62.  3  parhemis  X*  paranomis  X* ;  64.  S  parohemts : 
no.  3  paremiis  X*,  paroemiis  X*:  134.  6  proemiis  :  154.  4  parohemis: 
164.  18  premis :  168,  9,  and  always  from  this  point  onwards,  X  omits. 

Apud  BaaUm  40.  16,  &c.  'Esaiam'  appears  to  be  the  regular 
spelling  of  the  MSS,  though  R  commonly  writes  '  Esaian '  or  (towards 
the  end  of  the  third  book)  'Isaian',  and  T*  in  the  first  two  books 
*  Aeseian ' :  and  the  final  n  may  possibly  be  original.  The  Quirinian 
fragment  of  portions  of  chapters  16-20  of  Book  III  of  the  Testimonial 
Hartel  13a.  4-135.  21,  136.  28-138.  6  (discovered  by  Dr  Mercati  at 
Brescia  and  published  by  him  in  his  I^akum  nuovi  sussidiper  ia  critica 
dei testodi S.Cipriano,'Siomty  K.i>.  1 899, pp. 49-54) gives 'Eseii' in  r34.7. 

Apud  Hieremiam  39.  20 :  41.  7  :  42. 14 :  45. 9  ;  46. 19 :  48.  31 :  55. 
15  :  69.  5 :  74.  17;  So.  17 :  85.  13:  87,  17:  91.  6 :  121.  2 :  zsi.  19: 
r44.  3  :  146.30:  156.18:  168.  8  :  182.13.  '  Apud  Hieremiam '  is  in- 
variable in  A  L^ :  X,  except  in  the  latter  half  of  the  third  book,  con- 
sistently gives  '  leremiam ',  and  this  is  also  not  uncommon  in  P.  R  T 
again  have  predominantly  a  final  n  *apud  Hieremian '  ('  leremian '  V  in 
41.  7,  M  in  85.  13,  T*  in  69.  5,  87.  17). 

j  Apud  EBOOhielem  48.  17:  153.  12:  158.  15. 
(  Apud  Ezeohiel  55.  11 :  90.  6. 

The  double  form,  with  and  without  case-ending,  is  surprising  in  so 
consistent  a  writer  as  St  Cyprian :  but  the  evidence  appears  to  point 
unmistakably  to  it  At  any  rate  no  single  MS  gives  the  same  form  in 
all  the  five  instances  :  while  A  L  P  W  X  supports  the  readings  adopted 
above.  The  insertion  of  the  aspirate  (Ezechihelem,  Ezechihel)  receives 
no  support  from  our  earliest  MSS. 

48.  1 7  Ezechielem  A  P  X  Ezechihelem  L  B  :  Ezechielum  Latini  (and 
therefore  probably  V,  see  on  90.  6) :  Ezechiel  MOT  Ezechihel  R. 

55.  1 1  Ezechiel  AVPXWMBOT  Ezechihel  L :  Ezechielum  R. 

90.  6  Ezechiel  A  W  M  B  O  T  X  Ezechihel  LR :  Ezechielum  V. 

153.  12  Ezechielem  A  L  P  O  T  W  X  :  Ezechielum  R  :  Ezechiel  M  : 
Ezechiam  B. 

158.  15  Ezechielem  ALP  M*  WORT  X:  Ezechielum  Latim  (and 
so  probably  V)  M*  :  Ezechihel  B. 

It  will  be  noted  that  three  times  out  of  five  V  seems  to  have  read 
'  Ezechielum ' :  and  it  is  conceivable  that  this  should  be  restored  in  all 

'  Except,  of  course,  where  A  wroDffly  substitutes  the  abUttve  'in  Hieremia';  on 
which  see  below  «t  the  end  of  their  section. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  S53 

"^Ses,  and  that  the  variants  ' Erechielem ',  'Ezechiel'  represent  two 
<      apatite  attempts  to  get  rid  of  an  unfamiliar  form.    This  solution  would 
j      "Hug  the  use  for  Ezekiel  into  harmony  with  that  for  Ehuiiel,  where 
/       I  hare  with  some  hesitation  adopted  Danihelum  throughout. 

Apud  Danihelum  42.  14:  84.  5:  92.  17:  isi.  13.  Here  (unlike 
the  last  name)  the  extra  aspirate  in  the  middle  of  the  word  is  well 
supported,  by  A  V*i  L 'A*  W »/,,  R  */«•  With  regard  to  the  termination, 
only  once  (84.  5)  is  there  any  real  evidence  for  the  indeclinable 
form  :  *  Danihelem '  (Danielem)  can  claim  good  authority  in  the  other 
three  instarices :  while  *  Danihelum '  (Danielum)  has  each  time  a  small 
but  weighty  group  in  its  favour,  consisting  generally  of  AM'R  and 
latini,  i.  e.  probably  V. 

42.  14  Danihelum  AR  Danielum  Latini:  Danihelem  T  Danielem 
LPMBOX. 

84. 5  Danihelum  A  M*  R  Danielum  Latini :  Danihelem  O  P :  Danihel 
LB  Daniel  X. 

93.  17  Danihelum  R  Danielum  M*  Latini:  Danihelem  ALOWX 
Danielem  T  :  Daniel  B. 

131.  13  Danihelum  R  (in  Danihelo  A)  Danielum  M* :  Danihelem 
LPWMBO  Danielem  TX. 

ApndOsee  51.  24:  69.  15:  92.6:  no.  19  :  152. 13.  In  spite  of  the 
defection  of  A,  this  should  probably  be  accepted  as  the  right  form  <rf 
the  name,  as  the  following  table  will  shew : 

51.  24  OseeLPORT:  Oseae  WM:  Osseae  A:  Osaee  X. 

69.  15  Osee  VLPMOR'TWX:  Oseae  A  1  Ose  R*. 

92.  6    Osee  M  T  W  X :  Oseae  A  L  O  :  Ose  R. 
no.  19  Osee  MPTW:  Oseae  LO:  Osseae  A :  Osae  X  (R  in  this 
and  the  following  passage  has  Esaiam). 
152.  13  Osee  LPMOTWX:  Oseae  A. 

Apnd  Amos  91.  3. 

Apnd  Hicheam  46.  10 :  77.  4.  The  final  n  is  given  in  both  places 
by  the  first  hands  of  M  and  T. 

Apnd  lohel  85.  10.    V  reads  loelem,  and  R  Loth  •  •. 

Apnd  Ambaoom  43.  16 :  89.  3 :  151.  i.  Besides  the  LXX  form 
'Ambacum'  and  the  Vulgate  form  'Abbacuc',  almost  every  possible 
combination  of  the  two  forms  finds  a  place  in  the  Cyprianic  MSS. 

43.  16  Ambacum  V  M  P  T*  O*  :  Abbacum  A :  Abacum  L :  Ambacuc 
R*  :  Abacuc  R'X  :  Abbacuc  O*. 

89.  3  Ambacum  VM'T*WX:  Abacum  ut  uid  O*  :  Abbacum  A: 
Ambacuc  RT*  :  Abacuc  L. 
151.  I  Ambacum  VLP'XM'TW:  AbbacumA:  Abbacuc  R :(?»» O. 

Apnd  Sofoniam  153.5:  165.2:  180.10.  This,  the  regular  spelling 
of  A  P  (T)  X,  must  be  preferred  to  the  Sophoniam  of  L. 


254  "^"^    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

Apud  Zachariam  69.  9 :  7S.  t6 :  S3. 13  :  S8.  ti :  96. 15.  Apart  ffOffl 
minor  variants  (Z.icchariam  A  in  96. 15  ;  lachariani  P  in  69. 9),  the  onlf 
point  to  note  is  the  final  n,  which  appears  in  6g.  9  T*,  Si.  13  KT*, 
88.  I2T',  96.  15  WMRT*. 

Apud  Mal&cliiam  5a  7;  94.  ai:  97.  3:  114.  16:  157.  15.    For 
Malachian  the  authorities  are  in  94.  22  and  97.  3  M  T*  R  (and  in  114. 
16  Q).     In    1)4.   23  W  reads    Malachym.      Much    more    interesting  B 
the  variant  Malachicl.     But  in  spite  of  the  sporadic  occurrence  of  this 
form  in  early  writers  (Commodian,  Lactantius,  the  Latin  Ircnaeus,  the 
biblical  catalogues  of  the  council  of  Damasus  in  3S2  and  of  the  codei 
Claromontanus,  the  Speculum),  it  is  not  genuine  in  the  Teifimonia.    Of 
Ihe  iive  passages  above  enumcratedj  it  is  found  only  once  and  thai 
in  one  of  our  later  MSS,  97.  3  B :  significantly  enough,  the  pass^e 
where  il  does  occur  in  good  MSS — 68.  3  A  W  M  T  and  138.  19  W — are 
ijitcrpolations,  though  doubtless  very  early  ones '.     On  Ihe  other  hand, 
in  the  de  dominua  oratione  ch.  35  the  name  Malachi  occurs  in  the 
nominative,   and   the   authorities    in    Hartel's   apparatus   are   divided 
between  Malachin  (SW)  and  Malachiel  (VG).     Whichever  of  tlie  two 
is  correct,  we  have  here  a  curious  diversity  of  usage  between  the  Taty 
monia  and  the  other  treatises. 

Taking  the  passages  from  the  prophets  as  a  whole,  two  general 
cautions  must  be  given  with  regard  to  Hartel's  edition,  (i)  The 
addition  *prophcta.m'  frequently  found  there  ('apud  Esaiam  pro- 
phetam'  'apud  Hieremiam  prophetam ',  and  so  on)  is  in  no  case 
genuine,  but  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  text  of  A.  (2)  Similarly 
the  readings  *in  £.saia'  *in  Hiereima'.  &c.,  found  often  in  Hartel  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  Tfitimonia^  are  another  freak  of  A.  The  rule 
is  absolute  for  the  Propheta  that  'apud'  with  ilie  accusative  introduces 
the  quotation  :  just  as,  on  the  other  hand,  for  quotations  from  books 
which  have  no  personal  titk,  the  invariable  preposition  is  'in',  'in 
Gcnesi '  *  in  Exodo '  '  in  Sapientia ' '  in  Ecclcsiastico ' '  in  libro  ludicum'; 
or  with  libto  omitted  'in  Basilion'  'in  Paralipi>mcnon'.  The  com- 
bination of  the  two  prepositions  where  both  personal  and  impersonal 
title  are  given  is  illustrated  by  the  phrases  'apud  Solomonem  in 
parocmiis '  '  apud  Solomonem  in  sapientia  *.  Difficulty  in  applying 
the  principle  only  arises  with  hooks  that  are  historical  in  character 
but  bear  a  personal  name  for  their  title  :  and  in  these  cases  St  Cyprian's 
practice  is  not  wholly  consistent.  The  book  of  Joshua  is  always  *  apud 
lesti  Naue ' :  but  the  books  of  Ezra  and  the  Maccabees  are  '  in  Hesdra ' 
'in  Machabeis'.  Job  is  generally  'apud  lob',  but  once  'in  Job' 
("73-  7fi  probably  by  a  slip  of  the  pen  :  for  Tobit  'apud  Tobiam'  atul 
*  in  Tobia '  are  each  found  twice. 

>  Th«  pasMge  6&  3  U  not  found  in  L  P  [V]  R  B  O  X :  th«  olber  U  found  only  in  W. 


NOTES   AND  STUDIES  255 

The  instances  are  very  rare  where  the  author  of  the  book  is  cited  in 
\be  nominative,  '  dicit '  or  '  dixit '  following  :— 
MoyBea  dicit  45.  13. 
Sofonias  dixit  88.  9.  (SofTonias  A). 

§  2.     Formulae  of  quotation  for  New  Testament  books. 

In  enangellG  43.  3 :  43.  13 :  44.  13  :  44.  20  (Hartel's  reading  'in 

euangelio  suo'  has  no  MS  authority  that  I  know  of :    ALP[V]RX 

r«ad  simply  '  in  euangelio ') :  46.7:  49.15:  58.15:  67.22:  73.8:  75. 

ao  :  777:  80.  3  :  88.  i6  :  91.  9  :  92.  10 :  93.  ig :  94.  3  :  99.  21  :  157. 

^7  :    173.  8:    178.  16:    178.  17  (where  'item  in  euangelio'  is  right, 

^rather  than   Hartel's  'item   illic').    In    the   first  two  Books  of  the 

Testimonia  this  formula  is  almost  as  common  as   references  to  the 

:5ndividual   Gospels    by   name.     It  is    a   distinct  difference  between 

these  two  Books  and  the  third,  that  in  the  latter  the  formula  occurs 

only  four  times  (of  which  three  are  quite  at  the  end  of  the  Book) : 

and  the  transition  from  the  one  method  of  quoting  to  the  other  is 

perhaps  characteristic  of  St  Cyprian's  generation. 

On  two  occasions,  however,  the  vagueness  of  the  general  reference 
*  in  euangelio  *  is  qualified  by  the  addition  of  further  defining  words 
'  post  resurrectionem  '  43.  3,  93. 19 :  which  appear  to  be  intended,  in 
the  absence  of  chapter-divisions,  as  a  sort  of  time-mark  indicating 
roughly  what  part  of  the  Gospel  is  being  cited.  This  seems  to  roe 
to  be  a  simpler  and  more  probable  interpretation  than  to  attach  any 
dogmatic  meaning  to  the  words. 

The  absence  of  the  name  of  the  particular  Gospel  cited  adds,  of 
course,  sometimes  an  element  of  uncertainty  in  the  identification  of 
the  passages.  In  92.  10  indeed— where  Matt,  xvi  4  should  be  Matt,  xii 
39,  40 — Hartel's  error  would  not  have  been  avoided,  since  it  does  not 
overstep  the  limits  of  the  one  Gospel.  But  in  49.  15  the  two  references 
Matt  xxiv  2,  Marc,  xiv  58,  should  both  be  struck  out,  and  the  single 
text  Marc,  xiii  2  substituted,  as  the  evidence  of  k  {codex  Bobiensts) 
shews.  In  44.  13  the  two  Synoptic  texts  Matt,  xxiii  37,  Luc.  xiii  34,  35 
resemble  one  another  so  closely  that  it  is  difficult  to  say  which  is 
meant.  But  the  caution  may  be  given  that  Hartel  has  made  one 
mistake  in  the  collation  of  A,  which  reads  '  quotiens '  not '  quoties ',  and 
two  crucial  mistakes  in  the  collation  of  L.  *  Noluistis '  in  fact  is  the 
reading  of  V  L  P  B  R  X  :  and '  deserta '  is  omitted  by  V  L  *  P  B  O  X.  The 
concluding  words  should  therefore  run  *  et  noluistis  ecce  remittetur 
uobis  domus  nostra'. 

In  euangelio  oata  Mattheum  46.  14,  &c. 

In  euangelio  oata  Haroum  does  not  happen  to  occur. 


256  THE    JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

In  euangelio  oata  I>aouiiun  76.   10:   113.  i:    ii4>  >:   139-      ^'■ 
153-  '9  ;   154.  12  :   155-  a  :   165.  5  ;   182.  31. 

In  euanselio  c&ta  lohannam  $1.  13,  &c. 

[it«m]  oata  Uattboam  73.  13:  123.  9:  129.  15:  133.  16,19: 
153.  21:  177.  13. 

|itom|  oata  Marcura  139.  16 :  142.  11 :  150.  19. 

[itom]  oata  Lucanum  72.  18:  87.  7:  117.  18:  123,  5:  xa6.  16-' 
130.  6  !  133.  22  :  144.  30:  160.  t. 

[item]  oata  lohannem  47.  19 :  63.  9  :  96.  7  :  98.  18 :  143.  [9: 
160.  4. 

These  Iwo  sets  of  phrases  vary  according  lo  a  fixed  rule  :  the  first  h 
employed  when  a  quotation  from  the  Gospels  follows  on  a  qucrtation 
from  some  other  part  of  the  Bible  ;  the  second  indicates  that  dte 
immediately  preceding  quotation  or  quotations  are  also  from  the  Go^i 
The  only  exception  I  have  noted  is  63.  9,  where  '  item  caia  lohanntm' 
follows  a  quotation  from  the  Psalms. 

The  nileis  absolute  in  the  Testimonia  that  the  name  of  the  crtngelisi 
is  preceded  by  the  preposition  *  cau '  (*  kala '  apparently  often  in  T  R); 
Hartrl  follows  A  in  substituting  '  secundum  '  throughout  (in  51. 12  both 
A  and  Harte!  retain  'tata  '). 

( 1 )  The  spelling '  Matthcum '  rather  than  *  Matthaeum '  rests  on  as  strong 
evidence  for  St  Cyprian  as  for  the  Vulgate.  St  Jerome  appears  to  ha« 
systematically  re-introduced  the  Greek  orthography  into  the  proper 
names  of  the  Gospels  :  but  the  name  of  the  evangelist  was  loo  securely 
established  to  admit  of  change,  and  'Mattheus'  therefore  remained  one 
of  the  few  exceptions  to  the  rule.  As  between  'cata  Matlheum  *  and  'cbU 
Matheum  ',  the  former  has  the  better  attestation  :  L  consistently  gives 
the  double  t,  and  Q  R  are  on  the  same  side* ;  T  and  X  prefer  the 
single  t ;  P  wavers,  but  more  often  has  the  two  than  the  one  ;  A  varies 
between  an  abbreviated  form  of  the  name  with  one  t  (MatK)^  and  the 
full  form  with  double  t 

(2)  For '  Marcum  '  there  is,  so  far  as  I  know,  no  alternative  reading. 

(3)  The  Gospel  of  St  Luke  is  quoted  by  name  in  the  following 
passages:  72.  18  :  76.  11 :  87.  7 :  113.  1 :  ii4.  i :  117.  tS :  193.  5: 
taiS.  16:  130.6:  133.33:  139.  3:  144-  »o:  '53-  '9^  <S4-t»-  ^55- «• 
160.  3 :  165.  5  :  1S3.  31.  The  following  is  the  evidence  in  support  of 
the  form  '  Lucanum,'  which  I  have  ventured  to  restore  to  St  Cyprian's 
text :  (he  Crawford  MS  X,  without  a  single  exception :  P,  the  sister 
MS  of  L,  also  without  a  single  exception  save  that  in  153.  19,  18s.  »i, 
the  abbreviation  Lucan  is  given  ■ :  R,  a  collateral  descendant  of  V,  with 
no  exception  until  the  last  three  pas$:iges  are  reached,  160.  2,  165.  5, 

'  So,  too,  Hercati's  Quirinian  fragment  of  the  fifth  ccnturf,  133.  4,  t6,  i^ 

*  LPX^iaficttlic  whole L group}  omit  tltogcthertLc  Lucan quoUtioa  7a.  iS-llt 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  357 

^'-  21,  in  all  of  which  it  has  Lucan.    Besides  these,  Hartel  records 

for  Lucanum  in  126.  16  :  and  the  Oxford  MS  O  reads  Lucanum  in 

J*'  18,  76.  1:,  87.  7,  113.  1.     Indirectly  the  authorities  in  &vour  of 

Mican '  may  perhaps  not  unjustly  be  claimed  as  representing  a  stage 
°*  transition  between  a  primitive  '  Lucanum '  and  a  later  '  Lucam  * :  and 

Liican'  is  supported  by  Mercati's  Quirinian  fragment  (133.  22),  by  Q 
*herever  I  know  of  its  readings  (113.  i,  114.  1,  117.  18),  and,  from 
*i4. 1  onwards,  generally  by  O. 

That '  Lucam '  should  be  the  correct  readi  ng  in  St  Cyprian  the  testimony 
of  the  other  authorities  for  the  Old  Latin  Gospels  seems  to  me  to 
render  exceedingly  improbable.  I  have  so  far  in  these  notes  abstained 
from  citing  evidence  outside  of  the  MSS  of  the  Testimonial  as  there  was 
(it  seemed)  a  distinct  advantage  in  isolating  the  book  and  discussing  it 
(n  its  own  basis  alone :  but  the  special  interest  attaching  to  the  un- 
fiuniliar  form  *  Lucanum '  will  excuse  a  departure  from  this  general  rule. 

Speaking  generally  then  the  witness  of  the  Old  Latin  MSS  is  divided 
between  '  Lucanum '  and  '  Lucan ',  and  gives  little  support  to  '  Lucam '. 
"t  ^  ^fS  ^^^  Lucan :  d  begins  the  Gospel  with  '  incipit  euangelium 
sec  lucan ',  but  ends  it  with  '  euang.  secund.  lucam  explicit '.  On  the 
other  hand  the  Vercelti  MS,  a  (saec.  iv  or  v)  has  *  incipit  secundum 
lucanum '  '  euangelium  secundum  lucanum  explicit ' :  the  Paris  Corbie 
Gospels,  ff^  (not  saec  vii,  as  Gregory  would  have  us  believe,  but  saec.  v) 
*  incipit  euangelium  secundum  tucanum '  '  explicit  secundum  lucanum  * : 
the  Bobbio  fragments  s  (Milan  Ambros.  c.  73  inf. :  saec  vi)  have  the 
running  headline  '  secundum  lucanum '.  Among  the  Latin  fathers, 
Lucifer  and  Optatus  apparently  offer  no  evidence  on  either  side :  Tyconius 
has  Lucas,  Lucan.  Tertullian,  if  we  may  trust  the  extant  form  of  his 
writings,  spoke  of  the  evangelist  as  *  Lucas ' :  but  in  the  first  place  the 
MS  tradition  of  Tertullian  is  at  best  imperfect  j  in  the  second,  Tertullian 
was  too  much  accustomed  to  translate  for  himself  direct  from  the  Greek 
to  be  quite  a  competent  witness  to  Latin  usage ;  and  in  the  third,  there 
seems  ground  for  suspecting  that  a  quotation  from  the  Gospel  might  be 
made  in  the  terms  '  cata  Lucanum '  or  '  secundum  Lucanum  *  by  writers 
who  would  yet  speak  of  the  evangelist  himself  as  *  Lucas  *.  Such  in- 
consistency is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  represented  by  the  unique  fifth-century 
MS  of  Priscillian  :  treut.  iii  (ed.  Schepss.  47.  4)  he  gives  '  in  euangelio 
cata  Lucanum',  while  later  on  (53.  7)  he  uses  the  words  *Lucae 
euangelistae  testimonium '. 

It  would  be  difficult,  in  view  of  this  conspectus  of  the  evidence,  to 
think  that  St  Cyprian's  bible  did  not  employ  one  or  other  of  the  forms 
Lucanum,  Lucan :  and  as  between  these  two,  the  MSS  of  the  Testi- 
monia  give  decidedly  more  support  to  Lucanum.  And  the  representa- 
tion of  AoukSc  by  its  classical  Roman  equivalent  or  rather  original  Lucanus 
seems  to  me  to  be  an  echo  of  the  freedom  of  the  earliest  biblical 
VOL.  VL  S 


\ 


:h 


358        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAT,  STUDIES 

interpreters.     I  confidently  claim  tt  as  the  true  reading  of  the  *  African ' 
GospeU— if  we   must  5itill  use  that  misleading  geographical  tenn,  for 
which  for  my  pan  I  should  prefer  to  substitute  '  Roman.' 
(4)  lohannen,  not  lohanncm,  is  the  reading  of  R  pretty  r^uUriy,  of 

0  nearly  always  in  the  second  half  of  the  Third  Book,  of  Q  whereTCr 

1  have  record  of  its  readings,  and  at  least  occasionally  of  M,  the  suter 
MS  of  Q  :  nor  can  we  be  sure  that  Hartel  (on  whose  text  1  depend  fof 
M,  as  well  as  for  W  B)  has  always  recorded  a  variant  of  this  kind.    ^ 
with  some  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  so  here,  I  cannot  help  suspecti*^^ 
that  the  form  in  -n  is  more  original  than  the  form  in  -m  :  but  the  MS  i>-^" 
thoriiy  is  not  yet  perhaps  sufficient  to  warrant  its  introduction  into  the  t&'*' 

In  pr&ce  cotidimna  ('coiidiana'  Quirinian  fragment  OX;  cottidi^- 
A  L)  133.  18  :   in  euangelio  in  preoe  ootidiona  (cott,  A  I.)  139.  ^^"ji 
This  very  noteworthy  phrase  for  the  Lord's  Prayer  should  be  compor^^^ 
with  d<d0miniM  orationc^  ij  (275-3)  'et  ^'^  cottidic  dcprecamur ',  J  i^ 
(283.  2o)  'cottidie  pro  peccatis  iubeluromie',  and  with  Dtdcuhe  riii     ^— - 
♦pir  T^  i\^pa\  o\ma  •Kpomv\va^  (where  Hamack,  to  whom  I  owe  tl    -^    r 
references  to  dam.  or.,  omits  to  notice  the  much  clearer  evidence  o^" 
these  passages  in  Test,). 

In  ActiB  ftpoatolorom  82.  22  :  116.  8 :  127.  xx :  144.  x  :  165.  11       -^ 

175.  10:  178.  14;  179-  5:  >84.  4.  _- '-i. 

In  all  these  instances  Hartel  prints  'in  Actibus  apostolorum ',  whiclc*-'^ 
is  certainly  wrong:    it  is  only  given  by  A  and  once  or  twice  by  O,  amrf-"'^ 
even  A  deserts  it  in  1 79.  5  for  *  in  Actus  apostolorum '.     For  this  latter"^ 
reading   tliere   is   more    to  be  said:    the  inherent  difficulty   of  the  "^^ 
accusative  makes  so  far  in  its  favour,  for  there  is  no  obvious  reasmi  for    '^^ 
its  introduction :  and  the  following  MSS  support  it :    A  as  above  in     -*  ^ 
179-  5i   P  in  82.  22,   127.  12,  R  in  82.  22,  T  in  1 16.  8.  144.   1,  165.       "^ 
II,  175.  10,  178.  14, 179.  5,  184.  4.    But  V  appears  to  go  with  LXM 
B  (and  Q  where  I  have  record  of  its  readings)  in  consistently  giving  'in 
Actis  apostolorum':  and  this  form  must  for  the  present  stand  in  the  text. 
I  In  epistula  Petri  94-  15  :   124.  24. 

P  in  epistula  Petri  ad  Fonticos  14S.  16  :   148.  23  :  149.  6. 

In  three  out  of  five  cases  Hartel  follows  A  in  substituting  'Pelrua' 
I  for '  Petri ',  and  in  four  out  of  five  in  adding  '  apostolus  *  or  '  apostoU '  on 

I  the  same  authority,  thus  giving  four  different  formulae,   '  in  epistula 

Pclriis  apostolus '  '  in  epistula  Petri '  '  Petrus  apostolus  ad  Ponticos  '  *in 
L^  epistula  Petri  apostoSi  ad  Porticos '.  These  vagaries  of  A  are  quite 
^H  unsupported:  the  words  'in  epistula  Petri'  commence  the  formula 
^H      \vithout  exception  in  every  other  MS*.    There  remains  however  one 

^H  ■  The  render  must  not  be  mi&led  by  the  absence  of  any  notice  of  wirtei  UtHo  in  the 

^^k       »ppiiriitu5  10  1^8. 16.  Since  LP  RT(Vj  X  read  there  '  in  epistula  Petri  ad  Ponticos ', 
^H        it  may  tie  assumed  ttial  W  M  B  <io  the  same,  and  that  Hactel  has  arbitrmrily  omitted 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  259 

substantial  variation,  in  which  the  testimony  of  A  agrees  entirely  with 

"'C  testimony  of  the  other  MSS,  namely  the  addition  •  ad  Ponticos '  in 

^c  last  three  cases.    It  might  be  tempting  to  see  in  this  another  dis- 

^■^ction  between  the  different  Books,  were  it  not  that  124.  24  belongs  to 

-°^k  III  but  has  the  same  formula  as  Book  II.     As  the  three  instances 

°(  *  ad  Ponticos '  occur  close  together  in  the  course  of  a  couple  of  pages, 

''^e  use  of  the  phrase  just  there  might  be  regarded  as  an  experiment 

^'i  the  part  of  the  writer,  the  object  being  to  assimilate  the  method  of 

^^otation  to  that  which  was  employed  for  the  Pauline  epistles.     But 

|**eparallel  use  ofthe  phrase  in  TertuUian&of^b^  12  'Petrusquidemad 

*^Onticos  Quanta  enim,  inquit,  gloria'  (i  Pet.  ii  20,  31),  makes  it  probable 

^*at  this  title  was  prefixed  to  the  earliest  Latin  version  of  the  epistle. 

In  epiatala  lohannis  73.  14:  94.  18:  113.  22:  116.  i ;  116.  j6: 
**S-  4-  133-  24:  156-  9:  172.  13:  172.  18. 
apud  lohftnnem  122.  3. 

The  vagaries  of  the  A  text  are  again  faithfully  followed  by  Hartel : 
^or  does  his  apparatus  always  suffice  to  correct  them,  for  in  two 
^tistances,  172.  13,  172.  18,  he  leaves  it  to  be  inferred  that  his  text 
I'eadings,  'item  lohannes  apostolus'  'lohannes  apostolus',  are  sup- 
ported by  all  his  MSS,  and  in  a  third  94.  z8  'in  epistula  lohannes 
a.po5tolus '  he  notes  the  omission  of  '  apostolus '  but  no  variant  for 
'  lohannes'.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  A  seems  to  be  the  only  authority  for 
any  reading  other  than  '  in  epistula  lohannis ',  save  in  the  one  case 
133.3  where  the  '  apud  lohannem  '  is  quite  exceptional :  and  just  as 
the  latter  was  an  assimilation  to  the  Pauline  epistles,  so  is  the  former  to 
be  explained  as  an  assimilation  to  the  use  for  the  Old  Testament  books. 

The  formulae  for  the  Pauline  epistles  present  a  much  more  compli- 
cated problem.  On  the  one  hand,  if  the  evidence  of  the  MSS  in  the 
instances  where  they  are  unanimous,  or  all  but  unanimous,  is  to  be 
accepted,  it  is  clear  that  St  Cyprian  employed  no  one  consistent 
fonnula.  On  the  other  hand  there  are  a  large  number  of  instances — 
and  these  become  progressively  more  frequent  towards  the  end  of  the 
TesHmonia — in  which  the  MSS  appear  to  be  hopelessly  divided  between 
two  or  even  three  readings.  It  will  therefore  be  best  to  begin  with  the 
less  difficult  ones,  and  to  work  from  them  to  the  more  difficult. 

Two  classes  of  variations  may  however  first  be  set  aside.  I  shall 
attempt  in  §  5  of  these  Prolegomena — see  p.  268  below — to  make  it  at 
least  probable  that  St  Cyprian  in  dealing  with  dual  books,  i.  e.  the 
books  of  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Maccabees  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  epistles  to  Corinth,  Thessalonica  and  Timothy  in  the  New  *, 

to  record  the  fact.  For  '  ad  Ponticos '  O  on  each  occasion  substitutes '  od  pontifices ' 
or  'od  pontificos'. 

*  There  is  nothing  which  suc^eats  that  St  Cyprian  accepted  more  than  (Hie 
epistle  of  St  Peter,  and  one  of  St  John. 


26o         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

did  not  particularize  the  number  of  the  book  from  which  he  wis 
quoting,  as  *  First '  or  '  Second ' :  and  therefore  I  shall  not  deal  at  this 
point  with  the  presence  or  absence  of  the  words  *  prima  *  '  secunda '  in 
the  quotations  from  i  and  2   Corinthians,  i  and  2  Thessalonians,  and 
I  and  3  Timothy.    In  the  second  place  I  shall  give  here  the  general 
caution  that  the  title  '  apostolus '  (whether  with  or  without  '  Faulus '), 
which  occurs  frequently  in  A  and  therefore  in  Hartel,  is  absolutely 
unsupported  in  the  other  MSS,  and  consequently  cannot  claim  to  be 
considered  genuine.  With  these  premises,  I  proceed  to  enumerate  those 
quotations  from  the  Pauline  epistles  where  the  text  offers  no  real  ground 
for  doubt 

Paulus  ad  BomanoB  70.  12  :  178.  10. 

Fanlns  ad  CiniiithioB  [I]  63.  20. 

Paulus  ad  Galataa  43.  i8. 

Faulna  ad  Efeeioa  94.  9. 

Faulus  ad  Filippenses  79.  i  :  141.  15  :  149.  11. 

Fauliia  ad  Ctoloaenses  45.  18  :  63.  14. 

Faulus  ad  Thessaloiiioenses  [IIJ  73.  1 2. 

Faulus  ad  Timothenm  [IIJ  169.  3. 

Ad  BomanoB  94.  12  (af\er  another  Pauline  quotation):  117.  3i: 
118.  i;  119.  12:  126.  13  (after  another  quotation):  132.  i  {tStei 
another  quotation) :  164.  10  (after  another  quotation):  177.  10  (after 
another  quotation). 

Ad  Cormthioa  [I]  115.  6  :  159.  6  (after  another  Pauline  quota- 
tion) :   166.  14  (after  another  quotation) : 
Ad  Coriuthios  [II]  42.  19  (after  another  Pauline  quotation): 

119.  8  :  166.  18  (after  another  quotation). 

Ad  Oalatos  115.  20  (after  another  Pauline  quotation):  124.7 
(after  another  quotation). 

Ad  Efesios  124.  19  (after  another  Pauline  quotation). 

Ad  Filippensea  124.  i  (after  another  Pauline  quotation). 

Ad  Colosenses  134.  12  (after  another  Pauline  quotation). 

Ad  Tiinothenm  124.  9  (after  another  Pauline  quotation) :  148.  12: 
152.  6   (after  another  quotation):  156.  2   (after  another  quotation): 
171.  20:  172.  5  :  172.  16. 
/     In  epistula  Fauli  ad  Gorinthioe  [I]  42.  17:  75.  13:  116.22: 

]  139-  9  :  145-  5- 

(     In  epistula  Fauli  ad  Coriuthios  [II]  114.  10, 
In  epistula  Fauli  ad  Efeaios  126.  11  :  150.  9. 
In  epistula  Fauli  ad  Bomanos  140.  4  :  149.  3. 
The  results  so  far   obtained  indicate  that  St  Cyprian  used  three 
distinct  methods  of  citation  from  the  epistles :  but  it  should  be  noted 
that  in  the  first  two  Books  (i)  the  syncopated  form  '  ad  Romanes  '  etc 
only  occurs  where  the  Apostle's  name  is  prefixed  to  the  quotatioa 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  261 

iHttnediately  preceding,  and  (2)  the  longest  form  '  in  epistula  Pauli  ad  - . ' 

u  Only  used  in  connexion  with  the  Corinthian  epistle.    From  the  end 

^  the  Second  Book  onwards  (96.  10  is  the  earliest  instance)  we  get 

f'^e  constantly  recurring  variation  by  which  *  Paulus '  ('  Faulus  apostolus ' 

^  A)  is  either  substituted  for  the  long  form  '  in  epistula  Pauli '  or  less 

often  prefixed  to  the  short  form  '  ad  Romanos '  etc.  by  a  small  but 

"^portant  group  of  MSS,  of  which  A  V  are  the  most  constant  members, 

'cinforced  often  by  R,  by  B,  and  in  the  later  chapters  of  the  Third 

«Ook  (from   155.  6  onwards)  generally  by  X.    All  three  forms  are 

^bewn  by  the  list  already  given  to  be  Cyprianic :  and  this  makes  the 

choice  in  cases  of  doubt  the  more  difficult    A  fresh  element  of 

Uncertainty  is  the  additional  form  found  after  a  certain  point,  especially 

"1  the  case  of  the  double  epistles  to  Corinth,  Thessalonica  and  Timothy 

(»4l.  3  :    141.  20  :    151.  10;    152.  4  :    159.  2  :  167.  23:    169.  10  :  169. 

*S;  171.  13;  175.  15:    177,  4:    177,  8),  but  also  in  the  case  of  the 

*^oman  and  Ephesian  epistles  (133.  7:  151.   20:    155.    16:  170.  14: 

>  78.  6),  in  a  group  of  MSS  consisting  of  L,  LP,  or  LPR,  '  in  epistulis 

I^auli  ad  Corinthios '  *  in  epistulis  Pauli  ad  Romanos '  etc* 

With  regard  to  the  orthography  of  the  names  of  the  churches 
addressed  in  the  various  epistles,  the  following  variations  are  repre- 
sented in  the  MSS  :— 

Bomanoe  is  without  variant. 

Corinthioa :  this  is  indubitably  the  correct  form,  though  L  generally  has 
Corintheos,  X  varies  between  Corinthios  Corintheos  Corintios  Corinteos, 
^bile  R  is  about  equally  divided  between  Corinthios  and  Chorinthios. 

Qalatas  43.  19:  115.  20;  120.  20;  124.  7:  156.  14:  167.  10.  O 
ajid  T  have  always  Galathas,  and  so  A  in  two  or  three  cases.  In  124.  7 
'W  has  Calatas,  and  in  120.  20  A  has  Calatas  or  Calathas. 

Efesios  94.  10:  120,  4:  120.  13;  124.  19:  136.  11:  150.9: 
170.  14:  183.  3;  (in  170.  19,  171.  3,  171.  8,  the  true  text  of  the 
lemma  does  not  contain  the  name  of  the  epistle).  A  has  always  Efesios, 
except  in  94.  10,  where  it  gives  Efiesios.  X  has  generally  Effesios,  but 
in  94.  10,  124.  19,  Efesios.  L  varies  between  Ephesios  and  Epheseos. 
O  P  R  T  give  Ephesios,  except  that  T*  in  94.  10  has  Effesios.  I  have 
followed  the  orthography  of  A  X  in  favour  of  f  against  ph,  as  being  the 
two  oldest  MSS  :  for  I  do  not  think  any  certain  inference  can  be  drawn 
as  to  the  reading  of  V  in  a  case  like  this  from  the  silence  of  lAtini. 

Filippenaes  79.  I  :  124.1:  127.15:  141.15:  149.1X.  Inthisand 
the  next  epistle  the  evidence  of  A  is  ranged  against  that  of  the  other 
MSS :  and  it  may  seem  inconsistent  to  propose  to  follow  it  in  the 
one  case  and  not  in  the  other.  But  it  may  be  noted  that  in  the 
Colossian  epistle  the  rest  of  the  MSS  are  united  on  a  single  alter- 
native reading,  while  here  they  are  divided  between  Philippenses  and 

>  See  OQ  this  further  io  t  5  below,  p.  269. 


afia  THE   JOURNAI.   OF  THEOLOdCAL  STUDIES 

Fhit^Kiises,  P  R  leming  to  the  famo;  L  O  X  to  die  fatter  icaAifr 
viiile  T  is  dnided. 

OokommimBm  45.  18:  65.  15:  1x4.  12:  172.  11 :  iSo.  so:  XS4.  la 
L  O  P  R  T  *X  (uid  apparently  M  B :  W  is  nxn  doofalliil,  fa«t  is  died 
it  in  172.  11)  give  tibis  farm  only:  A  on  the  olber  hand  ^*cs  only 
Golossenses,  and  it  is  vith  soaae  hesaiaiaan  ilm  I  ahandnn  its  teadiiig.  — 3- 
It  is  cnnoos  that  in  t«o  out  of  tbese  six  oses  the  icfcimcc  to  ibi — ^^^ 
Coknsian  cptsdc  oQE^  to  be  to  Tims,  1 7Z.  1 1  (vIkic  A  O  Ittffc  coneded^E^ 
Ae  mistake  and  5afa5titnted''ntnm*)  and  iSol  10.  Does  out  diis  snggesc^Baat 
dat  the  two  cpbtles  fallowed  cme  anaAer  in  St  Crpmn^  oodex*?^ir  ? 
A  similar  mislake  faaaum  >  Tbessalooians  and  Galaliww  (73.  13)^^1) 
waj  lave  arisen  from  the  same  cansc 

Tb— liwiriWBi  T>  13:  159.  i:  169.  10:  175.  4  (in  175.  8  UiL.^anr 
iTfiiiTin  dtcnld  be  omitned).  A  has  a!«an  TessaknioeDs^  X  Tesdoni— ^klmd- 
censes :  O  T  are  divided  baween  Tesalonicenscs  and  ThcqluiiMinw.t  -  ^bs  : 
aD  duee  farms  aic  lepieaenicd  on  one  or  odter  oocaBon  fay  L:  Pir*^  R 
appear  to  ghc  as  a  nde  ThessaksDcenses.  Uns  A  is  vappontA  bz^c^  b 
the  dccboe  s  by  P  R.  and  ia  die  «itiyanw  of  die  aspnatr  fay  X. 

SaaovSbanm.  Tbe  ssKlbac  is  t.nnAMWi  fir»yc  in  R,  vfaitJi  lailiu— ^■*o' 
men  ocica  :^ait  aoc  ^les  ''Tiiama^eBm'. 

Xa  ApotmljpsL    A  lus  a}«n^  *  is  Apocal^s  *,  bat  it  seems  hanll^*-"y 

■ecessxry  £3  adocc  3S  lendn^  in  diat  reyecL 

I  >  ArcTnceui  surrxx  (^rn>xi>  ise  xuas  or  tve  — M^f" 

1CC£=     ZK   THE   FdXrULS  CT  CCV>TAT10X   ZX   BCOKS   I   JkXD  IL 

ArySic  vzs  cxijed  a:  :^  s^i->?i'i-^  cf  $  z  to  cme  fcacore  ta— '^'* 
tfrgram-e  beiwee^  Bwrls  I  iii£  11  cc  rie  7iif  muji  on  the  one 
aad  Bccc  CI  cc  :be  jcjic.  axscLT.  :^  tce^xtcE  sse  m  ibe  t«D  I 
K»is  re  t:»^  ixznzjk.  "1=  dsx^eiD^'.    A  ffi'i-^^u^- 
s»:t  iniisa;  i>  CL^enay  ct  aar^-csfcrv  rcr  K>  a  ^Sfeesc  due  ctf 
}>»aan=  ;r  pcss^Kx  x  ^LSegeac  oa::ee  ce  oticiakiinr  in  dse 
as  ic  S;  irca:  =;  :be  uixsccul  r£r»s  »iK*  aader  oesain 
SSK30S  7:xir«  n=  :2e  =ix=k  :^ibf  j^oaZ  Sx^  3£  B:ck  I  and  II,  Im^'^ 
»i*::£:  aepsr  .XT:=r  ir  K,vi  IIL 

Wber?  r»  wcr^  ca»i  =  ttK.  sre  ax  ^an  is  a  basBorial  hoo^^ 
«  d«  mrrxTTie.  cc  z=  1  rtcctcor  Sxi  «s^  :grciCBafri  as  spoke^^ 
:»:c  ^y  tbe  Tr:c6«  ra:  ry  Gu-u.  ;is — szuss  ±e  daasa  xstM  make^ 
:=#  antTK  cjair — ere  =iK=sf  ct  :ie  getftgr    a=»d  x"  1=  saiHidual  is 
•iir-ssec.  ■:^xs.  is  =t=je  iia.-    »  u^ni     at  cne  casa.  55.  S,  *Ifl 

^  jmAs  e  :^<ti^  :ite  iam3ia<c  re  a>r  t^cst^  3z  £t  C^^nn'%  ^aiMS  &^  hoot  am- 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  263 

^tneris  de  populo  nostro  dictum  est',  an  interpretation  of  the  persons 
'^^ant  in  the  prophecy  is  given.     The  following  is  a  list  of  alt  these 
***^tions,  arranged  in  order  of  the  biblical  books  to  which  they  refer : 
^■'^  of  them,  as  has  been  said,  come  from  Books  I  and  II. 
In  Genesi  ad  Abraham  67.  7. 
item  illic  ad  lacob  67.  11. 
In  Exodo  Deus  ad  Moysen'  80.  33,  90.  ij. 
in  Exodo  dixit  Moyses  ad  lesum  89.  1 1. 
in  Exodo  populus  ad  Aron  ^  38.  22. 
item  illic  Moyses  ad  Dominum  39.  i. 
In  Numeris  de  populo  nostro  dictum  est  55.  8. 
In  Deuteronomio  Deus  ad  Moysen  51.  8. 

item  Moyses  dicit  (without  the  name  of  the  book ;  see  at  the  end 
of  1 1 :  it  may  be  a  question  here  whether  Moses  is  meant  as  the  author 
of  the  book  or  the  speaker  in  the  particular  passage)  45.  13. 
In  Basilion  [primo]  Deus  ad  Heli  sacerdotem  50.  1 7. 
In  BasilioD  [tertio]  Hetias  ad  Dominum  40.  7. 
Apud  Osee  Deus  dicit  69.  1 5  (Dominus  is  read  by  W  B  M  P  R  (V  ?) : 
but  Deus  of  A  L  T  X  is  probably  right). 

Apud   Zachariam   Deus  dicit  69.  9  (Dominus  again   W  M  P  R  T : 
r>eus  ALBX). 

Apud  Esaiam  Dominus  dicit  59.  5. 

apud  eundem  Dominus  dicit  41.  2. 
Apud  Hieremiam  Dominus  dicit  39.  20 ;  41.  7  :  48.  20  ;  55.  15. 

apud  eundem  Dominus  dicit  41.  11. 
Apud  Ezechiel  Deus  dicit  90.  6  (Deus  dicit  VWBTX:  dicit  Deus 
A:   Dominus  dicit  LR). 

In  euangelio  Dominus  dicit  44.  13:  49.  15:  58.  15:  88.  16  (and 
93.  19  Dominus  dicit  post  resurrectionem,  where  however  dicit  is 
omitted  by  ART*). 

ipse  in  euangelio  dicit  67.  21. 
in  euangelio  Dominus  post  resurrectionem  43.  3. 
Dominus  in  euangelio  43.  13, 
in  euangelio  Gabriel  ad  Mariam  75.  10. 
In  euangelio  cata  Mattheum  Dominus  dicit  48.  7. 
in  euar^elio  cata  Mattheum  lohannes  dicit  47.  15. 
item  cata  Mattheum  Gabriel  angelus  ad  Joseph  73.  13. 
Item  illic  [scilicet  cata  Lucanum]  angelus  ad  pastores  73.  21. 
In  euangelio  cata  lohannem  Dominus  dicit  58.  5  :  73.  11. 
cata  lohannem  Dominus  dicit  63.  9. 


*  Of  the  orthography  of  the  proper  names  used  in  these  fbnnuUe  (other  than 
those  which  have  been  discussed  in  {{  I,  3)  I  shall  hope  to  say  something  in  a 
future  instalment  of  these  Prolegomena. 


264         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STLT>n:S 


ncn*^ 


i 


item  cata  lohBnnem  dixit  lesus  98.  iS  (in  euangelio  cata  lohan: 
W  B  M  T,  no  doubt  erroneously). 

item  in  codcra  Dominus  ad  Thoman,  70.  8. 

Christus  in  euangelio  cata  lohannem  51.  12. 

ipse  in  euaiigelio  cata  lohannem,  71.  5. 
In  Actis  apostolorum  Petrus  82.  22. 

in  Actis  apostolorum  ]*aulus  57.  4. 
Finally  it  must  be  noted  under  this  head  that  in  three  instances 
Hartel  printji  a  phrase  of  this  descnpiion  as  part  of  the  formula  of 
quotation  (connected  with  the  words  that  precede),  when  he  ought 
to  have  printed  it  as  part  of  the  quotation  itself  (connected  with  the 
words  that  follow):  57.  tj  'Apud  EsaJani  Stc  dicit  Dominus  Ecce  qui 
serutunt  mihi'  (=  Is.  Ixv  13  r(i£c  Kiytt  KvpuK  'l&oii  o!  SouAnwrc's  fioi): 
82. 5  'Apud  Esaiam  Sic  dicit  Uominus  Ecce  ego  inmitto '  ( =  Is.  xxriii  16 
ovTw  Xtftt  Kilpioc'lSoii  iyii  ift.^a\Xu>):  117.  12  'Apud  Esaiam  Sic  dicit 
Dominus  Deus  Caelum  mihi  thronus '  ( =  Is.  Ixvi  i  Oi-riuc  \iyti  Ki</Mot  'O 
ovpoviJv  fioi  fi^»-us).  With  the  removal  of  the  words  in  this  last  case  from 
the  category  of  quoution-forniulae,  the  rule  becomes  quite  alwolute 
that  these  additional  introductory  phrases  are  never  found  in  Book  UI. 

§  4.    The  numeration  of  the  Psalms. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  quotations  from  the  Psalms  in  the    ^ 
Tmimoftia :  and  it  will  appear  from  it  that  there  is  good  reason  for  ^' 
thinking  thai  St  Cyprian,  like  some  other  African  authors,  used  a  Bible   -s 
in  which  the  Psalms,  from   the  2nd  down  to  at  any  rate  about  thfr^ 
1 1 2th,  were  reckoned  by  numbers  one  less  than  in  the  ordinary  LXX_  — 
texts    and   (from    Psalm    x   onwards)    two    less    than    in    our    Englishi^ 
Bibles.    The  divergence  from  the  LXX  texts  commences  at  the  vtrf 
beginning  of  the  book  of  Psalms,  Ps.  ii  being   incorporated  as  on^ 
Psalm  with  Ps.  i,  as  in  the  Western  (which  perhaps  is  the  original)  tcxC 
of  Acts  xiii  3,3  bjT  6'  TM  ^aXfjM  ytypaTrrai  ru  vptar<f  Yuir  furv  tl  irS,  iyi» 

The  merit  of  ha\ing  pointed  out  this  feature  of  the  Cyprianic  Bible 
belongs  to  Dr  Mercati,  who  took  occasion  to  illustrate  by  reference  to 
it  the  excellence  of  the  text  of  V ;  see  pp.  20-22  of  his  treatise  jy  a/ami 
nuffvi  iusiids  per  la  critica  del  testo  di  S.  CiprianQ. 
f  B.  i*         Tist.  iii  31     Hartel  p.  144.  9 
iii  lao  184.  tt 

Ii  i  13  48.3    quoted  as  i  by  LP VO 

ii  8  73.  5  V  R  X  (L-  ?) 

ii  29  97.  s  VRTX 

iii  20  134.  13  V 

'  Thr  numbers  of  the  Psalms  in  the  Idl-hand  columns  arc  those  of  the  ordiiuuy 
LXX  texts. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


a65 


ii 

iii  66 

168. 13 

vox 

iii  112 

181.   18 

LVRMOX 

iii  119 

183.   18 

VX 

iil 

lit  34 

91.   16 

ii 

VRO 

i-v 

i  16 

50.  6 

iii 

VM*OX 

v 

ii  39 

98.4 

iiii 

L[V]>ROX 

(T'?) 

•v^ 

iii  T14 

182.  10 

T 

VBO(X«:c/o 
in  ras) 

=Kiv 

iii  48 

153-  «o 

xiii 

[VjROX  (L 
quarto  deci- 
mo  in  ras) 

^ET 

ii  24 

91-  13 

xiiii 

LVRO:xxiiii 
X 

ixvii 

i  21 

55-  13 

xri 

LPVMB 

"195 

177.  2 

VO 

:^^iii 

it  19 

85.  16 

xrii 

VO 

iii  30 

138.  23 

V    0    T    X* 

(L*??):xxiiR 

iii  56 

157.  6 

VO 

xxi 

ii  13 

78.  II 

XX 

LPVROX 

ii  20 

87.  30 

VR(j«/.  //«., 
sed      manu 
prima)  X 

ii  29 

97-  7 

[V]  R  0  T  X 

TTiii 

ii  iS 

85.2 

xxli 

ALVROX 

ii  29 

97.  10 

VR'OX 

iii  79 

173-  I 

VOX 

XX1T 

ii  7 

72.  8 

TXill 

VRTX(L*??) 

xxTii 

>3 

41.  19 

xxvi 

VMBOX:<ww 
T  (uicessi- 
mo  quinto 
LxxvP) 

XXIX 

ii  24 

91-  '5 

xxriii 

VB:  owOX 

iii  114 

182.  II 

AVRWMB 
OX' 

•vnil 

"  3 

64.  18 

XXXI 

LPVRBX 

^^■"i* 

i  32 

58.2 

■■•^^^ 

V:  xnriO 

*  Where  the  testimony  of  V  is  adduced  within  square  brackets,  it  is  deduced 
either  from  the  silence  of  Latini  (where  the  edition  with  which  be  is  colUting  gave 
the  lower  number  in  the  text),  or  from  bis  first  inserting  but  afterwards  deleting 
the  higher  number.  For  the  parallels  in  Lactantiua  and  Optatus  the  reader  may  be 
referred  to  Dr  Mercati's  lists,  op.  tit.  pp.  ao-aa. 


a66         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


Fb.  *^^'" 

"is 

118.  I 

VROTX(L* 
utuid) 

iii  6 

118.  18 

VROX(L*?) 

iii  13 

126.  5 

[V]OX 

iii  14 

127.  10 

VROX 

iii  30 

138.  21 

VROTX 

xzzn. 

iii  I 

no.   12 

XXXV 

V:x30tiMQR: 
xxxii  0 

zl 

iii  I 

no.  15 

ZXXTlui 

V 

TliT 

"3 

64.  17 

Tliii 

VRX 

ii6 

69.  18 

RX(L*??) 

ii  29 

97.  16 

L  [V]    R'  X 

ii  29 

98.  8 

vx 

ZlT 

ii6 

70.  2 

Tliilf 

L*  P  V  RX: 
xlviiO 

Tlix 

i  16 

50.  I 

xlTiii 

VRBO:xlvii 
U,  def.X 

ii  28 

95-  » 

VRO 

iii  30 

143-  21 

L«VMBO* 

iii  66 

168.  15 

VO 

iii  68 

169. 13 

VRBPOTX 

iii  107 

180. 16 

VRPOTB 

1 

iii  6 

118.  16 

xlTiiii 

VRO'FT'X' 
(L*  ut  uid) 

'"54 

156-  7 

VROX* 

lit 

iii  55 

156-  13 

U 

L*P*RMO 

It 

iii  10 

121.  7 

liiii 

VWMOPT 
{L'?):viiiX 

Ixrii^ 

ii6 

70-5 

IXTi 

VRMBO 

ii  28 

95-  " 

VR 

iii  86 

174.  16 

LPVRMBO 
X* 

iii  113 

182.  7 

BO 

iTTi 

ii  30 

99.8 

ITT 

L[V]ROX 

ii'  33 

146.  17 

L  P  [V]  R  0* 
TX 

Izxiu 

ii  29 

98.  12 

iTTTii 

L[V]OX:xUiii 
R*  xliii  R« 

Iv-rri 

'3 

42.  I 

iTTT 

LPVMBO 
X:  XXX  R 

ii6 

70-3 

VROP(L*??) 

ii6 

71.  I 

ROP(L*??) 

ii  28 

96.  3 

LVMO 

*  In  131.  1 

3  the  true  reading  is  not 

'  in  psalmo  Izi '  (or  <  Ix "), 

but  '  item  illic '. 

NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


367 


*a.  IrxTJ  iii  5 

Ixxxiii  iii  58 

Ixxxvii         ii  20 


Ixxxviii 
xov 

XCTi 
CTi 

cix 
ex 


11  I 
•ii  57 

i'>59 

ii  29 

ii3 


117 

ii  26 
iii  20 


OZl 

III  I 

CXT 

iii  16 

cxrii 

iiS 

ii  16 

III  10 

i"57 

cxriii 

11  20 

iii  16 

OXXT 

iii  t6 

^VYYI 

11  II 

AYTYii 

iii  86 

OXXXiT 

iii  59 

cxl 

ii  20 

118.  12 

L*PVROX 

158.  23 

Ixxxii 

VX 

88.  13 

Ixxxri 

A  L  B  0  X: 

63.  2 

bcxvV 
VOX 

157-  13 

VOX:    R* 
bcxxiiii     i/ei 
Ixxxvii 

161.  5 

xoiiii 

V:  cxiiii  WL 

(Ixxxxuii 

l)     Ixxxiiii  M  X 
xliiii   P: 
xciii  0 

98.7 

XOT 

[V]OX;  botxv 

65.1 

OT 

A  V  P  B  X: 
cdccT      M : 
om  0 

SO.  15 

oriii 

ALVRO 

93-3 

VROX 

134-4 

OTiiii 

L*  V  M  0 

Quirinian 
fragment ' : 
cxviiii  X* 

no.  17 

ox 

L*P[V]RX 

"9-  S 

cxiiii 

none 

68.  3 

oxn 

OX:  cxliiR 

82.8 

none 

121.  10 

L*  X :  cxiii  0 

157.  12 

PRMB:cxiiiO 

88.  7 

cxrii 

none 

J33.  4 

A  M  :  cxiiii  0 

129.7 

oxxiiii 

none :  cxxii  0 

76.  8 

n-wirr 

M :  cxxv  B 

174.  9 

rrrrwi 

none  :      cxxii 
ALPBO 

160.  22 

OTTXiil 

none  (cxiii  B) 

88.  8 

oxxxTiiii 

none(cxxTiiiB) 

The  sudden  drop  in  the  authorities  for  the  lower  numeration  towards 
be  end  is  very  striking,  and  suggests  that  the  Cyprianic  bible  reunited 
rith  the  ordinary  LXX  texts  by  keeping  the  two  Psalms  which  our 
English  bibles  number  as  cxiv  and  cxv  distinct — of  course  under  the 
lumbers  cxii  and  cxiii — instead  of  combining  them  into  one  as  the 
JXX  does :  in  this  way  our  Psalm  cxvi  would  be  cxiv  to  both  Cyprian 
*  Bat  in  134.  I4the  fregmentgivet'in  psalmo  ii\  not '  in  psalmo  i  *. 


$  5*    o"  the  method  of  qootino  prom  double  books  (klwcs^ 

Chronicles,  Ezra,  Maccabees,  the  Epistles  to  Corimtu, 

TO  Thessalonica,  to  Timothy). 

The  suspicion  has  already  been  expressed  in  these  Prolegomena 
(p.  259  above)  that  the  true  text  of  the  Testimonia  only  gives  the  name 
of  the  biblical  book  quoted  from,  and  does  not  prr>ceed  in  the  case  of 
double  books  to  particularize  the  number  further,  as  '  first '  or  '  second '. 
This  suspicion  rests  on  the  following  grounds. 

1.  In  many  instances  no  MS  whatever  gives  the  number,  so  that  no 
doubt  at  all  can  attach  to  the  statement  that  St.  Cyprian  sometimes,  at 
any  rale,  acted  on  the  principle  suggested.  Thus  (fi) '  in  Paralipomenoii' 
is  the  reading  of  the  single  quotation  from  Chronicles,  142.  3  :  {b)  'in 
Hesdra '  is  the  reading  of  both  the  references  to  the  books  of  Esdru, 
40.  II,  166.  8  :  (r)  'in  Machabeis'  is  the  reading  of  all  four  citation 
from  the  books  of  Maccabees,  117.  6,  128.  9,  151.  a,  155.  15  :  {d)  'ad 
Thessalontccnses  '  without  addition  is  the  unanimous  reading  of  all 
MSS  in  two  out  of  three  citations  from  the  Thcssalonian  epistles,  159- ^i 
169.  10,  although  they  differ  widely  in  the  introductory  words  of  the 
formula,  'Pautus'  'in  epistula  Pauli'  'in  epistulis  Pauli':  {e)  'ad 
Timotheum '  is  similarly  the  unanimous  reading  in  four  out  of  cle^'cn 
citations  from  the  epistles  to  Timothy^  124.  9,  148.  12,  152.  6,  156. 3. 

2.  In  a  still  larger  number  of  instances  one  or  more  of  the  bellW 
MSS  omit  the  number.     Thus  (a)  in  the  Books  of  Kings :  '  in  Basilion' 
without  addition  is  given  in  40.  (3  by  P,  in  50.  17  by  M  B  X,  in  53.  9 
by  M  X,  in  1 17.  2  by  B,  in  142.  14  by  AR,  in  157.  3  by  X,  in  167.  t 
by  W  X.  in  1 73.  6  by  X  ^     And  ((4)  in  the  Pautine  epistles,  we  hate 
'ad  Coriiithios '  without  'prima  '  or  '  secunda  '  given  in  43.  17  by  M', 
in  63.  30  by  PR  and  the  edition  of  Erasmus,  in  75.  14  by  B,  in  96.  10 
by  L*,  in  1 16.  23  by  R  W,  in  125.  13  by  R,  in  139.  9  by  R,  in  141.  J 
by  LPBOT,  in  142.  i  by  ALPBOTX,  in  145.  5  by  ^\,  in  151.  lo 
by  X,  in  152.  4  by  R,  in  155.  6  by  W  X,  in  157.  7  by  R  X,  in  159.  6 
by  X,  in  164.  5  by  RW  X,  in  166.  it  by  ABX,  in   166.  19  by  X,  in 
167.  4  by  A  VX,  in   167,  23  by  X,  in  i6y.  18  by  T  X,  in  174.  12  by 
All  Erasmus  (and  L*  V?);  in  175.  15,  and  175.  21,  by  X;  in  176.4 
by  AX;  and  in  176.  12,  177.  4,  177.  9  again  by  X.     {e)  'ad  Thessalo- 
nicenscs*  in  175.  4  by  OTX  Erasmus:   in  175.  8  the  whole  lemma  is 

'  Note  Coo  [Lat  in  other  writings  StCyprUn  uses  the  phrases  'inlibroRcgnorum' 

470.  10,  '  iji  libris  Regnonim  '  754.  iS  :  iliou^h  It  should  be  added  that  to  386.  I4 
*  iu  Lertio  Re^nuruoi  libro '  accroa  to  be  without  variaot. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  369 

omitted  by  LPTVWX*.  (/)  'ad  Timotheum'  in  131.  17  by  P,  in 
165.  15  by  TWX,  in  169.  3  by  RX,  in  171.  13  by  X  Erasmus,  in 
171.  20  by  X,  in  172.  5  by  BX,  in  172.  i6byX:  while  in  172.  8  none 
of  the  three  words  '  ad  Timotheum  prima '  appears  in  L  P  B  O  R  W  X. 

3.  But  beyond  this  it  may  be  urged  that  the  extraordinary  diversity 
of  readings  in  the  best  MSS  in  the  lemmata  to  the  Pauline  quotations 
indicates  the  existence  exactly  at  this  point  of  deep-seated  corruptions 
of  the  C]rprianic  text,  and  warrants  bolder  action  than  would  elsewhere 
be  justifiable  in  the  attempt  to  recover  the  lost  original.  In  particular, 
besides  the  regularly  recurring  alternatives  '  Paulus ' '  Paulus  apostolus ' 
'  in  epistula  Pauli ',  the  three  following  forms  of  variant  are  specially 
noteworthy. 

{a)  Cases  where  some  MSS  have  *  prima '  (i-)  others  '  secunda '  (-ii-). 
In  96.  10  (z  Cor.  V  10)  R  has  i- :  115.  6  (i  Cor.  iii  i)  L*  has 
'secunda' and  T  •ii>:  123.  13  (i  Cor.  vi  19)  M  has 'secunda':  157.8 
(2  Cor.  V  lo)  B  has  •!•:  167.  4  (i  Cor.  vi  18)  W  has  -ii- :  169.  18 
(i  Cor.  i  17)  M  has  -ii- :  171.  13  (i  Tim.  v  3)  B  has  -ii- :  175.  15 
(i  Cor.  vii  10)  L*  R  have  -ii- :  176.  13  (i  Cor.  xi  27)  A  has  -ii- :  177.  5 
(1  Cor,  XT  33)  B  O  R  have  ii-. 

{b)  Cases  where  some  MSS  read  '  in  epistuUs  Pauli  ad  Corinthios  * 
(or  '  Thessalonicenses '  or  '  Timotheum ')  instead  of  *  in  epistula  . .  . ', 
for  in  such  cases  the  addition  of  '  prima '  '  secunda '  seems  obviously 
ungrammatical  and  unoriginal.  This  is  the  reading  in  141.  3  of 
L'PT:  in  141.  20  of  LP O:  in  151. 10  of  LP:  in  152.  4  of  L:  in  159. 
aofLPR:  in  167.  23ofLPR:  in  169.  loof  LPR(O):  in  169.  i8of 
LPR:  in  171.  13  of  LP  R:  in  175. 15  of  LPR  :  in  177.  4  of  L  PR: 
in  177.  8  of  LP  R.  It  is  fair,  however,  to  add  that  the  same  MSS,  or 
some  of  them,  occasionally  have  this  form  in  connexion  with  single 
epistles,  where  it  is  apparently  as  incorrect  as  the  converse  form  with 
double  epistles  :  '  in  epistulis  Pauli  ad  Romanos '  133.  7  L  F,  151.  20  L, 
155.  16  L'  P,  178.  6  LP ;  'in  epistulis  Pauli  ad  Ephesios'  170. 14  LPR. 
And  it  is  just  possible  that  the  formula  is  intended  to  be  punctuated 
after  *  Pauli ',  and  to  be  read  thus  '  In  epistulis  Pauli :    Ad  Romanos '. 

{c)  Cases  like  159.  6  'item  ad  Corinthios  prima',  where,  though 
there  is  no  variation  in  the  MSS,  the  omission  of  the  epithet  would  clearly 
improve  the  grammar  of  the  phrase.  The  same  a^ment  would  apply 
to  the  numerous  cases  where  A  V  or  A  V  X  give  the  reading  '  Paulus 
[+ apostolus  A]  ad  Corinthios  prima'  &c,  if  that  reading  is  original 
rather  than  the  alternative  form  'in  epistula  Pauli  ad  Corinthios  prima'. 

It  is  not  meant  to  be  asserted  that  the  case  for  the  thesis  here  put 

forward  is  established  on  grounds  which  are  absolutely  conclusive: 

but  it  is  believed  that  sufficient  probability  has  been  shewn  in  its 

favour  to  vrarrant  an  editor  in  enclosing  the  defining  numbers  '  prima ' 

I  BO  insert' in  euaDgeIio*,are«diDgwbich  points  also  to  omissionin  their  ftrcbetjrpea. 


270         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

*  secunda '  in  all  cases  within  square  brackets,  as  being,  if  not  cetUhHj 
unauthentic,  at  least  not  certainly  authentic '. 

C  H.  Turner. 

FURTHER  NOTES  ON  THE  MSS  OF  ISIDORE 
OF  PELUSIUM. 

The  following  notes  and  indices  are  the  results  of  a  visit  to  Grotta 
Ferrata  made  in  accordance  with  a  grant  by  Magdalen  Collie  during 
the  Long  Vacation  of  1904.  They  were  rendered  possible  by  the 
kindness  of  Mr  C.  H.  Turner,  who  supplied  me  with  many  valuable 
notes  on  the  subject  of  Isidore's  letters.  To  save  space  I  shall 
throughout  use  the  following  symbols :  G  =  the  Grotta  Ferrata  MS 
of  Isidore ;  G^the  archetype  of  G,  the  Vatican  and  Ottobonian  MSS  « 
5=  the  original  collection  of  2,000  letters  made  by  the  Sleepless  monk* 
of  Constantinople. 

I.   TAe  order  of  the  Utters  in  G. 

As  Mr  Turner  pointed  out  in  the  last  number  of  the  Journal,  ^' 
contained  2,000  letters.     According  to  the  note  in  MS  Cassin.  2  these' 
were  divided  into  four  books  of  500  letters  each.    No  extant  MS  pre- 
serves the  whole  of  S\  but  G,  which  can  be  reconstructed  with  certainty, 
must  have  done  so. 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  order  of  letters  i-iooo  in  G  is 
an  accurate  presentation  of  the  order  in  5 ;  but  the  order  of  the  second 
thousand  must  be  wrong,  as  the  total  is  three  short  of  the  full  number. 
The  problem,  therefore,  is  to  discover  where  the  errors  occur  in  G.  The 
appended  indices  suggest  the  following  places. 

1.  G  omits  Migne  P.  G.  78  iii  229,  374,  iv  143,  144. 

2.  G  passes  over  1319  and  1377  in  numeration. 

3.  G  gives  1 783  as  the  number  of  two  consecutive  letters. 

But  as  Mr  Turner  has  mentioned,  this  points  to  a  total  of  2,001,  and 
it  is  necessary  to  investigate  more  closely  in  order  to  see  which  of  these 
errors,  suggested  by  a  superficial  examination,  can  be  substantiated 
by  collateral  evidence,  and  which  of  them  can  be  shewn  to  be  merely 
apparent,  for  ex  hypotkesi  one  of  them  must  be  so  in  order  to  give 
us  the  number  2,000. 

We  have  the  following  criteria : — 

1.  MS  Paris  Gr.  832  gives  the  order  of  Epp.  1-1213. 

2.  MS  Laud  Gr,  43  gives  the  numbers  in  S  of  thirty-eight  letters  on 
the  Psalms  (see  Index  C). 

*  As  on  other  occasions,  so  here  again  I  have  to  express  my  warmest  thanks  to 
my  rricnd  and  old  pupil,  the  Rev.  C.  Jenkins  of  New  College,  whose  affectionate 
diligence  has  verified  all  references  to  Hartel's  pages  or  apparatus  in  the  foregoing 
paper.  Where  my  readings  ofA  or  L  differ  from  Hartel's,  the  difference  may  be 
taken  to  be  due  to  an  error  or  omission  of  Hartel's  in  collating  these  HSS. 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES  271 

It  will  be  easier  to  consider  the  evidence  afforded  by  these  criteria 
by  working  backwards  from  the  end  of  the  collection. 

The  last  letter  in  G  is  numbered  1998,  and  ^:cording  to  the  note 
in  MS  Cassin.  2  this  was  the  last  letter  in  S.  If,  therefore,  there  were 
2,ooo  letters  in  S,  the  numbers  in  G  must  be  increased  by  two  in  order 
to  correspond  with  those  of  S. 

This  is  supported  by  MS  Laud  Gr.  42,  which  gives  the  following 
equations : — 

Zaud  Gr.  42  G  Migne  F.  G.  78 

1906  1904  iv  107 

1968(1.  1868)  1866  iv  112 

This  confirms  the  suggestion  that  6^s  1998  is  Ss  2000,  and  incident- 
ally shews  that  MS  Laud  Gr.  42  is  derived  from  S  independently  of  G. 

But  in  G  1783  is  given  as  the  number  of  both  Migne  P.  G.  iv  51 
and  V  408,  therefore  G  1782  ought  to  be  5  1783,  and  the  numbers  up 
to  G  1783  must  be  increased  by  one  in  order  to  give  the  numbers  of  5. 

This  again  is  confirmed  by  the  equations  found  in  Laud  Gr.  42  * : — 

Laud  Gr.  42  G  Migne  P.  G.  78 

1718  1717  ivi73 

1705  1704  ^359 

1597  1596  iv    43 

152s  1524  iv  149 

In  this  way  G  1378  =  S  1379,  but  as  G  passes  in  numeration  from 
1376  to  1378  omitting  1377,  G  1376  =  S  1378,  and  (7s  numbers  must 
now  be  again  increased  by  two  in  order  to  give  those  of  S. 
Once  more  Laud  Gr.  42  conSrms  this  by  giving  the  equation  : — 
Laud  Gr.  42  G  Migne  P.  G. 

1370  1368  iv  161 

At  this  point,  however,  a  difficulty  arises.  G  omits  1319  in  numera- 
tion, which  ought  to  make  its  numbers  up  to  that  point  smaller  by 
three  units  than  those  of  5,  but  Laud  Gr.  42  does  not  confirm  this 
and  gives  1308  as  the  number  of  the  letter,  which  is  1306  in  G. 

This  at  first  sight  seems  to  suggest  that  the  archetype  of  the  Laudian 

MS  had  here  the  same  mistake  as  is  found  in  G;  but  if  we  now  turn 

round  and  examine  the  numeration  of  G  from  the  beginning  it  seems 

clear  that  this  is  not  the  true  explanation. 

The  orders  of  letters  i-iooo  G  is  confirmed  by  Cod.  Paris  Gr.  832 

*  Prof.  Dr  K.  Hotl  of  Tabing:en  has  very  kindly  pointed  out  to  me  that  MS 
Coialin.  376  of  the  Sacra  ParaiUla  gives  on  f.  155  the  following  quotation,  latiiipttu 
UXovai&Tov  fn-riii  ax^  iwiaToXijf  "Ee  reus  wp^  9»hv  tttxapttrriats,  ktK  The  letter 
quoted  is  Migne  P.  G.  78.  v  303,  which  in  G  {31631.  This  is  an  additions]  confirmation 
of  the  theory  here  suggested.  For  further  dctailsas  to  MS  Coislin,  376  see  Dr  HoU's 
Fragnuntt  vornUSnischtr  Kitx/unvSttr'm  Ttxk  nnd  Unttrsuchungttt,  Ntut  Fofgt,  v  2. 


le  evidence  of  Cod.  Laud  Gr.  42 ;  it  ma 
as  certainly  representing  the  order  of  ^. 

But  the  letters  numbered  1029  and  1 1 74  in  the  Paris  MS  are  omitted 
in  (?,  and  therefore  if  the  former  MS  represents  the  order  of  .S  tb6 
numbers  of  G  must  be  increased  by  one  from  1029  to  1171  and  bf 
two  from  117J  onwards.  This  ts  confirmed  by  the  equations  in  MS 
Laud  Gr.  42  :^ 

Laud  Gr.  42  G  Migne  P.  G.  78 

1284  12S2  iv  3 

1307  1305  iv  148 

1308  J306  iv  i8t 

Thus  arguing  from  the  beginning  we  reach  the  conclusion  that  ijo6 
in  G  is  1308  in  S,  just  as  arguing  from  the  end  it  appears  that  1368  In 
G  is  1370  ill  S.  Therefore  we  seem  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
omission  in  G  of  13 19  is  not  merely  the  omission  of  a  numeral,  hut 
of  the  letter  which  is  required  to  make  up  the  number  of  2000. 

Unfortunately,  however,  this  does  not  agree  vfith  the  evidence  of  Ihe 
Bavaro-Venetian  MS,  which  supplies  us  wtih  t^vo  letters  (Migne  P.  G. 
iv  143  and  144)  instcxid  of  the  one  which  wc  require. 

The  obvious  suggestion  is  that  these  two  letters  are  not  really  two 
and  have  been  vrrongly  divided,  but  this  does  not  seem  to  be  supported 
by  iheir  contents. 

I  do  not  think,  howe%'er,  that  this  difficulty  is  sufficient  to  invalidate  ibc 
force  of  the  previous  arguments,  and  the  numbers  given  for  S  in  the  notes 
to  the  following  indices  have  a  high  claim  to  be  regarded  as  established. 

2.   Thi  geneaiogkal  relations  of  some  of  tlu  AfSS  of  Isidore. 

Dr  N.  Capo  has  shewn  that  the  Grotta  Fenata  MS  (G),  the  Vatican 
MS  (V),  and  the  Ottobonian  MS  (O)  represent  a  lost  original  G. 

The  note  in  MS  Cassin.  2  shews  that  all  known  MSS  probably  repre- 
sent a  MS  {S)  made  by  the  Sleepless  monies,  extracts  from  which,  direct 
or  indirect,  are  found  in  MS  Laud  Gr.  42  (L),  MS  Paris  Gr.  83a  {P\ 
and  MS  Paris  Gr.  949  (B). 

The  investig.ition  of  the  order  of  letters  shews  that  the  two  first  of  these 
three  are  independent  of  (?,  and  the  third  must  he  an  extract  from  G 
because  it  has  precisely  the  same  numbers  as  G,  which  are  deficient 
throughout  the  section  which  it  contains  (.S"  1544-1 772)  by  one  uniL 

The  relations  between  the  MSS,  so  far  as  ascertained  at  present,  miy 
therefore  be  represented  thus ;— 


I    X 


NOTES   A^•D   STUDIES 


273 


II  remains  for  more  minute  investigation  of  the  text  to  define  the 
relations  more  closely,  and  decide  whether  P  L  (7  are  independent 
authorities  for  S,  and  whether  B  G  V  O  are  independent  authorities  for  6". 

^B  3.  T^  imnudiafe  artheiypc  of  GVO. 

^H   I.  Iti  iac^Q'grapkical character.     A  sniatl  palaeographicat  point  seemN 
^Id  establish  the  extreme  prohability  that  this  archetype,  which  is  not 
f    neoesssrily  identical  with  G,  was  a  minuscule  written  at  least  to  some 
extent  in  a  semi-tachygraphic  hand. 

One  of  the  most  noticeable  features  in  V  is  that  it  frequently  reads 

Ik-  in  com|>osilion  wlufrc  G  hns  liiro-.     Moreover,  in  almost  all  cases  it 

appears  that  the  Jro-  of  G  is  written  in  the  tachygraphic  form  of,  which 

might  be  confused  by  a  hasty  scribe  with  a  minuscule  ««. 

^P   I  conclude  therefore  that  the  use  of  this,  and  possibly  therefore  of 

^^Iher  tachygraphital  forms  in  G,  are  derived  from  the  common  archetype 

of  it  and  V  O.  This  conclusion  has  some  interest  for  the  student  of  Greek 

Palaeography  as  many  of  us  have  been  rather  inclined  to  assume  that 

the  scmi-tachygraphical   writing  is  peculiar   to  the    so-called  'Grotta 

Ferrata  hand ',  whereas  it  would  seem  as  though,  in  the  present  case, 

one  at  least  of  the  rorma  characteristic  of  the  Grotta  Ferrata  tachygraphy 

were  found  in  one  of  the  MSS  used  by  the  followers  of  St  Nilus. 

^B    2.  Its  provenance.    A  comparison  of  the  data  afforded  by  the  life 

^■of  St  Nilus  shews  that  at  the  time  when  the  Isidore  MS  was  written  the 

band  of  Greeks  who  attended  the  Saint  was  staying  at  Vallelucio,  a 

small  dependency  of  iMonie  Cassino. 

There  are  two  possibilities  to  choose  between  in  considering  how 
the  monks  obtained  their  archetype:  (a)  they  brought  it  with  them, 
\S)  they  found  it  in  the  neighbourhood  in  which  they  sctded.  It  is 
perhaps  ira[>ossible  to  decide  between  these  alternatives,  but  it  is  worth 
noting  that,  if  the  latter  alternative  be  token,  the  archet)-pe  must  almost 
certainly  have  come  from  Monte  Cassino,  where,  as  we  know,  an 
extract  and  translation  from  the  letters  of  Isidore  had  already  been 
made. 

Connecting  these  (acts,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  think  that  Acoe- 
metensis  monasterit  codicibus  in  the  preface  in  MS  Cassirt.  3  means 
'the  MSS  brought  from  the  monastery  of  the  Sleepless',  and  that  the 
Greek  MS  used  by  the  Latin  monks  of  Monte  Cassino  for  the  purpose 
of  translating,  was  borrowed  by  their  Greek  neighbours  at  Vallelucio  for 
^the  purpose  of  copying. 

KlRSOPP  I^KS. 


274  "^"^   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


INDICES  TO  THE   LETTERS  OF  ISIDORE. 

Indtx  A  gives  the  series  in  G  with  the  equivalents  in  Mtgne's  P<^-^^ 

Gr.  vol.  78. 
Ind<x  B  gives  the  series  in  Migne  with  the  equivalents  in  G- 
Index  C  gives  the  list  of  the  letters  in  Laud  Gr.  42.    In  A  the  orJ 

o(  S  is  given  in  footnotes,  where  it  differs  from  that  of  G. 


No.  of  letter  ia  G. 

1-500   : 
501-800  • 

8oi-ioa8  • 
ioa9'-ii;3  > 
ii73'-nii    = 

I313-III4    • 

iai5  - 

1316  ■ 

1317  ■ 

IIJ5 


No.  of  letter 

in  MigncA  G.  78. 

i  1-500 

U  1-300 

iii  i-3j6 

'""30-373 

i"375H'3 
vi-j 

iv  8) 

"4 
ivi74 

tv  166 


INDEX  A. 

No.  of  letter  in  G. 


No.  of  letter 
(n  MigBc/l  ^.  7**i 
IJ74  -  iv  105 
i»75  -  hr  167 
1176  -  iv  68 


1136-1335  -•  V  13-ai 

1536  -  iv  97 

133,7-1140  d  V  la-aj 

1141  -  iv  48 

1141  ■■  iv  £0 

1343  =>  iv  59 

1344-1145  -  V  36-37 


1)46 
1347 
1348 
1349 
1150-1356 
"57 

I3$8 

1359-1360 
1 361 
1361 
1363 

1364-1373 
"73 


iv  17a 
vaS 
iv  109 
iv  141 
V  39-35 
iv  a  15 
iv  9 

"  36-37 

iv  jai 
vjS 

iv  33 

v  39-47 
tv  t6a 


IJ77  . 

1378  ' 

1379-1380  • 

Ia8i-ia8)  • 

1283  - 

1384 

1385-1387  . 

1188 
I3S9-1390 

1191  < 

liya  ' 

1393  ' 

1394-1 jgS  . 

[iy6  ^ 

1*97-1351)1  • 

1300  -. 

1301  . 
130a  ■ 

1303 

1304  y 

'305 

1306  I 
1307-1310 

«3"  ' 
1318-1313 

1314  ' 
i!3'5-t3'8' 
1330-1337 


iv  84 
iv38 

t*  35-34 
iv  a-3 

V48 
iv  laS 

V  49-51 

V  59  {tk) 

V  53-53 
iv  160 
iv  a  13 
iv  315 

^  54-55 
iv  10 

V  56-58 

V  60 

iv  139 

iv45 
v  61 
iv  100 
iv  148 
iv  18s 
v63-(S5 
iv  151 
v  66-67 
iv  154 
v  68-71 

V  73-79 


'  G  omits  Migne  P.  G.  lit  319.  Therefore  to  obuin  ihc  nuracntion  of  S  tin 
number  given  by  G  must  l>e  increased  by  one  until  letter  G  1 173  is  reached,  wben 
G  omits  Migne  P.  G,  iii  374,  and  Ihc  numbers  must  be  increased  by  two. 

^  G  paMcs  over  131 9  in  numcj-ation,  but  as  it  is  probable  tbat  this  reallj 
represents  the  omission  of  a  letter  the  nutneralion  still  ri^uirrs  to  be  increased 
by  two  in  order  to  obtain  that  of  S.  In  writing  ,arii;'  the  scribe  liaa  Kppunotly 
besiutedj  for  the  ij'  is  dotted  to  caU  attention  to*  9  writico  in  the  oua^gia. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


275 


of  letter  in  G. 

No.  of  letter 
inHigne/*.  G.  78. 

u       r  I  u      •    ^           No,  of  letter 
No.  of  letter  10  G.    .    „.        „-    - 
in  Higne  P.  G.  78. 

13 18  - 

iv74 

1418  -  V  147 

1389  - 

v8o 

1419  —  iv  103 

1330  - 

iv  136 

1420-1433  -  V  148-151 

133'  - 

iv  300 

1434  -  iv  330 

1333- I 333  - 

v8i-8a 

1435-1436  -  V  153-153 

1334  - 

V84 

1437-1438   -  iv  64-65 

1335  - 

V83 

14*9-1433  -  V  154-158 

1336  - 

vSs 

1434  -  ivjS 

1337  - 

iv55 

1435  -  'V  153 

1338  - 

v86 

I436-144>   -  V  159-1*4 

I339*-I34i 

omitted                I  ~ 

1443   —  iv  19 

1342-1343  - 

V  87-88 

14*3  -  iv  I?" 

1344  - 

iv  no 

1444  -  V  165 

l345-*350  - 

V  89-94 

1445   -  iv  7 

i35»   - 

V  113 

1446  -  V  166 

»35a-i353  - 

V  95-96 

'447-U53  -  V  167-173 

1354  - 

ivi59 

1454   -   iv  303 

1355-135*  - 

V  114-115 

«455-i4i8  -  V  174-177 

1357  - 

iv  aio 

1459  -  iv  177 

1358  - 

iv  104 

1460  1  iv  178 

1359  - 

iv  103 

1461    —  iv  146 

1360-1367  - 

V  97-104 

1463-1479  >  V  179-196 

1368  - 

iv  161 

I480   »   iv  5 

1369  - 

iv  114 

I481-I487  -  V 197-303 

i37o-'374  - 

V 105-109 

1488  -  iv  117 

1375  - 

ivSg 

1489-1497   •■  V  104-213 

is;*'- 

iv  115 

1498  -  ivi57 

1378-1380  - 

v  iio-iia 

1499-1503  -  V  313-117 

1381  - 

v  116 

1504  -  iv  91 

13S2  - 

iv  ao8 

1505-1508    >    V  318-331 

1383-1386  - 

vii7-iao 

1509  -  iv  116 

1387  - 

V  laa 

1510-1513  —  V  313-314 

1388  - 

V  131 

1513   -  >V37 

l389-»396  - 

V  113-130 

1514  -  iv  30 

1397   - 

iv  loi 

1515-1531    -  V  315-131 

1398-1403  - 

V  131-136 

1533    —    iv  131 

1^04  - 

>VS3 

1533  -  iv  150 

1405-1408  - 

V  137-140 

1534  =  iv  149 

1409  - 

ivi94 

1585-1534  =  V  233-341 

1410  * 

V  141 

1535  -  iv69 

14"    - 

iv67 

1536   -  iv  306 

1413-1416  - 

v  143-146 

1537  -  »v  107 

1417   - 

iv  13 

1538  -  iv  108 

0  1339,  1340,  1341  —  S  1341,  1341}  1343  sre  not  contained  in  Higne,  bat 
*  given  in  Dr  N.  Capo's  article  in  the  S/udi  Italitnti  di  Jiiologia  daaaka  iz 
'^rence,  1901). 

,    G  passes  over  1377  in  numeration,  so  that  only  one  need  be  added  from  this 
■'tit  to  give  the  numeration  of  5.    The  last  letter  in  the  numeral  ,arat  seems  to  be 

xa 


276         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


pi-i*     ■    ^           No.  of  letter 
rietterm  G.     ,    „.         „  y^  -0 
in  Higne  P.  G.  78. 

No.  of  letter  in  G.     .    ^.'*- '^L'* 
in  Higne  P. 

>539-i5«'-  7343-348 

1636  -  iv  34 

1546   -  iv  39 

1637-1633  -  V  399-305 

1547  -  iv  191 

1634  -  ivje 

1548  -  iv  185 

1635-1636  -  V  306-307 

154P  -  iv  338 

1637  -  iv5o 

"55*^*553  -  V  349-353 

1638  =  ivSi 

1554  -,  iv  38 

1639  -  V  308 

1555  =  i'  »" 

1640  •■  iv  319 

»55^»657  =  T  353-354 

1641-1645  -  V  309-313 

1558   «  iv  168 

1646    a>   iv  6 

1559-1561    -  V  355-357 

1647   -  iv  33 

1563  _  iv  137 

1648-1658   -  V  314-334 

1563-1564  -  v  358-359 

1659  -  iv35 

1565   -  iv  I 

1660-1666  -  v  335-331 

I566  —  V  360 

1667   -  iv  80 

1567  -  iv  134 

1668-1676  -  V  333-340 

1568   —   iv  14 

1677   -=  ivi45 

1569  >•  iv86 

1678-1681    =  V  341-344 

1570  -  iv  78 

i6Sa   -  iv  3a 

I571-I573   -=  V  361-363 

1683   -  iv  15 

1573  -  iv  aoj 

1684   <-  iv  106 

1574  -  V  363 

1685-1690  -  V  345-350 

1575   -  'V  113 

1691   -  iv  75 

1576  •  V  364 

1691-1694  -  V  351-353 

1577  -  iv  187 

1695  ■»  iv  43 

1578-1589  -  V  365-376 

1696  >■  iv  91 

1590-1591   -  iv  39-30 

1697    -  V354 

1593     »    iv  330 

1698  —  iv  304 

1593  -  iv  at 

1699-1703   -  V  355-358 

1594  -  iv  ao9 

1703  -  iv  170 

1595   -  V  377 

1704-1713   -  V  359-368 

1596  -  iv43 

1714  -  iv  8 

1597-1600  -.  V  378-381 

1715   -  iv96 

1601   ~  iv  57 

1716  -  iv  94 

1603   —  V  383 

1717  -  iv  173 

1603  *  iv  314 

1718  •■  iv  ji 

1604    —    iv  30t 

1719  —  iv  71 

1605-1606  »  V  383-384 

1730  t=  iv  179 

1607   —  iv  169 

1731    =  V  369 

1608  »  V  385 

1723    =  iv  87 

1609  «  iv  III 

1713-1724  -  V  370-371 

l6io  =  V  386 

1735   -  iv  165 

161 1    .:  iv  54 

1736  —  iv  16 

1611-1615   —  V  387-390 

1737-1729   =  V  373-374 

1616   —  iv44 

1730  -  iv98 

161 7  -  iv85 

1731   -  V375 

1618-1635   ^  V  391-398 

1732   =  iv  333 

*  The  numbers  of  G  agree  from  this  point  up  to  G  1770  with  those  in  MS 
Gr.  949  (Me  Bourry,  tU  S.  Iiidoro  Ptluaiola  UM  Ins,  Nenumsi,  1884), 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


277 


of  letter  Id  G. 


740- 


750- 


X761- 
1765- 

»77i- 


1786- 


No.  of  letter 
in  Mi^e  P.  G.  78. 

733  "  'V  ai6 

734  -  iv  S3 

735  -  iv  313 

736  -  V376 

737  -  iv  14a 

738  =  V377 

739  -  iv77 

747  -  V  37^-385 

748  »  iv  118 

749  -  iv46 

755  -  V  38fr-39' 

756  -  iv  176 


No.  of  letter  in  G. 


767 
758 

759 
760 

763 
764 
768 
769 
770 
775 


V393 

ivi7s 

iv  164 

iv  13a 

▼  393-395 
iv  189 

V  396-399 

V  400 
iv66 

V  401-405 

776  -  iv  834 

777  =■  'V  193 

778  -  iv  158 

779  =  'V63 

780  -  iv  90 

781  -  iv  140 
783  -  v  406 

783'-  'V51 

783  -   V  408 

784  -  V407 

785  -  iv  18 

788  -  v  409-411 

789  ->  iv  135 

790  -  V4" 


No.  of  letter 
in  Higne  P.  G.  78. 
1791   -  iv  88 
1793-1801  «-  T4i3-4)3 
180S  -  tv  181 

1803-1805  -  T  433-435 


1806 
1807 

I80&-I8II 
1813 

1813-183 I 
183a 
1833 
1834 
1835 
1836 

1837 


IV  137 

IT  155 

T  436-439 

ivi05 

V  430-448 
iT40 

iv  136 

»449 

iv7o 

iv  313 

iv  13 


1838  -  V450 

1839  -  iv  135 

1840  -  iv49 

1841  =  iv  35 
1843  -  V451 
1843  =  iv  183 

1844-1845  -  V  453^53 
184IS  -  iv83 
1847  -  iv37 

1848-1855  -  V45+-461 
1856  -  iv  73 

1857-1865  -  V  463-470 

1866  •-  iv  111 

1867  -  V471 

1868  »  iv99 

1869  -  V471 

1870  «  iv  184 

1871  -  V473 
1&73  —  iv  119 

1873  -  V474 

1874  •-  iv  130 


>  G  gives  1783  as  the  number  of  two  consecutive  letters.  To  obtsin  the 
umerstion  of  S  it  is  therefore  again  necessary  to  add  two  to  the  numbera  of  G. 
liis  holds  good  to  the  end  of  the  HS.  The  numeration  of  S  may  thus  be  con- 
cniently  summarized  as  follows : — 

In  Epp.        1-1038  no.  in  5  =  no.  in  <> 


«»• 


1030-1173 

1175-1378 
1379-1784 
1786-3000 


S  - 
S  - 
5- 
5«= 


G  + 
G  + 
C  + 
G  + 


1039  S  is  not  given  in  G. 

1174 -S     »       It  t, 

1785  .S  is  the  second  of  the  two  marked  1783  In  G, 


278  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


«      r,  ^     ■    r>         No.  of  letter 
No.  of  letter  in  G.    .    „.        n  ,~  _» 
in  Higse  P.  G.  78. 

«       fi^      •    r-          Now  of Iet*^=r 
No.  of  letter  uG.    .    „.        „  ^^~-    . 
m  Migne  P.  O^-    ■  I 

1875  -  iv  138 

1935-1956  -  V  541-54" 

I876-1879    -    T  475-478 

1957  -  iv  133 

1880  -  iv  17 

1958  -  iv  36 

1881-1886  =>  V  479-^84 

1959-1967  -  V  543-551 

1887   °   iv  II 

196S  ■■  iv  139 

I888-I894    a    V  485-491 

1969  —  iv  198 

1895  =  iv76 

1970  K  iv  196 

1896-1903   =  V  493-49$ 

1971-1979   -  V  553-560 

1903   =  Iv93 

1980  ~  iv  153 

1904  =■  iv  107 

1981-1983   =  V  561-563 

1905  -  iv  317 

1983  -  iv  133 

1906  =  V499 

I984-1985  =  V  563-564 

1907  a   iv  41 

1986  -  i7  95 

1908-1913   ■=  V  500-504 

1987  -  V56S 

1913  -  W4 

1988  =  iv63 

1914   *   iv  186 

1989  •=  iv  130 

1915-1934  =  V  505-534 

1990-1991  -  V  566-567 

1936   =-  iv  ai8 

1993  —  iv6i 

1936-1943   -  v535-53a 

1993  -  V568 

1944    a    iv  337 

1994  -  iv  178 

1945  -  V533 

1995  -  V569 

1946  -  iv  193 

1996  =■  iv  7.1 

1947-1953  -  V  534-S^ 

1997  -  iv  163 

1954  =   iv  316 

1998  -  iv47 

INDEX  B. 

No.  of  letter         „       . ,  ^     .    „ 
-    M-        0^0     No.  of  letter  id  G. 
in  Migne  P.  G.  78. 

No.  of  letter        „       ,,  „     .    ,--— j 
In  Migne  P.  G.  78.   ^°-  '*"'^*" '"  "^^ 

i  1-500   -    1-500 

iv  16  «    1726 

ii  1-300  —  501-800 

17  »   1880 

iii  1-338   a  801-1028 

18  =   1785 

iii  339        omitted 

19   -   1443 

iii  330-373  =   1039-1173 

30     -     I514 

iii  374        omitted 

31     -     1593 

"1375-413  -   "73-"" 

33    —     1263 

ivi    =-  1565 

33    =.     1647 

3  -    laSi 

34    »     1636 

3  -   1383 

35   -    1841 

4  -  1913 

36    -     1958 

5  -    1480 

37     -     15^3 

6  «   1646 

18    -     1554 

7  -  1445 

39    =     1590 

8  -  1714 

30    =    1 591 

9  -  1158 

31     -     I718 

10  -   1396 

33     -     1683 

II   °  1887 

33  -  "79 

la  -  1417 

34  =    laSo 

13  -  1837 

35   -   1659 

14  »  1568 

36  =   1634 

15  -  i68j 

37  -    1847 

NOTES  AND   STUDIES  379 

■^«"^,  No.  of  letter  in  G.    J^^Tg.,S.    "o- of  letter  in  G. 

iv  38  -  1378  iv  88  -  1791 

39  -  1546  89  -  1375 

40  —  1831  90  -  1780 

41  -  1907  91  —  1696 
4a  -  1695  9)  -  1504 

43  -  1596  93  -  1903 

44  —  1616  94  _  1716 

45  -  130'  95  -  >9W 

46  -  1749  96  -  1715 

47  -  1998  97  -  "Sfi 

48  -  1841  98  -  1730 

49  -  1840  99  »  1868 

50  -  1637  too  -  1304 

51  -  1783(1')  loi  -  1397 
5»  -  1734  loj  -  1419 

53  -  14'H  103  -  1369 

54  -  J6"  104  -  1358 

55  -  »33T  105  -  1813 

56  -  i53»  106  -  1684 

57  -  1601  107  -  1904 

58  -  1434  108  -  1538 

59  -  "43  «>9  -  "48 

60  •-  1349  110  —  1344 
<ii  -  1993  III  -  1609 

63  -  1988  113  -  1866 

63  -  1779  113  -  1575 

64  -  1437  114  -  1369 

65  =  1438  115  -  1376 

66  -  1770  116  ■-  1509 

67  -  1411  117  «  1488 

68  >-  1376  iiS  ■  174S 

69  -  1535  "9   -  ^873 

70  -  1835  I30  -  1874 

71  -  1719  lai  —  1533 
73  -  1S56  133  -  1407 

73  -  1996  <»3  -  »957 

74  -  »338  134  -  1470 

75  -  1691  135  -  1789 

76  »  1895  136  —  1833 

77  -  1 739  "7  -  1563 

78  -  1570  138  -  1384 

79  omitted  139  -  1301 

80  -  1667  130  -  1989 

81  -  1638  131   omitted 
8a  ■  1315  133  —  1760 

83  -  1846  133  -  1983 

84  -  1377  134  -  1567 

85  -  1617  IJ5  -  1839 

86  -  1569  136  *  1330 

87  -  1713  137  —  i8d6 


28o         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


No.  of  letter 


in  Migse  P.  G.  78. 

iv  138  =  1875 

139  -  1968 

140  «  1781 

141  -  1349 

14a   -  1737 

143  omitted 

144  omitted 

145  -  1677 

146  ■■  1461 

147  -  1347 

148  -  1305 

149  -  1534 

150  ■=  1533 

151  -  1311 
15a  -  1980 
163  -  1435 

154  -  1314 

155  -  1807 
J56  -  349 

157  -  1498 

158  -  1778 

159  -  1364 

160  —  1391 

161  -  1368 
16a  —  J373 

163  -  1997 

164  -  1759 

165  =  1735 

166  IE  1335 

167  -  "75 

168  -  1558 

169  —  1607 

170  -  1703 

171  -  1443 
173  -  1346 

173  -  1717 

174  -  lai? 

175  -  1758 

176  -  1756 

J77  -  1459 

178  .  1994 

179  -  1730 

180  -  785 

181  -  1803 
183  -  1306 

183  -  1843 

184  -  1870 

185  -  1548 

186  -  1914 

187  -  1577 


No.  of  letter  in  G. 


No.  of  letter 


No.  of  letter 


in  Uigne  P.  G.  78. 

iv  188  -  39 

189  -  1764 

190  ■■  1406 

191  -  1547 
19a  -  1777 

193  -  1946 

194  -  1409 

195  -  4 

196  ~  1970 

197  -  430 

198  -  1969 

199  -  1368 
aoo  -  I 331 
aoi  V  1604 
303  -  1454 

303  -  1573 

304  •>  1698 

305  -  13  74 

306  -  1536 

ao7  -  1537 

3o8  -  138a 

309  -  1594 

aio  -  1357 

3"  -  1555 

aia  -  1836 

313  -  139a 

314  -  1603 
ai5  -  1393 

316  -  1733 

317  -  1905 

aiS  -  1935 

319  ■-  1640 

aao  —  1593 

331  B  I361 

aaa  -  1733 

"3  -  »73S 

334  -  1776 

335  -  1357 
aa6  =  1954 

337  -  1944 

338  =  1549 

339  -  436 
330  -  1434 

V1-3  "   iaia-1314 

4  —  iai6 

5-11  -  1318-1334 

13-31  =  1336-1335 

ai-as  "  U37-1340 

36-37  "  "44-'345 

a8  -  1347 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


381 


0.  of  letter 
gne  P.  G.  78. 

V  39-35  -^ 

36-37  - 

38  = 

39-47  - 

48  = 

49-51  - 

5'  -= 

63  " 

54-55  ■= 

56-58  - 

59  - 

60  . 

61  - 
63-65  - 

66-67  = 

68-71  - 

73-79  - 

80  - 

81 -8a  - 

83  - 

84  - 

85  - 

86  -= 
87-88  = 
89-94  - 
95-96  - 

97-104  - 

105-109  - 

110-113  - 

113  - 

114-115  = 

116  » 

I17~I30  - 

121  " 

133  •- 

133-130  - 

I3I-J36  - 

137-140  - 

141  - 

I4J-I46  = 

147  - 

148-151  - 

1 5 "-'53  - 

154-158  - 

159-164  - 

165  - 

166-173  - 

174-177  - 

178  - 

179-196  - 


No.  of  letter  in  G. 

1350-1256 

1 159-1 360 

1363 

1264-1371 

1383 

1 285-1387 

12S9 

1390 

1 394-1395 

1 397-1 399 

1388 

1300 

1303 

1 307-1310 

13"-13I3 

1315-1318 

1330-1337 

1339 

» 33 "-'333 

1335 

1334 

1336 

1338 

' 343- » 343 

1345-1350 

i35»-"353 

1360-1367 

1370-1374 
1 378-1380 

1351 

I 355-1 356 

1381 

1383-1386 

1388 

1387 

I 389-1396 

1398-1403 

1405-1408 

1410 

1413-1416 

1418 

1430-1433 

1435-1436 

1429-1433 

1436-1441 

1444 

I 446- 145 3 

1455-1458 

1460 

I 463-1 479 


No.  of  letter 

in  Migne  P.  G.  78. 

V  197-303  ■ 

304-311  = 

313-317  ■ 

118-331  ■ 

322-234  > 

335-331  . 

333-341  . 

343-348  ■ 

349-252  . 

353-354  ■ 

"55-357  ■ 

358-359  ■ 

360  ■ 

361-26)  • 

363  . 

364  ■ 
365-376  ■ 

177  . 

378-381  < 

381  > 

383-384  . 

385  . 

386  • 
387-390  ■ 
391-398  ' 

399-305  ■ 

306-307  - 

308-313  ■ 

314-334  ■ 

335-331  = 

333-340  ■ 

341-343  ■ 

343-344  • 

345-350  . 

351-353  ■ 

354  ■ 

355-358  ■ 

359-368  ■ 

369  ■ 

370-371  ■ 

373-374  ■ 

375  ■ 

376  ■ 

377  ■ 
378-385  ■ 
386-391  ■ 

393  - 

393-395  ■ 

396-400  . 

401-405  ■ 


No.  of  letter  in  G. 

.  1481-1487 
1489-1497 

'  1499-1503 

■■  1505-1508 

'  1510-1513 

■  1515-1531 
'  1535-1534 
'  1539-1545 
'  I55t>-i553 

■  1556-1557 
'  1 559-1 561 

1563-1564 

1566 
'  1571-1573 
'  1574 
'  1576 
'  1578-1589 

1595 
.  1597-1600 
I  1603 
'  1605-1606 
'  1608 

>  1610 

-■   1613-1615 

>  1618-1635 
.  1627-1633 

1635-1636 

I  1639-1645 

1648-1658 

:  1660-1666 
.  1668-1676 
'  1678-1679 
I  1680-1681 
>  1 685-1 690 
1693-1694 

1697 
.   1699-1703 

'   I7O4-I7I3 
I73I 

■■  1733-1734 
'   1737-1739 

1731 
■■      1736 

1738 
'   1740-1747 

■  1750-1755 

1757 

■  I76I-I763 

.  1765-1769 
'      1771-1775 


28a         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


No.  of  letter 
in  Migne  P.  G.  78. 

No.  of  letter  bG. 

No.  of  letter        „      ,,__ - 
Inlligne/>.C.78.    ''«•<*»««'" 

V406  -■ 

17S3 

V 475-478 

■   1876-1879 

407  - 

1784 

479-484 

-   1881-1886 

408  - 

1783  (a') 

485-491 

-   1888-1894 

409-411   -= 

I 786-1 788 

49»-498 

-  1896-1903 

413  - 

1790 

499 

•-   1906 

413-433   - 

1 793-1801 

500-504 

-   1908-1913 

433-435  - 

1803-1805 

505-5 '4 

-  >9* 5-1934 

436-439  - 

180&-1811 

5»5-53a 

-  1936-194J 

430-448  - 

I 8 13-1831 

533 

-  1945 

449  - 

1834 

534-540 

-  i947-«953 

450  - 

1838 

541-54* 

-  1955-1956 

451   - 

1843 

543-551 

-  »959-'967 

45>-453  - 

1 844-1845 

55'-56o 

-  i97i->979 

454-461   - 

1848-1855 

561-56' 

—  1981-1982 

463-470  - 

1857-1865 

563-564 

-  1984-1985 

471   - 

1867 

565 

-  1987 

473  = 

1869 

566-567 

-  >99'*->99» 

473  - 

1871 

568 

-  1993 

474  - 

1873 

669 

-  >995 

INDEX  C 

Thetetten  in 

MS  Uad  Gr.  4a. 

No.  in  S. 

No.  in  5. 

No.  in  S. 

No.  in  S. 

» 

331 

673 

I5>5 

6 

364 

739 

1573  [«*»•  axL3 

81 

400 

851 

1597 

183 

414 

893 

1705 

373 

457 

939 

1718 

990 

478 

970 

1760 

301 

566 

1384 

1868  [1968  cod.] 

305 

63s 

1307 

1906 

331 

639 

1308 

330 

643 

1370 

The  folio  references  for  these  letter?  are  given  in  the  new  catalogue  of  the 
Laudian  Greek  USS  in  the  Bodleian,  the  nuuiuscript  sheets  of  which  ve 
partially  available  to  readers. 


NOTES  FROM   COSMAS  INDICOPLEUSTES. 


In  the  XpumaviKr)  ToTToypai^ai  of  Cosmas  Indicopleustes  are  preserved 
almost  all  of  the  surviving  Greek  fragments  of  the  Festal  Letters  of  Atha- 
nasius.      On  collating  the  Laurentian  MS  of  Cosmas  I  find  another, 


^^^iaence  rather  than  a  fragment,  which  is  not  mentioned  in  Migne's 
*^ion.    It  does  not  occur  with  the  others  in  the  tenth  book,  but  at 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES  383 

*]^ference  rather  than 
.    *^ion.     It  does  not 
^   end  of  the  irapaypa^  on  p.  161  of  Migne,  which  runs  as  follows : 

'^•arot  (Tvyypa^cw  tv  KOfffua  Mwucr^,  xal  Ev(rcy3tos  o  IIa/ii<^L\ov  djroSfCicw<n¥ 

*    "Iiutnpros  [so  Vat.  and  Laur.   MSS  'IwajjmrtK  ed.J  iv  rots  iavrSn' 

^^^^nuy/uunv.   tSiJXuwav  yap  a>c  ap^aiarepoi  mfirft)!'  Toiv  iroyyptufttiay  iariv 

L,  reading  iarlv  avros  o  'M.<ava^,  continues  in  Si  icot  6  fUyai 
■^Oayatrto^  iv  rg  rpuuctxrvQ  ivarrj  ovrow  iopTwrruc^,  iv&a  Ktwoyi^a  t^k 
"ypcuf^  Kol  avTos  Tci  ofioia  kiytt  ori  vpo  Mtoucrcos  oix  fyrav  ypofifMra, 

Though  I  did  not  note  these  words  in  the  Vatican  MS,  there  seems 
no  reason  for  doubting  their  authenticity,  and  their  omission  in  the 
edition  which  elsewhere  follows  L  almost  exclusively,  barely  glancing 
at  V,  is  quite  inexplicable.  A  collation,  however,  of  the  two  MSS  has 
proved  to  me  that  it  is  by  no  means  the  only  thing  that  is  inexplicable 
in  that  edition. 

L  also  reads  at  the  b^inning  of  the  irafMypa<fyj,  M<av(r^  ^rfcro  instead 

of  Maxr^c  KOI. 

In  the  other  Athanasian  fragments  (Migne  xxvi  1433  fol.)  both  MSS 
read  KeKtxrfitjfUi'ot  ip)(6iuvoi  (1440  B):  V  and  originally  L  km.  tijz  {(md/v 
for  Kot  {tioT/c  (1433  B)  :  and  V  KarcurKtvaaiQ  for  Ka-Tatrrqa^  (1433  A)  and 
TapaXafiovTK  for  -TrapaXa/i^dvovTK. 

What  is  printed  (1441  C)  as  jx  r$c  aur^  .i...  appears  to  be  rov 
oiroS  ix  rqs  auT^s  though  it  is  very  illegible  in  V.  It  is  in  red  as  all  the 
other  headings  and  subsidiary  headings  such  as  koi  vdXiv. 

Among  the  other  Fathers  quoted  is  Chrysostom,  and  with  his  text 
again  Montfaucon  has  taken  unaccountable  liberties.  The  first 
fragment  quoted  Is  from  the  v€pl  iXrtjfjuxnivTj^t  which  Montfaucon  has 
Stared  to  suit  the  received  text,  thereby  omitting  several  lines  of  the 
text  as  read  by  L.  V  the  older  MS  is  unfortunately  deficient  here. 
X.  inserts  after  /tcya  SvBponros  koX  rifuov  ivijp  iXx^fuav  (Migne  439  B)  the 

VOrds  firyaXa  ra  irtpara  rij^  IXrrjfioavvrp.  rifivei  t&v  ofcpa.  irap4p)f€Tai  t^ 
vtXtqvTjv.  Ttfwei  ros  AicTivat  toS  ^Xiov,  €K  airras  Avipxtrai  ras  d^ZSas  roS 
tnipayov,  dAA'  ovrt  iKti  urraToi.  aXka  xot  roy  ovpayov  rov  ovpavov  Trapor 
Tpi\tu  Ktu,  rove  Si}/u>vc  rStv  dyycXwv  xol  raf  Avuxrcpat  oXax  Sin-o^ts.  koL 
avT^  trapUrraroi  r^t  Bpovt^  r^  ^curiXuc^  Koi  1$  avr^  StSa)(&rfn  ttj^  ypax^ifi. 
Tovro  tf>i}trl  yap  [yap  cU.  M.  suprd\  KopF^Xic,  ol  ■Kpo»T€V)(pi  <rov  xal 
iXnjfioavvtu  trov  Avifiija'av  tywtrutv  rov  6tcm. 

In  the  text  of  the  sermon  as  printed  in  Migne's  edition  a  somewhat 
similar  passage  occurs  earlier ;  ^wafM  yap  airnp  ion,  leot  oi  /t^v 
iStX^toTTji  KoX  ^wiapCst  dXXa.  koX  Sx'Jt"'-  '^^  v6$ev  rovro;  r^  Ko/nt/Aiy 
cXcycF  o  Ayytkot'  At  irpofT€V)(a£  trov  koI  oI  iXci}/UKrvv(u  o'ov  dv4fii^<rav  th 
ftyrjpwjwov  iviairtov  rov  $€av'    vrepov  yap  luri  ^  IKaffunnnrq.    ihv  oSv  ftif 


284         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

rof^trrj^  Trrtpioy  rg  tv)(^  ov  irrniTiu.  Sray  Si  vrcpw^  ^  ^h'X^  '"^  Zwranu  ctt 
Toy  oipavov.  But  the  whole  sermon  is  designated  as  either  spurious  or 
a  garbled  version ;  it  seems  at  least  w<»th  considering  whether  Cosmas 
may  not  have  preserved  part  of  the  original  version. 

In  the  second  quotation  from  Chrysostom  (Migne,  Chrysostom  id  14) 
L  continues  rightly  after  OtX^fwrot  avrov  with  the  words  rovrvm  irwfmt 

Kol  <f>povifWVV  vwqvai,  tq  ovrvn  frwfn^  rg  ottws  t^povqmu  ySo^Siu  xdtn; 
^(Auu  TO.  yhp  fOMm^pia  avrov  ■^fuy  Xiytu  rov  OfXtj/taroi  avrov  ^ijtru',  ktX^ 
only  differing  from  the  Chrysostom  edition  in  reading  rg  tro^ti^  and  r;^ 
tftpoy^ft  instead  of  r^  awftCay  and  r^v  iftpovrja-iy. 

The  text  of  the  frequent  biblical  quotations  has  been  about  as  roughly 
treated  by  the  editors  as  that  of  the  patristic  quotations.  As  a  specimen 
I  give  a  list  of  errors  in  passages  of  the  Acts  where  Tischendorf  has 
thought  the  authority  of  Cosmas  worth  recording,  not  by  any  means  a 
complete  list,  but  merely  corrections  of  Tischendorf 's  apparatus  criticm. 

Acts  i       I  o  (Cosmas,  p.  1 80)  itT&jvfa-i  Xxvkok  V  L  with  K  A  B  C 
II  jSXcirovrre  VL»withK*BE. 
ii      33  (p.  293)  dwoSt&tiyfUyov  dir6  {pro  L)  tov  6tov  VL  with 

nbcd«. 

«i0a>s  (without  («u)  V  L  with  K  A  B  C*  D  E. 

23  IkSotov  (without  Ao^on-fs)  V  L  with  ((•  A  B  C*. 
33  TOV  irvtvfiaTOV  tov  ayuni  V  L  with  M  A  B  C  E. 

S  vfMii  (without  vw)  VL  with  kABC*D*. 
iii     30  (p.  296)  irpoKtxtipta-fUvw  V  L  with  K  A  B  C  D  E  P. 
2 1   iraiT-an'  tuv  V  L  with  E  P. 

iyiiav  aw  aJiivos  avrov  irpotjtriTwv  V  with  N*  A  B*  C. 
(L  reads  t£v  dir  with  K^b^E). 

24  Kan/yytiAoy  VL  with  kABC*^^DEP. 

25  Kolft- VL  withKABCDEP. 
X      38  (p.  296)  <is  St^Aflo'  V  L  with  tt. 

39  rifUlv  (om.  la-fuv)  V  L  with  M  A  B  C  D  E. 

SvicolVL  with  K  ABC  DEHLP. 

avtIXav  V  with  K  A  B  C  D  E. 
xvij  26  (pp.  177,  357)  i$  ivos  (om.  oT/witm)  V  L  with  «AB. 

wavTot  wpofTiairov  VL  (p.  1 77)  with  N  ABD. 
27  TOV  tf<ov  V  L  with  tc  A  B  H  L. 

fl  evpotev  V  probably  for  ^  tvp.  as  A  D. 

KoiTot  V  L  as  A  E  Clem. 
29  xpww?  V  (p.  177)  with  kAE. 

dpyvfMp  V  (p.  1 77)  with  A  E. 

This  list,  I  think,  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  one  cannot  draw  any 
conclusions  about  the  text  of  the  Bible,  used  by  Cosmas,  from  the 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  285 

quotations  as  edited  by  Montfaucon :  and  the  absence  of  Western 
interpolations  and  the  phalanx  of  uncials  which  support  most  of  the 
corrections  I  have  mentioned  shew  that  that  text  was  considerably 
better  than  his  editor  has  allowed  it  to  be.  Whether  as  an  Alexandrine 
ne  may  have  preserved  anything  of  the  Alexandrine  text  is  perhaps 
Worthy  of  the  consideration  of  biblical  critics,  and  I  hope  soon  to  print 
a  Ciollation  of  the  two  MSS  which  may  at  any  rate  supply  them  with 
*  Safer  basis  than  Montfaucon's  untrustworthy  edition. 

E.    O,   WiNSTEDT. 


THE  SYRIAC  PSALTER'. 

Db  Barnes  is  to  be  congratulated  on  the  successful  termination  of 
what  must  have  been  a  laborious  though  interesting  piece  of  work. 
His  text  of  the  Psalms  in  Syriac  represents  the  West  Syrian  or  Jacobite 
recension,  but  in  his  apparatus  he  has  gathered  together  the  readings  of 
more  than  twenty  MSS,  some  Jacobite,  some  Nestorian,  some  Malkite. 
Besides  these  he  has  continuously  consulted  the  Commentary  of 
Barhebraeus,  that  veritable  storehouse  of  grammatical  and  texttial 
infurmalinn  about  the  Peshitta  text ;  be  has  not  neglected  the  chief 
Syriac  writers  whose  literary  method  makes  them  useful  authorities 
for  the  text,  and  he  gives  the  variatiotis  of  the  printed  editions.  The 
work  is  done  with  the  accuracy  and  tboT0ughne5.s  that  we  have  learned 
to  associate  with  Dr  Barnes.  Some  of  the  singular  readings  of  the 
various  MSS  are  not  recorded,  especially  where  they  seem  to  be  mere 
clerical  errors,  but  otherwise  the  variants  are  exhibited  in  full. 

The  MSS  vary  in  date,  from  the  Codex  Ambrosiarus  (A)  of  the 
sixth  century,  down  to  Psalters  younger  than  Barhebraeus  in  the 
thirteenth  century.  Three  of  the  MSS,  viz.  the  Codex  Ambrosianus 
(A),  the  Buchanan  Bible  at  Cambridge  (B),  and  the  Laurentian  MS  at 
Florence  (F),are  Bibles  ;  the  rest  are  Psahers,  the  oldest  of  these  being 
B.M.  Add.  1  jiio  (C),  a  codex  certainly  written  before  600  a.d.  Otlier 
MSS  were  specially  chosen  as  representatives  of  the  texts  current  in  the 
various  branches  of  the  Syriac-speaking  Church. 

It  was  known  that  the  text  of  the  Peshitta,  as  hitherto  edited,  rested 
upon  a  few  MSS  only,  and  these  for  the  most  part  late  and  inferior. 
We  therefore  turn  at  once  to  see  what  increase  of  knowledge  results 
from  this  large  accession  of  maicriil.  And  here  it  cannot  be  too 
strongly  empha.siKed  that  if  by  increase  of  knowledge  is  meant  a  large 
crop  of  important  varialions  in  the  text  we  must  prepare  lo  be  dis- 
appointed. Of  course  there  are  variations,  and  the  text  of  the  Syriac 
Psalter  as  printed  by  Dr  Barnes  docs  differ  now  and  again  from  the 
text  as  hitherto  putsUshed.     But  in  the  main  his  MSS  contain  ibc 

'  7Vir  Pfshitla  Pialtrr  acCQrtiing  to  thi  West  Syrian  Text,  etJitcd  with  an  apparatus 
cn'ttau  by  W.  E.  Baj4njis,  i>.D.,  HuIitCRn  Prorcuor  of  Uiviuity :  Cambridge,  ai  the 
Univ«nrit]r  Press,  1904. 


REVIEWS  287 

text  as  we  have  been  accustomed  to  read  it :  none  of  his  authorities 
offers  anything  analogous  to  the  Curetontan  text  of  the  Gospels. 

The  uniformity  of  the  text  presented  by  our  MSS  need  not  be 
regarded  as  a  misfortune,  if  we  can  prove  the  antiquity  of  this  ordinary 
text  For  this  purpose  the  evidence  of  Aphraates  becomes  of  great 
importance,  and  it  is  the  one  serious  omission  in  Dr  Barnes's  book 
tbat  he  has  not  given  the  evidence  of  Aphraates  more  fully.  The 
evidence  of  so  very  ancient  an  authority  —  Aphraates  wrote  about 
345  A.  D. — is  valuable  for  confirmation  as  well  as  for  correction,  and 
it  would  have  been  a  welcome  addition  if  the  extent  of  Aphraates's 
quotations  had  been  indicated  in  the  margin.  Thus,  to  take  one 
instance  out  of  many,  in  Psalm  xxxiv  6  ('  I  will  bless  the  Lord  at  all 
times,  his  praise  shall  continually  be  in  my  mouth '),  the  words  corre- 
sponding to  at  all  times  and  continually  are  different  both  in  the  Hebrew 
and  in  the  Greek.  They  are,  however,  the  same  in  Syriac,  and  the 
peculiarity  of  the  Syriac  is  faithfully  reproduced  in  Aphraates  (Wright, 
p.  76).  We  shall  notice  presently  a  curious  case  where  Aphraates 
deserts  the  Peshitta  altogether,  but  this  exception  should  not  blind 
us  to  the  general  attestation  which  the  earliest  surviving  Syriac  author 
gfives  to  the  Old  Testament  Peshitta  as  a  whole.  The  fact  is  of  very 
great  historical  importance,  for  it  brings  the  direct  external  evidence  for 
the  Syriac  Psalter,  practically  as  we  know  it,  almost  into  the  ante-Nicene 
age.  Whatever  Rabbula  may  have  done  to  the  New  Testament,  it  is 
evident  that  he  left  the  Old  Testament  alone. 

The  actual  variations  which  meet  us  in  the  MSS  are  of  two  kinds. 
There  are  a  certain  number  of  palaeographical  errors,  some  very  curious, 
the  work  of  chance  or  of  misplaced  ingenuity;  and  there  are  recensional 
changes  designed  to  make  the  Syriac  agree  either  with  the  Hebrew  or 
with  the  Septuagint.  These  last  can  nearly  all  be  traced  back  to  an 
eclectic  use  of  Paul  of  Telia's  translation  of  the  Hexaplar  text,  with 
its  learned  marginal  notes.  Sometimes  we  catch  the  alterations  in  the 
act  of  invading  the  text,  as  in  Psalm  ii  12,  where  the  Peshitta  read 
'  Kiss  the  Son ',  but  the  Greek  rendering  *  Receive  chastisement '  has 
been  placed  in  the  margin  of  Codex  F  and  has  actually  been  foisted 
into  the  text  of  Codex  A  by  a  later  hand.  In  other  passages  the 
comiption  is  older  than  certain  of  our  codices,  and  so  the  'Greek' 
reading  is  then  given  by  the  first  band :  Dr  Barnes  is  well  within  the 
mark  when  he  speaks  of  the  influence  of  the  Yaundyd,  \.  e.  the  Syriac 
translation  of  the  Hexaplar  text,  as  an  established  fact  (p.  xliii). 
Besides  this  tendency  there  is  another,  of  which  Codex  F  is  the  chief 
example,  to  agree  in  small  points  with  the  Hebrew.  I  venture  to 
suggest  that  this  also  is  due  to  an  eclectic  use  of  Hexaplar  MSS,  rather 
than  the  result  of  a  direct  comparison  with  the  Hebrew  itself.    It 


THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


2 


would,  in  fact,  be  an  interesting  task  to  see  boir  Tar  readings  of  F  which 
agree  with  the  'Hebrew'  agree  also  with  rcndcrii^  of  Aquila,  Sym- 
maclius,  or  Thcodolion,  as  preser\'ed  in  the  nurgins  cT  our  Syro- 
Hexaplar  MSS.  The  Syro-Hexaplar  text  was  a  recognized  critical 
authority,  and  individual  scholars  seem  to  have  eclectically  ai^iealed 
to  it,  much  as  the  Revised  Version  is  appealed  to  by  English  writers 
to-t5ay. 

itut,  as  1  have  already  said,  these  later  alterations  are  trifling  in 
extent  and  importance-  In  all  essentials  our  MSS  i^rescnt  the  same 
text,  and  that  text  wc  can  trace  back  to  the  time,  at  least,  of  Aphraates 
himself.  Nevertheless,  what  we  have  is  dearly  a  mixed  text.  In  the 
main  it  is  a  translatitm  from  the  Hebrew;  yet,  as  Dr  Barnes  says,  it 
is  *a  translation  which  bears  upon  it  the  marks  of  the  influence  of  the 
Septvagint'  (p.  xxxv).  Further,  to  quote  Dr  Barnes  again:  'The 
influence  of  the  LXX  Is  for  the  most  pan  sporadic,  affecting  the  trans- 
lation of  a  word  here  and  of  a  word  there '  ^. 

Surely  all  this  points  to  an  authoritative  revision,  made  to  accommodate 
the  Syriac  here  and  there  to  the  Greek.  Now  there  is  one  moment 
of  crisis  in  the  Syriac-speaking  Church  in  the  ante-Niccne  age,  and  as 
far  as  we  know  only  one,  in  which  the  historical  situation  was  likely 
to  call  forth  such  a  revision.  That  moment  was  the  end  of  the  second 
century  a.  d.,  when  Pililt  relumed  to  Edcssa  after  being  consecrated 
Bishop  by  Scraplon  of  Antioch.  So  far  as  our  scanty  historical 
authorities  allow  us  to  sec,  PSIilt  founded  (or  re-founded)  the  Catholic 
Church  in  Edcssa  about  the  year  200  a.  d.'  At  the  time  of  I^£l('s 
mission  a  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  Hebrew  intoSyriac 
¥ras  in  existence,  for  its  influence  is  visible  even  in  the  earliest  Syriac 
versions  of  the  Gospel.  But  it  seems  to  have  been  t)ic  work  of  a  Jewish 
or  Jewish-Christian  school,  and  I  venture  to  suggest  that  the  Syriac 
Bible,  like  the  Syriac  Church  generally,  was  somewhat  Romanised 
under  the  inspiration  of  Serapion.  Thus  the  Old  Testament  Peshitta, 
of  which  we  have  now  in  Dr  Barnes's  Psalitr  a  wcl!  edited  specimen, 
represents  a  slightly  revised  form  of  an  original  translation  from  the 
Hebrew.  The  original  translation  can  hardly  be  later  than  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  a.  n. ;  while  the  revision,  which  seems  to  haw 
taken  the  form  of  eclectic  accommodation  to  the  Septuagint,  may  be 
dated  with  some  confidence  about  the  end  of  the  second  century. 

One  single  point  of  considerable  textual  and  literary  interest  may  be 
noted  in  contlusion.  Among  the  quotations  of  Apliraates  is  one  from 
Psalm  xxxvii  (xxxvi)  35.     Here  the  Peshitta  lias 

'  Jauma!  0/ Thtaiogital  StuJUs  \i  157, 

■  Sec  tbc  Dvftntu  of  Addai  (td  fia.]  ud  Wn^tu'a  CitAiAyM,  p.  600  J. 


REVIEWS  289 

/  saw  wicked  men  boeisting,  and  exalkd  as  the  trees  of  the  wood. 
This  is  a  fair  though  not  very  close  rendenng  of  the  Hebrew,  which 
has  pjn  mTK  {i.  e.  'a  luxuriant  weed'  rather  than  *a  green  bay-tree*). 
But  Aphraates  (Wright,  p.  80)  gives  us 

.^ia^f  hi}  J*}  l^b.^0  ]^»L]ioef  U«A-t^  &«*Jx» 
I  saw  the  wicked  man  exalted  and  uplifted  as  the  cedars  of  Z^anon, 

This  is  not  only  very  far  from  the  text  given  in  our  Syriac  Psalters ; 
the  important  thing  is  that  it  agrees  word  for  word  with  the  rendering 
of  the  Greek  Bible,  which  has 
dSoK   [Tor]    ixrtji^   vir€pwlfOv[itvov   Ktu   hnupo/uvov   in  t&v    KcSpovs    rov 

What  are  we  to  say  to  this?  Aphraates  clearly  agrees  with  the 
Greek  against  the  Syriac.  We  cannot  say  he  is  using  the  SyroHexaplar 
version,  for  the  Syro-Hexaplar  version  was  not  made  till  two  centuries 
and  a  half  after  Aphraates  wrote.  It  is  not  likely  that  Aphraates  pre- 
serves the  true  Peshitta  of  this  passage  and  that  our  MSS  represent 
a  corruption,  for  *  the  trees  of  the  wood '  is  too  rough  and  paraphrastic 
a  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  to  be  the  work  of  a  late  corrector.  It 
might  indeed  be  supposed  that  Aphraates  reproduced  the  text  of  a 
revision  from  the  Greek  which  flourished  for  a  time  like  the  wicked, 
but  has  disappeared  from  the  gaze  of  a  later  age.  But  in  that  case  we 
should  have  expected  to  find  more  extended  traces  of  it  than  this  one 
verse,  for  I  must  repeat  that  apart  from  some  slight  and  excusable 
inaccuracies  in  language  the  quotations  of  Aphraates  keep  elsewhere 
pretty  closely  to  the  Syriac  Psalter  as  given  in  our  MSS. 

The  explanation  is,  I  believe,  that  Aphraates  is  here  reproducing  not 
the  text  of  the  Bible  as  known  to  him,  but  some  ecclesiastical  writing, 
itself  a  translation  from  the  Greek.  As  I  have  not  been  so  fortunate 
as  to  identify  the  source  I  give  the  whole  context  in  full,  which  forms 
the  opening  of  the  Homily  on  the  Persian  War  (Dr  Gwynn's  Tiaos- 
lation,  p.  352): 

*  The  times  were  disposed  beforehand  by  God.  The  times  of  peace 
are  fulfilled  in  the  days  of  the  good  and  just ;  and  the  times  of  many 
evils  are  fulfilled  in  the  days  of  the  evil  and  transgressors.  For  it  is 
thus  written : —  Good  must  happen,  and  blessed  is  he  through  whom  it  shall 
amu  to  pass  ;  and  evil  must  happen,  but  woe  to  Mm  through  whom  it 
shall  come  to  pass  ^.  Good  has  come  to  the  people  of  God,  and  blessed- 
ness awaits  that  man  through  whom  the  good  came.  .  .  . 

'Therefore  because  it  is  the  time  of  the  Evil  One,  hear  in  mystery 
that  which  I  am  writing  for  thee.     For  thus  it  is  written :   Whatsoever 

*  Apocryphal ;  see  Ps.  Clem.  Homil.  xii  39. 
VOL.  VI.  U 


ago         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

is  fxaJied  amofigst  men  is  iespUa^k  befort  God\  And  again  it  is  written: 
SvfrjK'ttc  Ti'Ao  exaileih  himself  shall  iV  abased,  and  everyone  who  humbUtk 
himself  sfiall  be  exalted^ .  Also  Jeremiah  said  :  Let  not  the  mighty  ^m 
in  his  fuight,  nor  the  riih  in  his  riches*.  And  again  the  blessed  Apostle 
said :  WAoscener  glorieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord*.  And  David  said: 
/  saw  the  wicked  exaiied  and  uplifted  as  the  udars  of  Lebanon  '....' 

Aphraatcs  thctn  goes  on  in  his  cliaracteristii:  manner  to  enumetaie 
a  number  of  Old  Testament  examples.  But  in  the  passage  abore 
quoted,  the  verse  from  Psalm  xxxvii  (xxxvi)  35  agrees  with  the  Greek, 
as  we  have  seen.  The  quotation  from  Jeremiah  ix  33  also  agrees  with 
the  Greek,  for  it  has  w^.^^  j/^,^.*.,  corresponding  to  u  iVxi'/w  *»■  t^ 
lo^i  aLToii,  where  the  Peshitta  has  «Lo)ai^^  )i-^'^  These  twtj 
verses,  moreover,  are  quoted  almost  together,  as  here,  in  the  Epistle 
of  Clement  of  Rome,  xtii,  xiv,  the  passage  from  Jeremiah  being  also 
followed  by  the  same  quotation  from  St  Paul.  Finally,  the  '  apoct)-phal ' 
saying  of  our  Lord  reappt-ars  in  the  'Clementine'  Homilies.  It  is 
evident  that  Aphraates  is  working  on  something  more  than  his  personal 
knowledge  of  the  Bible,  but  what  his  immediate  source  was  I  ha\-e  been 
unable  to  discover.  It  affords  us  a  curious  glimpse  into  the  library 
vA  a  Syriac-speaking  Christian  in  the  Nicene  or  ante-Nicene  age,  and 
it  is  a  pity  that  we  cannot  identify  it  more  closely. 

But  whatever  this  source  may  have  been,  it  was  obvHously  some 
Gnek  work  which  quoted  the  Bib!e  from  the  Sepiuagint,  and  so  the 
agreement  of  Aphraates  with  the  Septuagint  in  this  single  passage 
proves  nothing  as  lo  the  text  of  his  Syriac  Bible.  And  as  I  have 
his  other  quotations  agree  very  nearly  with  Dr  Barnes's  Psalter. 

F.  C.  BuRKirp." 


RECENT  ASSYRIOLOGY. 

Mr  L.  W.  Kinu,  Assistant  in  the  Department  of  Egyptian  and 
Assyrian  Antiquities  in  the  British  Museum,  so  well  known  for  bis 
Letters  and  Inscriptions  of  Hammurabi  and  The  Seven  Tablets  af 
Creation,  as  well  as  for  his  many  other  useful  works  on  Assyriology, 
has  commenced  what  bids  fair  to  be  a  most  valuable  series.  It  is  to 
be  called  Studies  in  Eastern  History,  and  the  first  volume  is  7"he  Keign 
of  Tukulri-JVinib  I  (published  by  Luzac  &:  Co.;  6/.).  The  aim  is  to 
collect  all  the  documentary  evidence  bearing  on  one  epoch  or  reign. 
The  British  Museum  is  the  greatest  treasure-house  of  such  documents, 
especially  for  Assyria,  that  is  accessible  to  European  scholars.  The 
generosity  with  which '  these  stores  of  information  have  been  placed 

'  Ltivi  15.  »  Lk.  liv  II.  •  Jcr.  tx  13  (LXX). 

•  I  Cor.  1  31.  "Pa.  xxxvii  (fir.  xxzvi)  45  f. 


REVIEWS  291 

at  the  disposal  of  all  who  could  profitably  use  them  is  proverbial. 
Instead  of  these  treasures  being  reserved  for  the  glory  of  England 
alone,  or  of  the  Museum  stafT  in  particular,  any  one,  be  he  ever  so 
hostile,  has  been  allowed  to  exploit  them  for  his  own  advantage.  A 
foreigner  had  only  to  satisfy  the  authorities  that  he  was  a  serious 
student,  and  every  facility  was  given  him  to  copy  and  edit  what  would 
serve  him  for  his  doctorate-thesis  and  establish  his  reputation  as  an 
Assyriologist. 

It  was  magnificent,  but  it  was  not  war.  Certainly  the  world  of 
scholars  gained  by  an  earlier  acquaintance  with  the  sources  of  knowledge 
than  would  have  been  possible  if  it  had  had  to  wait  until  the  limited 
forces  at  the  disposal  of  the  Museum  could  overtake  their  colossal 
tasks.  But  careful  as  were  most  of  these  essays,  and  valuable  for  their 
revelation  of  the  gems  hidden  away  in  the  Museum  cupboards,  they 
were  rarely  more  than  first  attempts.  One  of  the  most  irritating  things 
about  Assyriology  has  been  its  method  of  progress  by  catastrophe. 
£acb  dazzling  discovery  has  had  to  be  revised  by  sober  collation. 

The  publication  of  the  vast  Catalogue  of  the  collections  of  cuneiform 
tablets  from  Nineveh  was  expected  to  put  an  end  to  this  spasmodic 
sort  of  work.      It  was  felt  that  henceforth  the  whole  of  a  series  of 
related  texts  would  be  published  together.    To  some  extent  this  has 
been  realized.     Such  an  important  work  as  Professor  R.  F.  Harper's 
-Assyrian  and  Babylonian  Letters,  of  which  eight  fine  volumes  have 
already  appeared  (Luzac  &  Co.;   35^.  each),  could  never  have  been 
attempted  without  the  Catalogue.    When  complete  it  may  be  expected 
to  contain  all  the  letters  found  at  Nineveh,  in  the  so-called  Library 
of  Ashurbanipal,  so  far  as  they  are  named  in  the  Catalogue.     Never- 
theless, it  is  certain  that  there  are  many  more  such  documents  which 
have  been  catalogued  under  various  other  heads.    These  will  be  sub- 
sequently recognized  as  letters,  by  those  who  are  engaged  upon  quite 
different  documents.     Even  now,  some  of  those  published  as  letters 
by  Professor  Harper,  because  so  described  in  the  Museum  Catal<^e, 
are  certainly  nothing  of  the  sort    In  order  to  publish  together  all  the 
documents  of  any  one  class,  e.g.  letters,  it  is  necessary,  not  only  to 
copy  such  as  are  called  letters  in  the  Catalogue,  but  also  to  look  over 
hundreds,  perhaps  thousands,  of  other  tablets,  to  see  if  they  be  of  the 
same  class  or  not.    It  is  needless  to  say  that  few  can  be  found  able  to 
devote  the  time  and  labour  demanded  for  this  task,  even  if  the 
Museum  authorities  allowed  such  researches. 

In  the  case  of  such  literary  remains  as  those  of  the  Gilgamish  Epos 
or  the  Creation  Tablets  anything  like  a  complete  edition  is  rend^^ 
impossible,  not  only  by  the  fact  that  the  Catalogue  does  not  register 
them  all  under  the  proper  headings^  but  by  the  UjcX.  that  the  Museum 

U  a 


2^         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGtCAL   STUDIES 

possesses  at  least  as  many  more  tablrts,  which  did  not  come 
Nineveh,  and  consequently  h3\-e  no  place  in  the  Catalogue. 
example,  Mr  King's  Seven  Tablets  of  Creation  publishes  DOt  only  sH 
the  tablets  said  in  the  Catalogue  to  belong  to  that  series,  but  as  tDinj 
more  entered  in  the  Catalogue  under  some  other  description,  and  is 
even  larger  number  which  do  not  belong  to  the  Niocvcb  collecticni 
at  all.  No  one  who  merely  used  the  Catalogue  to  trace  fragmentt 
of  the  series  could  have  collected  more  than  a  third  or  perhapi  > 
quarter  of  what  Mr  King  has  published. 

The  firtding  of  these  fragments  must  have  involved  long-continoed 
aeajch,  which  reflects  the  highest  credit  on  the  industry  and  acumen 
f)f  the  distinguished  author.     It  would  not  surprise  us,  however,  to 
Icam  that  other  scholars  had  chanced  on  further  fragments  of  the  seri** 
while  examining  other  groups.     The  conclusion  is  obvious — only  those 
who  are  Assistants  in  the  Museum  can  hope  to  produce  any  compW* 
edition.     We  are  therefore  the  more  grateful  to  Messrs  King  an^ 
Thompson  for  the  work  they  do.     The  latter  scholar  has  just  published 
three  more  volumes  of  texts  of  an  explanatory  nature,  'the  earliest 
specimens  of  lexicography'  {^Cuneiform  Texts  fram  BaiyloniaM  TaiUth 
4t.,  m  the  Briiith  Museum,  Parts  xviii,  xix,  xx).     These  give  not  oiriy 
the  already-published  texts  of  the  particular  groups,  but  all  the  other 
fragments  assigned  by  the  Catalogue  to  the  same  groups,  and  further 
a  number  not  in  the  Catalogue  at  all.     The  collection  thus  made  of 
similar  texts,  in  one  accessible  work,  is  most  welcome.     The  pcevkHU 
publications  are  often  out  of  print,  costly  to  buy,  and  often  not  accurate. 
These   are    beautifully    reproduced,    probably   faultlessly    correct,  and 
wonderfully  cheap  (is.  hd.  each  part). 

The  series  now  started  by  Mr  King  is  for  the  above  reasons  irumitable. 
The  external  appearance  is  delightful,  the  size  convenient  to  handle, 
and  the  contents  really  a  v.aluablc  contribution  to  AssjTJan  history. 
Tukulti-Ninib  I — if  that  is  really  the  way  in  which  we  should  read  his 
name — was  son  of  Shalmaneser  I  and  grandson  of  Adad-nirari  I,  and 
he  reigned  about  1275  b.c  His  newly-found  Annals  form,  therefore, 
a  welcoine  addition  to  our  sources  of  information  concerning  an  obscure 
period  of  Assyrian  history.  One  of  the  most  interesting  items  is  that 
Tukulti-Ninib  carried  away  captive  Biiihashu  the  Kassite  king  of 
Babylonia.  Why  does  Mr  King  cling  to  the  old  reading  Bibeasbu  ? 
The  text  published  by  Professor  Scheil  in  Tome  II  of  the  Mem.iires  de 
la  DiUgatiim  en  Perse,  1900,  p.  95.  does  suggest  the  reading  Bitiliashu, 
and  this  deserved  notice  as  at  least  possible.  None  of  the  forms 
mentioned  b)'  Mr  King  excludes  this  reading. 

The  contributions  which  the  Annals  make  to  history  are  well  sum- 
marized by  Mr  King  and  co-ordinated  with  what  little  was  already 


REVIEWS  293 

known  firom  other  sources.  He  has  been  able  to  fix  the  reading  of  a 
line  in  Sennacherib's  record  of  his  recovery  of  a  seal,  once  belonging 
to  Shagarakti-shuriash  the  predecessor  of  Bitiliashu,  which  Tukulti- 
Kinib  carried  off  from  Babylon  to  Assyria,  which  was  again  carried  back 
to  Babylon  and  there  captured  by  Sennacherib.  This  line  had  baffled 
all  previous  attempts  at  decipherment,  because  it  was  an  Assyrian  scribe's 
attempt  to  reproduce  the  original  inscription  on  the  seal,  written  in  char- 
acters which  he  did  not  recognize.  Further,  Mr  King  has  succeeded 
in  reading  a  hitherto  misread  passage  of  the  Babylonian  Chronicle  which 
bears  out  Tukulti-Ninib's  account' of  his  defeat  of  Bitiliashu.  He  has 
thus  set  in  order  many  things  and  made  many  corrections  of  earlier  results. 

This  is  a  process  which  we  must  expect  to  go  on  perpetually.  Results 
built  upon  one  reading  of  a  single  sign  stand  on  a  very  precarious 
foundation.  They  await  confirmation.  Of  another  class  altogether 
are  the  careless  errors  due  to  misprints  and  bad  proof-reading.  The 
present  writer  has  to  mourn  such  in  the  passage  from  the  article  on 
Nineveh  in  the  Encyciopcudia  Biblica,  which  Mr  King  has  so  deservedly 
castigated  on  p.  1 24  f.  As  it  stands,  it  looks  like  a  badly-copied  extract 
from  Billerbeck  and  Jeremias's  Untergang  NineveXs  in  the  third  volume 
of  the  BHtrd^  %ur  Assyriologie  p.  108  1.  22  to  p.  log  1.  5,  Such 
atrocities  are  the  despair  of  readers  who  cannot  expect  to  verify  them. 
Mr  King  deserves  our  gratitude  for  his  corrections.  He  might  have 
added  that  Adad-nirari's  date  could  not  be  1845  b.  c.  ;  the  authors 
referred  to  give  1345  B.C.  The  reference  to  K.B.  i  9  should  be  in 
the  bracket  after  1500  b.  c,  not  where  it  stands  in  the  article.  Even 
the  initials  at  the  end  of  the  article  are  wrongly  given.  I  cannot  too 
humbly  apolq^  for  such  a  conglomeration  of  errors. 

The  publication  of  Shalmaneser's  bowl  inscriptions  (pp.  167-169  and 
173)  is  very  welcome,  correcting  as  it  does  some  mist^es  in  III.  R.  3, 
nos.  3-5.  The  new  text  on  p.  173  is  interesting  for  the  markedly 
unusual  forms  of  the  characters.  One  can  hardly  believe  that  it 
belongs  to  the  same  king  as  the  others ;  perhaps  that  is  why  Dr  Bezold, 
in  the  Catalogue,  assigned  them  to  a  later  king.  The  transliteration 
and  translation  are  given  on  p.  135.  In  line  7  read  e-nu-ma  for 
e-mu-ma.  The  translation  of  such  short  ends  of  lines  is  naturally 
difficult ;  but  why  h'dth'  naskute  should  mean  '  lordly  districts  *  is  not 
clear.  The  phrase  i^UU>iu  stgurraie  seems  more  likely  to  mean  'the 
clamps  had  parted ',  literally  '  carried  themselves  away  *. 

Mr  King's  edition  of  the  Bavian  inscription  will  be  awaited  with  great 
interest  His  re-edition  of  part  of  the  Babylonian  Chronicle  shews  the 
need  there  is  of  collating  even  the  most  trusted  copies.  His  full  account 
of  the  nature  and  purpose  of  'foundation  deposits'  in  Assyria,  Babylonia, 
and  Egypt  is  an  important  monograph. 


394         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

A  few  rriticisms  may  he  allowed.     On  p.  55  Mr  King  m^ht  at  least 
have  told  us  that  the  name  Khallu  has  been  called  in  question.   A  bricic 
was  brought  from  the  East  by  Dr  Sachau  and  is  now  in  the  BerUrv 
Museum  (V.  A.  Th.  2971)  which  in  other  respects  is  a  duplicate  orf^ 
the  British  Museum  No.  91,  130,  from  which  the  lume  Khallu  hicr^^ 
been  read   liy  Dr  Winckler  and  more  recently  by  Mr  King  himsel^^' 
in  Budge  and  King's  Annals  of  ike  Kingi  of  Assyria.     This  seem— "'"^ 
to  read  Hu-}u-ma,  a  name  much  more  likely  for  the  early  period  than^    ' 
the  unique  Khallu.      Sec   Dr   R.   Meissner's   Assyrialagische  Studuti  m  "• 
pp.  16-18  ir  the  Miitdlun^cn  der  Vurderasiatisihen  GeseUsckaft^  1903,^  J- 
pp.   100-103.     Also  compare  Dr  F.  E.  Peiser  in  the  OruntalisHschg-^^^^ 
Litteratuneitttng,  1904,  coll.  149-150.     The  photograph  given  in  the-=s»* 
Annals,  p.  xv,  suggests  that  the  inscription  on  the  British   Museum  ^^ 
Ijrick  is  sfimewhat  damaged  in  line  4. 

On  p.  57  Mr  King  niiyht  have  referred  to  another  of  Esarhaddon's  ^^=* 
textSj  81-6-7,  209,  [jublished  after  a  copy  of  Dr  Pinches  by  Professor -^■^ 
G.  A.  Barton  in  American  Oriental  Sodety's  J^oceedings,  1891,  no.  35,  ^^  > 
by  Professor  S.  A.  Strong  in  Hcbroi<a  viti,  1S92,  p.  113  fj  and  by  ** 
Meissner  and  Rosi  in  the  Beitrdge  sur  Assyrioiogie  iii  p.  351  f.  There  ^^^^ 
the  name  of  Esathaddon's  remote  ancestor  is  given  as  B61-baal  son 
of  Adasi. 

On  p.  60  the  registration  mark  of  the  Dabylonian  Chronicle  is  given 
as  83-^7-4,  38  instead  of  82-7-4,  38  as  on  pp.  31,  73,  &c  The  very 
interesting  inscription,  relating  the  fortunes  of  the  royal  seal,  contains 
the  difficult  line  kunukMu  annd  iifu  AUur  ana  Akkadi  garri  iktadtn  ; 
which  Mr  King  renders,  p.  107,  'This  seal  the  enemy  carried  away 
from  .Assyria  to  Akkad '.  On  p.  63  he  says  '  the  meaning  of  the  phrase 
garri  ikiadin  is  not  certain '.  He  evidently  takes  garri  as  (perhaps 
plural  cffgdru,  'enemy'.  That  is  without  parallel,  but  possible.  One 
would  expect  garrv  to  be  from  gardni,  '  to  run ',  or  it  may  be  for  karru 
or  kamt.  The  first  suggests  'course',  though  garru  is  not  found  with 
this  meaning.  There  are  several  words  karru  or  kamt,  one  of  which 
means  '  a  fastening ',  used  once  of  the  '  handEe '  of  a  dagger.  A  seal 
of  the  usual  roller  form  probably  had  a  metal  handle  or  fastening.  The 
verb  ikiadin  is  not  easy  to  refer  to  known  roots..  Mr  King  does  not 
say  how  he  derives  it.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  word  for  'to 
carry'  which  would  give  it.  The  verb  kadamt  may  mean  'to  preserve 
or  protect'.  A  verb  ^tanu  would  give  iklatin  and  might  mean  'was 
cut  short*  Or  'deprived  of.  The  whole  phrase  might  then  mean 
'its  course  was  cut  short',  i.e.  it  was  alienated  from  its  purpose.  Or 
perhaps  '  it  was  deprived  of  its  setting  (and  brought)  from  AssyriA  to 
Akkad". 


'  But  why  not  adopt  the  old  mding,  suggested  by  the  Jt«tHs  liittntntm,  otJtin^ 


REVIEWS  295 

On  p.  79  note  3  Mr  King  makes  the  acute  suggestion  that  nam^ 
usually  '  ruin '  or  '  waste ',  has  sometimes  the  meaning  '  plain '  \  He 
might  have  added  that  iadH  may  mean  '  6eld ',  as  well  as  *  mountain '. 
As  to  the  difficult  word  h'ddaf  suggested  by  Mr  King  on  p.  81  note  i, 
there  seems  no  reason  why  we  should  not  read  meti'l.  The  phrase 
ina  metii  kiilutSu  would  be  parallel  to  the  well-known  ina  meiil  karduHlu 
and  mean  'in  the  power  of  his  might'  (see  Muss-Amolt's  Concise 
Dictionary  p.  623a).  If  we  read  ina  Ubbat  iibirria  aS/uia^  'with  the 
staff  of  my  weapon  I  spoiled ',  instead  of  ina  mitil  iibirria,  *  in  the  might 
of  my  weapon ',  in  Sargon's  Cylinder  Inscription  1,  73,  we  should  have 
two  words  for*  club'  or  'staff*  coming  together  very  awkwardly.  On 
p.  83  1.  20  occurs  a  closely  parallel  phrase,  ina  tit  iiihttia  luturti,  which 
Mr  King  renders  *  with  the  power  of  my  abounding  strength '. 

The  suggestion  that  rappu  means  *flame*,  p.  81  note  i,  is  noteworthy, 
but  the  suggestions  on  p.  86  note  i  are  very  doubtful.  The  word 
galtappion  p.  87  1.  34  for  which  Mr  King  suggests  the  meaning  'refuse' 
is  certainly  the  same  which  occurs  under  the  forms  gUfappu^  gilxappu, 
also  kariappu,  iariubi,  kirfibbu,  &c.  (see  Muss-Amolt  p.  440b  under 
Hrfoppu),  The  changes  ^  to  *  or  i,  t  to  s  (or  /  ?),  /  to  ^,  are  common 
and  cause  no  difficulty.  The  word  means  'a  footstool',  which  suits 
this  passage  well.  The  same  word  seems  to  be  used  as  a  title  denoting 
probably  one  who  carried  the  king's  footstool,  '  a  groom  of  the  stool ', 
like  the  amilu  ia  kibsi.  But  when  a  man  expresses  his  humility  by 
saying  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  king  that  he  is  kardubiia  sislka,  he 
is  more  likely  to  mean  that  he  was  only  worthy  to  be  the  footstool 
of  the  king's  horses,  i.  e.  be  trodden  upon  by  them,  than  that  he  was 
their  groom.  Here  Tukulti-Ninib  says  of  Bitiliasu,  *  I  trampled  his 
lordly  neck  under  my  feet  like  a  footstool '.  As  a  sign  of  submission 
the  captive  allowed  his  conqueror  to  put  his  foot  upon  his  neck. 

It  is  certain  that  the<im//u  urigallu  was  a  priest  of  some  sort;  but  on 
p.  ro2  1,  4  there  is  no  anUht,  and  the  urigallu  here  was  probably 
a  'standard',  or  portable  tutelary  deity.  On  p.  117  1.  47  for  mi-si^-ti 
read  ni-si^-ti.  On  p.  119  1.  51  there  seems  no  reason  to  prefer  Gibi/ 
to  the  usual  tHatu.  That  Adad-§um-usur  slew  BSl-kudur-usur  depends 
upon  the  completion  of  the  verb,  in  1.  5  p.  161,  to  i-du-ku.  This  verb 
occurs  in  the  line  above,  where  Mr  King  renders  it  'fought*,  p.  105 
I.  4.  But  the  text  has  clearly  DU-KU,  which  can  be  read  ittaUaku^ 
'they  came'.  On  p.  178  1.  24,  p.  181  1.  38,  p.  182  1.  9,  read  Tukulti  for 
Tulkulti,  and  p.  184  1.  12,  ^umant  for  Kumanl. 

C  H.  W.  Johns, 

ta£n\    This  gives  good  enough  sense,  even  if  rather  concise;  'was  stolen  (and) 
Uken '. 
*  We  meet  with  namA  as  a  synonym  of  o/m,  a  *  city,  or  settlement  *. 


A  HOST  valuable  littk  work  is  Tdoni's  LtUeratura  Asst'ra  (Manua^^** 
Hoepti,  Scrie  scienti6ca,  337-338;  31.).     It  has  most  helpful  divisione^    *^ 
and   is  written  with  a  healthy  scepticism  of  unproved  theory.      It  ^^  ^ 
practically  complete  to  date,  1903;  only  a  few  papers  or  memoirs  it-     '" 
scientific  journaJs  have  e&caped  notice.     Up  till  now  the  only  goo^^^ 
collection  of  references  was  in  Dr  C.  Bezold's  industrious  but   pi«i-^ 
tentious    Kurz^/assier   (jherblick   iiber  die   haiyianisch-assyriseke   Ut^^^ 
ratur  (Schulzc,   Leipxfg,    18S6;    i2j.)-      It  made  a  great   display  fr  ^ 
sprawling  cuneiform  characters,  used  in  place  of  well-known  translitera  — 
lions.    This  affcKrted  accuracy  was  counterbalanced  by  a  most  uncriticaS 
adoption  of  the  mere  opinions  of  Assyriologists  as  to  the  nature  of  man^ 
documents.     Further,  no  judgement  was  used  as  to  what  references 
should  be  included.    A  mere  statement  by  some  one  that  a  tablet  wa« 
unedited,  but  had,  say  sixteen,  tines,  was  thought  worthy  of  record. 
The  industry  displayed  was  great,  however,  and  the  work  is  still  of  use 
Teloni  is  much  more  useful  and  complete,  and  would  well  repay  transla- 
tion into  English. 

An  excellent  book  is  Dr  J.  Nikel's  Genesis  vnd  Kdisihri/t/orsckung 
(Herder,  Freiburg,  rgoj;  5/.),  which  exhibits  all  the  Babylonian 
parallels  to  the  Book  of  Genesis  and  discusses  the  principal  viewi 
which  can  be  taken  of  their  relationships.  Dr  A.  Jcrcmias  has  written 
a  richly  illustrated  account  of  the  chief  Babylonian  parallels  to  the  Old 
Testament — Das  Alt*  Ttstament  im  Liihte  dss  Aiten  Orienh  (Hinrichs, 
I^eipzig,  1904 ;  6f.).  He  iilso  lays  Syria,  Phoenicia,  Arabia  and  Egypti 
under  contribution.  Without  being  as  full  as  K.A.T.*,  he  gives  afl' 
that  a  student  needs.  A  useful  pamphlet  giving  a  concise  view  of  the 
relations  between  Babylonian  sources  and  the  Old  Testament — Ka/- 
inschrifien  wwi/if/if/^Rcuthcr  &  Rekliard,  Berlin,  1903;  ix.)  by  Prof 
H.  Zimmern,  is  well  worth  reading. 

Of  the  deepest  interest  for  students  of  Biblical  Archaeology  is  Tell 
Ta'annek  in  the  Den&schri/ien  der  Kaisertichen  Akademit  der  IVisfen- 
ichajten  in    Witn,  phUosopk.-histcrisciu  JClass<,  Bd.  L  (GcTold's  Sons, 


i 


CHRONICLE  297 

Wien,  1904;  14s.).  Here  Dr  Sellin  sets  out  the  antiquarian's  view 
of  the  excavations  at  the  Old  Taanach,  and  Dr  Hrozn^  gives  the  cunei- 
form texts  found  there.  The  work  is  full  of  illustrations,  shewing  the 
nature  of  the  culture  from  prehistoric  times  down  to  Greek  times. 
The  results  rank  with  those  at  Gezer  as  witness  to  what  the  history 
of  Palestine  really  was.  Very  important  are  the  Yahweh  names  in  the 
cuneiform  texts. 

The  publication  of  C.  Fossey*s  Manuel  d'Assyriohgie  (Leroux,  Paris, 
1904;  9  vols.  8vo;  25  fr.)  should  greatly  increase  the  confidence  of 
scholars  in  the  results  of  cuneiform  decipherment.  Tomt  premier  deals 
with  explorations  and  discoveries,  decipherment,  and  the  origin  and 
history  of  the  writing.  It  rescues  many  half-forgotten  memoirs  from 
scientific  journals  and  shews  how  the  results  have  been  won.  It  is 
clearly  and  pleasantly  written  for  those  who  have  no  special  knowle<^e 
of  the  subject. 

The  Code  of  Hammurabi  has  not  ceased  to  interest.  Dr  Winckler 
has  produced  a  most  valuable  little  work.  Die  Gesetze  Hammurahis 
in  Umschrifi  und  Ubersetzung  (Hinrichs,  Leipzig,  5*.),  with  introduction, 
register  of  proper  names,  glossary  and  very  welcome  appendices  j  to  wit, 
the  so-called  Sumerian  Family  Laws  and  a  later  Code  of  the  New 
Babylonian  Empire.  This  gives  all  that  a  student  who  does  not  read 
cuneiform  can  require.  Dr  Winckler  refers  to  the  work  done  on  the 
Code  by  J.  Jeremias,  J.  Kohler,  and  F.  E.  Peiser,  and  a  few  su^estions 
made  by  R.  F.  Harper  and  D.  H.  MiiUer  have  reached  him ;  but 
he  does  not  take  much  notice  of  what  has  been  written  on  the  subject 
The  inscription  quoted  on  p.  v  gives  the  name  Ibirum,  which  is 
interesting  as  an  Amorite  name ;  the  reading  IbiaSum  is  most  unlikely. 
On  the  other  hand,  Winckler  does  well  to  restore  the  name  of  the 
divinity  as  ASratu,  rather  than  King's  improbable  iarratum.  The 
introduction  is  very  interesting  and  discusses  many  questions  about  the 
history  of  these  Codes,  with  Dr  Winckler's  characterisdc  acumen.  There 
are  also  a  number  of  valuable  footnotes. 

Professor  Scheil  has  popularized  his  first  great  work  on  the  Code 
by  issuing  a  translation  in  a  small  book  Za  Lot  de  Hammourabi  (Leroux, 
Paris,  ij.),  with  some  useful  notes  and  an  index  of  subjects.  Professor 
D.  H.  Miiller  has  followed  up  his  important  treatise  by  a  lecture  Vber 
die  Gesetze  Hammurahis  (Holder,  Wien,  u,  6*/.),  before  the  Vienna 
Law  Society;  in  which  he  has  taken  account  of  all  recent  work  and 
pursues  his  comparisons  with  the  Twelve  Tables  and  the  Mosaic  Codes. 
It  contains  some  important  suggestions.  He  has  also  embarked  upon 
a  rather  acrimonious  controversy  with  Professor  Kohler  and  Dr  Peiser, 
Die  Kohkr-Peisersche  Hammurabi-Ubersetzung  (Hfilder,  Wien,  if.). 
Another  Italian  translation,  Le  Leggi  di  Hammurabi  (Societk  Editrice 


agS         THE  JOURNAL    OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

Librark,  Milan,  i;.),  gives  a  short  miroduciton  and  u  few  notes  bf 
Frofessor  Bonfante.     A  very  good  English  edition  with  some  common- 
sense  remarks  on  the  relations  to  the  Hebrew  legislation  is  by  Mr  Chilperic^ 
Edwards,  T/u  ffammurabt  Code  iy^3Xi&  &  Co.,  London,  2s.6d.).  WrS.C— 
Boscawen  gives  a  fair  rendering  in   7^e  First  of  Empires  (Harper 
Brothers,  lx)ndon,  is.  6(i.),  together  with  a  large  amount  of  tnleresting 
information  about  Babylonian  life  and  customs.     It  is  intensely  inter* — -~' 
esting  to  read,  but  disfigured  by  an  astonishing  number  of  misprints. —  -=■ 
Dr  T.  G.  Pinches  has  further  given  an  excellent  translation,  and  some^^** 
interesting   notes   in    his    0/d   Tesiament  in  the  hght  of  the  Histarimb^'^* 
Records  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia  (S.  P.  C-  K.,  London,    71.  fid,y     An^  *J' 
attempt  to  set  out  the  materials  for  the  history  of  institutions  in  Assyria^c=-  ^ 
and  Babylonia  has  been  made  by  the  present  writer,  in  Assyrian  anifm:  ■  ^ 
Bahyhmian  I.aws^  Contnuts  and  letters  (T,  &  T-  Clark,   Edinburgh,,^  *^ 
1 2J.).   This  work  includes  a  translation  of  the  Code.    Mr  H.  ^L  V\"ienet~^  ^^ 
has  written  a  most  interesting  book  of  Studies  in  Biblical  Lmo  (D.  Nutt,^^^^ 
London,  zs.  fit/.)  in  which  he  treats  the  question  from  a  lawyer's  stand —  ^' 
point.     He  makes  excellent  use  of  tlie  Code  of  Hammurabi.      It  i^^^  -* 
a  noteworthy  attempt  to  vindicate  traditional  views   of  the   Hcl»rew^i^^ 
legislation  in  a  modern  reading  of  them.    Numerous  articles  in  scientific — -^ 
journals  notably  Ungnad's  'Ztu-  Syntajt  der  Gesette  Hammurabis',^-^ 
Zeitschrift  f.  Assyriologie^  1904,  testify  to  the  sustained  interest  in  the=— = 
subject.    It  is  obviously  ioipussiblc  to  do  more  tlian  chronicle  the  fact 
of  their  appearance. 

C.    H.   W.   JOHMS. 


LITURGTCA. 


A  FULL  and  interesting  sketch  of  the  life  and  works  of  the  father  of 
modem  litui^iology  is  given  in  UAbhe  Eusibe  Renatidat  by  the  Abbe 
AnL  Villien  of  Tarentaise  (Paris,  1904).  Apart  from  his  imporuncc 
for  liturgical  studies,  Rcnaudot  is  a  very  interesting  figure  by  reason 
of  his  relations  with  the  persons  and  events  of  the  latter  half  of  the 
seventeenth  century  and  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth.  He  was  bom 
in  1648^  of  a  family  which  hail  been  proiestant.  His  training  he  got 
with  the  Lazarists  at  the  CoUt;ge  de  S.  Charles,  and  then  at  the  Coll^ 
de  Clermont  with  the  Jesuits,  whom  as  a  body  he  later  cordially 
detested.    In  1665  he  joined  the  Oratory,  in  the  following  year  received 


CHRONICLE  299 

minor  orders,  beyond  which  he  never  proceeded,  and  went  to  Saumur 
to  pursue  theology  among  the  traditions  of  J.  Morin  and  Thomassin ; 
and  there  he  laid  the  foundations  of  his  after  reputation  as  *  the  most 
learned  orientalist  of  his  day '.     He  was  for  a  few  years  a  teacher  at  the 
Collie  de  Juilly ;  but  in  1672  he  abandoned  the  Oratory  and  returned 
to  his  home,  and  his  father's  position  as  royal  physician  gained  him 
entry  to  the  Court  and  to  Bossuet's  Petit  CondU,  where  he  associated 
with  a  brilliant  society  including  Huet,  Fleury,  La  Bruy^re,  F^nelon 
and   d'Herbelot.     He  collaborated  with  Nicole  and  Arnauld   in   the 
J*trpituiti  de  la  Foi — and  this  was  the  origin  of  his  liturgical  interests 
and  studies ;  he  was  the  constant  prot^g^  and  ally  of  Bossuet,  whom 
he  assisted   in  the   Variations  and  in  the  affiiirs  of  Richard  Simon, 
F^nelon  and  Quietism,  and  the  '  Chinese  rites ' ;  and  was  the  author  of 
the  opinion  on  Anglican  Orders  put  forth  by  Le  Quien,  and  of  the 
traditional  argument  against  their  validity.     His  literary  friendships  and 
alliances  included  those  of  Mabillon  and  Montfaucon,  Boileau,  Racine, 
and  la  Bruyfere.     In  1679  he  succeeded  his  father  as  editor  of  the 
Gazette  de  France,  the  prototype  of  modem  journals,  founded  by  his 
grandfather,  and  he  continued  to  edit  it  for  the  rest  of  his  life.    This 
brought  him  into  close  relations  with  the  Court  and  the  Ministers, 
whom  he  constantly  advised  and  especially  on  English  afiairs  and  the 
Court  of  S.  Germain's,  on  which  he  became  an  ejqwrt.    He  was  twice 
disappointed  in  his  hopes  of  the  librarianship  of  the  Royal  Library, 
in  spite  of  the  support  of  Colbert  and  Le  Tellier.  He  became  a  member 
of  the  Acadimie  Fran^ise  and  the  Acadimie  des  Inscriptions,   and 
assisted  in  the  revision  of  the  Academy's  Dictionary,  and  contributed 
a  number  of  memoirs  on  various  subjects.     In  1700  he  accompanied 
the  Cardinal  d'Estr^es  to  Rome  as  conclavist  and  was  present  at  the 
election  of  Albano,  Clement  XI,  who  distinguished  him  with  considerable 
attentions,  and  kept  him  some  time  in  Rome  and  consulted  him  on 
French  affairs.     On  his  way  home,  he  was  entertained  and  f£ted  at 
Florence  by  the  Grand  Duke  Cosmo  III  de'  Medici,  revised  the 
caulogue  of  his  library  and  was  made  a  member  of  the  Academia 
di  Crusca.     In  the  last  twenty  years  of  his  life  he  published  his  more 
important  works,  notably  the  Difcnse  de  la  Perphtuiti  and  the  completion 
of  the  work  itself,  the  Historia  Patriarcharum  AUxandrinorum  and  the 
Liturgiarum  orientalium  colUctio.     He  and  his  family  had  always  had 
ties  with  Port  Royal  and  with  prominent  Jansenists;  he  was  himself  the 
ally  of  Arnauld  and  Nicole,  and  was  refused  the  royal  Ubrarianship 
ostensibly  on  the  ground  of  his  Jansenism  ;    with  advancing  years 
he  became  more  and  more  GalUcan  and  his  Jansenist  sympathies 
increased,  and  after  the  death  of  Louis  XIV  he  took  a  prominent  place 
among  the  'appellants  and  opponents'  of  the  Unigenitus.    He  died 


300        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

September    i,  1720,  and  was  buried  at  S.  Germain  dea   Prfes.     H^ 
bequeathed  his  library  lo  the  Abbey  :   but  it  iicrishcd  in  tbe  fire  c::^ 
1794.     His  character  is  not  very  dearly  marked  in  the  AbbiJ  Villien'      * 
book,  but  one  gets  the  impression  thai  he  was  rather  stifTand  poleraic^^** 
and  a  little  touchy.    Tlie  second  part  of  the  book  deals  particularly—"  ' 
with  the  liturgical  work  of  Renaudoi.     A  chapter  is  devoted  to  a  vei^  " 
useful  sketch  of  what  had  been  done  up  to  Kenaudot's  lime;  and  then  hi^  -i 
own  pubUcatiotis  arc  describcd,bi3  fundamental  ideas  on  liturgy  extractcde^^K 
and  finally  a  chapter  is  given  to  criticisms,  contemporary  and  modern^  ^ 
on  his  work;  and  in  an  appendix  the  liturgical  texts  which  he  Iranslatcc:^:^ 
arc  catalogued.     A  bibliography  of  materials  for  the  life  is  prefixed  *'     ^ 
the  book.     Perha]>s  I  may  remark  that  the  allusion,  on  p.  263,  note  2     ^ 
to  my  Litur^'es  Eastern  and  WesUm  may  be  corrected  by  reference  ti 
p.  UxJi  of  its  Intruduction- 

It  is  satisfactory  Co  record  that  an  English  translation  of  Mgi^. 
Duchesne's  Origirus  du  Culte  (hritten  has  appeared,  as  Christiam^ 
WoriMp:  itsorif^in  and  evciufton  by  M.  L.  McClure  (London,  S.P.CK-, 
1903).  At  this  lime  of  day  it  is  nccdlcKS  to  bestow  either  description 
or  compliment  on  Mgr.  Duchesne's  work,  which  one  is  disposed  to 
think  of  as  the  only  real  book  on  its  subject.  The  translation  is  vrdl 
done,  idiomatic  and  readable;  and  only  a  few  corrections  of  soiall 
details  are  called  for,  so  far  as  I  have  observed.  On  p.  59,  note  1, 
*  in  place  of  these  '  makes  no  sense:  I  do  not  know  what  Mgr.  Duchesnes 
own  words  mean,  and  anyhow  the  remark  seems  to  me  to  rest  on  a 
mistaken  interpretation  of  the  text.  P.  64,  the  insertion  of  'and'  after 
'  ritual '  makes  the  author  use  *  ritual '  in  the  slang  sense  :  in  fact  '  the 
arrangement  of  the  prayers,  their  style  and  general  tenor  '  is  the  *  ritual'. 
P.  65,  '  Monolhelism'  is  put  for  '  Monotheielism  ' ;  p.  71,  'Kudoxms' 
should  stand  for  'Eudoxus';  p.  79,  'non-liturgical  service'  is  misleading 
in  English,  the  meaning  being  'a  service  other  than,'  or  '  not  including, 
the  mass';  p,  139,  note,  '  Felion  '  should  be  'Felloe  ';  p.  237  sq.,  read 
'  Asian  ',  'Alexandrine '  for  'i\siat ',  '/Vlexandrian ' ;  p.  1 69,  for  aMpotrruaA 
read  uAjwortxia;  p.  ^79,  'tunide'  is  a  singularly  unfortunate  rendering 
of'  tunique'  in  tlie  sense  of 'aib  ' ;  p.  431,  '  Leonine'  not  'Leonian'  is 
usual  and  correct ;  and  p.  447,  de  ieiuniis  is  the  right  expansion  of 
dc  ieiun.  If  I  may  make  a  few  suggestions  as  to  Mgr.  Duchesne's  own 
work :  p.  6 1 ,  note,  is  not  the  reason  the  '  Clementine '  preface  ends  with 
Joshua  and  the  Conquest  of  Canaan,  that  this  corresfKuids  typically 
with  the  Ascension  in  the  post-sanctus  (cp.  Heb.  iv  8,  14)?  P.  67,  the 
Liturgy  of  S.  James,  so  far  as  I  could  learn  by  enquiry  on  the  spot 
ten  years  ago,  is  not  in  use  in  Cyprus,  and  its  restoration  in  Jerusalem 
is  very  modern  ;  p.  75,  Dmitriewskij,  not  Wobbemiin,  discovered  and 
first  published  the  Serapion  document,  in  which  also  more  than  two 


CHRONICLE  301 

IHayers  are  ascribed  to  Serapion ;  p.  156,  a  reference  would  be  useful 
to  Dr  McCarthy's  edition  of  the  Stowe  Missal  {Tlrans.  Rt^al  Irish 
Acad,  xxlii,  Nov.  1886),  which  is  better  than  Mr  Warren's ;  p.  168,  it  is 
the  author  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  who  has  obviously  manipulated 
the  text  of  the  Gloria  in  excelsis,  while  the  Latin  text  corresponda 
closely  to  the  original  Greek ;  p.  168,  the  O.  T.  lesson  in  the  Byzantine 
mass  is  implied  also  in  S.  Maximus  Afystagogia^  while  it  is  surely 
not  the  case  that  the  Alleluia  be/ore  the  Gospel  is  peculiar  to  the 
Roman  rite,  since  it  is  practically  universal  in  the  East;  p.  333,  a 
reference  to  Dom  Marin's  article  {Rev.  Biuid.  Aug.  1897)  on  the  origin 
of  the  Embertides  would  be  in  place ;  p.  336  sq.,  Dr  Wilpert  seems 
to  have  shed  more  light  on  the  origin  of  certain  vestments;  and  p.  524, 
a  reference  to  Dr  Riedel's  translation  of  a  new  text  of  the  Hippolytean 
canons  (Z>/>  Kirchenrechtsgueilen  d.  Patriarch,  Alex.  p.  300)  would  be 
useful. 

Two  more  volumes  of  the  Alcuin  Club  Colkctions  have  appeared. 
Vol.  V  is  Mr  Percy  Dearmer*s  Dai  Boexken  vander  Missen:  '  77u 
Booklet  of  the  Mass':  6y  Brother  Gherit  van  der  Goude,  1507  (Long- 
mans, 1903).  Mr  Frere  identified  the  original  of  *  UinUrpritation  et 
signification  de  la  Messe  (Anvers,  r529)'  used  by  Dr  Rock  in  The  Church 
of  our  Fathers  as  Dat  Boexken  vander  Afissen  of  Gherit  van  der  Goude, 
of  which  there  are  three  editions  in  the  British  Museum  ;  and 
Mr  Dearmer  further  found  in  the  Museum  an  English  version,  The 
Interpretatyon  and  Sygnyfycacyon  of  the  Masse  by  Frfere  Gararde,  r53a. 
He  has  here  edited  the  liturgical  parts  of  the  second  book  of  the 
Booklet,  consisting  of  thirty-three  woodcuts  of  the  successive  actions 
of  the  mass  accompanied  by  a  short  description  of  them.  Since  Gherit 
was  an  Observantine  Franciscan  and  used  the  Roman  use,  Mr  Dearmer 
treats  the  woodcuts  as  evidence  of  the  Roman  ceremonies  of  the 
banning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  when  the  rubrics  of  the  Missal  are 
insufficient  as  a  description  of  what  was  done ;  and  he  comments  on 
each  picture,  indicating  its  points,  and  illustrating  them  by  the  help 
of  the  Indutus  plaiuia,  the  AlpHadetum  sacerdotum  and  such  rubrics 
as  are  available.  The  pictures  are  very  interesting  and  cover  much 
more  ground  than  the  series  already  published  by  the  Alcuin  Club 
in  VoL  ii  of  its  Collections :  the  editor^s  comments  are  good  and  to  the 
point  But  there  are  too  many  misreadings  or  misprints:  I  have  noticed 
them  on  pp.  13,  17,  35  (two),  39  (two),  40,  43  (three),  7r,  115,  135 
(two).  In  two  appendices  are  given  the  relevant  parts  of  the  English 
version  of  1533,  and  the  Ordinary  and  Canon  according  to  the  use 
of  Utrecht  (1540).  Vol.  vi  is  Mr  Cuthbert  Atchley's  The  Parish  Ckrh 
and  his  right  to  read  the  liturgical  Episik  (Longmans,  1903),  in  which, 
in  a  more  or  less  popular  form,  the  author  traces  the  origin  of  the  parish 


joa         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

:Ierk  and  effectnrely  prores  his  thesis,  at  least  by  authoritatiTe  precedent       f  ^>' 
Tom  the  smeenth  centurr  onwards. 

The  same  subject  is  dealt  with  on  a  larger  scale  and  with  Ml  detid 
n  the  introduction  to  T^  CUrfs  Book  o//j^^  edited  by  Dr  Wickbam 
Legg  for  the  Henry  Biadshaw  Society  (London,  1903).    The  two  boob 
UK  not  independent  of  one  another,  since  Dr  Legg  would  have  us       |  i^° 
iinderstand  that    his    material    is   chiefly  due  to  the  reseatches  of 
Mr  Atchley.      The  teit  introduced  is  derived  frcwn  a  unique  copf 
in  the  British  Museum,  and  consists  of  the  'Book  of  Common  Pnjer' 
of   1549   li.  e.  what  appertains  to  the   Divine  Service),  the  liuaj, 
ind  'all  that  shall  apperteigne  to  the  clerkes  to  say  or  syng'  tt  the 
Liturgy,  Ntatrimony,  Visitation  and  Communion  of  the  Sick,  "BoMis, 
Chuzchings,  and  Comminadon.     In  a  series  of  appendices  are  collected 
I  number  of  documents  bearing  on  the  duties  &c.  of  parish  claksi 
and  the  whole  is  concluded  with  a  body  of  short  notes  and  a  genei^^ 
index. 

Since  our  last  Chronicle,  the  Henry  Bradshaw  Society  has  »^^ 
issued  four  other  volumes.  First,  the  Benedutionai  of  ArcMbis**^ 
Robert  (1903),  edited  by  Mr  H.  A.  Wilson.  This,  an  English  ^^"^ 
dkthnal  and  Pontifical  combined,  written  in  the  latter  part  of  the  t^*V^)- 
century  at  the  New  Minster  of  Winchester,  and  taken  to  Rouen  ^  ,-4 
bably  before  1050,  where  it  became  the  property  of  the  Chapter  ^^^y\ 
where  it  is  now  preserved  in  the  Public  Librai)-,  is  familiar  enough  ^t 

name  and  in  part  by  contents,  but  has  never  before  been  printed     ^^J- 
length.     In  his  introduction  Mr  Wilson  considers  the  MS  and  its  ch^^^ji 
acter  and  early  history,  the  identification  <rf  Robert— whether  Rob^^O^J- 
of  Jumifeges,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (tio^o),  or  Robert  of  Nc^^^^^jf 
mandy,  Archbishop   of  Rouen  (990-1037)  and  maternal  uncle  C^^^ 
S-  Edward  the  Confessor— and  discusses  its  relations  to  other  Englis,    "*    " 
Pontificals ;   and  in  his  notes  he  developes  the  comparison  in  detail 
Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson  has  edited   Customary  of  the  Setudietin 
Monasteries  of  Saint  Augustine,   Canterbury,  and  Saint  PeUr,    West 
mifsterf  Vol  i  (London,  1902).     This  first  volume  comprises  the  text 
of  the  Canterbury  book  contained  in  the  Cotton  MS  Faustina  c  xii, 
which  is  to  be  followed  by  what  remains  of  the  Westminster  book 
contained  in  Cotton  MS  OtAa  c.  xi,  and  another,  early,  customary  of 
S.  Augustine's  Canterbury  contained  in  MS  211  ofGonville  and  Caius 
College.     In   the   Preface   the  Editor  describes  the  Canterbury  MS 
1^^  shortly  catalogues  its  contents,  reserving  further  remarks  for  the 
-^cond  volume.     Mr  W.  H.  Frere  and  Mr  L.  E.  G.  Brown  have  so  far 
completed  a  weary  ten  years'  work  as  to  have  brought  out  the  first 
M^ine  of  the  Hereford  Breviary  (London,   1904)  containing  Psal- 
^fjgmt  Commune  Sanctorum  and  Temporaie.     The  text  is  that  of  the 


CHRONICLE  303 

printed  edition  of  1505,  with  the  variants  of  the  thirteenth-century  MS 
Breviary  at  Hereford,  the  fifteenth-century  MS  at  Worcester,  the  fifteenth- 
century  Bodleian  Psalter,  and  the  fourteenth-century  Ordinal  in  the 
British  Museum,  added  in  the  margin.     Happily  and  wisely  the  editors 
have  not  printed  the  text  in  full,  but  where  it  agrees  with  that  of  the 
Sanim  use  have  made  reference  to  Proctor  and  Wordsworth's  reprint 
of  the  latter.    In  Tracts  on  the  Mass  (London,  1904)  Dr  Wickham  Legg 
has  edited,  in  whole  or  in  part,  eleven  documents,  being  on  the  cere- 
monial of  the  mass,  according  to  various  uses,  from  the  thirteenth  to 
the  sixteenth  century ;  viz.  two  Sarum  Ordinaries  of  the  thirteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries  respectively,   Langforde's  Meditations  (fifteenth  or 
sixteenth  century),  a  Carthusian  Ordinary  (English,  fifteenth  or  six- 
teenth), Alphabetum  Sacerdotum  (French,  fifteenth  and  sixteenth),  an 
Ordinary  of  Coutances  (sixteenth),  a  Dominican  Ordinary  (French,  thir- 
teenth), Praeparatio  Sacerdotis  (Italian  or  French,  fifteenth),  Burchhard's 
Ordo  Missae  ^oxasxi,  1502) — which  appeared  in  Roman  Missals  fi-om 
1541-1558,  and  probably  suggested  the  Ritus  celebrandi  of  the  Pian 
Missal, — Indutus planeta  (French,  sixteenth)  and  L.  Ciconiolanus  Dire- 
ciorium  divinorum  officiorum  (Roman,  sixteenth).     To  several  of  these 
Dr  I.egg  appends  other  illustrative  extracts;   in  an  introduction  he 
describes  the  origin  and  history  of  the  tracts;  and  at  the  end  com- 
ments on  them  in  forty  pages  of  notes. 

The  French  Congregation  of  the  Benedictines,  under  the  leadership 
of  Dom  Femand  Cabrol  and  Dom  Henri  Leclercq,  have  inaugurated 
a  vast,  even  appalling,  undertaking,  and  one  worthy  of  its  great  tradi- 
tions, in  Monumenta  ecciesiae  liturgicay  two  parts  of  which  have  already 
appeared.  It  is  intended  to  include  the  publication  or  republication 
of  everything  related  to  liturgy,  Western  and  Eastern,  up  to  the  ninth 
century,  not  excluding  even  Biblical  Versions.  The  first  volimie,  of 
which  the  first  section  has  been  issued,  is  Reliquiae  liturgicae  vetusHs- 
simae  ex  SS.  Patrum  necnon  scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum  mouumentis 
seUctae  I  (Paris,  Firmin-Didot,  190&-1902),  by  the  editors  themselves, 
consisting  of  a  collection  of  the  passages  bearing  on  liturgy  and  its 
discipline  from  all  Greek  and  Latin  sources — the  New  Testament, 
ecclesiastical  writers,  martyrdoms,  Church  Orders,  inscriptions,  &c — 
from  the  Apostolic  Age  to  the  Peace  of  the  Church,  quoted  as  fully 
as  is  necessary,  and  arranged  according  to  the  geographical  distribution 
of  the  sources  and  following  the  accepted  order  of  the  works  of  the 
several  writers.  It  is  a  work  which  very  much  needed  doing,  and  every 
one  interested  in  liturgical  origins  and  early  history  will  be  grateful 
for  it.  The  geographical  arrangement  is  wholly  to  be  commended: 
the  practical  neglect  of  local  differences  is  a  defect  e.  g.  in  Bingham's 
great  work.    Dom  Leclercq's  introduction  covers  a  large  area  of  varied 


I 


304         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

ground :  his  analytical  table  or  the  passages  commented  on  in  Ortgen's 
homilies  and  the  references  in  ihem  to  'lessons',  with  a  view  to  the 
determination  of  the  lectionary-system  implied,  and  the  comparison 
of  those  on  the  Pentateuch  with  the  Jewish  system,  is  a  specimen  of 
the  sort  of  careful  work  he  has  done  and  of  the  sort  of  work  that  wants 
doing  elsewhere,  if  ihe  origins  of  Itwtionaries  are  to  be  studied.  It  is 
impossible  at  this  moment  to  give  any  adequate  appreciation  of  the 
volume:  it  is  a  laborious  collection  of  materials,  and  It  is  only  by  long 
Dse  that  one  will  be  able  to  appreciate  it  fully.  There  are  two  criticisms 
in  detail  I  would  venture  to  make.  The  first  relates  to  the  form  of 
part  of  ihc  volume.  A  lai^e  4*'  page,  of  59  lines  6j  inches  in  length, 
of  modern  Latin  in  rather  small  print  on  glossy  paper,  makes  an 
unnecessary  demand  on  eye  and  nerve.  It  would  be  a  great  relief 
if  in  future  the  editors  could  see  their  way  at  least  to  dividing  the 
pages  into  two  columns  throughout.  And  secondly,  it  is  not  clear  why 
the  material  supplied  by  the  Apostolic  Comtitutions  is  included  in 
this  volume.  As  it  stands  it  tielongs  to  the  second  half  of  the  fourth 
century  and  probably  to  the  last  quarter.  Of  course  it  incorporates 
older  material,  but  there  is  no  attempt  here  to  distinguish  the  ground- 
documents  from  the  interpolations  which  form  the  greater  part  of 
the  matter;  and  the  Didaskalia  \%  not  otherwise  represented  in  this 
volume. 

The  fifUt  volume,  the  second  lo  be  issued,  is  Le  Liber  Ordinum  en 
usage  dans  tF.giise  Wisigothique  et  Afozarahe  d^Espagne  du  einqui^mi  au 
onziime  siM<  (Pahs,  Firmin-DIdot,  1904),  and  its  publication  is  an 
important  event  for  litut^ical  studies.  The  Mozarabic  Afanua/e,  or 
RituaU,  and  Pontifimh,  a.  combination  of  which  forms  the  Lidfr  Ordi' 
num,  have  hitherto  been  practically  unknown:  but  Ilom  Marius  F^rotm, 
the  present  editor,  has  found  four  MSS  of  the  book,  of  the  eleventh 
century,  three  at  Silos  and  one  at  Madrid;  and  one  of  them,  the  Silos 
MS  of  1052,  he  shews  reason  to  helit^ve  to  be  the  copy  which  was 
sent  to  Atexiinder  II  for  his  scrutiny  in  c.  1065,  when  the  suppression 
of  the  Mozarabic  rite  was  proposed.  The  text  of  this  MS  is  the  basis 
of  the  present  edition,  the  others  supplying  further  matter  as  well  as 
the  variants  digested  in  the  apparatus  criticus.  In  a  lucid  Introduction 
Uom  Feroiin  fully  describes  the  MSS,  and  in  Appendices  he  gives, 
(1)  nine  Mozarabic  kalendars;  (2)3  collection  of  material  for  the  re- 
constniction  of  two  pontifical  rites  not  represented  in  the  books,  viz. 
the  unction  of  kings  and  the  dedication  of  churches;  (3)  the  forms 
of  denunciation  of  feasts;  (4)  a  curious  HoroUgion  contained  In 
some  of  the  MSS,  being  a  table  by  which  to  determine  Ihe  time  of 
day  in  the  several  months  f^i  the  year  by  the  length  of  the  shadow  ■ 
of  the  human  body;    (5)  various  fonns  of  doxology.      The  whole 


CHRONICLE  305 

is  supplied  with  four  admirable  indexes,  biblical,  philological,  litur- 
gical and  general.  At  present  one  can  say  nothing  in  detail,  but 
only  express  gratitude  for  the  new  field  opened  up  and  the  hope  of 
opportunity  to  explore  it.  The  description  of  unpublished  Mozarabic 
material  given  at  the  beginning  of  the  Introduction  makes  one's  mouth 
water. 

Dom  Cabrol,  with  a  list  of  thirty-nine  distinguished  collaborators,  is 
also  engaged  on  another  great  undertaking,  the  DicHonnaire  d'archdo- 
iogit  ehritienne  ei  de  iiturgie  (Paris,  Letouzey,  1903,  1904).  The  scale 
of  it  can  be  estimated  from  the  fact  that,  in  the  five  fasciculi  and  1504 
columns  already  published,  it  has  reached  the  middle  of  the  article 
Ahe.  It  deals  with  liturgiology  on  all  sides — ritual,  ceremonial,  music, 
ministers,  language,  apparatus,  kalendar,  biography,  palaeography : 
and  to  its  own  treatment  of  the  subject-matter,  it  adds  elaborate  biblio- 
graphies ;  and  it  is  copiously  illustrated  throughout.  There  are  some 
thirty-two  articles  so  far  on  liturgical  matters ;  the  most  important  are 
those  on  the  African  (Cabrol),  Alexandrine  (Leclercq)  and  Ambrosian 
rites  (P.  Lejay),  and  they  seem  to  be  excellently  done  and  practically 
to  cover  the  ground  so  far  explored. 

Dr  Ant  Baumstark  continues  the  perpetual  discussion  of  the  origin 
and  development  of  the  Roman  canon  in  Uturgia  Romana  e  Liturgia 
deir Esarchato  (Rome,  1904).  After  summarizing  and  criticizing  the 
theories  already  proposed,  he  discusses  the  '  fundamental  questions '  of 
the  structure  of  the  etuharistia  and  its  several  types ;  and  then  developes 
his  own  theory  of  the  history  of  the  Roman  eucharisHa  or  canon  misstu. 
The  result  he  reaches  is  that  the  original  Roman  was  related  to  the 
Syrian  type,  and  consisted  of  a  Praefatio  of  thanksgiving  for  creation, 
Sanctus,  Post-sanctus  {Cum  quibus  et  nostris  . . ,  Vere  sanctus)  consisting 
of  a  thanksgiving  for  redemption  and  culminating  in  the  Qui  pridte^ 
followed  by  Unde  et  memores,  Te  tgitur  (in which  occurred  an  Invocation), 
Memento^  CommunicanteSy  Memento  etiam  and  part  of  Nobis  quoque. 
That  this  was  combined  by  S.  Leo  the  Great  with  another  type  of 
canon  (which  Dr  Baumstark  argues  to  have  been  that  of  Ravenna)  to 
which  belongs  Hanc  igitur  (in  the  extended  intercessory  form  found 
in  one  or  two  sources^  Quam  oblatiomm.  Sanctum  saaificium^  Supplices 
U  and  the  rest  of  what  is  now  Nobis  quoque,  including  the  list  of  Saints. 
Finally  this  composite  and  partly  reduplicated  formula  was  rearranged 
and  retouched  by  S.  Gregory  the  Great,  and  so  took  its  present  shape. 
This  result  is  reached  by  an  elaborate  argument ;  but,  on  a  single 
reading  at  least,  the  argument  scarcely  leaves  a  sense  of  conviction. 
Dom  G.  Morin  has  dealt  with  it  with  some  severity  in  Remte  Bind- 
diciine,  Oct.  1904. 

Dr  Jos.  Freisen,  Professor  of  Canon  Law  at  Paderbom,  has  pub- 
VOL.  VI.  X 


\ 


306         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

lished  (Paderbom,  1904)  three  Scandinavian  senrice-books,  the.Va, 
Lincop^me  (Linkoping)  of  1525,  the  Manual  portions  of  ihe  Brevia 
Scartnse  ^Skara)  of  1498,  and  the  Manuale  Aboens<  (Abo)  of  tsss; 
with  an  introduction  dealing  with  the  Manuals,  Breviaries  and  Missali 
of  some  Swedish  and  Norwegian  dioceses,  among  them  the  L'psala 
Missal  of  1483,  which  is  not  mentioned  in  Weale's  Bibiiagrapkia 
Liturgifa^  and  some  notes.  Dr  A.  Schtinfelder,  in  the  first  volume 
of  a  new  JJtur^che  Bibtiothek  (Paderbom,  1904),  prints  the  text  of 
the  BenedUtiimal  of  Meissen  of  1512,  the  Agenda  ^  Naumburg  of 
1502,  and  the  Rituai  of  Cologtu  of  1485,  with  an  introduction.  The 
origin  of  Luther's  Litany  of  1529,  which  was  largely  drawn  upon  in  ■ 
Marshall's  Primer  of  1535  and  Cranmer's  Litany  of  iS44^  bas  never 
been  explained ;  it  docs  not  look  like  Luther's  composition  and  its 
origin  ought  to  be  found  in  the  litanies  of  the  Saxon  dioceses.  It 
is  notable  therefore  that  in  the  short  litanies  of  the  Mei.<isen  and 
Nauraburg  books  (pp.  15,  56,  70)  there  is  one  coinciderKC  in  the 
suffrage  '  Per  mortem  et  stpulhtram  tuam '.  The  normal  litanies  are 
not  contained  in  these  books  or  we  might  find  more  to  the  point. 
Mons.  P.  M.  I^frasse,  honurary  canon  of  Annecy  and  professor  at  the 
diocesan  Seminary,  has  treated  elaborately  of  the  diocesan  use  of 
Geneva  in  comparison  with  Roman  usage,  in  itvde  sur  la  liturgte  dans 
Fan^ien  diocise  de  Gen^  (Geneva,  1904).  He  calalogues  and  describes 
the  MS  sources,  and  describes  a  printed  Missal  of  1508  not  mentioned 
in  Wcalc.  I  have  not  seen  Das  Rituale  von  6V.  hlorian  aus  dem  nvo/ften  m 
Jahrhundert.  edited  with  introduction  and  elucidations  by  Ad.  Fraiu 
(Freiburg  i.  B.  1904);  but  from  a  notice  of  it  hy  M.  Paul  l^jay  in 
Builetin  critique  19  Dec.  1904,  I  gather  that,  having  in  view  a  work 
on  German  Ritualia,  the  editor  here  prints  the  text  of  the  moiusdc 
Rituaie  of  S.  Florian  tn  Austria,  an  interesting  feature  of  which  is  an 
Ordo  tateihumenorum  of  the  type  of  those  of  the  Ordines  Jtomani  but 
providing  for  only  three  scru/inia.  In  the  introduction  the  editor 
describes  another  monastic  Rituali,  that  of  Lambach,  of  the  same  age ; 
and  be  comes  to  the  conclusion  th.-it,  in  Germany  at  least,  secular 
Ritualia  are  much  later  in  date  than  monastic. 

Mr  G.  W.  Hart  and  Mr  W.  H.  Frere  have  reissued  Dr  D.  Rock's 
Tfu  Chunk  of  our  Fathers  (4  vols.  London,  Hodges,  1903-4),  making 
little  change  beyond  improving  the  references,  adding  largely  lo  Ihe 
illustrations,  and  in  a  postscript  noting  the  points  requiring  correction 
or  supplement,  and  prefixing  a  shon  biographical  notice  of  the  author 
by  Father  B.  Kelly.  I 

The  new  Library  of  Liturgitrlcgy  and  EciUsioto^  for  English  Readers,    * 
edited  by  Mr  V.  Stalcy,  Provost  of  Inverness  (LxDndon,  De  1^  More 
Press,  1902-1904),  is  a  series  of  welt-printed  and  convenient  volumes, 


\ 


CHRONICLE  307 

of  which  five  have  so  far  appeared,  with  short  prefaces  by  the  editor, 
giving  all  necessary  explanation  of  authorship  and  sources.  Vols.  I, 
III,  V  are  a  reprint  of  the  Hierurgia  Angiicana,  originally  edited  ( 1 843-8) 
by  members  of  the  Cambridge  Camden  Society,  and  now  re-edited  by 
Mr  Staley  himself,  who  has  re-classified  the  material,  very  largely  increased 
it,  omitted  superfluous  and  unimportant  passages,  and  added  to  the 
original  illustrations  a  large  number  of  phot<^raphs  which  are  interesting 
and  useful  but  generally  not  very  good  as  photographs.  The  second 
volume  is  7^  First  Prayer  Book  of  King  Edward  VI,  a  reprint  of 
-  Whitchurche's  issue  Mense  Martii.  It  is  described  in  the  preface  as 
-^  reproduction  '  verbatim  et  literatim  *,  a  description  which  might  well 
have  been  truer  than  it  is.  The  relations  of  types  might  have  been 
better  preserved :  e.  g.  in  the  present  volume  the  titles  of  the  daysjn 
the  de  Tempore  and  the  Sanctorale  are  in  black  letter,  and  'Collect*, 
*  Epistle '  and  'Gospel '  are  in  capitals :  whereas  in  the  sixteenth-century 
texts — I  have  only  the  June  issue  of  Whitchurche  before  me,  but  I  do 
not  think  in  this  respect  it  differs  from  the  March  issue — the  titles  of  the 
days  are  in  the  type  of  the  text,  and  *  Collect '  &c.  in  that  of  the 
rubrics.  Again,  in  the  original  prints  only  one  letter  after  the  large 
initial  of  paragraphs  is  in  capitals,  and  '  &  *  is  as  common  as  *  and ',  and 
'  &C.'  is  perhaps  uniformly  used ;  while  in  the  reprint,  the  whole  of  the 
opening  words  is  printed  in  capitals,  and  '  & '  and  '  &c '  are  always, 
so  &r  as  I  observed,  expanded  into  '  and '  and  *  etc'  These  small 
details  disguise  the  fact  that  the  English  books  were  printed  in  the 
same  form  as  the  contemporary  Latin  books,  except  that  a  small  type 
was  used  instead  of  red  in  the  rubrics.  The  fourth  volume  of  the  series 
is  a  collection  of  Essays  on  Ceremonial— y'xz. '  English  Ceremonial ',  *  On 
Knglish  litu^cal  colours '  and  '  Some  remarks  on  the  Edwardian  Prayer- 
book  ',  by  Mr  Cuthbert  Atchley ;  *  On  some  ancient  liturgical  customs 
now  falling  into  disuse',  by  Dr  Wickham  Legg;  'Church  vestments' 
and  '  The  altar  and  its  furniture ',  by  Mr  Percy  Dearroer ;  and  '  The 
genius  of  the  Roman  rite ',  by  Mr  Edmund  Bishop.  Some  of  these  are 
reprints  and  are  already  known ;  the  character  of  others  can  be  con- 
jectured ;  and  Mr.  Atchley's  *  Remarks  on  the  Edwardian  Prayer-book ' 
recounts  again  the  pitiable  story  of  the  years  1549-1553.  For  my 
own  part,  I  cannot  but  wish  that  ecclesiastics  would  find  other  means 
of  illustrating  treatises  on  vestments  than  by  portraits  whether  of  them- 
selves or  of  other  clergymen. 

The  Scottish  Church  Service  Society  has  issued  an  excellently  printed 
and  very  convenient  edition  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  1637 
(Edinburgh,  Blackwood,  1904),  edited  with  introduction  and  notes  by 
Dr  James  Cooper.  The  introduction  is  interesting  and  among  other 
things  deals  at  some  length  with  the  relation  of  Laud  to  the  production 

X  2 


308         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


of  the  book  and  disposes  of  the  lef;ond  of  his  rei^mnsibllity  for  it.  In 
an  appendix  to  the  introduction  arc  printwl  Laud's  letter  to  Wedderbum 
(1636),  Mr  Hill  Burton's  collation  of  the  Lambeth  Prayer  liook  in  which 
Laud  noted  the  changes  made  in  the  Scottish  Book,  and  a  detailed 
account  of  Charles  I's  autograph  entries  of  '  the  latest  alterations  and 
additions  approved'  by  him,  contained  in  a  Prayer  Book  now  be- 
longing to  Lord  RoBcbcry.  The  notes  deal  chiefly  with  the  relations 
of  the  Scottish  Book  to  the  successive  revisions  of  the  English  and  to 
the  presbytrrian  orders  of  ser%'ice,  and  with  contemporary  criticisms  on 
the  book  of  1637.  In  Note  E  there  is  a  curious  shp ;  it  is  there  said 
that  until  1661  not  *a  word  was  said '  in  the  English  book  about  the 
use  of  the  Exhortation^.  Confession,  &c,  at  Evensong;  whereas  in  (act 
from  1552  onwards  the  direction  for  their  use  both  at  Matins  and 
Evensong  was  given  in  the  first  rubric  of  Matins.  In  note  F  it  is  said 
that  in  the  rubric  before  Quicun^e  vuU,  which  in  this  respect  is  identical 
with  the  EngUah  rubric  as  it  stood  from  1549  to  i66t,  it  is  'implied' 
that  the  Quiairufue  is  to  be  said  instead  0/  ih^  Aposdes' Creed  ;  whereas 
there  is  no  such  implication  and  for  all  that  is  said  or  implied  to  the 
contrary  the  ordinary  use  of  Prime,  in  which  both  arc  said,  is  continued. 
And  further  on  in  the  same  note  {p.  346)  the  Ember  prayer  Almighty 
God  the  Giver  is  held  to  be  '  probably  composed  by  Archbishop  Laud '; 
whereas  it  is  only  a  slightly  varied  form  of  the  Ordination  collect  of 
1550  and  onwards.  It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  Dr  Cooper  is 
thoroughly  appreciative  of  the  book  and  recognixes  its  superiority  to 
the  English  book. 

In  the  Corpus  scriptorum  ehristianarum  orienlalium,  Mons.  H.  Labotirt 
has  edited  the  text,  with  a  Latin  translation,  of  the  Expositio  iiturgiae 
of  Dionysius  bar  Salibi  (Paris,  1903),  which  gives  valuable  evidence  of 
the  stage  of  development  reached  by  the  Monophysite  Syrian  mass  in 
the  twelfth  century.  An  extract  of  the  Expositio  is  given  by  J.  S. 
Assemani  in  Bibltothiea  orientalis  \\  pp.  176  se*^.,  and  the  tract  attributed 
to  John  Maro,  of  which  J.  A.  Assemani  gives  a  Latin  version  in  Codex 
iiturgicus  V  pp.  aa;  seq.,  is  a  Maroniie  interpolation  of  Dionystus;  but, 
so  far  as  I  know,  Dionysius's  own  text  has  not  been  published  before. 
The  publication  of  the  whole  series  of  Eastern  commentaries  on  rites  is 
desirable  if  their  development  is  to  be  traced  in  detail. 

In  Vie  nestorianische  Tau/Hturgie  (Giessen,  1903),  Dr  G.  Dieltrich 
gives  a  German  translation  of  the  Nestorian  baptismal  rile,  following 
the  text  published  hy  thf  Archbishop  of  Canterbury's  Mission  {L'nni, 
1S90),  and  comparing  it  with  that  of  eight  MSS  at  Berlin,  Rome,  the 
British  Museum  and  Cambridge.  The  authorship  of  the  rite,  i.e.  of 
the  revision  of  the  original  rite  to  accommodate  it  to  the  baptism  of  the 
children  of  Christian  parents,  is  attributed  on  good  grounds  to  the 


\ 


\ 


\ 


w\ 


CHRONICLE  309 

Patriarch  Ishoyabh  III  of  Adiabene;  and  in  his  introduction  and  notes 
Dr  Diettrich  attempts  by  the  excision  of  later  additions  and  some  re- 
arrangement, to  recover  the  rite  as  Ishoyabh  left  it;  and  his' reconstruc- 
tion seems  probable,  and  at  least  he  brings  out  the  essential  featiures 
and  movement  The  rite  is  unique  in  containing  no  exorcisms,  renun- 
ciations {aworay^  or  Confession  of  Faith  {(rwray^) ;  and  in  view  of  this 
and  of  the  character  of  some  of  the  paragraphs  which  must  be  attributed 
to  the  reviser,  Dr  Diettrich  argues  with  plausibility,  that  the  character  of 
the  revision  was  in  part  determined  by  the  Pelagianism  of  the  Nestorians. 
His  strange  interpretation  of  the  baptismal  *  offertory ' — i.e.  the  part  of 
the  rite  relating  to  the  oil  and  the  water,  corresponding  to  the  offertory 
in  the  liturgy  of  the  mass,  on  the  scheme  of  which  the  baptismal  office 
is  constructed — as  implying  an  offering  of  our  Lord  in  His  Baptism^ 
which  is  here  commemorated  and  reproduced,  can  only  be  regarded  as 
aj'eu  d'espritt  founded  moreover  on  an  obvious  mistranslation ;  and  his 
contention  that  the  transubstantiation  of  the  water  is  implied,  is  based 
on  a  very  obscure  phrase,  which  by  no  means  necessarily  implies  it 
I  gather  from  Dr  Funk's  notice  of  the  book  in  TfuoL  Quariaischnft, 
Jan.  1905,  that  this  last  point  has  been  criticized  at  length  by  Dr  Baum- 
stark  in  Oriens  chrisHanus  iii  pp.  319  seq. 

Mr  C.  F.  Rogers's  Baptism  and  Archaeology,  being  Part  4  of  Vol.  v  of 
Studia  bihHca  et  patristica  (Oxford,  1903),  is  an  investigation  of  the 
method  of  the  administration  of  baptism  by  the  evidence  of  early 
pictorial  representations  and  by  measurements  of  existing  early  bap- 
tismal fonts ;  and  he  reaches  the  conclusion  that  the  ordinary  method 
both  in  East  and  in  West  was,  not  submersion,  but  affusion  or  rather 
perfusion — i.e.  by  pouring  water  over  the  head  of  the  neophyte  as  he 
stood  in  water;  and  that  submersion  only  came  into  any  widespread 
use  in  the  ninth  century,  apparently  on  the  ground  of  a  literal  but 
perhaps  not  strictly  necessary  interpretation  of  the  figure  of  burial  used 
by  St  Paul  (Rom.  vi  &c.).  He  reproduces  and  examines  all  the  repre- 
sentations he  has  found  both  of  our  Lord's  Baptism  and  of  baptism  in 
general  in  successive  periods  down  to  the  ninth  century,  and  a  certain 
number  of  early  texts,  and  gives  detailed  descriptions  and  measurements 
of  a  large  number  of  fonts,  a  great  proportion  at  least  of  which  would 
seem  not  to  admit  of  the  possibility  of  submersion.  The  monograph 
might  be  described  as  a  detailed  commentary  on  Mgr.  Duchesne's 
remarks,  in  Eglists  siparhs  pp.  89  seq.,  in  answer  to  the  Encyclical 
of  the  Constantinople  Synod  in  1S95.  Demonstration  is  no  doubt 
impossible ;  the  earliest  evidence  is  exclusively  Roman  and  for  the 
earliest  period  there  is  practically  no  direct  evidence ;  but  Mr  Rogers 
goes  a  long  way  towards  proving  his  contention ;  and  he  forestalls  the 
criticism  that  the  traditional  representation  is  only  the  result  of  the 


310         THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

difficulty  of  representing  submersion ;  though  perhaps  in  some  cases 
it  still  needs  considering  whether  the  representation  may  not  be  merely 
of  a  moment  in  the  process  of  suhmersion ;  e.g.  in  fig.  36.  The  evidence 
is  at  least  suffident  to  dispose  of  the  quarrel  which  the  Orthodox  Easterns 
on  occasion  still  keep  up  against  the  practice  of  the  West  A  table  of 
contents  would  be  useful;  or  failing  this,  the  headlines  might  be  varied. 
To  the  list  of  fonts  on  p.  354  may  be  added  those  of  S.  Frediano 
al  Lucca  and  S.  Giovanni  in  Fonte  at  Verona,  both  of  the  twelfth 
century.  'Ravcnnate',  not  'Ravcnnese*,  is  Che  adjective  belonging  to 
'  Ravenna '. 

Father  F.  W.  Puller's  TTu  Anointing  of  the  SiiA,  issued  by  the  Church 
Historical  Society  (London,  S.P.C.K.,  1904),  is  a  very  useful  and  char- 
acteristtcfllly  careful  and  thorough  piece  of  work.  Its  main  object  U 
a  dogmatic  one — to  shew  that  the  sacramental  conception  of  Unction, 
as  conferring  sanctifying  grace  ex  opere  operate,  is  not  original  and  did 
not  pre\'ail  till  the  ninth  century :  with  this  we  are  not  here  primarily 
concerned.  But  naturally  the  book  contains  a  good  deal  of  matter 
touching  liturgy.  Fr.  Puller  first  examines  St  Jas.  v  13-16  and  shews 
that  the  early  commentators,  and  some  later  ones,  no  doubt  rightly, 
interpreted  it  as  referring  to  two  distinct  things,  and  not  only  one — viz, 
to  Unction  and  to  Penance;  i.e.  first,  the  sick  is  to  be  anointed,  with 
prayer,  with  a  %iew  to  recovery ;  and  secondly,  if  he  has  committed 
grave  sins,  he  is  to  be  absolved  on  confession  ;  and  he  traces  the 
tendency  to  confuse  the  two  and  to  make  remission  of  sins  part  of  the 
effect  of  unction.  He  then  examines  the  farms  of  conferring  unction 
in  liturgical  documents,  from  Seraplon  onwards :  and  adds  a  valuable 
collection  of  instances  of  the  use  of  unction  from  the  second  to  the  ninth 
century.  The  following  chapters  v-viii  belong  to  the  dogmatic  aim  of 
the  book :  but  ch.  vii,  on  the  number  of  the  Sacraments,  may  be  noted 
in  passing.  Ch.  ix  is  a  judicious  discussion  of  the  desirability  of  formally 
restoring  Unction  in  the  Anglican  Church.  Of  the  five  ap|)endiccs,  the 
first  is  a  collection  of  liturgical  forms  related  to  the  Unction  of  the  Sick, 
and  the  third  discusses  the  forms  of  exorcizing  and  blessing  oil  in  the 
Bobbio  Missal ;  the  second  is  a  careful  examination  of  Syriac  evidence 
in  the  fourth  to  the  sixth  century;  the  fourth  gives  the  relevant  sec- 
tions of  the  second  Capitulary  of  Theodulf  of  Orleans ;  and  the  last  the 
Tridentine  decree.  To  the  instances  of  bread  blessed  for  the  sick,  to 
which  Fr.  Puller  several  times  refers,  may  be  added  the  Benedictio  pamis 
ad  injinnum  in  the  Pontifical  of  Egbert.  Why  are  S.P.C.K.  books  so 
uniformly  unsightly? 

Mr  H.  L.  Dixon's  '■Saying  Graet'  historically  considered  (Oxford, 
Parker's,  1903]  is  a  useful  catena  of  passages  on  the  benedictio  frunsae, 
including  pagan,  Jewish,  and  Moslem,  as  well  as  Christian  evidence^ 


CHRONICLE  311 

and  a  collection  of  fonns  from  the  fourth  century  downwards.  It  is 
especially  satisfactory  to  have  the  Graces  of  the  Colleges  of  Oxford 
and  Cambridge  and  of  the  Pubh'c  Schools  collected  in  so  convenient 
a  form.  The  editor  does  not  notice  that  the  Oriel  Grace  BenedicU 
Deus  qui  pascis  is  only  a  translation  of  that  of  Ap,  Const,  vii  49 
and  of  the  Syrian  monks  which  he  quotes  {p.  88)  from  S.  Chrysostom; 
itself  nearly  related  to  a  passage  in  the  great  intercession  of  the  liturgy 
of  S.  Mark. 

The  Vatican  Stu^  e  Testi  13  :  Catabgo  sommario  delia  Espostsione 
Gregoriana  (Rome,  1904)  is  a  catalogue  of  the  Vatican  MSS  of 
Lives  of  St  Gr^ory  the  Great,  Sacramentaries  and  Missals,  specimens 
of  Musical  Notation  and  works  on  Music,  exhibited  during  the  Gr^orian 
Commemoration  in  April,  1904.  The  most  important  of  these  is 
apparently  the  third  section,  being  specimens  of  musical  notation  earlier 
than  1350  arranged  according  to  their  gec^raphical  distribution;  and 
the  editors  acknowledge  their  indebtedness  to  Mr  H.  M.  Bannister  for 
bis  assistance  in  selecting  and  describing  them. 

The  Benedictines  of  Solesmes  continue  their  PaUograpkie  musicaJe^ 
and  in  1903  and  1904  have  issued  Nos.  57-64  (Tournay:  Descl^, 
Lefebvre  &  Cie.). 

Dom  Ambrogio  Amelli,  Prior  of  Monte  Cassino,  has  edited  a  text  of 
the  Micrologus  of  Guido  of  Arezzo  {Guidonis  Monctchi  Aretini  Micro- 
logus  ad  praesiantiorts  codices  MSS  exactus  Romae  1904),  in  fulfilment 
of  a  purpose  announced  more  than  twenty  years  ago,  abandoned  through 
the  discouragement  given  to  the  rectification  of  the  tradition  of  eccle- 
siastical music,  but  revived  by  the  recent  Instruction  of  Pope  Pius  X. 
One  learns  from  the  preface  that  the  text  of  Guido  was  sadly  in  need  of 
reconstruction ;  and  the  present  edition  is  the  result  of  a  collation 
of  nineteen  MSS,  of  which  a  list  is  given  on  p.  11.  It  represents  only 
results,  giving  the  reconstructed  text  without  apparatus  ;  but  it  is 
intended  to  be  coordinate  with  a  scientific  edition,  to  extend  to  the 
whole  works  of  Guido,  which  will  contain  an  apparatus  criticus. 
L'Apostolaio  deiia  musica  net  secolo  xx,  per  un  Solitario  (Monte  Cassino, 
1904)  is  a  devout  meditation  and  a  cry  of  triumph  on  the  reformation 
promised  by  the  Pope's  Propriomotu,  and  gives  evidence  of  the  acuteness 
with  which  the  previous  discouragement  of  a  purification  of  the  musical 
tradition  has  been  felt  by  some  in  Italy. 

Mr  Edward  Dickinson's  Music  in  the  History  of  the  Western  Church 
(London,  Smith,  Elder  &  Co.  1902)  is  a  clear  and  interesting  account 
of  the  derelopement  or  revolution  in  ecclesiastical  music  which  has 
resulted  in  the  present  situation.  Of  the  quality  of  the  musical 
technicalities  and  criticism  I  am  unable  to  judge;  but  the  story  is 
intelligible  apart  from  these.     Remarks  here  and  there  do  not  inspire 


312        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

confidence  in  the  author's  command  of  general  history  or  knowledge 
of  riiujil  matters.  But  perhaps  a  chief  interest  of  the  book  in  the 
preseni  connexion  is  (hat  it  may  be  said  to  be  a  confession  or  a  demon- 
stration,  however  unintentional,  of  the  incompotibility  of  modern  so- 
called  ecclesiastical  music  with  the  purpose  it  is  made  to  serve. 
Mr  Dickinson  asserts  over  and  over  again  in  one  form  or  another — 
on  this  p<;tiiit  he  is,  as  he  would  himself  say,  presumably  in  the  American 
language,  'repetitious' — that  the  difference  between  ancient  and  modem 
music  is,  that  whereas  in  the  former  the  music  is  subordinate  to  the 
text  and  follows  rhetorical  laws,  in  the  latter  '  it  strives  to  emancii>ate 
itself  from  llie  thraldom  of  word  .  .  .  and  to  exalt  itself  for  its  own 
undivided  glory'  (p.  iS),  'the  music  is  paramount,  the  text  is  accessory' 
(p.  97  :  cp.  pp.  40,  99).  Yet  he  docs  not  draw  the  obvious  condosion. 
He  recognizes  the  aim  of  the  real  ecclesiastical  music,  that  it  exists  'rKrt 
for  the  decoration  of  the  offices  of  worship  .  .  .  but  rather  for  edifica- 
tion, insCmction,  and  inspiration'  (p.  175);  that  it  expresses  not 
individual  feelings,  but  the  temper  of  the  Cburch  as  such,  '  the  mood  of 
prayer,  .  .  .  and  that  not  the  prayer  of  an  individual  agitated  by  his 
own  personal  hopes  and  fears,  but  the  prayer  of  the  Church,  whidk 
embraces  all  the  needs  which  the  believers  share  in  common'  (p.  igS: 
cp.  p.  69) ;  he  recognites  the  beauty  of  Plain  Song  and  that  it  merits 
the  reverence  which  is  given  to  it — its  melodies  'have  maintained  for 
centuries  the  inevitable  comparison  with  every  other  form  of  melody, 
religious  and  secular,  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  they  will 
continue  to  sustain  all  possible  rivalry,  until  they  at  last  survive  every 
other  form  of  music  now  existing'  (p.  100) ;  and  that  the  result  of  the 
mediaeval  developeraent  up  to  its  climax  in  the  sixteenth  century  was 
*  the  most  complete  example  in  art  of  the  perfect  adaptation  of  means 
to  a  particular  end'{p.  179);  he  recognizes  also  the  opposition  of  the 
religious  mind  to  the  intrusion  of  developed  musical  art  into  worship 
(p.  18),  and  that  the  breaking  of  the  ecclesiastical  tradition  in  the 
seventeenth  century  was  '  an  outcome  of  the  Renaissance  secularization 
of  art'  (p.  (}$),  coming  about  'as  soon  as  the  transformed  secular  music 
was  strong  enough  to  react  upon  the  Church'  {p.  179),  with  the  result 
that  the  Renaissance  *  transformed  the  whole  spirit  of  devotional  music 
by  endowing  religious  themes  with  sensuous  charm  and  with  a  treatment 
inspired  by  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  composer  and  not  by  the  traditions 
of  the  Church  '  (j>.  197),  and  substituted  individualism  for  universality ; 
and  he  is  quite  alive  to  the  defects  of  the  Anglican  so-called  chant 
(p.  340  sqq.).  Yet  he  takes  it  ail  very  quietly  and  seems  to  have  no 
misgivings. 

Dr  A.  M.  Richardson,  the  Oiganist  and  Choir  Director  of  S.  Saviour's, 
Southwark,  has  published  two  small  books  on  ecclesiastical  music; 


CHRONICLE  313 

Church  Music  in  the  series  of  Handbooks  for  the  Clergy  (Longmans, 
1904)  and  TTStf  Psalms:  their  structure  and  musical  setting  (London, 
Vincent,  1903).  The  first  is  a  general  practical  manual.  The  historical 
sketch  in  chap,  ii  is  quite  second-hand  and  amounts  to  little  and  might 
have  been  omitted :  and  some  of  the  historical  statements  throughout 
the  book  are  more  curious  than  true.  The  tone  of  Dr  Richardson's 
advice  to  choirmasters  is  excellent.  The  practical  directions  are  sensible 
and  will  be  useful;  but  in  respect  of  recitation  they  are  sometimes 
wrong ;  and  the  insistence  on  the  pronunciation  of  all  consonants  will 
tend,  whether  Dr  Richardson  means  it  or  not,  to  encourage  the  shocking 
practice  sometimes  met  with,  which  sets  the  teeth  on  edge,  and  is 
neither  English  nor  endurable.  In  English  in  fact  all  consonants 
are  not  fully  sounded,  but  some  are  practically  elided ;  '  and  to '  and 
'  send  down ',  rendered  as  Dr  Richardson's  directions  will  inevitably  be 
understood,  are  merely  intolerable.  And  Dr  Richardson  certainly 
at  some  points  travels  outside  his  sphere;  the  musician  as  such  has 
no  jurisdiction  over  the  interpretation  of  the  text  or  over  ritual  dis- 
positions, and  excursions  into  such  regions  are  irrelevant  to  the  theme, 
even  if  the  directions  are  right  in  themselves,  which  here  is  not  always 
the  case.  And  with  reference  to  this,  it  seems  well  to  remark,  in  view 
of  what  is  said  on  p.  139  and  of  other  things,  that  the  Lambeth  Judge- 
ment, whatever  its  value  may  be,  did  not  allow  the  Benedictus,  but 
allowed  the  Agnus  Dei  on  grounds  which  obviously  exclude  the  Bene- 
dictus as'  commonly  used.  Dr  Richardson's  attitude  to  Plain  Son^ 
which  he  calls  *  the  crabbed  and  old-fashioned  work  of  a  bygone  age ', 
is  intolerant  and  undignified.  It  is  curious  that  the  song  of  the  greater 
part  of  Christendom  at  the  present  moment  should  be  described  as 
obsolete;  and  Dr  Richardson's  argument  that  Plain  Song  is  charac- 
teristically neither  religious  nor  Catholic,  whatever  the  merits  of  the 
case  may  be,  would  prove  equally  well  that  a  chasuble  is  not  a  sacred 
vestment  and  that  he  himself  is  not  a  Catholic. 

Dr  Richardson's  second  book,  The  Halms,  is  essentially  a  criticism 
on  *  the  maltreatment  of  our  beautiful  language ',  the  '  outrage  upon 
good  taste  and  common  sense ',  the  '  terrible  artistic  monstrosity  known 
to  many  as  "  Anglican  Chanting  " '.  And  here  in  effect  he  draws  much 
of  the  sting  of  his  criticism  on  Plain  Song,  since  he  grants  and  urges 
that  there  is  but  one  legitimate  system  of  chanting  and  that  a  real 
chant  has  no  fixed  time  or  accent.  If  this  is  granted,  scales  and 
melodies  become  comparatively  unimportant,  so  long  as  the  melodies 
are  religious  and  congruous  and  are  kept  within  a  sober  compass, 
which  is  not  the  case  with  a  large  number  of '  Anglican  chants '.  But 
it  may  be  noted  as  curious  that  among  his  distinctions  between  the 
ancient  tones  and  Anglican  '  chants ',  he  does  not  include  the  constant 


314         THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

change  of  the  reciting  note  in  the  latter.  A  true  chant,  I  conceive, 
is  constructed  on  a  single  line,  as  it  were;  whereas  in  most  AngUam 
'chants',  the  reciting  note  is  varied  at  every  half  verse.  Apart  from 
this,  it  is  to  lie  hu|)ed  that  Dr  Richardson's  criticisms  and  instructions 
will  be  taken  to  heart ;  and  that  his  hitle  commentary  on  the  Psalter 
will  suggest  to  organists  and  choirs  that  the  Psalter  must  be  studied 
and  understo(xi,  if  it  is  to  be  prop<t:rly  recited.  I  do  not  remember 
that  Dr  Richardson  has  said  wliat  it  would  be  well  if  he  would  say, 
that  a  real  clemeni  in  choir  practice  ought  to  be  the  intelligent  and 
deliberate  traditg  of  the  Psalms,  without  note.  Dr  Richardson's 
scheme  for  a  sort  of  dramatic  rendering  of  the  Psalms,  with  continually 
varying  melodies  and  so  on,  is  quite  another  matter.  It  might 
be  all  very  well  for  occasional  use  at  solemn  matins  and  evensong, 
but  not  for  every  day  and  twice  a  day;  and  it  is  not  clear  that  in 
all  respects  it  is  consistent  with  the  pointing  of  the  Psalms  *as  they  arc 
to  be  sung  or  said  in  churches'. 

There  are  three  points  in  which  Mr  Dickinson  and  Dr  Richardson 
arc  agreed.  They  both  ignore  the  famous  passage  in  S.  Augustine, 
Confessions  ix  6  ;  or  rather  Mr  Dinlcinson  ignores  it,  while  Dr  Richardson 
quotes  it  only  so  far  as  to  leave  quite  a  wrong  impression  of  its  imjwrt. 
Augustine  in  fact  was  seriously  exercised  as  to  whether  anything  so 
sensuous  as  the  Milanese  chant,  however  'crabbed  and  old-fashioned', 
is  lawful  in  Christian  worship,  and  he  can  give  no  more  decisive 
answer  than  a  '  [icrhaps ' ;  and  he  tells  us  incidentally  that  .Athanasius 
only  admitted  a  chant  which  was  scarcely  distinguishable  from  ordinary 
intonation.  Both  writers  again  allude  to  ancient  prohibitions  of  singing 
on  the  part  of  the  people  as  distinguished  from  the  canonical  clerks ; 
Mr  Dickmson  interprets  thisas  a 'sacerdotal  'encroachment,  Dr  Richard- 
son uses  it  to  shew  that  singing  in  church  has  not  necessarily  been 
congregational.  Neither  seems  to  realize  that  people  did  not  always 
possess  Psalters,  and  largttly,  I  suppose.,  could  not  have  read  them 
if  they  had,  and  consequently  that  the  Psalms  and  still  more  Responds 
and  so  on  were  necessarily  sung  by  a  Reader  or  Singer,  and  the  people 
could  only  respond  with  the  constant  'acrostich'  or  refirain,  the  'anti- 
phon'  in  fact.  Again,  in  treating  of  music  in  England,  neither  writer 
takes  any  notice  of  the  significance  of  the  49th  Injunction  of 
1559,  which  expressly  forbids  the  use  of  'music'  as  distinguished 
from  'a  modest  and  distinct  song  so  used  in  all  parts  of  the  common 
prayers  in  the  church,  that  the  same  may  be  as  plamly  undeistanded 
as  if  it  were  read  without  singing',  and  only  allows  'music'  'for  the 
comforting  of  such  as  delight  in'  it,  at  the  beginning  or  the  end  of 
service,  i  e.  what  became  the  Anthem,  and  that  only  in  a  form  which 
is  violated  by  'anthems'  since  Piu'cell  at  least,  which  certainly  do  nut 


CHRONICLE  315 

'have  respect  that  the  sentence  of  hymn  may  be  understanded  and 
perceived '.  The  Injunctions  of  1559  are  no  doubt  quite  unimportant ; 
only  the  Courts  enforce  them  in  matters  where  their  violation  is  not 
popular.  And  anyhow  this  Injunction  lays  down  an  intelligible  and 
reasonable  principle,  on  which  musicians  would  do  well  to  reflect 

F.  £.  Brightman. 


h 


(i)  English. 

Ckurtk  Quarteriy  Remtw^  October  1904  (Vol.  lix,  No.  117  :  Spottis- 
woodc&  Co.).  Religion  in  Cambridge— The  Christian  Society  :  1  The 
Jewish  Community — Christina  Roesetti— The  Return  of  the  Catechist 
— The  Oxford  School  of  Historians — The  English  Church  in  Syria — 
Church  Reform:  I  The  Increase  of  the  Episcopate — Liverpool  Cathe- 
dral and  Diocese — The  Vii^in  Birth  of  Christ — Short  Notices. 

The  Hibbert  Journai,  October  r904  (Vol.  iii,  No.  1  :  Williams  & 
NoTgaic).  Oliver  Lodge  Sin — J.  H.  Muirheao  The  Discussioa 
between  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  and  the  Bishop  of  Rochester — A  Catholic 
Priest  A  Catholic  comment  on  'ihe  Re  interpretation  of  Christian 
Doctrfne' — E.  G.  Gardner  Dante — H.  Goodwin  Smcth  The  triumph 
of  Erasmus  in  modern  Protestantism^F.  C.  S.  Schillkr  Dreams  and 
Idealisms — C.  B.  Wheeler  The  Ten  Commandments:  A  study  of 
practical  ethics — W.  Manning  The  Degrading  of  the  Priesthood  in  the 
Church  of  England— P.  Garhner  M.  Alfred  Loisy's  type  of  Catho- 
licism— W.  F.  Adkkkv  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews — Dis- 
cussions^ Reviews. 

T/ie  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  October  1904  (Vol.  xvii.  No.  65  :  Mac- 
millan  &  Co.).  L.  Wolp  The  Zionist  Peril — G.  Belasco  Isaac 
Pulgar's  'Support  of  the  Religion'— G.  H.  Sku-with  The  Origins  of 
the  Religion  of  Israel— H.  Hirschfeld  The  Arabic  portion  of  the 
Cairo  Genizah  at  Cambridge  (7th  art.) — E.  N.  Adi.kr  American  Autos 
— J.  H.  A.  Hart  Philo  of  Alexandria— M.  N.  Auler  The  Itinerary 
of  Benjamin  of  Tudela  {continued) — C.  Singer  The  Falashas — 
M.  Steinschneider  Allgemeine  Einleitung  in  die  jiidische  Literatur 
des  Mittclalturs  {continued) — L.  Belleli  Tlie  High  Priest's  procession 
on  the  Day  of  Atonement — S.  Poznais^ski  Zu  dcm  GenizaFragraetit — 
Critical  Notices. 

TheExpoiitGr,  October  iqc»4  (Sixth  Series,  No.  58:  Hodder&  Stough- 
ton).  W.  M.  Ramsav  The  Flavian  persecution  in  the  province  of  Asia 
— D.  S.  MARGOLiotn-H  The  permanent  elements  of  Religion — J.  H. 


I 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES    317 

MouLTON  Characteristics  of  New  Testament  Greek — J.  B.  Mayor 
Notes  on  the  text  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter — A.  Carr  A  fore- 
shadowing of  Christian  Martyrdom — W.  H.  Bennett  The  Life  of  Christ 
according  to  St  Mark — G.  G.  Findlav  Studies  in  the  First  Epistle  of 
John. 

November  1904  (Sixth  Series,  No.  59).  B.  Gray  The  view  from 
Mount  Nebbo— W.  M.  Ramsay  The  Letter  to  the  Church  in  Phila- 
delphia— J.  H.  MouLTON  Characteristics  of  New  Testament  Greek — 
J.  A.  Beet  The  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testament:  a  Reply — 
W.  E.  Barnes  A  Messianic  Prophecy — J.  Moffat  Literary  illustrations 
of  Ecclesiastes. 

December  1904  {Sixth  Series,  No.  60).  D.  S.  Margolioxtth 
The  historical  character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth — H.  R.  Mackintosh 
Dogmatic  Theology:  its  nature  and  function— J.  Moffat  Literary 
illustrations  of  Ecclesiastes — J.  H.  MouLtoN  Characteristics  of  New 
Testament  Greek — G.  G.  Findlav  Studies  in  the  First  Epistle  of  John 
— S.  I.  Curtis  (the  late)  The  origin  of  Sacrifice  among  the  Semites  as 
deduced  from  facts  gathered  among  Syrians  and  Arabs. 

(a)  American. 

7%tf  American  Journal  of  Theology,  October  1904  (Vol.  viti,  Na  4 : 
Chicago  University  Press).  A.  T.  Innes  The  religious  forecast  in 
England— R.  M.  Binder  Art,  Religion,  and  the  Emotions — L.  B.  Paton 
The  oral  sources  of  the  Patriarchal  Narratives — B.  W.  Bacon  The 
problem  of  religious  education  and  the  Divinity  School — J.  TsH 
Broeke  Hodgson's  '  Metaphysics  of  Experience  *  as  the  foundation 
of  Theology— E.  von  DobschOtz  Critical  Note ;  Jews  and  Anti-Semites 
in  ancient  Alexandria — Recent  Theological  Literature  (B.  F.  Westcott 
by  Prof.  C.  R.  Gregory). 

The  Princeton  Theological  Review,  October  1904  (Vol.  ii,  No.  4: 
Philadelphia,  MacCalla  &  Co.).  E.  W.  Miller  The  Great  Awakening 
— J.  Orr  Why  the  Mind  has  a  Body — J.  Cooper  (the  late)  Destructive 
Criticism— W.  H.  Hodge  The  Infinite,  Contradictory  and  Faith — 
B.  B.  Warfield  The  Millennium  and  the  Apocalypse— R.  D.  Wilson 
Royal  Titles  in  Antiquity :  an  essay  in  criticism  (3rd  article)— C.  W. 
Hodge  Ritschlianism :  Expository  and  Critical  Essays— Recent  Litera- 
ture. 

(3)  French  and  Belgian. 

Rtvue  BhrUdictinCy  October  1904  (Vol.  xxi,  No.  4 :  Abbaye  de  Mared- 
sous).  U.  Berli^re  Les  ^v^ques  auxiliaires  de  Tournai  {fitC) — 
J.  Chapman  Clement  d'Alexandrie  sur  les  Evangiles  et  encore  le  firag- 


3t8      the  journal  of  theological  studies 

mem  de  Muratori— G.  Morin  Une  nouvellc  thiorie  sur  les  origines 
du  canon  de  la  inesse  roinaine — H.  Herwecen  Les  collaborateure  de 
sainte  Hildegarde  (jfi) — M.  FESrucifeRE  Questions  de  philosophic  dc 
la  nature — Bulletin  d'histoirc  bifnedictine — Bibliographic. 

^(Tptf^^/M^Bf,  Octoher  1904  (Nouvelles^rie,  i^annre,  No.  4:  Paris, 
V.  Lecoffre).  Batikfol  Nouveaux  fragments  ^vangeliques  de  Behnesa 
— Lagrange  Prophtities  messianiques  de  Daniel — Hyverxat  Lc  Ian- 
gage  de  la  Massore — Melanges :  T.  MACRrDV-BEV  A  travers  les  ii^cro- 
polcs  sidfinietines  ;  J.  RouvrKR  Balan^e-Leucas — Chronique ;  R.  Savi- 
GNAc  Inscriptions  nabateennes  du  Hauran :  H.  V,  t'ouilles  diverws 
en  Palestine — Recensions — Bulletin — Table  des  mati^res. 

Jfevue  d'Histoire  ei  de  Littkraturt  Jieligieuses,  September-October  1 904 
(Vol.  ix,  No.  5 :  Paris,  74,  Boulevard  Saint-Germain).  J,  Ckoulbois 
L'intriguc  romainc  de  la  Comp.-ignie  du  Saint-Sacremcnt ;  i"  article: 
Les  premieres  lenlatives^J.  Turmel  La  controverse  semi-p^lagienne: 
!«'  article  :  Saint  Augiistin  et  la  controverse  semi-ptflagienne^A.  Loist 
Beclzcboul — M.  m.  Wulf  Pbitosophie  m^di^vale ;  I  £tudes  d'ordre 
g^n^ral;  II  La  philosophic  du  haut  moycn  5ge  jusqu'au  xiii^  si^cle — 
A.  Ixiisv  Chronique  bihlique :  I  Histoire  des  religions;  Ouvrages 
g^neraux  ;  11  Assyriologie ;  III  Critique  texiuelle;  Editions  et  traduc- 
tions; IV  Ex^be  de  I'Ancien  Testament;  V  Ex^gbse  du  Nouveau 
Testament — J.  Dalbret  Litt^rature  rcligieuse  modemc. 

Jievur  de  tOrient  Ckritien,  July  igo4(Vol.  ix,  No.  3:  Paris,  A.  Picard 
et  fils).  J.-B.  Rehours  Quelijues  monuscrils  de  musique  byzantine— 
I.  GuiDi  Textes  orientaux  in^dits  du  martyre  de  Judas  Cyriaque,  ^vfqiie 
de  Jerusalem:  II  Texte  copte— S.  Vailh6  and  S.  PixBinfes  Saint 
Jean  le  Faleolaurite,  prec^d^  d'une  notice  sur  la  vieille  l^ure — H.  Lau- 
MENS  Correspondances  diplomatiqucs  entre  les  sultans  raamlouks 
d'figypte  et  les  puissances  chri^ttennes  (^m) — F.  Tourwebize  Histoire 
politique  et  religieusc  de  I'Armenie  {suite) — L.  Clugnet  Office  dc  sainte 
Marine:  Texte  syriaquc  {tuite) — Melanges:  M.-A.  Kugener  Note  sur 
la  locality  palestinienne  dite  Maouza  ou  Maosa  de  Tamnia — Biblio- 
graphie. 

Rtvue  ^Hiitairc  Ecdesiastique,  October  1904  (Vol.  v,  No.  4  ;  I-XHlvain, 
40,  Rue  de  Namur).  M.  Jacquin  La  question  de  la  predestination 
aux  v<  ct  vi*  Slides ;  Saint  Augustin  (<J  suivre) — Melanges ;  P.  de 
PuNiET  Les  trois  homelies  catech^tiques  du  sacramcntairc  gtflasien 
pour  la  tradition  des  ^vangilcs,  du  synibole  et  de  I'oraison  dominicale 
((i  suivre) — S.  Merkle  !£tude  sur  trots  journaux  du  Concile  de  Trente 
^Comptes  rendus — Chronique^Bibliographie. 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES    3x9 

Analecta  BoHandiana,  October  1904  (Vol.  xxiii,  fasc.  4:  Brussels, 
14,  Rue  des  Ursulines).  F.  van  Ortroy  Saint  Ambroise  et  I'empereur 
Thtodose — H.  Delehave  Castor  et  Pollux  dans  les  l^endes  hagio- 
graphiques — A.  Largeault  and  H.  Bodenstaff  Miracles  de  sainte 
Radegonde,  xtii«  et  xiv«  si^le — F.  Cumont  Zimara  dans  le  Testament 
des  martyrs  de  S^baste— H.  Delehaye  S.  Gr^goire  le  Grand  dans 
rhagiographie  grecque — J.  van  den  Gheyn  Note  sur  le  manuscrit  Tfi 
9S90-92  de  la  Biblioth^que  royale  de  Belgique  et  le  lieu  de  sepulture 
du  B.  Jean  Fisher — A.  Poncelet  Le  l^endier  de  Saint-F^lix  de 
Pavie  imprime  en  1523 — Bulletin  des  publications  hagiographiques — 
Indices — U.  Chevalier  Folium  40  (p.  625-632)  et  folium  limtnare 
supplementi  ad  Repertorium  Hymnolc^cum — Folia  13-15  (p.  113- 
148)  et  folium  lirainare  Indicis  generalis  in  tomos  i-xx  Analectonim. 

(4)  German. 

Zettsehri/t  fiir  Theolo^e  und  Kirche,  September  1904  (Vol  xiv,  Na  5 ; 
Tiibingen,  J.  C.  B.  Mohr).  M.  Reischle  Kant  und  die  Theologie  der 
Gegenwart— T.  Steimmann  Die  lebendige  PersOnlichkeit  Gottes,  seine 
Immanenz  und  Transzendenz  als  religidses  Erlebnts. 

Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschaftUche  T^ologie,  October  1904  (Vol.  xlvii, 
N.  F.  xii,  No.  4:  Leipzig,  O.  R.  Reisland).  K.  Begrich  Das  Messiasbild 
des  Ezechiel  —  A.  Hilgenfeld  Der  Evangelist  Marcus  und  Julius 
Wellhausen.  Dritter  Artikel— A.  Klopper  Die  Offenbarung  des 
verborgenen  Mysteriums  Gottes  (i  Kor.  ii  7) — A.  Hilgenfeld  Pseudo- 
Clemens  in  moderner  Fa9on — A.  Hilgenfeld  Neue  gnostische  Log^a 
Jem — Anzeigen :  H.  Hilgenfeld  The  Syriac  chronicle  of  Zachaiias  of 
Mitylene,  by  F.  J.  Hamilton  and  E.  W.  Brooks,  1899— H.  Hilgenfeld 
Nachtrag  zu  Giwargis  Warda. 

Zxitschrift  /ur  die  nmtestamenilicht  Wissenschaft  und  die  Kunde  des 
Urchristentums^  October  1904  (Vol.  v,  No.  4:  Giessen,  J.  Ricker). 
£.  P.  Hennann  Usener  zum  23.  Oktober  1904 — P.  Corssbn  Die  Vitft 
Polycarpi— F.  Spitta  Beitrage  zur  Erklarung  der  Synoptiker— F.  C. 
CoNVBEARE  Dialf^s  de  Christi  die  natali — P.  Wendland  Son-^p — 
W.  Wrede  Zur  Heilung  der  Gelahmten  (Mc.  2,  i  ff.)— W.  Wrede  Zum 
Thema  '  Menscbensohn '. 

Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchengeschichte^  December  1904  (Vol.  xxv,  No.  4: 
Gotha,  F.  A.  Perthes).  Rocholl  Orient  oder  Rom? — Kalkoff  Zu 
Luthers  rfimischem  Prozess  (&^«jj)— Sommerpeldt  Zu  Matthaus  de 
Ciacovias  kanzelredneriscben  Schriften.  Ill — Ter-Minassiantz  Einige 
Bemerkungen  zu  Dr.  H.  Thopdschians  Artikel  '  Die  Anfange  des 
armenischen  Monchtums'. 


320        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


F 


Theolo^iche  Studitn  und  Kritiken,Cx:xohtx  1904  (1905,  No.  t  :  Gotha^ 
F.  A.  Perthes),  v.  DoBscHiirz  Sakrament  uiid  Symbol  im  Urchristentum 
—Clemen  Die  Blcitafcln  von  Granada — Possner  Die  Verrendung 
dcT  Eisenacher  alttcstamcntlichcn  Fcrikopcn  in  dcr  Prcdigt — Berbig 
Akten  xur  Reformationsgcscbichte  In  Coburg  und  im  Ortslandc  Franken 
— Bbei>erek  Das  Lied  'Wie  sch6n  leuchtet  der  Morgcnstern'  und 
seine  Lcsarcen — MUller  Einige  Konjekturen  zu  Ezechiel  und  den 
Fsalmen — Reunsioncn :  Bcx;hmcr,  Babel- Bibel-Katecbisnius  in  500 
Fragen  und  Antworten  fiir  Bibclfreunde  (Kautzsch). 

Ntue  kirchliche  Zeilsehri/t^  September  1 904  (Vol.  xv,  No.  9 :  EHangen 
&  Leipzig,  A.  Deichert).  R.  Rocholl  Uiukehr  zum  Idealrealismus  — 
W.  SiEBERT  Exegctisch-thculogische  Studic  iiber  Galater  3,  ao  und  4,  4 
— E.  KONIG  Gibt  es  'Zitate'  im  Alien  TesUment? 

October  1904  (Vol.  xv,  No.  id).  E.  Sachssb  Die  Logoslehre 
bei  Philo  und  bei  Johannes — L.  Rabus  Vom  Wirken  und  Wohnen 
des  gbttlichen  Geistcs  in  der  Menachenseele — J.  E.  Volter  Zur 
Reformationsgeschichte  Wiirtcmbcrgs — J.  Webher  Der  erste  andno- 
mistische  Strett. 

November  1904  (Vol.  xv,  Na  n).  L.  Rabus  Vom  Wirken  und 
Wohnen  dcs  gottlichen  Gcistes  in  dcr  Menschenseele  {Schlusi)  — 
J.  Werner  Dcr  erslc  antixioniistische  Slreit  {^Sckluss^ — E.  Hoppe  Geist 
und  Korper. 

December  1904  (Vol.  xv,  No.  12).  E.  Hoppe  Geist  und  KOtpcr 
— D.  NozcEN  Die  Religionsgeschichte  und  das  Neue  Testament — 
ScHOLZ  Christus  in  seinem  Verhalien  zu  den  Zwblfen  ein  Vorbild  in  der 
Seelsorge — E.  Komo  Die  chronologiscb-christologische  Hauptstelle  im 
Daniclbuche. 

Tfuoiogiiche  Quartabchrift^  January  1905  (Vol.  Ixxxvii,  No,  I  ; 
Tubingen,  H.  Laupp).  Schanz  Geschicbte  und  Dogma — Baur  Die 
methodische  Behandlung  des  Substanzproblcms  bei  Thomas  v.  Aquin 
und  Kant — SacmUller  Die  Ehe  Heitirichs  11.  d.  Hcil,  mit  Kunigunde — 
A.  Koch  Neue  Dokumente  zu  dem  Thyrsus  Gonzalez'  Streit — Kczea- 
sionen. 


The  Journal 

of 

Theological   Studies 

AFBU.,    180B 

THE   LAUSIAC   HISTORY  OF   PALLADIUS. 

He  who  would  adequately  portray  the  meaning  and  character 
of  the  Christian  life  of  the  century  that  followed  the  conversion 
of  Constantine — perhaps  the  most  striking  of  all  the  centuries  of 
Christian  history — must  find  room  in  the  foreground  of  his 
picture  for  full  description  of  the  great  movement  which  we  know 
by  the  name  of  monasticism.  And  when  we  talk  of  fourth- 
century  monasticism,  whether  we  are  thinking  of  direct  influence 
on  the  course  of  contemporary  history  or  of  the  less  immediate 
but  ultimately  not  less  real  influence  in  distant  countries,  and 
especially  in  the  Churches  of  the  West,  it  is  predominantly 
Egyptian  monasticism  that  we  mean.  Yet  it  may  be  doubted  if 
justice  is  really  done  to  the  subject  whether  in  our  manuals  or  in 
more  ambitious  works :  nor  are  the  reasons  far  to  seek.  If  lack 
of  sympathy  with  a  movement  that  finds  so  little  contact  with 
modem  tendencies  and  English  ideals  is  partly  accountable,  it  is 
probable  that  the  comparative  silence  of  some,  at  any  rate,  of  our 
historians  is  more  largely  due  to  ignorance  than  to  prejudice, 
and  to  ignorance  that  has  hitherto  been  unavoidable.  The 
inquirer,  as  he  came  to  plunge  into  the  study  of  monastic  origins, 
found  himself  baffled  at  every  turn  by  the  intricacy  of  the  literary 
problems  that  demanded  solution,  or  daunted  by  widely  spread 
suspicions  of  the  authenticity  and  trustworthiness  of  the  records. 
It  is  hardly  too  much  to  say  that  we  owe  it  principally  to  the 
labours  of  an  English  monk,  Dom  Cuthbert  Butler,  a  Benedictine 
of  Downside,  and  till  lately  a  resident  at  Cambridge,  that  these 
problems,  or  many  of  them,  have  been  solved,  and  these  suspicions 
laid  finally  at  rest.   In  his  two  volumes  on  the  Lausiac  History  of 

VOL.  VI.  Y 


322         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Palladius^  he  has  unravelled  sonic  of  the  most  tortuous  threads 
of  this  complex  skein  of  documents  with  a  surcness  and  precision 
such  that  the  most  hastile  criticism  am  hardly  hope  to  question 
or  even  to  modify  his  rcsuhs. 

It  is  not  quite  easy  for  a  critic  who  is  himself  wholly  in  the 
position  of  a  learner,  to  decide  how  best  to  approach  his  task. 
But  if  he  may  assume  the  same  defects  of  knowledge  to  be  true 
of  his  readers  that  were  certainly  true  of  himself  before  he  began 
the  study  of  Dom  Butler's  volumes,  it  will  probably  not  be 
unwise  to  introduce  the  present  article  with  some  slight  general 
sketch  of  this  department  of  Christian  literature,  before  coming  to 
close  quarters  with  the  Lausiac  History.  And  for  this  purpose 
no  better  starting-point  can  be  found  than  the  massive  collection 
of  material  which  the  Flemish  Jesuit,  Roswcyd,  the  true  founder 
and  spiritual  progenitor  of  the  Bollaiidists,  published  at  Antwerp 
in  ]fii5  (ed.  i  in  1638)  under  the  title  of  Vitae  Patrum.  Of  the 
ten  books  into  which  Rosweyd's  folio  volume  is  divided,  part  of 
book  i  and  the  whole  of  books  ii-vjii  (besides  much  of  the 
Appendix)  are  devoted  to  the  monks  of  Egypt :  and  though 
Rosweyd's  texts  are  unfortunately  all  Latin,  it  is  only  within 
comparatively  recent  years  that  any  serious  advance  has  been 
made  on  them. 

Book  i,  then,  of  Roswcyd  consists  entirely  of  biographies  of 
individual  fathers  of  the  desert,  not  all  of  them  Eg>'ptian ;  and 
this  book  is  by  far  the  longest  in  the  volume.  Book  ii  is 
a  (Latin)  account  of  the  visit  of  a  party  of  travellers  to  various 
Egyptian  monks  and  monastic  centres,  known  as  the  Histaria 
Monatkortan  in  Aegypto.  Books  iii  and  v-vii  are  Latin  versions 
of  the  collections  of  the  sayings  of  the  leading  monks,  which  go 
under  the  generic  title  of  ApophtJirgmata  Patrum.  Book  iv 
consists  of  such  portions  of  the  writings  of  two  Western  authors, 
Cassian  and  Sulpicius  Severus,  as  describe  visits  to  the  Egyptian 
monks.  Book  viii  and  portions  of  the  AppendLx  contain  three 
separate  recensions  of  the  Lausiac  Hist&ry\ 

^  Th*  Lausiat  Hitiwy  of  PaUadiia:  a  critical discmsioH  togetkeraHh  rtotts  on  tnrfy 
Egyplian  monacftism,  CvntiridgG,  JS98  ;  TA*  Lausiac  History  of  Ptdladwx,  II,  Mr 
Grtib  ttxi  tdiltd  taith  introduction  and  notes,  Combridjce,  1904  :  rorrnlng  logetbei 
vol.  VL  of  the  Camttrid^  TiJcti  a$td  Studies,  edited  by  Dr  AnniUge  Robinaon,  Dean 
of  Wcitminaler. 

■  Butler  I  p.  &  a. 


t 


THE   LAUSIAC    HISTORY  OF   PALLADIUS  323 

It  results  from  the  first  glance  at  these  headings  that  the 
literature  that  bears  upon  the  monastic  Egypt  of  the  fourth  and 
early  fifth  centuries  falls  into  two  main  divisions,  the  biographies 
of  individual  fathers  by  their  disciples  or  admirers,  and  the 
accounts  written  by  travellers  especially  Western  travellers,  of 
their  experiences  on  the  grand  tour — the  former  more  internal 
and  particular,  the  latter  more  external  and  general^with  the 
Apophthegmata  as  a  sort  of  connecting  link  between  the  two ; 
and  the  new  material  that  has  accrued  since  Rosweyds  time 
adapts  itself  easily  enough  to  this  classification,  which  will  there- 
fore be  taken  as  the  basis  for  the  succeeding  paragraphs. 

I.  Among  the  fathers  of  Egyptian  monasticism  five  names 
stand  out  with  special  prominence — Paul  and  Antony,  the  first 
hermits ;  Macarius,  the  most  celebrated  of  Antony's  disciples ; 
Pachomius,  the  founder  of  the  Coenobites ;  and  Schnoudi, 
Pachomius'  most  illustrious  successor. 

For  Paul  we  have  the  Latin  life  by  Jerome — who  wrote  also 
the  life  of  Hilarion,  the  founder  of  Palestinian  monasticism — and 
a  corresponding  document  in  Greek,  as  well  as  a  shorter  recension 
of  the  same  biography  extant  in  Latin,  Greek, Coptic,and  Syriac. 
It  is  clear  that,  if  Jerome's  book  is  the  ultimate  source  of  all  this 
material,  no  first-hand  authority  can  be  claimed  for  it,  since 
Paul's  death  (about  A.  D.  340)  preceded  by  more  than  thirty  years 
St  Jerome's  arrival  in  the  East.  The  Bollandists  had,  however, 
su^estcd  that  the  shorter  Greek  life,  in  which  no  mention  is 
made  of  Jerome's  authorship,  was  the  original  of  the  rest ;  and 
M.  Amiiiincau  makes  a  similar  claim  on  behalf  of  the  Coptic. 
If  either  of  these  theories  had  held  good,  the  way  might  have 
been  open  for  a  further  attempt  to  establish  the  contemporary 
diaractcr  of  the  Life  of  Paul  ;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  both  the 
Syriac  and  the  Coptic  narratives  (which  were  unknown  to  the 
Bollandists)  retain  at  the  end  of  the  Life  St  Jerome's  state- 
ment of  his  own  authorship,  and  the  question  of  priority  must 
be  considered  settled  in  favour  of  the  Latin.  And  just  as  on 
external  grounds  the  Vita  Pattli  cannot  be  regarded  as  strictly 
contemporary*,  so  also  on  internal  grounds  it  cannot  be  regarded 
as  strictly  historical '. 

>  Butler  I  >3o-33i,  185. 

Y  a 


324  THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

'  Huius  vitae  auctor  Pauliis,  illustrator  Antonius.'  If  Jerome's 
epigrammatic  comparison  of  the  two  men  may  be  trusted, 
Antony  was  a  later  arrival  in  the  monastic  life  than  Paul :  but 
the  difference  cannot  have  been  one  of  many  years,  for  Antony  is 
said  to  have  been  more  than  a  century  old  at  the  time  of  his 
death  (about  A.  D.  356),  and  he  embraced  monasticism  in  his 
youth.  In  any  case  his  fame  and  influence  were  far  greater  than 
Paul's ;  and  Dom  Butler  dates  the  '  Inauguration  of  Christian 
Monachism '  from  the  time  when,  about  A.  D.  305,  Antony  began 
to  oiganiEc  the  monastic  life  for  the  disciples  who  had  gathered 
round  him.  Certainly  we  possess  for  the  life  of  Antony  a  docu- 
ment much  more  nearly  contemporary  than  anything  we  have 
for  Paul ;  for  the  Greek  Vi/a  Atitonii,  whether  or  no  it  was 
written  by  St  Athanasius,  was  undoubtedly  translated  into 
Latin  by  one  Evagrius  within  a  year  or  two  of  St  Athanasius' 
d^th.  A  Syriac  version,  printed  by  Bedjan,  Acta  Martyrum  et 
Sanctorum  vol.  v,  represents  an  abbreviated  redaction  of  the 
Greek  ;  and  the  Coptic  fr^ments  appear  also  to  be  translated 
from  the  same  language  '. 

Macarius,  the  disciple  of  Antony— called  Macarius  the  Great 
or  Macarius  of  Egypt  to  distinguish  him  from  his  namesake  of 
Alexandria — survived  his  master  for  more  than  thirty  years,  and 
his  posthumous  fame  was  so  great  that  brief  accounts  of  his 
life  are  included  in  both  the  Historia  Lausiaca  and  the  Historia 
Monachorum,  though  the  author  of  neither  work  can  actually 
have  seen  him.  A  fuller  and  independent  biography  by  a  certain 
Serapion,  or  Sarapamon,  has  lately  been  published  in  Coptic  by 
Am^lineau  and  in  Syriac  by  Bcdjan.  But  modern  criticism  has 
not  been  so  busy  with  Macarius  as  with  Antony  or  Schnoudi 
and  while  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  in  general  the  authenticity 
of  the  many  Apophtlugmata  attributed  to  him,  it  is  still  uncertain 
whether  the  Homilies  and  Epistles  that  pass  under  his  name  are 
really  his  ^, 

About  the  same  time  that  Antony  began  his  work  among  his 
disciples  in  middle  Egypt,  Pachomius  was  founding  in  the  far 
south  a  monastery  in  the  modem  sense  of  the  word,  and  at  the 
time  of  his  death  forty  years  later,  i.e.  about  a.d.  345,  was  ruling 

'  BuUer  I  ]];  ;  II  page  c  of  the  Introduction. 

■    Ibid  I  330,  335;    II  43,  193. 


b 


THE   LAUSIAC    HISTORY   OF   PALLADIUS 

over  eight  monasteries  of  a  more  or  less  uniform  type.  As  would 
naturally  be  the  case  with  the  founder  of  an  Order,  the  documents 
which  dca]  with  his  life  and  work  arc  more  numerous  and  more 
complicated  than  the  Vi/a  Pauliy  or  even  than  the  Vita  and 
Hegula  Antffnii.  The  various  redactions  of  the  VUa  Pacfwmii 
can  be  traced  back  easily  enough  to  two  main  sources,  a  Greek 
Life  and  a  Coptic  Life  :  but  to  decide  upon  the  relative  priority 
of  these  two  Is  not  quite  so  simple.  The  theory  of  Coptic  originals 
■would  have  more  a  priori  probability  here  than  in  the  ca^e  of 
Paul  or  Antony,  since  the  scene  of  Pachoraius'  labours,  being 
much  further  south,  lay  in  a  far  less  graecized  district ;  and  it  is 
indisputable  that  all  the  material  relating  to  Schnoudi  is  of 
Coptic  provenance.  Nevertheless,  I}om  Butler  holds  it  to  be 
certain  that  the  Vita  Pachomii  was  first  written  in  Greek,  and 
that  this  Vita^  and  another  Greek  document  known  generally  as 
the  '  Asceticon,*  but  called  in  the  Acta  Samtorunt  the  '  Faralipo- 
mena' — a  collection  of  stories  illustrative  of  Pachomtus'  life  and 
character — ^are  the  ultimate  sources  not  only  of  the  Latin  Vita 
but  also  of  the  Coptic.  At  the  same  time,  as  some  of  the  Coptic 
fragments  arc  little,  if  at  all,  later  than  A.  D.  400,  the  latter  version 
must  have  been  almost  contemporary  with  the  Greek  originals, 
and  therefore  any  supplementary  information  which  it  contains 
has  good  claim  to  be  taken  into  account '. 

With  the  biography  of  Fachomlus  was  generally  circulated  the 
biography  of  Theodore — his  successor  in  office  during  the  years 
350-368 — as  contained  in  the  (Greek)  Episttda  Ammenis  ad  T/ieO' 
pkUufn,  which  describes  the  life  of  the  Pachomian  monasteries 
shortly  after  the  death  of  their  founder. 

Last  of  the  great  monastic  leaders  whose  biographies  form  the 
subject  of  this  section  is  Schnoudi  or  Shenoute,  the  most  celebrated 
abbot  of  the  Pachomian  monasteries  after  their  founder.  Within 
the  last  twenty  years  Amtilineau  has  published  a  volume  of 
nearly  500  pages,  consisting  entirely  of  documents  relating  to 
him  ;  and  quite  lately  an  important  monograph  has  appeared  in 
Germany  from  the  pen  of  Dr  Lcipoldt^     But  there  is  the  less 

*  Botler  I  I59-I7if  188-391. 

*  Amiflineau  MoHMmmti  /vur  Sfrotr  a  fUstoin  de  FEgyfite  eJirrtinau  au  n'  ettf 
tirdcs  I  i(i888)  ;  Lcipoliit  Schtnutt  von  Alript  ia  Gebhardtatid  Hartuck's  Trxtrund 
UHUrsmAuHgen  N.  F.  X  i  (1903).     Sec  BuUcr  I  107  ;  II  Introd.  xi,  xii,  ci,  cii. 


396         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

reason  to  speak  of  him  here  in  detail,  because  on  the  one  band, 
as  has  been  .^taid,  the  Schnoudi  literature  is  exclusively  C<^tiCf 
and,  on  the  other,  the  period  o(  his  influence  falls  well  outside 
of  the  fourth  century  ;  his  death  took  place  about  451-452.  At 
the  same  time,  if  he  had  then  been,  as  his  biographers  state, 
a  monk  for  no  less  than  X09  years,  he  would  have  been, 
one  would  think,  sufficiently  important  to  be  an  object  of 
interest  to  the  travellers  whose  visits  to  F-gypt  at  the  end  of  the 
fourth  and  beginning  of  the  fifth  century  will  occupy  us  in  the 
next  section  of  this  paper.  Yet  no  single  visitor  so  much  as 
mentions  his  name  ;  so  strong  was  the  barrier  which  diversity 
of  language  was  already  raising,  and  which  was  to  crystallize 
soon  after  Schnoudi's  death  into  the  permanent  separation  of 
Greek-  and  Coptic -speaking  Christians. 

With  the  Lives  of  these  fathers  may  be  fitly  grouped  the 
Rules  which  bear  their  names.  These,  howc^'e^,  must  be  sought 
not  in  Koswcyd  but  in  Luca.s  HoLstcn's  still  invaluable  Codex 
Rggulartiin  (Paris,  a.  d.  1663).  The  Rcgula  Antonii  is  not 
original,  but  is  made  up  out  of  the  life  of  Antony  and  the 
sayings  attributed  to  him.  Of  the  Rcgula  Paclwmii  various 
recensions  are  in  print,  and  a  genuinely  Pachomian  nucleus  could 
probably  be  extracted  from  them :  Palladius,  who  had  very 
likely  seen  the  original  text,  gives  an  outline  of  the  Rule  in  the 
Lausiac  History :  the  body  of  minute  regulations  which  St  Jerome 
translated  into  Latin  as  the  '  Rule  of  Pachomius ',  he  describes 
more  fully  and  no  doubt  more  correctly  as  '  praecepta  Pachomii 
ct  Theodori  et  Orsiesii  ',so  that  the  collection  before  him  appears 
to  have  been  not  so  much  a  formal  Rule  delivered  once  for  all  to 
the  Order  as  a  code  admitting  of  indefinite  developcmcnt  and 
expansion  in  the  face  of  new  needs — a  code  of  which  part  no 
doubt  did,  but  the  whole  certainly  did  not,  go  back  to  the 
original  founder.  Of  this  version  of  St  Jerome  two  recensions 
are  in  print,  diflfering,  however,  neither  in  subject-matter  nor  in 
language,  but  only  in  arrangement ;  and  of  the  Greek  text  on 
which  the  version  is  based  two  forms  also  are  extant,  a  shorter 
and  a  longer  :  the  shorter  Greek  is  represented  also  in  Ethiopic 
To  the  documents  which  come  to  us  under  the  name  of  Schnoudi 
a  still  higher  degree  of  authenticity  may  be  ascribed,  and  Dom 
Butler  reckons  them  among  the  most  valuable  of  our  authorities: 


THE    LAUSIAC    HISTORY    OF    PALLADIUS 


327 


these,  however,  like  his  Life,  are  known  to  us  neither  in  Greek 
nor  in  Latin,  but  only  in  Coptic.  Mention  should  also  be  made 
here,  for  coraplcteness'  sake,  of  the  Regula  Macarii^. 

Between  the  material  dealing  with  individual  names,  which 
has  occupied  us  so  far,  and  the  more  general  and  external 
impressions  of  Egyptian  monastic  life,  which  will  claim  our 
attention  in  a  moment,  a  sort  of  intermediate  position  is  6Ued 
by  the  Apophthcgmata  Patrum — 'short  anecdotes  and  sayings  of 
the  chief  fathers  of  the  desert,  often  full  of  shrewdness  and  deep 
knowledge  of  human  nature '.  Of  larger  collections  of  these 
sayings  three  forms  are  extant :  one  in  Greek,  arranged  alpha- 
betically according  to  the  names  of  the  authors  of  the  Sayings 
(so  that  the  whole  of  Antony's  would  be  found  grouped  under  A, 
and  so  on),  which  waa  printed  by  Cotclicr ;  one  known  in  Greek  to 
Fhotius,  arranged  according  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  Sayings, 
which  has  sur\'ivcd  only  in  Latin  (printed  in  Roswcyd,  books  v 
and  vi)  and  in  Coptic  (printed  by  Zoega) ;  and  a  third,  also 
arranged  according  to  subject-matter,  and  also  printed  in  Latin 
by  Rosweyd  (book  vii).  The  material  contained  in  these  three 
great  coilectiotis  is  substantially  the  same,  though  in  aiTange- 
ment  they  are  wholly  independent  of  one  another  ;  and  since  the 
two  Latin  translations  are  not  laltrr  titan  the  early  years  of  the 
sixth  century — tliat  of  Rosweyd,  books  v  and  vi,  was  made  by 
•  Paschasius  the  deacon  at  the  request  of  Martin  the  presbyter 
and  abbot ',  while  that  of  book  vii  is  cited  in  the  Rule  of 
St  Benedict— the  Greek  collections  must  go  back  to  the  fifth 
century.  But  these  Greek  collections  obviously  grew  out  of 
a  number  of  smaller  collections  (such  as  alone  are  extant  in 
Syriac),  which  were  combined  and  recast  at  pleasure ;  and  if 
time  is  to  be  allowed  for  the  process  of  growth  and  develop- 
ment, the  commencement  of  the  movement  to  preserve  and 
record  the  '  Sayings  of  the  Fathers '  must  be  traced  lo  the 
banning  of  the  fifth  century  and  even  to  the  end  of  the  fourth". 

II.  The  second  main  division  of  the  literature  concerned  with 
the  early  monaslicism  of  Egypt  consists  of  a  scries  of  accounts  of 
tours  made  by  travellers  from  other  parts  of  the  Christian  world, 

'  Bullcr  I  197,  155-158;  II  Ititrod.  p.  xia. 

»  Ibid.  16,  io&-ai4,  383-iBs:  n  Introd.  p.  xit. 


328        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

and  especially  from  the  West,  to  the  principal  monastic  settle- 
ments and  the  most  eminent  aiXKlics  of  the  Egyptian  deserts. 
Pilgrimages  to  the  holy  places  of  Palestine  had  been  in  vc^uc 
among  Greek  Christians  from  the  beginning  of  the  third  century ; 
but  it  is  only  after  the  conversion  of  the  Empire  that  wc  hear,  in 
this  connexion,  of  travellers   from  the  West    The  Bordeaux 
pilgrim  of  A.D.  ^^^y  with  his  terse  record  of  distances  covered, 
appears  thoroughly  conscious  of  the  unusual  cliaractcr  and  magni- 
tude of  his  undertaking ;  but  half  a  century  later  the  journey 
had  ceased  to  be  exceptional,  and  the  Holy  Land  had  ceased  to 
be  the  only  goal  of  the  pilgrim.     Egypt  lay,  in  fact,  so  close 
to  Palestine   that  it  was  natural  to  complete  the  devotional 
recourse  to  the  sacred  sites  of  the  Christian   past   by  simil 
recourse  to  the  sacred  sites  of  the  present-    A  visit  to  Nitri»1 
or  the  Thebaid  became  almost  as  essential  an  element  in  the 
'  Grand  Tour '  of  a  Latin  Christian  as  are  Delhi  and  Agra  in 
the  oriental  travels  of  an  Englishman  ;  and  to  write  a  record 
of  experiences  for  the  benefit  of  less  enterprising  friends  at  home 
was  as  fashionable  then  as  it  is  to-day.     We  need  not  shut  our 
eyes  to  the  romantic  and  adventurous  side  of  the  business,  if  we 
are  willing  at  the  same  time  to  remember  that  it  had  another 
and  a  more  serious  side,  and  that  Egypt  was  a  true  Holy  Land 
to  the  minds  of  these  fourth-century  Christians  just  because  the 
spiritual  conflict  seemed  more  real  and  tangible  there  than  else- 
where, and  the  powers  with  which  the  Christian  saint  is  endued 
for  it  more  visibly  and  more  triumphantly  exercised. 

I.  Few  recent  discoveries  in  the  domain  of  early  Christian 
literature  have  excited  as  much  general  interest  as  the  frag- 
mentary record  of  a  lady's  pilgrimage  to  Palestine,  which 
Gamurrini  found  in  a  MS  at  Arezzo  and  published  under  the 
title  '  Peregrinatio  S.  Silviae '.  In  its  present  mutilated  form  the 
story  opens  in  the  desert  of  Mount  Sinai  ;  but  there  is  now  good 
reason  to  believe  that  the  lost  opening  included  a  visit  to  the 
Thebaid.  For  Gamurrini's  identiiicatton  of  the  pilgrim  with 
Silvia  was  purely  conjectural ;  Dom  Butler,  in  his  first  volume, 
brought  weighty  arguments  against  it,  and  quite  lately  a  new 
and  much  more  acceptable  solution  has  been  offered  by  a  French 
Benedictine,  Dom  F^rotin '.   A  letter  is  extant  in  which  Valerius, 

*  Kmuf  4its ^estioHs kisteriquts,  Oct.  1903:  Butler  II  319. 


THE   LAUSIAC   HISTORY   OF   PALLADIUS  329 

a  Spanish  hermit  of  the  seventh  century,  writing  to  the '  brethren 
at  Vierzo ',  describes  summarily  the  eastern  travels  of  a  certain 
virgin,  also  a  Spaniard,  named  Etheria  or  (perhaps  more  probably) 
Egeria.  What  he  tells  us  tallies  well  enough  with  the  extant 
portion  of  the  '  Peregfrinatio ' ;  and  he  tells  us  further  that  Egeria 
had  travelled  to  the  Thebaid,  'Thebeorum  visitans  monachorum 
gloriosissima  congr^ationum  coenobia,  similiter  et  sancta  ana- 
choretarum  ergastula '.  The  lady's  travels  took  place  about  or 
soon  after  the  year  380 ;  and  if  she  really  was  the  Egeria  of 
Valerius,  the  recovery  of  a  complete  MS  of  her  pilgrimage 
would  give  us  our  earliest  description  from  outside  of  Egyptian 
monasticism  ^ 

3.  But  if  Egeria's  account  is  lost,  we  have  four  extant  records 
of  the  impression  made  on  visitors  whose  experiences  all  fell 
within  the  same  quarter  of  a  century,  a.d.  385-410  :  the  Instituta 
and  CoUationes  of  Cassian,  the  (first  of  the)  Dialogues  of  Sulpicius 
Severus,  the  Historia  Monachorum^  and  the  Lausiac  History  of 
Palladius.  And  of  these  it  will  be  convenient  to  speak  in  the 
order  given. 

John  Cassian's  ascetic  writings— the  Instituta  or  Institutes  of 
the  Monastic  Life,  and  the  CoUationes  or  Conferences — were  not 
published  till  the  third  decade  of  the  fifth  century,  A.  D.  430-430, 
when  their  author  was  settled  at  Marseilles  and  was  doii^  his 
best  to  introduce  the  Egyptian  type  of  monasticism  into  Gaul : 
but  the  residences  in  Egypt  on  which  the  latter  work  is  wholly 
and  the  former  largely  based  fall  within  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty 
years  of  the  fourth  century,  during  which  Cassian  and  his  friend 
Germanus  twice  visited  the  country.  On  the  first  occasion  they 
stayed  several  years  in  the  Delta  ;  on  the  second  they  extended 
their  travels  to  Nitria  and  Scetis,  and  fi-om  this  second  journey 
they  returned  apparently  in  399.  On  neither  occasion  did  they 
go  as  far  as  the  Thebaid,  so  that  Cassian's  own  experiences 
are  confined  to  the  monasticism  of  Northern  Egypt  and  do  not 
cover  the  coenobite  monasteries  of  the  Pachomian  type. 

Of  the  Conferences  the  second  and  third  series  (nos.  xi-xxiv) 

represent  discourses  or  instructions  given  to  Cassian  and  his 

friend  during  their  first   journey   by   different  monks  whose 

acquaintance  from  time  to   time  they  made,  while  the  series 

^  Butler  I  39611.;  II  339,  330, 


jg>        THE  JOCBJUL  OT  THWMOCTCAL  STUDIES 

wIbA  oooks  fan  ni  onkr  (aoa.  i-z)  «ee  bser  m  Mtaml  dMe 
aad  bekag  Id  tke  jeooad  joswy  aad  u  Sects.  Tbe  Cob- 
fc ■■■>■■  pBport  of  onne  to  miifit  the  voy  «iads  of  ttat 
Egjrpifa»  aicttio:  Caaiaa  b  oidy  Ac  taBAtor  fron  Gccdcor 
Coptic  iaia  Lata:  it  b  not  a  Msioiy  of  iMt^ ■  itui,  ■»  oca 
a  pktsre  of  ftJ  cxxenia]  sde,  that  we  are  to  look  far  in  diCB,bal 
of  the  «i-~-'*i-ig  iDwlMch  tbe  ioaer  ncaaiig  of  ibe 
life  Rveakd  itseif.  What  «e  get  ■  Csana  io  tbe  way 
of  biognplucal  matter  or  iHa<f«tiwc  detuls  is  to  be  faaad  not 
■o  in  h  m  the  Coafereaoea  a»  ■  the  latritatrs:  and  tbovgh  the 
loa|[  nrtcrval  of  ycais  wliich  canned  betweca  his  Egyptna 
experiences  and  tbe  tiinc  when  he  made  ose  of  tbem   in  his 

fiihBjr  of  die  record,  the  abaoloee  itmm  fdts  of  botfa  woria 

baa  aotfl  lately  been  generally  treated  as  above  so^ikioa'. 

3.  la  the  strict  order  of  cfaroaology  tbe  HistoHa  Mtmrnktrmm, 
or  father  tbe  trav^  iriiidi  it  recounts,  woold  claim  the  aext 
place ;  but  tbe  literary  crmcism  of  the  HisUria  is  so  intimately 

Bp  iriifa  that  of  the  Laosiac  History  itseti,  that  it  will  be 
first  to  deal  with  Postmnian,  the  story  of  whose  jour- 
aeyay  doriog  tbe  years  402-405  in  the  East — to  Cyrcoe,  Alex* 
aodrta,  Bethlehem  and  tbe  Thebaid — is  embedded  tn  the  first  of 
die  three  Diahgues  of  his  friend  Solpkins  Severas  The  part 
devoted  to  tbe  description  of  the  w***'^^*^^  liie  (Dial,  i  10-13)  is 
rather  a  collection  of  marvels  or  miracles  than  a  chrooologically 
arranged  record  of  travels  or  an  ordered  series  o(  biographies : 
the  heroes  are  generally  left  anonymous,  and  in  fact  the  whole 
account  is  only  introduced  to  serve  as  a  foil  to  the  histories  that 
follow  in  the  second  and  third  Dialcgjus  about  St  Martin  of 
Tours.  Sulpicios  is  too  exclusively  occupied  «ith  the  marvellous 
to  rank  quite  on  a  level  with  our  other  authorities :  but  in  his 
caac  again  there  seems  no  reason  at  all  to  doubt  the  genuinely 
historical  character  of  the  background '. 

4.  In  the  winter  of  594-395  a  party  of  seven  persons  from  the 
DKniastcry  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  made  the  Egyptian  tour,  and 
h  is  their  experiences  which  are  retailed  to  us  in  the  so-called 
HUt^ia  Monachorum,    This  book  is  found  in  numerous  Latin 

'  Butler  I  »3->oS ;  11  Introd.  p.  siL 
»  Ibid.  1  iij,  331,  J3). 


THE   LAUSIAC   HISTORY   OF   PALLADIUS  331 

MSS,  and  Rosweyd  collated  twenty  when  he  incorporated 
the  Historia  as  book  ii  of  the  Vitae  Patrum.  Rosweyd  proved 
conclusively  that  the  author  of  this  Latin  document  was  no  other 
than  Rufinus :  Tilleraont  with  equal  conclusiveness  proved  that 
the  experiences  related  by  the  writer  in  the  first  person  did  not 
tally  with  the  known  facts  of  Rufinus'  life,  and  (on  the  strei^th 
of  a  notice  in  Gennadius'  de  Viris  lUustrtbus)  suggested  that 
Rufinus  was  only  the  editor  of  materials  supplied  by  Fetronius 
of  Boli^na.  But  the  true  key  to  the  problem  was  to  be  found  in 
another  direction.  The  Historia,  in  fact,  is  extant  in  a  Greek  as 
well  as  in  a  Latin  form  :  even  before  Tillemont  wrote,  Cotelier 
had  described  four  Paris  MSS  of  a  'Paradisus',  which  turns  out 
to  be  nothing  else  than  the  Greek  equivalent  of  the  Historia : 
and  this  Greek  text  has  now  been  published  complete  by  Dr 
Preuschen  in  his  Palladius  und  Rufinus  (i  897)  ^.  But  Preuschen 
still  held  to  the  originality  of  the  Latin :  it  was  left  to  Dom  Butler 
to  solve  all  the  difficulties  that  attach  to  the  Rufinian  authorship 
by  the  simple  hypothesis  that  Rufinus  in  the  early  years  of  the 
fifth  century  turned  into  Latin  a  Greek  account  of  a  tour  that 
had  been  made  some  ten  years  before  by  members  of  his  own 
monastery  ^. 

Dom  Butler's  position  on  this  question  appears  to  me  to  be 
in  the  main  sound  and  unassailable :  but  at  one  point  in  bis 
statement  of  the  case  hesitation  may  legitimately  be  expressed. 
Among  the  early  witnesses  to  the  text  of  the  Historia  Mona- 
chorum^  Sozomen,  whose  Church  History  was  written  440-450 
A.D.,  holds  a  foremost  place :  and  the  curious  feature  about  his 
evidence  is  that  he  shews  in  turn  marked  coincidences  with  the 
Greek  form  of  the  Historia  against  the  Latin,  and  with  the  Latin 
form  against  the  Greek.  Dom  Butler  suggests  that  of  the 
ordinal  Greek  edition  of  the  Historia,  which  both  Rufinus  and 
Sozomen  had  used,  no  MSS  remain,  all  extant  Greek  MSS 
representing  a  revision  in  which  the  later  chapters  were  abridged. 
But  is  not  this  explanation  quite  unnecessarily  complicated  ?  Is 
there  anything  which  militates  against  the  much  simpler  view 

*  It  ought  to  be  noted  here  that  Dr  Preuschen,  on  several  important  points  con- 
nected with  the  Historia  Lausiaca,  arrived  independently  at  the  same  results  as 
Dom  Butler. 

*  Butlerl  10-15,  198-103,  257-273',  386. 


33»        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

that  (i)  Rafinus,  in  translating  the  Greek,  expanded  it  in  various 
places  by  drawing  on  his  personal  knowledge  of  Egyptian 
monasticism :  (2)  Sozotncn,  having  access  to  both  the  original 
Greek  and  the  version  of  Kufinus,  and  finding  that  on  occasions 
they  differed  not  inconsiderably,  wrote  with  both  of  them  open 
before  him '  ? 


We  arc  now  on  the  threshold  of  the  Lausiac  History :  but 
before  crossing  it,  it  may  be  well  to  pause  for  a  moment  zxA 
cast  a  brief  glance  back  over  the  history  of  the  literature  just 
described.  We  shall  find  that  the  era  of  unhesitating  credulity 
was  succeeded  by  a  generation  of  critics  whose  incredulity  was 
quite  as  unhesitating :  but  we  shall  find  that  their  day  too  is 
over,  and  that  the  reaction  which  has  set  in  to  saner  views  gives 
every  prospect  of  being  permanent 

Dr  Weingarten  was  the  leader  of  the  critical  assault.  In  his 
Ver  Ursp'ung  des  Monchtuins  (A.  D.  1877),  and  in  his  article 
MoHcktum  (a.d,  1882)  in  the  second  edition  of  Herzog's 
HeaUncykloffddie,  he  expressed  himself  dcci^sivcly  as  to  the  worth- 
lessness  of  one  after  another  of  our  authorities.  There  never  was 
such  a  person  as  Paul  the  Hermit  Though  the  existence  of 
Antony  must  be  admitted,  he  did  not  live  till  late  in  the  fourth 
century,  and  the  Vita  Antoftii  is  therefore  not  by  Athanasius: 
nor  is  there  any  basis  of  fact  in  it  whatever.  The  Vita  Pa^homii 
must  go  also,  for  there  were  no  monks  in  Egypt  at  all  before  the 
year  340.  The  Apophihegtnata  are  in  no  sense  historical,  but 
are  a  purely  ethical  composition,  redolent  of  the  best  mysticism 
of  the  Greek  Church,  and  certainly  later  than  the  fourth  century. 
The  Conferences  published  by  Cassian  were  never  delivered  at  all 
by  Egyptian  monks,  but  are  his  personal  contribution  to  the  Semi- 
Pelagian  controversy :  the  setting  of  the  story  is  all  mythical, 
and  the  geographical  details  arc  as  trustworthy  as  Homer's. 
The  liistoria  Monachoruni  deserves  no  moie  credit  than  G"»/- 
liver's  Travels.  The  monastic  literature,  as  a  whole  and  in  its 
individual  parts,  is  built  up  out  of  mere   imitation   of  Greek 

*  One  illustration  may  be  quctcd  (from  Butler  1  375)  which  s«cnw  to  me  not 
merely  to  bear  out  but  forcibly  to  suggest  or  cv-ca  compel  this  view :  Greek  Historia 

ttif  If  K^Kwv  iftioTOi".*  :  Rufinus  'ardentwi  prunas  ucstimcnlo  fercbat  ilUeso*: 


THE   LAUSIAC   HISTORY   OF   PALLADIUS  333 

romances.  The  sources  of  Jerome  and  Cassian,  Rufinus  and 
Palladius,  are  to  be  found  not  in  historical  facts  but  in  pagan 
€>avftAfria  and  Meranop^^aMts,  and  more  particularly  in  Philo- 
stratus'  Life  of  ApoUonius  of  Tyana^. 

Of  Weingarten's  followers  the  most  important  were  Dr  Lucius 
in  Germany  and  Mr  Gwatkin  in  England :  and  the  scepticism  of 
the  followers  appeared  to  outdo  that  of  the  master.  Professor 
Gwatkin,  in  his  otherwise  admirable  Studies  o/Ariantsm,  wrote 
of  the  Historia  Monachorum  that  it  was  '  past  defence  except  as 
a  novel ',  while  in  his  later  Arian  Controversy  he  could  still  speak 
of  *  the  great  hermit  Antony  who  never  existed '  ^ 

It  is  obvious  that  the  attitude  we  adopt  towards  the  surround- 
ing literature  must  create  some  sort  oi  praetudicium  with  r^ard 
to  the  Lausiac  History,  If  the  verdict  of  critics  stood  unchal- 
lenged that  the  bic^raphies  of  Antony  and  Pachomius,  and  the 
writir^  of  Cassian  and  Rufinus,  were  fiction  from  one  end  to  the 
other,  there  would  be  an  antecedent  probability  that  Palladius 
was  no  more  to  be  trusted  than  his  contemporaries.  But  if  the 
efforts  of  Weingarten  and  his  school,  on  the  consentient  testimony 
of  all  serious  scholars  of  later  years,  have  failed  to  shake  the 
credit  of  the  rest,  we  shall  be  free  to  approach  the  study  of  the 
Lausiac  History  without  committing  ourselves  to  the  belief  that 
Palladius  was  a  *  monkish  falsifier  of  history ',  who  relates  other 
men's  experiences  as  his  own,  and  had  perhaps  never  set  foot  in 
Egypt  at  all '.  And  for  proof  of  this  consentient  testimony  the 
reader  need  only  turn  to  the  impressive  pages  with  which 
Dom  Butler's  second  volume  opens.  The  revolution  of  opinion 
is  a  significant  one,  and  its  significance  is  perhaps  not  exhausted 
in  its  immediate  subject-matter. 

Palladius,  according  to  his  own  account  of  himself,  was  born 
in  Galatia  about  363,  became  a  monk  at  twenty-three  years  of 
age,  and  after  two  years  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  spent  some 
eleven  years,  circa  388-399,  as  an  ascetic  in  Northern  Egj^rt — 
in  Alexandria,  in  Nitria,  and  in  the  r^ion  of  the  Cells.  During 
one  year  more  he  resided  in  Palestine  again,  and  early  in  400 

'  Butler  I  3,  315,  156,  ao8,  ao3,  195. 

■  It»d.  I  198,  ai6. 

*  Ibid.  1 4,  5  (from  Lucius  :  even  Weingarten  does  not  go  so  fu*  as  this). 


334         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

was  consecrated  bishop  of  Helenopolis  in  Bith>*nia,  by  the  hands 
probably  of  St  Chrysostom  himself.  At  any  rate  he  was  ooc  of 
dixt  saint's  most  faithful  supporters,  travelled  on  his  behalf  to 
RoiDe,  was  sent  into  exile  as  a  leadii^  '  Joannite*,  and  (if  the 
ViaUgus  d<  vita  Cftrjrsostomi  is  rightly  attributed  to  him) 
becaine  ultimately  his  biographer.  Six  years  of  Palladius*  exile, 
from  406  to  413,  were  spent  in  Upper  Eg>*pt,  and  be  was  thns 
enabled  to  round  off  and  complete  his  knowledge  of  Egyptian 
monasticism  in  a  way  to  which  no  other  of  oar  authorities  can 
lay  claim.  Gasman  had  never  visited  Upper  Egypt,  Pootumian 
had  not  been  to  Nitria:  neither  Egcria  nor  the  party  of  the 
Hisioria  Monacfwrum  were  moch  more  than  passii^  travellers. 
Although  it  was  not  till  419  or  400  that  Palladius,  at  the  request 
of  his  friend  Lausus,  chamberlain  at  the  court  of  Thcodosius  II, 
put  his  recollections  on  paper,  there  is  e%'er>-  reason  to  approach 
the  book  with  a  confidence  in  the  general  truth  of  the  description, 
based  on  the  unique  c^portunities  of  the  writer.  Nor  will  this 
confidence  be  found  to  be  misplaced.  Whatever  may  have  been 
true  of  the  Hutoria  Lausitua  in  the  form  under  which  it  has 
hitherto  passed,  it  would  seem  to  be  impossible  for  any  one  to  rise 
from  the  perusal  of  the  text  which  Dom  Butler  has  given  us  with- 
out feeling  the  strongest  and  most  vivid  impression  of  the  reality 
of  the  narrative  and  of  the  good  faith  of  the  narrator. 

For  there  is  just  this  much  excuse  for  the  faulty  tendency  of 
recent  criticism  of  Palladius'  work,  that  it  was  exercised  on  a  text 
that  was  largely  not  Palladius*  at  all.  It  has  already  been  men- 
tioned  that  Rosweyd  printed  no  less  than  three  recensions  of  the 
Lausiac  History :  and  all  subsequent  scholars,  with  the  excep* 
tion  only  of  Tillemont  and  one  or  two  of  Tillcmont's  followers, 
have  accepted  as  the  genuine  form  that  one  of  the  three  which 
Rosweyd,  possibly  because  it  was  the  longest,  distinguished  as 
Book  viii  of  his  Vitac,  while  the  other  two  were  rel^ated  to 
the  obscurity  of  the  appendix.  Put  in  a  nutshell,  the  difference 
between  Roswcyd's  text-document  and  his  first  appendix-docu. 
ment  (the  second  is  a  mere  fragment,  both  truncated  and  inter- 
polated) is  this,  that  the  text-document  contains  the  whole  matter 
of  the  Historia  Monachorttm  imbedded  in  the  Historia  Lattsiaca^ 
whereas  the  appendix -document  gives  a  redaction  of  the  Historia 
Lausiaca  that  differs  from  the  other  exactly  by  the  abscrtce  of 


THE   LAUSIAC    HISTORY   OF   PALLADIUS  335 

everything  that  comes  from  the  Historia  Monachorum.  In  other 
■words,  the  Historia  Lausiaca  of  Rosweyd's  appendix  added  to 
the  Historia  Monachorum  make  up  between  them  the  Historia 
Lausiaca  of  Rosweyd's  text.  It  is  strange  that  neither  Rosweyd 
himself  nor  any  of  the  scholars  who  followed  him  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  should  have  drawn  what  would  seem  to  be  the 
most  obvious  deduction  from  this  state  of  the  facts :  it  was 
reserved  for  Tillemont — whose  greatness  as  a  critic  in  comparison 
with  predecessors,  contemporaries,  and  successors  alike  stands 
out  more  clearly  the  more  one  knows  of  him — to  anticipate, 
in  the  few  paragraphs  which  he  devoted  to  the  subject,  the  main 
conclusion  of  Dom  Butler^.  But  while  Tillemont's  brief  words 
failed  to  catch  the  ear  of  modem  critics  ^  it  is  impossible  that 
there  can  be  any  one  to  whom  Dom  Butler's  massive  argument 
■will  not  carry  conviction.  By  one  line  of  proof  after  another  he 
demonstrates  that  Rosweyd's  appendix  is  the  real  Lausiac  History^ 
and  that  Rosweyd's  text  is  a  patchwork  combination  of  the 
J^ausiac  History  and  the  Historia  Monachorum. 

The  mere  statement  of  fact,  that  we  possess  in  Rosweyd's 
appendix  and  in  the  Historia  Monachorum  two  absolutely  inde- 
pendent documents  which  yet  between  them  make  up  the  whole 
of  Rosweyd's  text,  is  of  itself  so  nearly  conclusive  that  it  will  be 
sufficient  to  summarize  the  earlier  chapters  of  Dom  Butler's  first 
volume  very  cursorily.  But  simple  though  the  matter  now 
seems,  it  is  nothing  less  than  a  revolution  in  the  criticism  of  Palla- 
dius  that  Dom  Butler  has  here  broi^ht  to  pass. 

First  comes  (§  4)  a  table  shewing  the  correspondence  of  the 
subject-matter  of  the  Rosweyd  text  (A)  with  the  Rosweyd 
appendix  (B)  and  the  Historia  Monachorum  (C) :  only  in  a  few 
cases  is  it  found  that  B  and  C  so  &r  overlap  as  to  deal  with  the 
same  topics,  and  even  there  the  treatment  is  entirely  independent 
In  three  of  these  cases  (the  lives  of  John  of  Lycopolis,  of  Paul  the 
Simple,  and  of  Amoun  of  Nitria)  the  texts  of  A  B  and  C  are  all 
printed  side  by  side  (§  5) :  and  as  it  is  essential,  for  purposes  of 

1  Batler  I  4^-46. 

*  Notbing  csn  be  more  delightliilly  naive  than  Weingarten's  reason  for  bnuhing 
Tillemont's  hjrpotbesis  aside  (Butler  I  44  n.  6) :  '  denn  aus  dem  allein,  was 
Pailadius  von  sicb  selbst  berichtet,  ergiebt  sicb  ein  Cbarakter,  der  Wunder 
bemahai,  wo  er  sie  fand.*  • 


336        THE  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

detailed  comparison,  to  test  the  documents  in  their  original  lan- 
guage— all  three  documents  were  not  only  composed  in  Greek, 
but  arc  still  extant  io  it — the  parallel  texts  are  given  not  from 
Rosweyd's  Latin  but  from  Greek  MSS,  with  the  addition,  wherever 
he  divei^es  far  from  his  original,  of  the  translation  of  RuBous. 
In  the  result  A  is  shewn  to  be  a  conglomerate  of  B  and  C,  suc- 
cessful enough  where  B  and  C  move  on  different  lines,  but  awkward 
and  inconsistent  if  they  happen  to  give  separate  versions  of  the 
same  incident  Further  inconsistencies  in  A  arc  enumerated  in 
§  6 :  sometimes  the  difficulty  arises  merely  out  of  the  attempt 
to  combine  the  first  person  singular  of  Palladius'  story  with  the 
first  person  plural  of  the  Historia  Montuhorttm  :  or  Ammomus 
the  Tall  is  described  in  one  section  of  A  in  terms  borrowed  from 
B,  and  in  another  context  of  A,  as  though  he  were  another  person, 
in  terms  borrowed  from  C  :  or  the  converse  mistake  is  made^  and 
a  Nitrian  monk  of  the  name  of  Or,  who  was  already  dead  w-hcn 
Palladius  came  to  Nitria  about  390,  is  identified  with  another  Or 
whom  the  party  of  the  Historia  Monackorum  visited  in  the  Thebaid 
in  394.  Finally  it  is  shewn  ($  8)  that  the  account  of  Sozomen, 
H.  E.  vi  38-31 ',  is  not  adequately  explained  by  the  assumption 
of  A  as  his  single  source :  he  certainly  had  C  in  his  hands  ^  and 
what  does  not  come  from  C  is  wholly  satisfied  by  B.  In  fact  no 
early  wtness  to  the  existence  of  A  can  be  adduced :  it  is  a  second- 
ary combination  of  two  first-hand  documents,  which  could  only 
have  acquired  importance  if  one  or  other  of  the  originals  had 
disappeared. 

Thus  the  first  stage  in  reconstruction  is  (r)  to  alter  wholly  the 
received  tradition  as  to  the  size  and  extent  of  the  Historia 
Lausiaca,  and  (2)  to  make  it  therewith  independent  entirely  of 
the  Historia  Monackorum,  The  next  st^e  leads  us  on  to 
enquire  how  far  Rosweyd's  Latin  appendix -document  R,  which 
has  been  provisionally  established  as  the  true  Historia  Lausiaea 
in  place  of  A,  is  itself  a  faithful  representative  of  the  Greek  of 
Palladius.  And  the  evidence  will  fall,  according  to  the  classt6- 
cation  familiar  to  students  of  the  Greek  Testament,  under  the 
three  heads  of  Greek  MSS,  Versions,  and  Quotations. 

^  The  evidence  of  Socntes  H,  K.  iv  33  is  iacoadusiTc :  BuUer  1  47. 
*  I  h«ve  irgucd  above  that  he  had  before  bim  not  only  the  original  Gredk  of  C 
but  ilao  Rufinas'  Latin  vcnion  of  it. 


THE   LAUSIAC   HISTORY  OF   PALLADIUS  337 

(a)  Greek  AfSS.  Dom  Butler's  list  (II  xiv]  may  be  divided 
into  two  classes,  those  which  he  has  inspected  personally — that 
is,  practically,  those  of  Western  Europe — and  those  which  he 
only  knows  through  catalc^es.  The  former  class  consists  of 
about  fifty  MSS  (of  which,  however,  some  ten  are  only  fragments), 
ranging  in  date  from  the  tenth  century  to  the  sixteenth.  But 
beyond  these  the  libraries  of  Mount  Athos  contain  no  fewer  than 
twenty-two,  those  of  Jerusalem  and  Mount  Sinai  four  each,  while 
four  other  Oriental  libraries  possess  one  apiece.  If  indeed  the 
Western  class  were  more  satisfactory  in  character,  this  wealth 
of  the  East  might  be  treated  as  mere  surplusage :  but  the  number 
of  those  on  which  Dom  Butler  ultimately  relies  is  so  small,  that 
the  possibility  still  remains  open  that  one  or  more  of  the  Eastern 
MSS  might  sensibly  modify  in  detail  the  text  as  he  has  now 
restored  it  For  the  Western  MSS  fall  into  three  groups,  of 
which  only  one,  and  that  the  least  numerous,  preserves  anythii^ 
like  the  form  of  the  book  as  written  by  Palladius.  One  group  of 
MSS  corresponds  in  Greek  to  Rosweyd's  text-document,  Dom 
Butler's  A,  incorporating  the  Historia  Monachorum  into  the 
Historia  Lausiaca :  and  not  only  is  their  general  structure  as 
a  whole  composite,  but  the  text  of  the  parts  which  correspond 
to  the  genuine  Falladius  is  composite  also,  and  combines  the 
characteristic  features  of  the  texts  of  both  the  other  groups. 
Thus  the  A  group  of  Greek  MSS,  as  being  in  a  double  sense 
secondary,  may  for  the  present  be  safely  set  aside.  To  Rosweyd's 
appendix-document,  Dom  Butler's  B,  corresponds  another  large 
group  of  over  twenty  Greek  MSS.  But  there  remains  yet  a  third 
group  of  Greek  MSS,  called  by  Dom  Butler  the  G  group,  repre- 
sented (apart  from  fragments)  by  only  three  extant  MSS  and 
a  lost  one  used  by  Rosweyd,  which,  while  in  general  structure  it 
ranks  entirely  with  the  B  group  (as  being  free  from  contamination 
with  the  Historia  Monackorum),  yet  distinguishes  itself  from  the 
B  group  in  its  form  of  text,  which  is  '  simpler,  shorter,  and  less 
rhetorical*'.  These  qualities  raise  at  once  a  presumption  that 
we  possess  in  this  family  of  G  MSS  a  truer  representation  of  the 

*  Indeed  these  expressions  of  the  editor  seem  to  understate  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  divergence  of  these  two  types  of  text :  from  a  comparison,  for 
example,  of  the  passage  from  B  printed  on  II  xix  with  the  corresponding 
words  of  G  on  II  65,  it  results  that  the  former  is  between  three  and  four  timei  the 
length  of  the  latter,  and  is  indeed  a  sort  of  '  metaphrastic '  expansion  of  it. 

VOL.  VI.  Z 


3g0         THE  jOOBMAL  OF  TREOLOGICAI.  STUDOS 


0b0hm  Lamaem  cvca  ikw  ffiinMjwr» 

fheGicdc  3<SSwiBclifiebeftiDd  it.    At  tiK  avoe  tn 

tbat  ON  nttenal  of  fire  ccstsnes  sepontes  iIk  dace  of 

ftiMitfcedsee  of  the  caiSest  eactaat  Graefc  MSS  of  Ua  book,  n^ 

Sppeal  to  the  coIIsSenU  evidence  of  Vetaiatts  lad  Qaocatiatts  is 

mere  IIbb  onnJly  imperative. 

(J)  Qfwtafumj.  Unfortmutely  the  ewfeoce  finam  qaotatioai  if 
dhrjdcd  aad  thereibre  so  &r  iocoochawe;.  TIk  priaryal  plve 
bdoopa^nn  to  Sozooicn:  aad  the  case  fcr  Us  aifiiesKM  to  Ifae 
G  t}rpe  of  tesrt  ts  condnsiTe  *.  On  the  same  side  are  the  qnoo- 
tmw  IB  the  Apofkiiugmaia  Patntm^  the  Greek  text  of  wfakii 
■mt,  as  we  have  seoi,  go  tack  to  the  fifth  ceatnqr,  siaoe  ohmc 
than  one  Latin  version  waj  in  circulatioa  soon  after  A.D.  50a 
Coif  iilfrtces  widi  the  B  text,  on  the  other  hand,  are  found  in  the 
life  of  die  yoanger  Mdania  (f  440  a.  o.) — ^written  fay  a  personal 
ftiesMJ  of  hers,  and  so  before  the  end  of  the  fifth  centnry — and  in 
Dionywus  Ex^uus'  Life  of  Pacbomias.  It  follows  that  both 
form!  of  the  text  of  Palladius  existed  within  some  half-centnry  of 
the  time  when  he  wrote,  tboi^  the  G  text  possesses  in  Soromea 
the  eaHicT  attestation  of  the  two. 

(r)  Vrrsums.  The  popularity  of  hagiographkal  okaterial  of 
the  clasfl  of  the  Htstoria  Lausiaca,  if  it  is  well  illastrated  by  the 
numerous  recensions  amoi^  the  Greek  MSS,  is  illustrated  cvca 
more  strikingly  by  the  different  and  often  independent  versions 
of  the  whole  or  of  parts  of  it  which  sprang  up  in  atl  the  chief 
langu^cs  of  early  Christian  literature,  Latin,  Syriac,  Coptic,  and 
Armenian.  The  Coptic  and  Armenian  evidence  indeed^apart 
from  their  versions  of  the  chapter  in  the  Historia  on  Evagrias, 
which  demands  separate  treatment— is  neither  of  sufficient  bulk 
nor  of  sufficiently  close  bearing  on  the  textual  problem  to  delay 
us  here:  but  both  the  Latin  and  the  Syriac  are  of  primary 
importance. 

The  data  to  be  extracted,  whether  from  SjTiac  MSS  of 
Palladius  or  from  the  mass  of  Palladian  matter  irKorporated 
In  the  Paradise  of  the  Syriac  writer  Anan-Isho,  are  singularly 
complicated  by  the  fact  that  no  Syriac  MS  gives  more  than 

'  1  inipeet  that  even  the  few  apparent  instxnces  to  the  contrary,  in  which  he 
wppon«  B  againkl  G,  would  dUappcar  \i  wrc  had  access  to  earlier  and  better  MSS 
of  the  G  text. 


THE   LAUSIAC   HISTORY   OF   PALLADIUS  339 

a  part  of  the  Historia  Laustaca :  nor  are  the  difficulties  of  the 
critic  lessened  by  the  different  numbering  of  the  chapters  of 
the  Historia  in  Dom  Butler's  two  volumes — in  the  first  volume 
he  uses  Rosweyd's  chapters,  and  in  the  second  his  own — or  by 
a  change  of  the  editor's  view  on  one  point,  induced  by  fresh 
evidence  that  came  to  hand  in  the  interval  between  1898  and 
1904'.  But  this  much  at  any  rate  is  clear.  Anan-Isho,  who 
wrote  in  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century,  was  not  the  first 
translator  of  Palladius  into  Syriac,  for  we  have  at  the  British 
Museum  three  Palladius  M5S  of  earlier  date.  Further,  two  of 
these  MSS — Add.  17177,  saec.  vi,  and  Add.  13175,  A.D.  534 — 
overlap  one  another  for  several  chapters  of  Palladius,  and  their 
versions  of  the  matter  common  to  them  are  quite  independent  *. 
It  is  thus  certain  that  there  were  very  ancient  and  indeed  not 
far  from  contemporary  Syriac  renderings  of  parts  of  the  Historia 
Lausiaca,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  there  was  ever  a  complete 
translation:  a  series  of  more  or  less  independent  biographies, 
such  as  make  up  the  Lausiac  History^  lent  itself  very  obviously 
to  a  process  of  extracts  or  selections  for  purposes  of  edification. 
In  any  case  Anan-Isho's  Paradise^  the  nearest  approach  to  a  full 
version  of  Palladius  which  we  possess,  not  only  postulates  the 
previous  existence  of  partial  versions  by  its  references  to  more 
than  one  Syriac  codex,  but  also  (as  now  appears  to  be  proved) 
itself  co-ordinated  and  supplemented  these   imperfect  Syriac 

*  Of  coune  I  must  not  be  underatood  as  in  any  sense  blaming  Dom  Butler  for 
either  of  these  inconsistencies  between  his  two  volumes.  They  are  exactly  the 
sort  of  thing  which  is  inevitable  in  the  work  of  a  pioneer. 

■  Dom  Butler  accordingly  distinguishes  them  as  s  and  s^  The  third  HS — 
Add.  I3i73,saec.  vi-vii — certainly  does  not  belong  to  s,:  it  nowhere  overlaps  s, 
but  Dom  Butler  assigns  it  to  the  same  version,  on  the  ground  that  the  Swedish 
scholar  Tullberg,  who  in  1851  edited  a  few  chapters  of  the  Parodist  from  MSS  ot 
the  British  Museum  and  the  Vatican,  cites  from  a  HS  which  he  calls  A  readings 
that  are  found  to  be  homogeneous  in  certain  chapters  with  Add.  171771  and  again 
in  other  chapters  with  Add.  iai73)  and  thus  in  Dom  Butler's  words  '  supplies  the 
link  that  enables  us  to  identify  these  two  MSS  as  containing  portions  of  the  same 
Syriac  translation '.  But  Dom  Butler  has  himself  examined  the  Syriac  MSS  of 
Palladius  both  in  Rome  and  London:  he  has  found  nothing  to  correspond  exactly 
to  Tullberg'a  A,  and  can  only  say  that  it  must  have  presented  striking  resemblances 
to  Add.  I3I73>  I  suspect  that  TuUberg's  A  was  not  only  like  Add.  13173,  hut  was 
Add.  iai73  itself;  and  that  it  was  only  by  confusion  with  some  other  HS  that 
Tullberg  cited  it  for  chapters  33,  33,  which  Add.  13173  does  not  contain.  If  so, 
there  remains  no  proof  that  Add.  11173  formed  part  of  the  same  version  as  s,  and 
it  must  be  ranked  rather  as  a  separate  entity,  a^ 

Z  3 


340  THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

sources  by  the  help  of  a  Greek  MS.  These  difficulties  and 
complications  do  not,  however,  detract  from  the  value  of  the 
Syriac  evidence  for  the  problem  before  us :  on  the  contrary 
they  enhance  it,  for  the  more  independent  the  different  collec- 
tions of  extracts  turn  out  to  be,  the  greater  is  the  weight  of  their 
consentient  testimony  to  the  underlying  type  of  Greek  text. 
And  while  Anan-Isho's  Gret^k  MS  wa.s  of  the  B  type,  the  whole 
of  the  Syriac  evidence  that  lies  behind  him— the  MSS  that  he 
himself  used,  and  the  MSS  of  a  date  earlier  than  his  that 
have  survived  to  our  own  times — points  to  a  G  text,  and  a 
G  text  only  ^ 

For  textual  purposes,  however,  the  Latin  version  of  a  Greek 
work  must  ordinarily,  from  the  nearer  relationship  of  the  two 
languages,  have  a  considerable  advantage  over  a  version  in  any 
Oriental  language :  and  of  Latin  versions  of  the  Ilistoria  Lausiaca 
Roswcyd,  as  wc  have  seen,  printed  no  less  than  three.  His  tcxl- 
documcnt,  Dom  Butler's  A,  may  indeed  be  dismissed  at  once, 
for  it  was  only  made,  from  still  existing  Greek  material,  in  the 
sixteenth  century.  Both  appendix-documents,  on  the  other 
hand,  are  genuinely  old  translations.  Even  the  second  of  them 
(Dom  Butler  calls  it  Ij),  incomplete  and  corrupt  as  it  is,  appears 
in  its  biblical  citations  to  be  independent  of  the  Vulgate,  while 
its  marked  agreements  with  the  readings  of  the  Coptic  fragments 
guarantee  its  descent  from  an  early  form  of  the  Greek  text.  In 
the  other  and  more  important  of  the  two  appendix-documents 
the  true  structure  of  the  Ilistoria  Lausiaca  has  been  shewn 
above  to  be  preserved.  As  this  version  stands  in  Rosweyd 
and  in  most  of  the  MSS,  it  is  relatively  late:  but  a  group  of 
Italian  MSS— two  at  Monte  Cassino,  and  a  Sessorian  MS  in 
the  Bibliotcca  Vittorio  Emanuele  at  Rome — contain  a  more 
primitive  recension  (Dora  Butler's  1),  which  on  the  e\'ideocc 
of  its  biblical  text  must  in  Mr  Burkitt's  opinion  be  set  as  &r 
back  certainly  as  the  sixth,  perhaps  as  the  fifth,  century*.  Both 
1  and  I;,  are  made  from  a  G  type  of  Greek  text  ^ 

^  Butler  I  77-96 ;  II  I,  Ixxvii-lxxx,  Uiii-lxv. 

'  Perhaps  the  hand  or  a  coritemponry  may  be  traced  in  the  cluipter  on  mrious 
^oly  women  known  to  Panidiua  (II  118],  where  this  version  draws  a  distittctisi 
between  Theodora  the  wife  (*  eoniupem ')  of  'the  tribune',  and  Vencria  and 
Bamianilla.  widows  ('rclictam')  respectively  of  Vallovicus  and  Candidian.  whUe 
tbe  Greek  Itaa  in  each  case  only  r^v  rov  Tpi^ovvui',  t^  BoXXo^ucm,  r^v  Kar8)Siap*K 

*  BuUer  I  gS  76  ;  U  Ixxv-lzxvii,  lix-  Ixiii,  Ixv. 


THE   LAUSIAC    HISTORY   OF   PALLADIUS  341 

The  preceding  paragraphs  have  made  it  clear  that,  while  an 
antique  origin  must  be  conceded  to  the  expanded  or  metaphrastic 
B  text,  on  the  strength  of  indubitable  though  scanty  traces  of 
its  early  use.  the  G  text  can  not  only  point  in  Sozomen  to  a 
witness  earlier  still,  but  in  the  Latin  and  Syriac  versions  can 
shew  evidence  of  a  much  wider  and  more  extended  circulation 
in  the  generations  that  immediately  followed  Palladius.  The 
external  evidence  of  wider  circulation  combines  thus  with  the 
internal  evidence  of  higher  originality  to  assure  us  that  it  is 
to  the  G  text  that  we  must  look  to  restore  the  true  form  of 
the  Lausiac  History^  And  the  difficulty  of  the  editor's  task 
can  be  estimated  when  we  add  that  he  had  to  commence  the 
construction  of  his  text  with  only  two  Greek  MSS  anything  like 
complete  of  the  G  type,  and  both  of  them  quite  late,  Paris  gr. 
1628  (P)  of  the  fourteenth  century,  and  Turin  gr.  141  (T,  pro- 
bably now  destroyed)  of  the  sixteenth.  Obviously  it  is  only 
by  the  most  skilful  and  careful  balancing  of  the  respective 
weights  to  be  attached  to  late  Greek,  and  early  Latin  or  ijyriac, 
evidence  that  a  satisfactory  text  can  be  produced. 

Take  for  instance  a  problem  that  confronted  Dom  Butler  at 
the  outset.  Down  to  chapter  39',  the  order  of  the  contents 
of  the  Lausiac  History  is  the  same  in  all  our  authorities  whether 
of  the  B  or  of  the  G  type:  but  from  that  point  to  the  end  the 
Greek  MSS  of  the  G  text,  supported  by  a  Syriac  version,  give 
one  order,  and  the  Greek  MSS  of  the  B  text,  supported  by  the 
Latin  version ',  give  another  and  entirely  different  order.  The 
prima  facie  deduction  from  the  results  so  far  attained  would 
be  that  the  combination  of  Greek  G  MSS  with  Syriac  evidence 
was  decisEvc.  But  Dom  Butler  elects  to  follow  the  B  order,  with 
no  help  from  G  except  the  Latin  version,  and  there  cannot  be 
the  least  doubt  that  he  is  right :  for  he  proves  that,  whereas  the 
alternative  arrangement  involves  us  in  a  chaos  of  grammar,  the 
order  in  B  1  is  the  natural  order  for  Palladius,  and  for  no  one 
else,  to  have  adopted,  since  it  preserves  roughly  the  sequence 

^  '  I  use  of  coune  Dom  Butler's  new  nuiDbcrtng:  or  the  {^hapten:  Roswcyd's 
numbcriAg  depend*  on  the  A  text,  xiid  includes  to  much  that  is  not  rcaJly  PallAdius 
llut  the  ooEy  possible  course  waa  to  B.bu]doii  it  catircly. 

I  *  The  otbcr  Latin  and  Syriac  vcmona  (i,,  b,)  do  not  contain  cMiough  of  the  later 
pftrt  of  the  book  to  shew  which  of  the  two  orders  they  followed. 


342         THE    JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

of  his  own  travels  and  experiences*.  The  immediate  moral7 
though  the  editor  does  not  draw  it  perhaps  as  clearly  as  he 
might  have  done,  is  to  enhance  enormously  the  value  of  1,  as 
the  only  authority  which  gives  at  once  the  true  order  of  the 
chapters  and  the  true  type  of  text.  So  important  in  fact 
does  this  Latin  version  seem  to  me  to  be,  especially  as  repre- 
sented by  the  readings  of  the  Sessorian  MS,  that  the  most  (and 
indeed  the  only)  fundamental  criticism  I  should  pass  on  Dom 
Butler's  edition  is  that  the  Latin  text  ought,  in  my  opinion, 
to  have  been  printed  throughout  opposite  the  Greek.  But 
T  willingly  admit  that  the  direction  of  my  own  studies  may  have 
led  me  to  attach  even  more  than  their  due  weight  to  the  historical 
and  textual  value  of  Latin  versions ;  and  I  know  with  what  recep- 
tion any  such  scheme  as  I  have  desiderated  would  have  met 
at  the  hands  even  of  University  Presses. 

Of  course  when  we  descend  from  questions  of  substance  to 
questions  of  verbal  expression,  there  are  scores  of  cases  where 
a  version,  even  a  Latin  version,  fails  to  help  us,  and  we  are 
thrown  back  on  our  Greek  authorities.  In  all  such  readings 
Dom  Butkr,  in  his  laudable  anxiety  to  present  an  objective 
text,  determined  from  the  first  to  follow  the  authority  of  his 
fourteenth-century  Greek  MS  P ;  with  the  result,  for  instance, 
that  both  the  text  (p.  71,  1.  4)  and  the  index  graecitatts  arc 
enriched  with  the  novel  form  tiromi^ftr.  It  is  all  very  well 
in  theory  to  choose  '  not  that  reading  which  seems  in  itself  the 
best,  but  that  one  which  seems  best  attested'  (II  xciii);  yet  \ 
on  the  other  hand  it  is  certain  that  the  instinct  of  Dom  Butler 
would  often  give  us  a  more  original  text  than  the  caprices  of 
a  fourteenth -century  scribe.  Fortunately  it  proved  unnecessary 
to  carry  out  the  theory  to  the  bitter  end :  not  only  are  there 
some  fragmentary  G  MSS  of  the  eleventh  century,  but  by  one 
of  those  happy  'accidents'  which,  as  a  rule,  befall  only  the  rfeht 
people,  Dom  Butler  discovered  at  the  last  moment,  in  a  tenth- 
century  Wake  MS  at  Christ  Church  which  was  supposed  to  be 
exhaustively  catal^ued,  a  large  portion  of  the  Historia  Lausiaca 
with  a  purely  G  text.  About  half  the  book  had  already  been 
printed  off,  so  tliat  for  pp.  1-S7  the  readings  of  the  new  MS  (W) 
must  be  found  in  the  appendix  (pp.  1 70-i  76) :  and  it  is  an  instrtic- 

■  Butler  II  xliriii-lvi. 


THE   LAUSIAC    HISTORY  OF   PALLADIUS  343 

tive  comment  on  the  difficulties  of  Dom  Butler's  system  that  he 
there  distinguishes  no  less  than  X70  instances  where  the  evidence 
of  W  now  turns  the  balance  against  a  reading  of  P  which 
appears  in  his  text  of  these  earlier  chapters  K  Many  of  these 
differences  are  trivial  enough:  but  there  are  some  which  are 
not,  and  one  of  them  is  sufficiently  curious  and  instructive  to 
be  worth  quoting  at  length.  On  p.  48  1.  la  we  learn  that  the 
great  ascetic,  Macarius  of  Alexandria,  in  his  efforts  to  reduce 
further  and  further  his  daily  meal,  determined  to  content  himself 
with  so  much  only  of  his  allowance  of  bread  as,  after  crumbling 
it  into  a  jar,  he  could  bring  up  in  one  handful ;  'and  he  used 
to  tell  with  a  smile  how  he  would  clutch  a  number  of  pieces  but 
could  not  get  them  out  whole  owing  to  the  narrowness  of  the 
mouthpiece,  rd  y^  •aavT€\m  nil  itrdCtiv  6  TtK^tnjs  not  oii  <rvif«x<i£^t '. 
But,  in  spite  of  P  and  Dom  Butler,  to  say  that  *  the  tax-^therer 
did  not  allow  me  entirely  to  stop  eating '  is  sheer  nonsense :  and 
though  the  general  drift  might  have  been  correctly  recovered 
from  the  Latin  ('ut  aliquis  publicanus  non  sinebat  me  tantum 
toUere  quantum  quiuissem  tenere '),  it  required  the  evidence  of 
W  to  establish  the  actual  wording  of  the  Greek,  and  to  shew 
that  the  expansions  in  P  and  1  are  alike  glosses  and  the  former 
a  misleading  one.  W  has  simply  as  TfX^tnjs  ydp  fiot  oi  onrvcxsf^ct : 
the  narrow  opening  of  the  jar  '  took  toll '  of  the  handful  of  bread 
that  had  come  up  so  far. 

And  yet,  even  after  the  new  discovery,  our  Greek  authorities 
for  the  Lausiac  History  still  stand  in  need  of  reinforcement:  for 
not  only  does  W  lack  about  half  the  book,  but  it  shares  the 
erroneous  arrangement  of  the  later  chapters  with  the  other  Greek 
MSS  of  the  G  group.  An  approximately  final  text  will  only  be 
possible  if  the  libraries  of  the  East  yield  up  to  the  explorer  better 
and  completer  MSS  of  this  type  than  have  been  found  in  the 
libraries  of  the  West,  Only  it  may  safely  be  asserted  that  the 
measure  of  advance  which  any  future  editor  may  make  on 
Dom  Butler's  text  will  be  absolutely  insignificant  in  comparison 
with  the  measure  of  advance  which  Dom  Butler  has  made  on  the 
work  of  all  previous  editors  of  the  Lausiac  History. 

*  Nor  are  the  170  instances  exhaustive :  the  editor  ought  at  least  to  have  added 
p.  17,  L  14,  where  the  reading  adopted  in  liis  text,  even  if  it  is  sense,  is  certainly 
not  grammar  ;  W,  by  omitting  the  won)  K^vra,  restores  the  one  without  injuring 
the  other. 


344         THE   JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Dom  Butler  is  indeed  probably  stronger  as  an  historical  and 
literary  critic  than  as  an  exact  scholar.  We  have  in  the  pre- 
ceding pages  threaded  under  his  direction  the  mazes  of  the 
i'alladian  documents  and  literature  with  a  practically  implicit 
confidence.  The  points  on  which  wc  have  ventured  to  difTer 
from  him  have  been  minor  ones:  we  have  followed  him  from 
one  step  to  another,  and  have  rarely  had  an>'thing  to  do  except 
to  ratify  his  judgement '.  Even  in  the  domain  of  exact  criticism, 
what  a  little  there  really  is  to  add  I  The  total  that  one  reader 
has  accumulated  by  way  of  correction  to  a  closely  printed  text 
and  apparatus  of  170  pages  will  be  found  at  the  foot  of  the 
page^.  But  the  core  of  the  whole  work  are  the  'Notes  critical 
and  historical',  which  are  appended  to  the  text  of  the  Lausiac 
History^  and  occupy  pp.  1^2^2315  of  vol.  II.  I  do  not  know 
where  else  one  could  find  so  much  matter  packed  together  that 
cither  iLlustratcs  or  rectifies  the  history  of  Palladius'  times: 
the  study  of  them  is  a  genuine  intellectual  pleasure.  I  should 
confidently  appeal  to  thera  as  evidence  of  a  marked  development 
of  Dom  Butler's  powers  as  a  historian  in  the  interval  between 
the  appearance  of  his  two  volumes:  and  I  should  instance  in 
particular  the  treatment  of  all  questions  of  chronolc^^  as  far 

'  If  one  were  told  to  find  aomething  to  criticise  in  I>om  ttuUer's  Introductions, 
one  inifht  pcrEiaps  uy  that  it  is  occasionally  a  little  difficult  in  the  first  voluffle  to 
see  the  ^vood  for  the  trees :  the  multitude  of  minute  data,  ucm  to  otMcure  the 
course  of  the  argument.  Bui  perhaps  this  is  unavoidable;  and  at  any  rate,  whether 
or  no  there  is  any  tack  of  clearness  in  the  method,  there  is  never  any  in  the  coo- 
clusion.  I  aomelime;  fancy  that  the  pages  of  Ttxta  ami  SluJi*s  in  general  are 
made  unnecessarily  di£cult  lo  the  reader  by  being  broken  up  into  too  m«ay 
paragraphs,  with  the  result  (hat  they  get  a  scrappy  appearance. 

*  Qucstiona  of  reading:  31.  6,  7  iX\o  y&p  em  o^k  txai  ri  (I'or  n)  «araA«£f(«' : 
38.  t  JAAot  Mar'  AkKov  (for  wnr'  ilAAa)  itaipwoGirrtt ;  C6.  8  I>i«f^d\a*^r0r  (for  i/ir«^< 
ffkajfiiv^t)  :  87.  6  Tour^  (for  Touro)  ftif  ffM'S*tiii''r} :  Til.  7  riva  rif  Mpaitmif  (tor  tA» 
rparroii)  t^t  *£K*an  l  I18.  9  tinpviara.Tttt'  oZrfat-  (for  (v^^iMcran;  nMa)  :  tj).  8  wtpt  ri 
(for  vffii  rii")  AaiAptttr :  l6j,  7  ou  luri  woKu  or  ^<t'  ou  taXv  (for  at  fur'  oi  mJUi, 
a  clearly  conflate  reading  of  P).  Questions  of  punctuation  :  119.  14  transfer  conma 
from  dfiap-rini  to  ytrifttirw. :  134.  5  place  JjnvAvtro  711^  within  brackets  'for  she 
would  have  been  prevented':  i£i.  5,  6  comma  afler  AtmrX^i,  none  after  rd  wpSrra^ 
comma  after  ipiXoffa^iay  \[itKkoatnftla,  does  not,  I  think,  in  Pklladius  mean  '  asceticism  *, 
but  philosophy  in  our  sense  of  the  word)  :  in  I  13S,  I.  S  of  Uie  quotatioa  from 
Socrates,  comma,  not  full  slop,  after  fafiir^i^tU*  usage  of  ^r  .  .  .  ii  seems  in  ihb 
and  other  places  to  have  proved  a  atumbling-bluck  to  the  editor.  Questioa  of 
translation  :  II  114  jtw'tw  vapA  fiiar  (157.  1)  cannot,  I  am  quite  sure,  mean  'once 
a  day',  but  only  'every  other  day'.  Hiere  remun  besides  a  few  passages  ia 
Dom  Sutler's  text  whkh  arc  almost  certainly  corrupt  as  they  stand. 


THE   LAUSIAC    HISTORY  OF   PALLADIUS  345 

more  satisfactory  in  this  volume  than  in  the  first  In  a  word, 
Dom  Butler  was  then  still  feeling  his  way:  now  he  moves  as 
the  acknowledged  master  of  his  subject 

If  there  chance  to  be,  among  the  readers  of  this  article,  any 
who  are  accustomed  to  contrast  the  study  of  the  text  with  the 
study  of  the  subject-matter  of  a  book,  and  to  lament  as  dispro- 
portionate the  time  devoted  to  the  former,  they  must  I  think 
admit  that  the  Lausiac  History  forms  an  exception  to  their 
rule.  The  direct  bearing  upon  history  of  questions  of  intro- 
duction and  textual  criticism,  such  as  have  been  investigated 
at  length  in  the  foregoii^  pages,  cannot  be  better  illustrated  than 
by  the  group  of  variati(ms  which  I  now  propose  to  adduce.  For 
these  variae  Uctiones  will  take  us  straight  to  the  heart  of  the 
most  burning  questions  of  Palladius'  day. 

Falladius'  active  life  fell  between  the  overthrow  of  the  Arian 
and  the  outbreak  of  the  Nestorian  heresy.  The  half  century 
which  separated  the  council  of  Constantinople  from  the  council 
of  Ephesus  witnessed  no  doctrinal  crisis  in  the  Eastern  Church 
to  compare  with  those  of  the  preceding  and  succeeding  genera- 
tions ;  but  it  was  a  time  far  from  free  of  personal  jealousies 
and  party  passions  which  cloaked  themselves  under  the  mask  of 
zeal  for  orthodoxy.  The  quarrel  of  Theophilus  and  the  Egyptian 
monks  over  the  name  of  Origen,  the  mutual  invectives  of  John  of 
Jerusalem  and  Epiphanius,  Jerome  and  Rufinus,  the  persecutions 
directed  against  St  Chrysostom,  were  S3miptoms  of  divisions 
among  churchmen  almost  as  bitter  and  as  thoroughgoing  as 
any  between  catholic  and  heretic.  In  all  these  developements 
Palladius,  the  disciple  of  Evagrius  and  biographer  of  Chrysostom, 
played  his  part ;  and  his  sympathies  left  their  mark  upon  the 
text  of  the  Lausiac  History.  The  verdict  of  posterity  supported 
him  in  the  cause  of  Chrysostom :  but  this  was  the  one  element 
in  the  troubles  of  the  time  which  the  subject-matter  of  the 
Historia  necessarily  excluded,  and  on  which  also  in  the  Dialogus 
de  vita  Chrysostomi  he  elsewhere  had  his  say.  On  the  other 
hand,  Evagrius,  Didymus,  Origen,  the  great  masters  of  Alexan- 
drine and  ascetic  theology  to  whom  Palladius  and  his  friends 
looked  up  as  their  guides  and  leaders,  became  the  sport  of 
heresy-hunters  from  the  fifth  century  onwards:  Palladius  him- 


3^6         THE  JOCnUCAL  OF  THECMjOGKAI.  STUDIES 

adf  dad  not  eic^ie  oatmn,  aor  hii  book  ■rtBiliiiii.  xt  their 

Origec's  Mac  oo^ra  ia  Dom  B<itkr*s  text  of  tJbe  HistarU  on 
fionr  orrMJci'.  A  cenaiB  niBiiiiiwii.  'a.  diadplc  of  Origca'. 
wa>  the  IcMfiap  ascetic  fboHl  v  KniBe,  poliaps  aboat  jooA.O, 
by-  tbe  vaaderiog  ialdr  Senptoo  Stmlonita  <di.  37).  Jolaaa, 
a  TogiB  of  Cappadodan  Caesura,  iecei*ed  Origen  wfaea  a 
nigitivc  froo  pcnecBtioo  ana  nauitamec  fatoi  lor  two  yeafsj 
FalUdtos  adds  that  be  had  himsdf  seen  an  anto^raph  aoce  of 
Or^eo's  £p  ToJUwrory  ptfiidf  rrtxVV^  ^  t^  efiect  tbat  the 
book  had  been  given  htm  t^  Juliana,  wbo  had '  rectJ>gd  ft  fitxn  _ 
SjrniDiachas  the  interpreter  of  the  Jews  *  (ch.  64)  *.  Ammoaias,  | 
tbe  Tall  Brother,  had  Icarot  hy  heart  the  Old  and  New 
TestamentAt  and  had  (so  tbe  Others  of  the  desert  bore  witness) 
read  6fioojooo  [lines] '  oT  the  writings  of  faxoous  scholars  such  as 
Origen,  Didymus,  Picrios,  and  Stephen  (cfa.  ii).  And  in  ch.  55 
similar  industry  b  credited  to  a  lady  '  who  turned  night  into  day 
in  reading  throi^rfa  every  accessible  work  of  the  ancient  com- 
mentators {vwofiwJifiaryimU),  including  3,000,000  [lines]  of  Origen, 
and  u,5oo,ooo  of  Gregory,  Stephen,  Pierius,  Basil  and  other 
standard  authors :  nor  did  she  simply  read  them  oacc  and  have 
done  with  them,  but  ^i-ent  through  each  book  carefully  seven  or 
eight  times '. 

In  no  one  of  these  cases  is  the  name  Origen  left  intact  by  all 
the  leading  authorities  for  the  text.  In  ch.  37  the  words  liofiifrfi 
'Ufnyivov^  are  omitted  by  the  three  principal  MSS  of  the  G 
group  (W  P  T)  and  by  the  A  group.  Tbe  whole  story  of  Juliana 
is  absent,  perhaps  because  the  connexion  with  Origen  was  an 
int^^al  feature  of  it,  from  one  of  the  G  MSS  and  from  the  Syriac 


*  t  Ui«  tbcsc  ukI  siinilar  referaicct  fran  Uic  editor's  cxocllcat  Index  III 
'  PcraoDol  Nuacs '. 

■  From  Euidiius  H.  E.  vi  t;  it  b  evldoU  that  Eoebius  too  had  seen  the  book 
■sd  Orii^'a  note.  Ettscbius'  word*  iittke  it  clcv  that  the  book  wst  not  Ottljr 
poMCMcd  but  coapoaed  by  Symnucbus  ;  and  they  »ccm  to  imply  that  it  wax  bis 
CoumeaiMry  on  St  Haitbew's  Gospc]. 

'  fUfiiiat  ^£aMmsiat :  to  too,  in  the  passage  quoted  imiocdtatcly  below  froa 
ch,  55,  futftiim  r/noMwrhu,  fnijpuUat  tltoatmhrr4.  Presumably  one  must  supply 
ffr^xM- :  even  so,  the  numbers  arc  enonoous,  thoagb  Dot  bcyood  belie£.  Perhapa 
tbe  Bomber  of  tfT(][oa  were  noted,  aa  in  tbe  Cbelteabam  list,  in  each  book.  Of  the 
writer  Stephen,  mcntiaaed  both  in  ch.  ii  and  ch.  55,  nothing  appears  to  be  known, 
which  is  certainly  stranse. 


I 


THE  LAUSIAC   HISTORY  OF  PALLADIUS  347 

Ammonius'  favourite  authors  in  ch.  i  j,  Origen,  Didymus,  Pierius, 
and  Stephen,  become  in  all  the  three  extant  G  MSS  and  in  some 
of  the  A  group  '  Athanasius  and  Basil ',  and  in  the  inferior  Latin 
version  '  the  holy  ancient  orthodox  fathers ',  while  the  Syriac 
omits  the  whole  sentence.  The  similar  list  in  ch.  5$  is  docked 
of  Origen's  name  by  one  of  the  G  MSS,  by  the  A  group,  and  by 
the  Syriac.  With  so  little  intelligence  were  these  proceedings 
directed,  that  the  references  in  ch.  10  to  a  namesake  of  the  great 
Alexandrine,  Origen  the  steward  of  Pambo,  were  deleted  with 
almost  equal  care :  some  or  all  of  the  G  MSS,  tc^ether  with  the 
Coptic  and  lesser  Latin  version  (whose  close  relationship  to  one 
another  has  been  already  emphasized),  substitute  on  the  first 
mention  of  the  steward  the  name  John,  on  the  second  and  fourth 
the  name  Theodore,  and  on  the  third  the  name  Macarius.  The 
choice  of  these  three  names  was  apparently  arbitrary :  and  the 
agreement  of  the  offending  authorities  over  them  shevfs  both 
that  a  systematic  reviser  has  been  at  work,  and  also  that  the 
alterations  must  go  back  to  a  remote  date.  And  the  fact  that 
the  name  of  Didymus,  except  when  brought  into  connexion  with 
that  of  Origen  in  <;h.  11,  has  been  allowed  to  remain  in  the 
text ',  suggests  that  this  dishonest  recension  was  carried  through 
before  the  time  when  Justinian's  council  joined  Didymus  in  a 
common  anathema  with  Origen  and  Evagrius. 

If  any  one  father  of  the  desert  may  be  called  the  central  figure 
and  hero  of  Palladius'  story,  that  one  is  certainly  Evagrius,  his 
*  master '  in  the  monastic  life,  and  like  him  a  foreigner  from  Asia 
Minor.  The  affectionate  veneration  with  which  Evagrius  was 
r^iarded  by  his  disciple  is  evident  throi^hout,  and  adds  a  further 
feature  of  interest  to  the  history  of  this  extraordinary  man. 
Posterity  has  done  him  scant  justice".  If  Origen's  name  was 
too  deeply  imprinted  on  the  history  of  Christian  scholarship  to 
be  easily  erased,  the  conspiracy  of  silence  had  better  chances 
with  a  more  recent  author  like  Evagrius.  It  is  probable  that  to 
him  belongs  the  real  credit  of  the  first  critical  edition  of  the 
Pauline  epistles :   but  if  so,  the  suppression  of  his  name  in  the 

■  It  is  only  in  some  or  the  B  group  of  HSS  that  the  Life  of  EHdjrmus  (ch.  4) 
is  omitted. 

*  No  adequate  account  of  Evagrius  exists  yet,  as  far  as  I  know,  in  Enj^ish. 
The  merit  of  first  calling  attention  to  the  importance  of  the  subject  belongs  to 
Dr  Zockler's  Evagrius  Po»Hau  (Munich,  1893). 


348  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


copies  of  the  so-called  *  Euthalian  *  apparatus  has  successfully 
imposed  on  all  generations  till  our  own  '.  It  wds  not  to  be 
expected  that  his  position  in  the  Lausiac  History  aa  Palladius 
wrote  it  would  rest  unassailcd.  On  six  occasions,  outside  the 
chapter  specially  devoted  to  him,  is  the  '  blessed '  Evagrius  men- 
tioned in  Dom  Butler's  text :  and  on  each  one  of  them  some  of 
our  authorities  either  omit  entirely  the  mention  of  him  or  replace 
his  name  by '  Theodore '  or  'Eulogius '  or  *  Macarius '.  Chapter  38, 
which  gives  a  history  of  his  life,  is  silently  dropped  by  two  of  the 
three  chief  G  MSS  and  also  (it  would  seem)  by  the  chief  Syriac 
version.  On  the  other  hand  there  were  still  all  through  the  fifth 
century  churches  and  monasteries,  especially  among  non-Greek 
speaking  Orientals,  where  Evagrius'  works  u-ere  held  in  high 
honour  and  studied  as  leading  expositions  of  the  ascetic  life: 
and  this  curious  result  followed,  that,  while  in  some  quarters  the 
Histaria  Lausitua  began  to  be  copied  without  the  thirty- eighth 
chapter,  in  others  exactly  this  chapter  was  excerpted  from  the 
main  body  of  the  work,  and  was  then  either  incorporated  among 
Vitae  San£torum  or  prefixed  as  an  introduction  to  Evagrius* 
collected  writings.  It  is  found  separately  in  no  less  than  three 
Syriac  translations  of  which  sixth-century  codices  are  extant.  It 
is  found  in  Armenian  with  a  peculiar  colophon,  which  appears  to 
be  beyond  doubt  imitated  from  the  colophon  found  under  the 
name  of  Evagrius  in  codex  H  of  the  Pauline  epistles  ^  It  is 
found  in  an  expanded  form  in  the  Coptic :  for  where  the  Lausiac 
History  only  relates  that  *  Evagrius  was  accosted  one  day  by 
three  devils  in  clerical  dress,  who  began  disputing  with  him  on 

*  !n  spite  of  the  Dean  of  WesI minster's  critidams  In  the  October  number  of  the 
JouRKAL  (vol.  v\,  no.  II,  p.  H7),  t  am  Mill  of  the  opinioD  that  the  EvafcHaa  orfgio  of 
the  '  Euthaliiis'  coilccEion  affords  the  most  probsblc  solution  of  all  the  diffioilties 
connedetl  with  this  question.  But  I  have  to  acknowledge  gratcfullj'  «  rdcrcnoe, 
which  had  escaped  me  when  writing  in  Ha&tiings'  Dictionary  ciflJuSiblt  {v  Si4~j*9) 
on  tliJs  subject,  to  a  paper  bjrvon  Dobschntz,  where  attention  is  called  to  Sjrriae 
evidence  of  the  early  date  of  the  '  Euthalian '  Prologue.  Von  DobschOtz's  diKoveiy 
does  ooE  of  course  affect  the  tsnie  as  between  a  fouitb-ceniury  Euthalitu  and  a 
fowth- century  Evagrius. 

*  As  lar  as  it  goes,  the  existence  of  this  colophon  seems  to  support  the  chini 
of  Evagrius  to  the  original  aulhorahip  of  the  Euitaalian  edition  of  St  Paul 
Dr  Robinson  makes  it  probable  indeed  (Butler  I  105)  thjit,  as  appended  to  the 
Life  of  EvBgriua,  it  does  not  go  furtbcr  back  than  an  Armenian  translator  or  scribe: 
but  whoever  added  it  must  surely  have  known  the  Pauline  colophoa  under  the 
name  of  Evagrius  and  not  of  Eutfaaiius. 


THE   LAUSIAC   HISTORY   OF   PALLADIUS  349 

rel^ious  topics,  one  poung  as  an  Arian,  another  as  a  Eunomian, 
the  third  as  an  Apollinarian,  but  a  few  words  of  his  inspired 
wisdom  sufficed  to  refute  them  \  the  Coptic  gives  the  whole  of 
the  discussion ;  and  it  must  be  added  that  its  account,  from 
whatever  source  it  is  derived,  bears  all  the  marks  of  truthfulness  \ 

Of  the  genuineness  of  the  chapter  as  part  of  the  La$tsiac 
History  there  cannot  be  the  least  doubt.  Apart  from  the  special 
versions  just  enumerated^  the  Greek  MSS  of  the  A  group  contain 
it,  so  do  some  of  those  of  the  B  group,  and  one  complete  and 
two  fragmentary  MSS  of  the  G  group,  as  well  as  both  Latin 
versions  ^  Naturally  the  defection  of  the  editor's  leading  MSS 
makes  the  construction  of  the  text  less  easy :  and  if  I  now  select 
this  chapter  for  description  and  discussion,  on  account  both  of  the 
interest  attaching  to  Evagrius  himself  and  of  the  historical  and 
critical  difficulties  which  the  text  raises,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  it  is  in  no  sense  an  average  specimen  of  the  Laustac  History^ 
and  that  there  would  be  few  other  chapters  in  which  one  could 
record  two  separate  instances  of  dissent  from  the  judgement  of 
the  editor. 

{a)  Was  Evagrius  ordained  deacon  by  Gr^ory  of  Nazianzus 
or  by  Gr^ory  of  Nyssa  ?  In  the  article  in  Hastings*  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  I  followed  the  ordinary 
authorities  in  naming  Gregory  of  Nyssa :  but  Dom  Butler  shews 
conclusively  that  Nyssa  is  an  error  of  the  B  text  \  while  Nazian- 
zus has  the  support  of  the  extant  G  MSS  and  of  all  the  versions, 
except  one  of  the  three  Syriac. 

{b)  Ev^rius  was  left  by  Gregory  at  Constantinople  after  the 
Council  of  381,  and  enjoyed  a  great  reputation  there  under 
Nectarius  as  a  malUus  hereticorum.  He  fell  in  love  with  a 
married  lady,  m?  avrd;  T\\ixv  hit\yt\aaTQ.  Harfpav  i\(v$(p»0(ls  rh 
<ppovovv,  iim^pdadr]  to^ov  vdKtp  rd  yvpaiov.  So  Dom  Butler  prints 
the  text :   but  why  make  Palladius  guilty  of  a  nominative  abso- 

1  Butler  I  131-148. 

*  And  here  let  me  note  in  passing  that  the  principal  Latin  veraion,  on  the  special 
merits  of  which  I  dwelt  above,  again  disdnguishea  itself  as  the  solitary  repre- 
sentative of  the  G  text  which  (save  for  a  lacuna  in  chapters  11,  11)  preserves 
uninjured  every  raention  of  Evagrius,  Didymus,  and  Origen. 

*  And  presumably  of  the  A  text  also.  Butler  sUtes  decisively  that  the  A  HSS 
contain  this  chapter  (I  139)  :  but  he  does  not  quote  A  anywhere  in  the  apparatus 
crUiat*  to  it 


3SP         THE  JOUSXAL   OF   THEOUlGICAl, 


01  BK  uul.  nu 

I  -      ■ '  ' 

3BCT  tlPTTI^   VCKJI   lllS   90W   W3S   UBEO   UOIB 

laa.  i6)?    For  dte  atofy  of  Us  pn^cr  and  of  Che 

nvid  2SO  thnlliog  ilfifaiH  wUdh  seesnd  to  Un  a  Divne  ciB 

to  flee  from  the  dty.tbe  reader  most,  be  referred  to  DoaBtfler's 

text. 

(f)  From  Constantinople  Evagrim  Bed  to  JensnSem,  oaty  t» 
sofler  6eA  trials^  Siv  be  began  to  do«d>t  his  vucalioo  aad  *to 
dunge  his  clothes  and  his  halxt  of  speech ' — appar^Kljr  frfMt  te 
clerical  to  the  by.  lUaess  came  to  hb  help,  aad  he  was  wmmai 
by  his  hofiteas^  die  noble  P*»"*«^  lady  Mdaiiia,  who  ngcd  Urn 
to  dedicate  himself  to  a  '~*»^^f'  Uie,  and  '  then,  said  alie^  anaer 
as  I  am,  I  viU  pray  that  yoa  may  be  granted  saftX^wc  0^' 
(i,  r.  a '  commcatos '  or  fiirloagb :  i  :m.  3),  as  Dom  Batler  happclf 
rectoro  the  text  from  a  combtaatioa  of  Greek  and  Latin  cndeace; 
not  Boiafluenced  (n  nie  may  ooqecturc)  by  rgminiaoeoce  of  the 
impexUbabkc  Liigi^c  of  die  Acts  or  St  PcipeMa'aapaarioA_ 
an  commeatos '. 

{d)  On  his  recowfciy  be  '  changed  his  dress '  ^ain,  and 
oooe  for  all  the  monastic  life  of  Egypt,  first  at  Nitrta  aad  dKal 
the  desert     Every  year  be  made  use  of  his  call%niphic  skill  far 
jnst  so  long  as  was  needed  Co  cam  the  cost  of  his  scanty  food ; 

*  for  be  wrote  beatitifbllyTAr4^if^v)'X^X*^**^^'(i^'^-  '^)-  ^^ 
would  like  to  translate  this  remarkable  but  not  quite  unique 
expression — see  the  note,  II  417 — 'the  Oxyrhynchus  character*, 
nor  does  the  form  of  the  adjective  (o^Apvyxow  rather  than  i^wtmyj^ 
nt*  or  the  like)  seem  a  quite  faul  objection.  But  the  discoveries 
of  papyri  at  Oxyrhynchus  do  not  indicate  any  one  style  of  hand- 
writing as  exclusively  or  especially  characteristic  of  the  i^ac^ 
and  vc  must  be  content  to  say  that  the  allusion  is  to  some  sort 
of  imcial  handwriting  distinctive  of  manuscripts  df  luxe, 

{e)  Literary  labours  were,  however,  a  more  constant  source  of 
employment  to  Evagrius.  '  He  wrote  three  books  U/>&  pmaji^ 
6rrtppnTiKa  eCnt  Xtyifiara*  {i2i.  i),  which  could  only  mean  'thice 
holy  books  for  monks  under  the  name  of  Answers  '.  Dom  Butler 
has  '  no  doubt '  that  this  is  '  the  original  reading  *.  But  the 
'AtrripftTjTiKa  are  known  to  have  consisted  not  of  three  but  of  eight 
bo(^;  the  Coptic  and  Latin  versions  both  understand  the  three 


THE   LAUSIAC   HISTORY  OF   PALLADIUS  35I 

books  to  be  three  different  works,  ^Itpda,  Movaxiv^  and  *AvTippjfriKd : 
and  as  regards  the  second  of  the  three,  this  interpretation  b  borne 
out  by  the  evidence  of  Socrates  {/I.  E.  iv  ag),  who  gives  Morax^s 
^  Tc/)i  ir/)aKnK^r  as  the  title  of  one  of  Evagrius'  writings.  Except 
for  Dom  Butler's  dissent,  the  evidence  would  seem  to  me  absolutely 
conclusive.  One  book  was  the*  Answers':  another  was  the 'Monk': 
whether  the  third  was  the  '  Priest ',  as  the  versions  imply,  or  the 
'  Sacred  Things',  according  to  the  reading  of  the  Greek  MSS,  is 
a  problem  which  our  present  knowledge  of  the  biblic^raphy  of 
Evagrius  does  not  enable  us  to  solve. 

Evagrius,  more  than  most  men,  was  felix  ofportunitate  mortis. 
He  died  at  the  age  of  fifty-four,  worn  out  probably  by  austerities 
for  which  his  early  training  had  not  fitted  him,  on  the  Feast  of 
the  Epiphany  either  in  399  or  400,  only  a  few  months  before 
Theophilus  of  Alexandria  kindled  the  flame  which  was  to  set  the 
whole  East  ablaze  over  the  name  and  memory  of  Origen.  About 
the  patriarch  himself  the  Lausiac  History  preserves  a  judicious 
silence :  but  Falladius'  estimate  of  the  other  protagonists  of 
the  controversy  is  clear  enough.  '  There  was  not  to  be  found 
among  men  any  one  of  greater  knowledge  or  more  modest 
temper'  than  Rufinus  of  Aquileia  (136.  1).  *A  certain  Jerome, 
a  presbyter ',  on  the  other  hand,  *  distinguished  Latin  writer  and 
cultivated  scholar  as  he  was,  shewed  qualities  of  temper  ^  so  dis- 
astrous that  they  threw  into  the  shade  his  splendid  attainments', 
and  exercised  a  fatal  effect  on  the  life  and  happiness  of  his 
disciple  Paula  (^  iK^iUpo^  17  *Pcofia£a:  108.  6-18;  laS.  6-13). 
But  of  all  the  Western  colony  settled  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Jerusalem  it  was  Melania  and  her  family  who  held  the  most 
prominent  place  in  the  reminiscences  of  Palladius.  This  illus- 
trious lady,  the  friend  of  St  Paulinas  and  St  Augustine,  was 
the  first  of  a  long  line  of  Roman  settlers  at  the  Holy  Places. 
Jerome  in  his  Chronicle^  under  a.d,  373,  had  mentioned  her 
settlement  at  Jerusalem,  and  had  passed  a  glowing  eulogy  upon 
the  virtues  she  there  displayed ;  but  she  espoused  the  cause  of 
Rufinus  and  the  Origenists,  and  then  no  language  was  too  virulent 
for  him  to  use  of  her :  '  her  nature ',  he  wrote,  *  was  as  black  as 
her  name '. 

*  ToaaiTtiY  ftx*  paaKwIay  .  .  .  Awa\XaytTaa  aiToC  r^t  0aaKeu>tat  •  .  .  rp  tavrov 
fiaoKiwi^  (108.  8,  13  ;  138.  10).  Of  the  two  f>a5SBges  about  Jerome  P  W  omit  the 
first,  PWT  the  second. 


352         THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


What,  by  the  by,  was  her  actual  name  ?  It  is  a  curious  ques- 
tion no  doubt  to  ask,  in  face  of  the  long  line  of  editors  and 
historians, down  to  and  including  Dom  Butler,  who  have  accustomed 
us  to  the  rorm  '  Melania ' :  but  the  enquiry  is  not  without  its 
bearing  upon  the  text  of  the  writings  both  of  Palladius  and  of 
his  contemporaries.  Among  the  MSS  of  the  Historia  Lataiaca 
W  gives  MfAivtov,  and  Dom  Butler  admits  that,  if  he  had 
had  this  MS  at  his  disposal  from  the  outset,  he  would  have 
accepted  its  reading.  McXanof  as  a  Greek  neuter  diminutivTis 
intelligible  enough  ;  and  if  we  had  to  do  with  an  originally  Greek 
name  there  would  be  good  reason  for  accepting  this  form  of  it. 
But  Melania  was  a  Roman,  and  the  Latin  evidence  must  therefoie 
be  first  consulted.  For  Paulinus  of  Nola  wc  have  now  a  critical 
edition  by  Hartcl  in  the  Vienna  Corpus,  and  it  is  clear  thit 
Paulinus  knew  her  as'  Melanius'.  The  MSS  of  Jerome,  according 
to  Dom  Butler,  vary  between  masculine,  feminine,  and  neuter,  but 
in  the  Chronicle  'Melanius'  is  certainly  the  reading  of  all  the 
older  MSS,  including  the  Bodleian  codex  of  the  fifth  century'. 
For  Augustine  we  have  as  yet  no  critical  apparatus:  but  the 
evidence  of  the  other  two  Latin  fathers  amply  guarantees  ihc 
correctness  of '  Melanius  \  and  this  is  also  the  form  adopted  in 
the  Sessorian  MS  of  the  l^tin  version  of  Palladius.  We  are 
in  fact  reduced  to  no  more  than  two  alternatives:  either  the 
masculine  is  the  genuine  reading  in  Palladius,  and  we  must  restore 
it  on  the  strength  of  the  Latin  (with  some  Syrlac  evidence  also)  ; 
or  Palladius  and  the  Greeks  transformed  the  unintelligible 
masculine  into  a  more  intelHgtble  neuter,  and  the  Latin  translator 
restored  what  he  knew  to  be  the  Latin  form  of  the  lady's  name. 
In  fevour  of  the  first  alternative  is  a  curious  phrase  in  ch.  9 
(39.  10),  which  seems  to  me  to  gain  in  point  if  what  Palladius 
wrote  was  really  ^  &f$poijoi  rov  6tav  McAat'toif,  'that  female  man 
of  God  Melanius ',  rather  than  ij  ar^Jfiwiros  row  fleoi)  McXttvtov  or 
McAai/ui.  Why  her  contemporaries  called  her  Melanius  I  am 
unable  to  say:  and  it  would  perhaps  be  pedantic  at  this  time  of 
day  to  alter  the  traditional  form  in  speaking  of  her. 

Palladius  has  a  good  deal  to  tell  us  about  Melania,  up  and 
down  the  History,  even  in  Dom  Butler's  text :  but  has  not  the 

'  Sec  ScbOoc  Di*  tytUcJironik  Jts  Ettmbtu*  in  ihnr  BtatbtUung  dunk  Ntmmymui 
(Berlin,  1900),  p.  106. 


THE    LAUSIAC    HISTORY   OF   PALLADIUS  353 

ecJitor  wrongfully  deprived  her  of  a  whole  chapter?  For  ch.  55, 
if  I  am  right,  is  no  new  section  on  a  fresh  subject,  Silvania,  but 
a  continuation  of  ch.  54  on  Melania^.  It  opens  with  the 
words  owi^i\  &na  (Sfteifctir  ^fiar, '  it  happened  that  we  were  together 
on  a  journey,  escorting  the  blessed  Silvania  the  vitgin,  sister-in-law 
of  the  prefect  RuBnus,  on  her  way  from  Aelia  to  Egypt ' ;  and 
the  plural  can  only  refer  to  Falladius  and  Melania.  It  closes 
with  a  eul<^y  couched  in  terms  quite  exceptional  in  the  Lausiac 
Ifistory,appTopnaXe  enough  to  Melania,  but  wholly  inappropriate 
to  a  person  like  Silvania,  of  whom  (now  that  the  soKialled 
Peregrinatio  Silvias  is  attributed  elsewhere)  we  know  absolutely 
nothing  to  justify  it.  Nor  do  the  contents  of  the  chapter  tell 
a  different  tale.  The  second  half  of  it  is  the  description  of  the 
lady's  zeal  for  studying  the  ancient  exegetes  of  the  Church  which 
has  already  been  cited  above  (p.  346) :  the  first  half  of  it  is  a  story 
of  ascetic  habits  which,  even  in  the  palmy  days  of  asceticism,  can 
only  have  been  true  of  a  woman  like  Melania,  whose  self-renun- 
ciation was  absolute.  Among  the  company  that  escorted  Silvania 
was  one  Jovinus,  at  that  time  deacon,  but  when  Falladius  wrote 
bishop,  of  the  church  of  Ascalon, '  a  pious  man  and  a  scholar '. 
'  The  heat  became  terrific,  and  when  we  reached  Felusium  Jovinus 
seized  a  basin  and  gave  his  hands  and  feet  a  thorough  wash  *  in 
ice-cold  water,  and  then  threw  a  rug  on  the  ground  and  settled 

'  The  chapter  nambeni  are  of  course  not  in  the  HSS,  hut  anc  supplied  by  the 
editors  for  purposes  of  convenience.  Dom  Butler  encloses  them  throughout  in 
brackets. 

*  Vlifiaaiat  -ria  >r«jpaf  iral  rodr  vMot  wirfu^  CSari  ^ivxpor&r^  (148.  ai).  Has  any  one 
ever  noticed  this  allusion  (probably  the  only  one  in  patristic  literature)  to  He.  vii  3  ! 
Unfortunately  it  does  not  settle  the  vexed  question  of  the  meanini;  of  ■vy^t 
though  the  apparent  contrast  with  rSn>  &Kpair  -rw  xupSm  (149.  7)  perhaps  supports 
the  interpretation  'as  &ir  aa  the  elbow'  (and,  in  this  case,  'the  knee').  Dom 
Butler  does  not  note  the  reference  to  St  Mark,  and  it  seems  a  pity  that,  by  limiting' 
bis  use  of  uncial  type  to  actual  quotations  from  the  Bible,  he  calls  no  attention  to 
the  not  infrequent  echoes  of  Biblical  language.  Thus  he  nowhere  indicates  that 
the  opening  of  the  Historia  Lausiaca  is  modelled  on  the  prologue  of  St  Luke's 
Gospel,  wiMiMV  voXXcl  col  wotKiXa  xord  Ika^povs  Koipoiit  tniyYpififiaTa  t^  $1^  xaraXt- 
Xarm6Tair  .  .  .  (Sofc  mt/iol  t^  rmnivf  ,  ,  ,  ivnOtv  titStffSai  aw  iv  iniy^ftarot  t1S«i  rd 
fiiffXicp  rovTo  (9.  I,  10;  10,  8)  :  add  also  11.  18,  Hatt.  xviii  34;  15.  19,  Heb.  xi  33  ; 
19.  18,  Ps.  xxxvii  IT,  Hatt  v  5 ;  30.  33,  Hare,  xii  43,  Luc.  xxi  a ;  33.  10,  Levit. 
»u  17  sqq. ;  38.  jo,  »i,  Luc.  xviii  33,  ix  33,  xiv  37  ;  44.  15,  4  Reg.  v  ao-17  ;  57.  3, 
Matt,  xvii  17;  57.  9,  Luc.  xviii  43;  74.  8,  Dan.  iii ;  115.  a,  Gal.  vi  14;  115.  6, 
Gal.  i  10;  138.  33,  Rom.  xii  8;  144.  6,  Tit.  i  8,  i  Tim.  vi  17,  18;  146.  13, 
Rom.  viii  35  ;  149. 17,  1  Tim.  vi  ao ;  151.  5,  Eph.  iv  36 ;  165.  a,  Ezech.  xxxiii  11. 
VOL.  VL  A  a 


354         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STL^DIES 


Ittoiaelf  comftirtably  to  rest  oa  it.  She  (4cc£ni)  began  to  upbraid 
hii  bck  of  tordness,  assuring  him  that,  tboogb  she  was  sixty,  sfae 
never  used  a  Kttcr  when  travelling  and  never  iin<Ser  any  orcuni- 
stances  washed  her  ha  or  her  feet  or  more  than  her  fillers.* 

We  know  noduag.  as  has  been  said,  of  Sthrania,  and  tbcfcfore 
we  cannot  actually  prove  that  the  combination  of  asccttdsm  and 
learning  here  depicted  wzs  alien  to  her  character.  But  we  do 
know  that  Melania  was  both  a  noted  ascetic  and  a  noted  Ongcnist, 
and,  even  if  female  ascctidsm  was  do  longer  unusual,  female 
stud}'  of  Origen  must  have  been  alwa>-s  rare.  The  case  for 
Mclaoia,  I  feci  confident,  has  only  to  be  stated  in  order  to  be 
adniittcd,  and  that  in  spite  of  an  argument  which  might  con- 
ceivably be  raised  against  it.  The  lady  was  in  her  sixtieth 
year  when  she  made  her  profession  of  asceticism  to  Jovtnus:  but 
Melania  was  also  sixty  years  old  when  she  left  Palestine  to 
revisit  Rome  (ch.  54 :  146.  20),  and  that  journey  took  place  not 
earlier  than  398  and  not  later  than  400  A.D.  (Butler  II  177, 
corrcctii^  II  327).  Therefore  if  Mcbinia  is  the  subject  of  ch. 
SS,  the  episode  at  Pelosium  must  have  taken  place  about  399. 
And  in  fact  Falladius,  between  the  years  of  his  long  residence 
in  Egypt  and  of  his  episcopate  in  Bithynia,  n-as  just  then  in 
Palestine  for  a  brief  period  (II  105. 5-^).  But  he  bad  been  sent 
from  Egypt  to  Palestine,  so  he  tclLs  us,  on  account  of  ill-health: 
how  then  can  he  have  been  returning  from  Jerusalem  tou-ards 
Egypt  in  that  particular  year  ?  The  objection  is  specious  rather 
than  real :  there  may  have  been  any  one  of  countless  reasons, 
necessarily  unknown  to  us,  to  induce  him  to  nuke  the  brief 
journey  to  Pelusium ;  we  are  not  even  told  that  he  went  on  to 
Egypt,  but  only  that  Silvania  was  going  there  and  that  they 
escorted  her  so  far.  Indeed  the  fresh  data  brought  into  account 
in  favour  of  the  objection  seem  to  me  to  constitute  an  additional 
argument  in  support  of  the  McIania  hj-pothcsis,  since  they  bring 
out  the  coincidence  that  during  Melania's  sixtieth  year  she  and 
Falladius  were  both  actually  in  Palestine. 


i 


The  reader  whose  ideas  of  the  Lausiac  History  are  derived 
only  from  the  foregoing  pages  would  need  to  be  warned  that 
they  would  be  leaving  on  him  a  false  impression  if  he  supposed 
that  questions  of  controversy  loomed  at  all  largely  in  it.     The 


THE  LAUSIAC   HISTORY   OF   PALLADIUS  355 

note  of  criticism  is  not  the  dominant  one  in  Falladius*  book,  any 
more  than  it  was  in  most  of  the  men  whom  he  set  himself  to 
describe.  Rather  his  purpose  is,  writing  himself  as  one  of  the 
secular  clergy  and  addressing  a  layman  in  high  office  at  the  court, 
to  depict  a  mode  of  life  that  stood  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  lives 
of  bishops  and  chamberlains  exactly  by  its  aloofness  from  the 
controversies  of  the  world  and  even  of  the  Church. 

There  is  much  of  interest  that  could  be  added  on  the  charac- 
teristic features  of  the  monastic  life  as  depicted  by  Palladius: 
bat  it  must  be  added,  if  at  all,  on  another  occasion.  Enough  at 
any  rate  has  been  said  to  shew  under  what  a  burden  of  obliga- 
tion Dom  Butler  has  laid  us  by  the  long  and  successful 
labours  that  have  culminated  in  his  edition  of  the  Lausiac 
History. 

C.  H.  Turner. 


A  aa 


There  b  a  peculiar  interest  and  fescination  attaching  to  the 
lost  Gospel  known  to  us  by  the  name  of  the  Gospel  accordii^ 
to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  not  shared  by  any  one  of  the  other 
Evangelical    narratives    outside    the   Canonical    four.     All   the 
others  are  apocryphal,  on  a  lower  level  of  historical  value;  if 
indeed  they  can  be  said  to*  possess  any  historical  vaJue  at  alL 
But  the  Gospel  according  to  the   Hebrews  by  its  very  title 
claims  an  authority  equal  to.  if  not  actually  greater  than,  that 
of  the  four  which  eventually  received  the  approval  of  the  Church. 
The    territorial   designation    goes  better  with  the    preposition 
employed  than  does  the  name  of  an  author,  and  Prot  Hajnack's 
opinion  that  such  titles  were  older  than  the  personal  ones  seems 
likely  to  be  well  founded.     We  are  transported  back  to  a  time, 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Church's  history,  before  any  one 
of  the  Gospel  stories  had  attained  to  universal  acceptance,  but 
when  each  narrative  was  still  the  exclusive  possession  of  the 
city  or  district  for  the  benefit  of  whose  inhabitants  it  had  been 
originally  composed,  and  was  only  known  to  other  Christiaos 
as  the  Gospel  used  by  such  and  such  a  people,  or  preserved  in 
such  and  such  a  city.     It  was  probably  only  at  a  later  date, 
and  possibly  only  after  the  four  Canonical  Gospels  had  been 
collected  together  to  form  a  single  volume,  that  these  more  ancient 
titles  gave  place  to  those  which  are  so  familiar  to  us  to-day, 
the  Gospels  according  to  St  Matthew,  St  Mark,  St  Luke,  and 
St  John. 

Only  two  of  these  territorial  titles  have  come  down  to  us, 
though  there  may  possibly  have  been  others  almost  equally  wxll 
known;  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  and  that  accord- 
ing to  the  Egyptians  j  titles  which  thrill  us  with  interest,  and 
with  curiosity  to  know  what  were  the  contents  of  the  documents 
that  were  known  by  names  of  so  su^cstivc  a  character.  We 
fed  ourselves  carried  back  to  those  dim  years,  of  which  we  know 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO   THE   HEBREWS       357 

so  little  and  would  wish  to  know  so  much,  immediately  succeed- 
ing the  times  of  the  Apostles,  while  the  centre  of  the  Christian 
religion  was  still  for  practical  purposes  in  the  East,  and  while 
the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  was  still  standing.  Already,  these 
titles  seem  to  say  to  us,  there  were  Gospels  known  in  the  infant 
Church — already  the  things  which  Jesus  did  and  said  had  been 
committed  to  writing — and  already  two  such  narratives  stand 
out  prominent  among  the  rest  for  interest  and  authority — the 
possessions  respectively  of  the  Churches  of  Jerusalem  and  of 
Alexandria — the  'Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians',  and  the 
*  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews '. 

Of  the  original  '  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians '  we  can 
form  a  fairly  definite  notion.  It  can  hardly  have  been  anything 
else  than  some  form  of  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark.  All  Christian 
tradition  is  unanimous  in  assigning  to  St  Mark  the  work  of 
evangelizing  Egypt  and  founding  the  Church  of  Alexandria. 
When  we 'find,  therefore,  that  a  special  'Gospel  according  to 
the  Egyptians '  was  in  existence  from  very  early  times,  and  when 
we  find  St  Chrysostom  actually  stating  that  St  Mark  wrote 
his  Gospel  in  Egypt,  we  can  hardly  help  coming  to  the  con- 
clusion that  these  two  traditions  are  correlated.  St  Mark,  we 
may  suppose,  left  behind  him  in  Egypt  a  Gospel  narrative  which 
may  not  indeed  have  been  absolutely  identical  with  that  which 
we  now  call  by  his  name,  but  which,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  had  some  close  affinities  with  it,  and  this 
narrative  became  known  to  the  Christians  of  the  first  century 
as  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians. 

On  this  hypothesis  it  follows,  of  course,  that  the  various  scraps 
which  are  quoted  by  Origen  and  others  from  a  Gospel  which  was 
known  to  them  under  this  name,  since  they  have  no  apparent 
afiinities  with  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark,  must  either  be  additions 
made  at  a  later  date  to  the  original  narrative,  or  else,  and  perhaps 
more  probably,  be  quotations  from  an  apocryphal  Gospel  which 
usurped  the  name  in  the  second  century,  after  the  original  Gospel 
of  the  Egyptians  had  become  known  throughout  Christendom 
as  the  Gospel  according  to  St  Mark.  In  either  case  they  are 
of  no  value  to  the  student  who  desires  to  recover  the  text  of 
the  original  document,  and  the  details  in  which  it  varies  from 
that  form  of  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark  which  we  now  possess. 


358  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


These  consideratioas  oo  the  Gospel  of  the  ^ypdana  are  not 
without  value  for  oar  study  of  tbc  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrewi.  Here  again  we  axe  coofrootcd  by  a  number  of  ex- 
tracts, purporting  to  be  drawn  from  the  Gospel  in  question,  hot 
which  have  all  the  appearances  of  a  later  and  less  authentic 
origin.  It  may  be  best  fix  us  to  neglect  these  quotations  for  the 
present  as  being  quite  possibly  later  additions,  or  even  quotations 
from  an  apocr>'phal  document  masquerading  under  a  ti-cnerabk 
title,  and  passing  itself  off  as  an  authentic  recxwd  of  the  life  of 
CbrisL  In  either  of  these  cases  they  will  only  mislead  us,  and 
therefore  for  the  present  we  put  them  aside,  fully  recognizii^  that 
they  may  be  of  value  and  interest,  and  intending  to  submit  them 
to  a  careful  examination  at  a  later  time,  but  for  the  preseatt 
cndcavotmng  to  form  for  ourselves  on  a  pru»i  grounds  sooe 
idea  of  the  probable  character  <A  the  or^;inal  document,  bcfon 
we  go  on  to  conadcr  whether  any  of  the  existing  fragments  may 
posably  have  formed  part  of  it. 

We  take  then  as  our  point  of  departure,  a  passage  tn  the 
writii^  of  Irenacus,  about  the  dose  of  the  second  century,  which 
is  the  earliest  description  which  has  come  down  to  us  c^  the 
Gospel  who6e  nature  and  history  we  arc  trying  to  invest^ate 
*The  Ebionites ',  St  Irenacus  says,  *usc  oo  other  Gospel  except 
that  which  is  according  to  St  Matthe^A',  and  refuse  the  Apostle 
Paul,  saying  that  he  is  an  apostate  from  the  law.'  *  It  is  not 
a  very  explicit  statement,  but  it  is  sufiicicnt  to  give  us  a  stuttiig>- 
pojnt  for  our  enquiry,  especially  when  we  supplement  it  by  a 
parallel  passage  from  Eusebius  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History. 
Euscbius  is  obviously  basing  himself  on  Irenacus  and  his  words 
are  little  more  than  a  quotation  from  the  earlier  writer,  but  tbey 
contain  the  important  additional  information  that  the  Go*^l 
used  by  the  Ebionites  was  not  really  the  Gospel  accordir>g  to 
St  Matthew,  as  Irenacus  had  supposed,  but  was  the  Go^wl 
according  to  the  Hebrews.  '  This  Gospel ',  he  says, '  is  the  only 
one  that  they  use,  for  they  reckon  the  others  to  be  of  little 
value.'^  We  learn  from  these  passages  that  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews  was,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century, 
the  more  or  less  exclusive  possession  of  the  Jewish  community 
beyond  the  Jordan  who  were  known  as  Ebionites,  and  that  thc>* 
'  IrcD.  i  36.  3.  ■  Eus.  Hitt.  Etd,  iii  37.  4. 


( 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO   THE  HEBREWS       359 

used  it  to  the  exclusion  of  the  more  widely  known  Greek 
Gospels,  which  were  at  that  time  just  attaining  the  position 
of  being  admitted  to  the  Canon  of  the  Church,  holding  that 
it  was  more  ancient  and  of  greater  authority  than  they  were. 
It  was  connected  with  the  name  of  St  Matthew,  so  much  so 
that  Irenaeus  supposed  it  to  be  actually  identical  with  the 
Gospel  which  he  knew  under  that  name.  From  other  and  later 
sources  we  know  that  it  was  written  in  Hebrew,  or  rather  in 
Aramaic,  a  fact  which  accounts  at  once  for  its  limited  difTusion, 
and  for  its  gradual  disappearance  as  Aramaic  ceased  to  exist 
as  a  living  language.  As  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
St  Irenaeus  knew  Aramaic  or  that  he  had  ever  seen  a  copy  of 
the  Gospel  in  question,  we  cannot  take  his  evidence  as  implying 
that  there  was  any  similarity  of  contents  between  this  Hebrew 
Gospel  attributed  to  St  Matthew  and  the  Greek  canonical  Gospel 
which  bears  his  name.  All  that  St  Irenaeus  really  knew  was, 
apparently,  that  the  Gospel  used  by  the  Ebionites  was  by  them 
attributed  to  the  hand  of  St  Matthew,  and  from  that  he  not 
unnaturally  jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  identical  with 
the  one  with  which  he  was  already  familiar. 

The  people  among  whom  this  Gospel  was  preserved  deserve 
a  moment's  attention.  They  were  the  descendants  of  the  Jewish 
Christians  of  Jerusalem  who  had  fled  from  the  city  on  the 
approach  of  the  Roman  armies,  and  had  taken  refuge  at  Pella. 
From  that  place,  when  Jerusalem  had  been  destroyed,  and  their 
return  thtther  was  thereby  rendered  impossible,  they  had  gone 
on  to  the  populous  district  beyond  the  Jordan  and  bad  settled 
down  at  Kokaba  in  Batanea.  Among  them  were  the  descendants 
of  the  '  brethren  of  the  Lord ',  who  appear  to  have  enjoyed  a 
certain  pre-eminence,  and  from  among  whom  the  Bishops  who 
governed  the  community  seem  for  a  considerable  period  to 
have  been  chosen.  This  little  colony  of  Christians,  cut  oflT  as 
they  were  both  by  language  and  by  race  from  the  main  stream 
of  Greek-speaking  and  Gentile  Christianity,  in  which  the  ideas 
peculiar  to  the  new  religion  were  rapidly  developing  themselves 
and  assuming  a  permanent  form,  remained  wholly  Judaic  and 
even  reactionary.  They  looked  back  to  Jerusalem  as  not  merely 
the  cradle  but  also  the  natural  centre  of  their  religion,  and 
Christianity  was  in  their  eyes  not  intended  to  supplant  Judaism 


36o        THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOCICAI.   STUDIES 

— that  they  regarded  as  a  blasphemy  and  a  heresy — but  only 
to  liU  it  in  and  to  give  a  new  direction  to  the  tendency  of  its 
development.  Hence  they  kept  the  Law  as  still  binding  upon 
them,  and  regarded  St  Paul  as  a  heretic  and  an  enemy,  the  Aamo 
inimicus  of  the  parable,  who  had  sowed  tares  among  the  wheat 
and  so  succeeded  in  crosi-ing  and  bringing  to  nought  the  pur- 
poses of  God.  They  kept  the  Jewish  Sabbath  as  well  as  the 
Christian  Sunday,  called  their  churches  by  the  name  of  'syna* 
gogues',  and  ardently  expected  a  miraculous  restoration  c^ 
Jerusalem  to  be  once  more  the  centre  of  the  religious  world. 
Christian  as  well  as  Jewish. 

This  attitude  of  mind  had  its  inevitable  result  on  their  views 
of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ.  They  r^arded  Him  as  the 
Jewish  Messiah,  but  hardly  as  the  Redeemer  of  the  human  race. 
He  was  a  Prophet,  the  last  and  greatest  of  the  Prophets  no 
doubt,  but  still  only  a  Prophet ;  that  other  Prophet  whom  Moses 
had  foretold  that  God  would  raise  up  like  unto  himself.  So 
'  the  true  Prophet '  was  the  ordiiiary  phrase  by  which  they 
designated  the  Founder  of  their  religion,  rarely  did  they  speak 
of  Him  as  the  Christ,  or  as  the  Saviour  or  the  Redeemer.  As 
time  went  on,  and  especially  after  the  founding  of  ^Elia  Capi- 
tolina  by  the  Emperor  Hadrian  on  the  old  site  of  Jerusalem 
drew  off  from  among  them  all  who  were  not  forbidden  on 
account  of  their  Jewish  blood  to  return  to  the  Holy  City, 
they  became  more  and  more  reactionary,  more  Jewish  and  less 
Christian,  until  by  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  we  find  them 
regarded  definitely  as  heretics  and  separated  from  the  main  body 
of  the  Christian  Church,  still  clinging  obstinately  to  their  Jewish 
customs,  and  speaking  of  Christ  not  as  God,  although  called 
the  Son  of  God,  but  as  born  after  the  ordinary  way  of  nature 
of  Mary  and  of  her  husband  Joseph. 

Such  were  the  people  among  whom  the  Gospel  according 
to  the  Hebrews  circulated,  and  such  were  the  doctrines  that 
they  held.  Let  us  see  now  whether  we  have  sufficient  material 
before  us  to  enable  us  to  arrive  at  any  probable  conclusion  as  to 
the  nature  and  contents  of  the  book  which  alone  made  up  the 
whole  of  the  sacrcd  literature  which  tliey  had  added  to  those 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  which  had  formed  the  Bible 
of  their  ancestors. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING   TO   THE   HEBREWS       361 

In  the  first  place  we  may  assume,  I  think,  not  indeed  with 
certainty  but  at  least  with  a  strong  degree  of  probability,  that 
the  original  composition  of  their  Gospel  must  be  dated  back 
to  some  time  anterior  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  No  book 
written  in  their  exile  would  have  attained  so  commanding  a 
position,  since  it  would  have  had  to  contend  with  others  of  an 
authority  not  much  inferior  to  its  own.  Its  unique  position 
resulted  from  the  fact  that  it  and  it  alone  had  been  accepted  by 
their  forefathers  while  they  still  dwelt  at  Jerusalem,  and  there- 
fore it  shared  in  the  mysterious  sanctity  which  invested  all  that 
was  connected  with  the  Holy  City.  We  have  then  to  picture 
to  ourselves,  if  we  wish  to  form  an  idea  of  this  Gospel  which 
has  so  unfortunately  perished,  an  Evangelic  narrative  of  the 
earliest  period,  written  in  the  Aramaic  dialect  which  was  current 
at  Jerusalem  and  was  called  by  the  name  of  Hebrew,  owing 
its  origin  especially  to  the  Apostle  Matthew,  and  lending  itself 
to  a  certain  extent,  by  its  omissions  and  fragmentary  character 
to  inadequate  and  even  heretical  notions  about  the  Person  and 
work  of  our  Lord.  We  are  at  once  irresistibly  reminded  of  that 
other  mysterious  document,  also  written  in  Hebrew  and  as^gned 
to  St  Matthew,  our  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  which  we  owe 
to  Papias,  or  rather  to  the  '  presbyter '  from  whom  he  derived  his 
information :  *  Matthew  then  compiled  the  Discourses  [of  the  Lord] 
(ro  [)tw/)iajt(i]  X(Jyia)  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and  every  one  translated 
them  as  he  was  able.'  Is  it  possible  seriously  to  maintain  that 
there  were  two  separate  documents,  each  of  them  written  at 
Jerusalem  during  the  Apostolic  age  and  in  the  Hebrew  toi^ue, 
each  of  them  assigned  to  the  Apostle  Matthew,  and  each  of  them 
dealing  in  some  way  with  the  Gospel  story?  Or  are  we  not 
rather  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  these  two  documents,  whose 
descriptions  are  so  strangely  similar,  must  really  be  identical,  and 
that  the  lost  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  in  its  earliest 
and  uninterpolated  state,  was  indeed  none  other  than  the  Book 
of  the  Logia,  the  Discourses  of  Christ,  drawn  up  by  St  Matthew 
at  Jerusalem  about  A.  D.  40,  and  carried  with  them  into  exile  by 
the  fugitive  Christians  when  they  left  Jerusalem  for  ever,  a  little 
before  its  final  destruction  in  the  year  71  ? 

If  we  can  accept  this  identification  of  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews  with  the  Logia  of  St  Matthew,  we  are  at  once  able 


362  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

to  determine,  at  least  roughly,  the  nature  and  the  limits  ol 
contents.  I  know  that  the  Dean  of  Westminster  has  given  his 
opinion  that  any  such  attempt  to  define  the  contents  of  the 
Login  is  premature,  and  that  he  apparently  doubts  even  whether 
the  Logia  ever  existed  as  an  actual  document ;  but  in  this  he 
seems  to  me,  as  to  many  others,  to  be  altt^ether  unduly  cautious. 
It  may  be  premature  to  attempt  to  define  with  exactness  what 
the  Logia  contained,  but  we  can  be  tolerably  certain  at  least  of 
this,  that  it  had  no  narrative  of  the  birth  or  early  years,  and  that 
it  lacked  also  any  details  of  the  cruci6xion.  It  was  devoted  in 
the  mainj  as  its  name  implies,  to  the  discourses  of  Christ,  and  dealt 
only  in  a  secondary  manner,  if  at  all,  with  His  actions.  On  these 
main  jwints  there  is  a  very  general  agreement  of  all  the  critics, 
and  we  shall  probably  be  fairly  safe  if  we  adopt  theiD  as  the 
basis  for  our  further  investigations  on  thb  subject. 

What,  then,  we  have  to  a^  ourselves  next  is  whether  we  can 
bring  any  definite  and  external  evidence  which  may  lend  support 
to  the  rather  precarious  edifice  we  have  built  up  on  a  priori  lines. 
An  argument  of  this  sort  is  useful  as  providing  a  working  hypo- 
thesis, but  is  dangerous  to  rely  on  unless  it  fits  in  with  and  helps 
to  explain  the  other  facts  which  are  already  known  to  us.  I3 
there  then  any  sort  of  reason  for  holding  that  the  continued 
existence  of  a  Gospel  of  this  kind,  confined  exclusively  to  the 
period  of  the  public  ministry,  and  not  dealing  at  all  either  with 
the  way  in  which  Christ  came  into  the  world,  or  with  His  death 
upon  the  Cross,  is  rendered  probable  by  actual  facts  by  which 
the  theory  can  be  tested? 

We  may  find,  I  think,  such  support,  firstly,  in  the  history  of 
the  Ebionitc  people,  and  of  the  heresy  which  was  developed 
among  them  at  a  later  date.  It  is  a  singular  phenomenon  in 
any  case  that  a  body  of  profe&sing  Christians  should  have  gone 
back  from  the  position  held  by  the  Apostles,  so  far  as  wc  know, 
even  from  the  first  days  after  Pentecost.  Some  of  the  tenets  of 
the  Ebionitcs  were  no  doubt  due  to  an  excessive  conservatism, 
and  simply  reflect  the  primitive  conditions  which  the  CathoUc 
Church  soon  outgrew  and  broke  loose  from.  But  others,  such  as 
the  obscuring  of  the  sacrificial  aspect  of  the  death  of  Christ  and 
of  His  work  as  the  Redeemer  of  the  human  race,  must,  surely 
imply  a  definite  falling  away  from  dogmas  that  had  once  been 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  THE   HEBREWS       363 

clearly  held.  The  Ebionites  on  this  point  bear  witness  against 
themselves,  by  their  insistence  on  the  doctrine  that  all  earthly 
sacrifice  had  ceased,  while  they  denied  the  One  Sacrifice  which 
was  the  only  justification  for  such  teaching  in  the  mouth  of 
one  of  Jewish  descent.  They  were,  therefore,  we  are  justified 
in  saying,  not  merely  conservatives  who  had  failed  to  keep  pace 
with  the  developements  of  the  Church,  but  reactionaries  who  had 
given  up  and  gone  back  from  some  of  the  truths  they  once 
had  held. 

Now  such  a  falling  away  is  made  far  more  easy  to  understand, 
if  indeed  it  is  not  altogether  accounted  for,  if  we  can  adopt  the 
hypothesis  that  they  were  possessed  only  of  a  partial  Gospel  and 
that,  on  account  of  their  excessive  reverence  for  it,  they  despised 
and  rejected  the  fuller  Gospels  which  would  have  supplied 
material  for  the  preservation  of  their  faith.  If  the  Gospel  which 
they  possessed  had  no  story  of  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  no  details 
of  His  Passion,  but  confined  itself  wholly  to  the  record  of  His 
teaching,  is  it  not  obvious  that,  as  the  jrears  went  on,  there  might 
easily  have  arisen  a  tendency  to  forget  the  doctrines  for  which 
that  Gospel  did  not  supply  foundation,  to  exalt  unduly  the 
Prophetical  office,  and  to  leave  out  of  account  Christ's  office  as 
Victim  and  as  Priest  ?  The  Ebionite  heresy  would  be  the  almost 
inevitable  consequence  of  such  an  incomplete  and  one-sided 
picture  of  the  life  of  Christ  as  would  have  been  afforded  by  such 
a  book  as  we  have  reason  to  believe  the  Logia  must  have  been, 
unless  that  picture  was  supplemented,  and  its  shortcomings 
made  up,  by  the  additional  teaching  supplied  by  the  other 
Gospel  histories. 

We  shall  be  led  again  to  a  similar  conclusion  if  we  make 
a  c;areful  examination  of  the  few  Ebionite  writings  which  have 
survived  the  passage  of  the  centuries.  The  most  useful  for  our 
present  purpose  are  the  so-called  Clementine  Homilies,  which 
are  fiill  of  quotations  drawn  either  from  our  present  Gospels  or 
else  from  some  other  narratives  which  have  very  much  in  com- 
mon with  our  Gospels.  There  are  but  few  questions  connected 
with  our  present  subject  which  have  been  more  fully  discussed 
than  this  one  of  the  Clementine  quotations,  the  one  side  arguing 
keenly  that  they  resemble  the  Canonical  Gospels  too  closely  to 
allow  us  reasonably  to  refer  them  to  any  other  document,  and 


364         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

the  other  arguing  equally  forcibly  that  the  divergencies  from  our 
Gospels  are  so  constant,  and  the  actual  coincidences  so  few,  that 
no  theory  of  quotation  by  memory,  or  of  unconscious  combina- 
tion  of  separate  texts,  is  sufficient  to  explain  them,  unless  we 
allow  at  least  that  one  or  more  other  gospels  were  also  employed- 
The  question  Is  very  much  complicated  by  the  fact  that  this 
book  of  Homih'es,  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  known  to  us,  is 
itself  a  composite  document,  and  has  been  worked  over  and 
interpolated,  probably  more  than  once,  by  hands  that  arc  later 
than  that  of  the  original  composer. 

It  is,  1  think,  extremely  difficult  to  draw  any  satisfactoiy 
conclusion  from  even  a  minute  study  of  these  quotations.  Any 
conclusion  we  arrive  at  is  liable  to  be  vitiated  by  these  inter- 
polations. Nor  on  the  other  hand  is  it  easy  to  pick  out  the 
interpolations  with  any  certainty,  on  account  of  the  loose  aod 
disjointed  character  of  the  argument.  But  if  we  do  not  make 
a  minute  study,  but  only  try  to  get  as  it  were  a  bird's-eye  view 
of  the  general  character  of  the  quotations,  pa>nng  but  littk 
attention  to  any  occasional  exceptions  to  our  deductions  with 
which  we  may  happen  to  meet,  we  may,  I  venture  to  think, 
obtain  results  which  are  distinctly  valuable  and  illuminating, 
and  which  altogether  bear  out  the  conclusions  at  which  we  have 
already  arrived.     These  results  we  may  formulate  as  follows: — 

I.  From  the  singular  likeness  /«  substance  of  the  great  majority 
of  the  Clementine  quotations  to  passages  in  the  Gospel  according 
to  St  Matthew,  we  may  conclude  with  practical  certainty  that 
the  author  must  have  possessed  cither  the  Gospel  of  St  Matthew 
itself,  or  else  one  at  least  of  the  sources  from  which  that  Gospd 
was  compiled,  or  else  another  Gospel  which  included  one  at  least 
of  those  sources. 

a.  From  the  fact  that  the  quotations,  though  so  tike  St  Mat- 
thew in  substance,  are  hardly  ever  verbally  exact,  we  conclude 
that  the  possession  of  a  source,  cither  in  its  original  form  or  else 
as  included  in  another  Gospel,  Is  more  probable  than  the 
possession  of  St  Matthew  itself. 

3.  This  last  conclusion  is  materially  strengthened  by  the 
observation  that  the  quotations  arc  by  no  means  drawn  equally 
from  all  the  various  poitiors  of  St  Matthew,  but  arc,  on  the 
contrary,  almost  strictly  limited  to  those  portions  of  the  Gospel 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO   THE   HEBREWS       365 

which  are  probably  taken  from  the  Logia,  There  are  no 
quotations  from  the  first  four  chapters,  nor  any  from  those 
chapters  which  deal  with  the  Passion  and  Resurrection.  Very 
few  of  the  quotations  allude  to  any  event  in  our  Lord's  life, 
almost  all  refer  to  words  which  He  is  recorded  to  have  spoken. 
A  very  large  proportion  are  drawn  from  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount. 

If  a  reference  be  made  to  a  list  of  these  quotations,  such 
a  one  for  instance  as  may  be  found  in  Frcuschen's  AnHUgomma^ 
the  facts  to  which  I  have  drawn  attention  stand  out  with  almost 
startling  clearness.  The  quotations  begin  suddenly  at  the  fifth 
chapter  and  end  with  equal  abruptness  at  the  end  of  the  twenty- 
fifth.  In  the  intermediate  chapters  some  seventy  quotations  are 
noted,  and  of  these  seventy  twenty-three,  or  just  one-third,  are 
from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  thirteen  more  are  from 
chapters  xxiv  and  xxv.  The  large  majority  of  the  others,  if 
looked  up  in  such  a  book  as  Wright's  Synopsis,  will  be  found  to 
be  assigned  by  him  to  the  Logia  as  their  source.  There  are 
exceptions,  but  they  are  very  few  in  comparison  with  the  others. 
When  we  consider  that  the  Logia  portions  of  St.  Matthew  do 
not  amount  to  a  third  of  the  whole  Gospel,  we  shall  see  at  onc% 
that  it  can  scarcely  be  due  to  chance  alone  that  so  very  large 
a  proportion  of  the  quotations  should  be  drawn  from  so  small 
a  portion  of  the  Gospel.  We  can  scarcely  escape  the  conclusion 
that  the  writer  could  not  possibly  have  had  the  whole  Gospel 
before  him,  but  was  limited  to  one  or  more  of  the  sources 
employed  by  the  author  of  the  Gospel. 

The  evidence  of  the  second  century  seems,  then,  to  be  pretty 
clear  and  free  from  difficulty.  But  the  question  is  complicated 
by  some  other  evidence  which  comes  to  us  from  a  much  later 
period,  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  and  the  time  of  St  Jerome, 
which  we  must  now  proceed  to  examine. 

St  Jerome,  in  the  course  of  his  Biblical  studies,  had  become 
aware  of  the  existence  of  an  Aramaic  Gospel,  written  in  Hebrew 
characters,  which  was  preserved  and  used  by  the  Christians  of 
the  Syrian  Beroea.  At  a  later  date  he  found  a  second  copy 
of  the  same  work  in  the  library  of  the  priest  Pamphilus  at 
Caesarea.  He  had  the  highest  opinion  of  the  importance  of  his 
And,  and  he  obtained  leave  to  copy  it,  and  then  proceeded  to 


366         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

translate  it  both  into  Greek  and  into  Latin.  The  result  of  this 
careful  study  was  to  convince  him  that  he  had  made  no  less 
a  discovery  than  that  of  the  Hebrew  original  of  St  Matthew's 
Gospel.  He  seems  to  have  retained  this  opinion  for  many  years, 
possibly  as  many  as  thirty,  but  at  the  same  time  he  identified  it 
also  with  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews ',  though  of  course 
this  identification  in  no  way  excludes  the  other. 

He  quotes  this  Gospel  no  less  than  thirteen  times,  sometimes 
at  considerable  length,  and  from  his  quotations,  especially  when 
taken  in  conjunction  with  his  opinion,  expressed  many  times 
with  great  conviction  and  never  withdrawn,  that  this  was  indeed 
the  Hebrew  original  of  the  Greek  Gospel,  we  can  form  a  tolerably 
accurate  idea  of  the  contents  of  the  document.  It  must  have 
borne  a  very  close  resemblance  indeed  to  St  Matthew,  or 
St  Jerome  could  never  have  supposed  it  to  be  the  original,  but 
on  the  other  hand  it  must  have  differed  from  it  in  some  notable 
particulars,  and  in  a  good  many  small  details,  or  he  would  never 
have  put  himself  to  the  trouble  of  translating  it  into  Greek. 

Sach  a  close  resemblance  to  our  St  Matthew  cannot  possibly 
have  arisen  by  accident,  but  must  involve  a  clcrae  connexion, 
direct  or  indirect,  between  the  two  Gospels.  There  arc  only 
three  conceivable  ways  in  which  the  resemblance  can  have  come 
about.  The  first  is  that  apparently  held  by  St  Jerome,  who 
thought  this  document  to  be  the  earlier,  and  the  Greek  Gospel 
to  be  a  translation  from  it,  or  at  lea.st  to  be  founded  upon  it 
The  second  is  that  held  by  many  critics  of  the  last  centtiry, 
especially  by  Lightfoot,  Westcott,  and  Salmon,  and  is  that  the 
Greek  Gospel  is  the  original,  and  that  the  Hebrew  document  is 
nierely  secondary,  and  either  translated  from  or  at  least  founded 
upon  the  Greek.  The  third,  which  is  that  which  I  desire  now 
to  put  forward,  is  that  both  the  Greek  Gospel  and  the  Hebrew 
document  arc  independent  compilations  from  the  same  sources, 
made  probably  the  one  in  imitation  of  the  other. 

Modern  critics  are  more  or  less  agreed  that  St  Matthcw^s 
Gospel  is  the  result  of  a  fusion  of  three  main  documents,  the 

'  Compare  St  Jerome,  Catai  Script.  Eeel.,  written  about  a.  D.  39a,  witb  the  niDC 
aulhor't  Dial.  etdv.  Ptlag.  Ifb,  ili.  The  pusogcs  may  be  convrnicntly  reail  together 
with  the  other*  bearing  upon  tie  quesCion  in  NielioUoti'a  Gosptl  atcarding  to  tit 
HArtJta  p.  lo  •<]. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING  TO   THE   HEBREWS       367 

Story  of  the  Birth ;  the  Logia ;  and  some  form  of  St  Mark. 
Any  Hebrew  document  which  so  closely  resembled  the  Gospel 
as  this  seems  to  have  done  must  have  been  made  up  of  the  same 
three  sources.  And  St  Jerome's  quotations  seem  to  shew  that 
this  was  actually  the  case.  He  gives  two  quotations  from  the 
first  two  chapters,  and  his  document  had  also  a  story  of  the 
Passion  which  closely  resembled  that  of  St  Mark.  He  notes 
one  or  two  differences  only,  as  for  instance  that  the  Lintel 
of  the  Temple  was  said  to  have  been  broken,  when  St  Mark 
says  the  Veil  of  the  Temple  was  rent.  Had  there  been  other 
really  notable  differences  he  could  hardly  have  failed  to 
note  them  in  like  manner  in  some  one  of  his  many  writings. 
We  have  every  reason  to  suppose  therefore  that  each  of  the 
three  main  sources  was  employed  In  the  compilation  of  both 
Gospels.  But,  next,  the  Aramaic  does  not  seem  to  be  a  mere 
translation  from  the  Greek,  but  on  the  contrary  seems  to  be 
the  original.  The  phrase  'He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene'  is 
inexplicable  in  the  Greek,  when  given  as  a  citation  from  pro- 
phecy, but  St  Jerome  found  it  quite  clear  in  the  Hebrew.  '  He 
shall  be  called  N6tser,  a  branch ',  the  reference  being  evidently 
to  Is.  xi  I,  and  perhaps,  as  Mr  Nicholson  has  suggested,  also 
to  Zech.  vi  13.  The  play  upon  the  word  was  of  course  im- 
possible in  Greek,  and  hence  the  obscurity  of  the  passage  in 
St  Matthew.  This  seems  clearly  to  point  to  the  Aramaic  of 
this  portion  of  the  Gospel  being  earlier  than  the  Gredc,  and 
this  conclusion  is  strengthened  by  two  other  details  which  we 
also  learn  from  St  Jerome ;  the  one  that  the  reading  '  Bethlehem 
of  Judah',  which  he  found  there,  is  better  than  the  *  Bethlehem  of 
Judaea',  which  is  the  reading  of  the  Greek,  and  the  other  that 
the  quotations  in  this  portion  did  not  follow  the  Septuagint 
as  they  do  in  St  Matthew,  but  were  from  the  original  Hebrew. 
On  the  whole  then  we  seem  justified  in  assuming  that,  at  any 
rate  as  regards  this  introductory  portion,  St  Jerome  was  right 
in  his  opinion  and  that  he  had  discovered  the  Aramaic  original 
on  which  the  Greek  Gospel  was  founded,  and  of  which,  indeed, 
it  seems  to  have  been  a  translation. 

In  the  same  way  we  can  fairly  argue  that,  if  St  Jerome's  new 
Gospel  is  thus  shewn  not  to  have  been  wholly  translated  from 
the  Greek,  but  as  regards  one  portion  to  have  incorporated  the 


368         THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

original  Aramaic,  we  shall  probably  be  right  in  assuming  that 
the  same  was  true  as  regards  another  large  portion ;  namely, 
that  portion  which  was  drawn  from  the  Logia.  We  have  ao 
reason  to  suppase  that  there  was  a  double  translation,  first  frMn 
Aramaic  into  Greek,  and  then  back  again  into  Aramaic.  It 
is  obviously  simpler  and  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
compiler  of  St  Jerome's  Gospel  here  also  made  use  of  the 
original,  with  which,  if  our  surmises  in  the  earlier  part  of  this 
article  are  well  founded,  he  can  hardly  have  been  unacquainted, 
and  that,  consequently,  St  Jerome  was  right  again  as  regards 
this  second  portion  of  the  document  he  had  found. 

When  we  turn  to  the  Marcan  portion,  which  muAt  have  sup- 
plied the  backbone  of  the  narrative,  the  case  is  altogether 
difTerent.  Plerc  we  are  still  in  possession  of  the  source  itselfi 
though  possibly  in  a  slightly  altered  form,  and  thai  source. 
St  Mark's  Gospel,  is  generally  believed  to  be  an  original  Gretk 
work  and  not  a  translation  from  the  Aramaic.  As  regards  thii 
portion  of  the  document  St  Jerome  was  in  error,  the  Aramak 
version  must  have  been  founded  on  the  Greek,  ard  not  via  versa. 
The  suggestion,  then,  which  I  desire  to  make  is  this.  The 
Gospel  document  discovered  by  St  Jerome  was  not  either  a 
translation  from  the  Greek  of  St  Matthew,  nor  the  Aramaic 
original  of  that  Gospel.  It  owed  its  similarity  to  St  Matthew 
to  the  fact  that  it  was  compiled  out  of  the  same  sources  vi  that 
Gospel  had  been.  But»  whereas  St  Matthew  is  the  result  of 
a  fusion  of  St  Mark  with  Greek  translations  of  a  Birth  Narrative 
and  of  the  Logia,  St  Jerome's  Gospel  was  the  result  of  a  fusion 
of  the  original  Birth  Narrative  and  the  original  Logia  with  an 
Aramaic  translation  of  St  Mark.  In  neither  case  can  we  use 
the  word  translation  in  any  senae  which  will  exclude  a  good 
deal  of  variation,  and  the  incorporation  of  independent  traditions. 
The  value,  therefore,  of  each  one  of  St  Jerome's  quotations  must 
be  judged  on  its  own  merits.  It  is  probable  that  we  arc  possessed 
of  all  the  most  important  passages  in  which  the  Aramaic  docu- 
ment varied  from  the  Greek  St  Matthew.  Some  of  these  are 
exceptionally  valuable,  as  representing  the  original, and  enable  us 
to  correct  and  explain  the  text  of  St  Matthew.  Some  are  possibly 
due  to  a  mistranslation  or  a  faulty  text,  and  are,  therelbre,  of 
no  value  at  all.     Some,  again,  may  embody  an  independent  and 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO   THE   HEBREWS       369 

xenuine  tradition,  as,  for  instance,  the  narrative  of  the  healing 
jf  the  man  with  a  withered  hand,  which  is  clearer  suid  much, 
nore  vivid  in  the  Aramaic  than  in  the  Greek.  Others  again 
may  be  merely  late  traditions  which  have  crept  into  a  text  that 
(vas  insufficiently  guarded  by  wide  diffusion  over  the  world.  To 
gamine  them  all  in  detail  and  to  decide  to  which  class  each 
jf  them  belongs  would  not  be  possible  within  the  limits  of  such 
m  article  as  this. 

It  is  worth  while,  however,  to  point  out  that  there  is  a  certain 
amount  of  confirmatory  evidence  for  the  actual  existence  in 
Syria  of  just  such  a  Gospel  as  that  which  we  have  been  describing 
in  the  quotations  from  the  'Memoirs  of  the  Apostles'  to  be 
found  in  Justin  Martyr.    There  can  be  very  little  doubt  that 
Justin  was  acquainted  with  three  at  least  of  our  present  Gospels, 
St  Matthew,  St  Luke,  and  St  John,  and  that  he  quotes  from 
all  three.     It  would  be  surprising  if  he  did  not,  since  all  must 
have  been  known  at  Rome  before  the  period  at  which  he  was 
residing  there.    But  at  the  same  time  it  must,  I  think,  be  ad- 
mitted that  he  also  quotes  from  another  Gospel  which  is  unknown 
to  us,  and  that,  in  fact,  it  is  from  that  other  Gospel  that  most 
of  his  quotations  are  taken.    This  Gospel    must   have  been 
singularly  like  the  Gospel  of  St  Matthew,  for  almost  all  his 
quotations  agree  with  that  Gospel  in  substance,  but  there  is 
just  the  same  constant  disagreement  in  verbal  matters,  and  some- 
times in  arrangement,  which  we  find  in  the  Clementine  Homilies. 
Justin  is  not,  however,  quoting  from  the  same  Gospel  as  the 
author  of  the  Homilies,  for  his  Gospel  included  the  Birth  Narra- 
tive and  the  Marcan  story  of  the  Passion.    Nor  does  it  seem 
to  be  actually  from  St  Matthew  that  he  is  quoting,  for  his  Gospel 
has  special  details,  such  as  the  fact  that  the  stable  at  Bethlehem 
was  a  cave,  or  that  the  wise  men  came  from  Arabia,  which  he 
could  not  have  derived  from  St  Matthew.     Such  a  Gospel  as 
we  have  described  as  being  that  found  by  St  Jerome  would 
exactly  meet  the  case,  and  would  account  for  all  his  quotations, 
two  of  which,  indeed,  not  drawn  from  our  Gospel,  are  actually 
to  be  found  amoi^  St  Jerome's  quotations  from  his  Gospel 
document.   Justin  was  a  native  of  Shechem,  the  modem  Nablous, 
and  was  converted  while  still  residing  in  his  native  place.     He 
can  hardly  have  failed^  therefore,  to  understand  Aramaic,  which 
VOL.  VI.  B  b 


37©         THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

indeed  would  probably  have  been  his  mother  tongue,  and  there 
is  no  improbability  in  our  supposing  that  he  became  so  familiar 
with  this  Aramaic  Gospel  that  he  continued  to  quote  it  even 
after  he  had  become  acquainted  with  the  other  and  more  widely 
known  Gospel  in  Greek. 

Before  we  leave  the  subject  it  is  necessary  to  say  a  few  words 
on  the  Gospel  used  by  the  heretical  Ebionites  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, our  knowledge  of  which  is  almost  wholly  due  to  Epiphanius. 
This  Gospel  was  certainly  not  identical  with  the  document 
found  by  St  Jerome,  for  it  lacked  any  narrative  of  the  birth. 
Moreover  it  was  apparently  of  distinctly  heretical  tendency^ 
while  St  Jerome's  document  had  no  heretical  tendency  at  alL 
The  absence  of  a  Birth-narrative  suggests  ihcLc^'a  as  its  parent, 
and  this  is  what  we  should  expect  also  from  the  place  in  which 
it  originated  and  the  sect  whose  tenets  it  expressed.  A  glance 
at  the  tables  in  Preuschen's  Antilegowftta  will  once  more  be 
found  illuminating.  The  quotations  from  this  Gospel  given  by 
Epiphanius  are  closely  related  to  pass-igcs  In  all  the  Canonical 
Gospels.  \Vc  may  conclude,  I  think,  that  it  was  a  secondary 
Gospel,  probably  based  mainly  on  the  Logia,  but  compiled  at 
a  comparatively  late  date  by  some  one  who  was  acquainted 
with  the  Canonical  Gospels,  and  designed  to  forward  the  interests 
of  the  Ebionite  heresy.  If  that  be  so  the  quotations  from  it 
are  of  little  interest  for  our  present  purpose  and  need  not  be 
further  discussed  at  present. 

It  may  be  well  for  the  sake  of  clearness  to  sum  up  the  sug- 
gestions which  I  have  ventured  to  put  forward  and  have  tried 
to  prove  in  this  article.  I  suggest  that  wc  must  distinguish 
three  different  documents,  all  of  which  were  spoken  of  in  ancient 
times  as  'the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews'.  The  first  was 
identical  with  the  Login  of  St  Matthew ;  and  was  long  pre- 
ser\'ed  by  the  Jewish  community,  the  remnant  of  the  mother 
Church  of  Jerusalem,  in  their  exile  beyond  Jordan.  It  was  the 
source  of  the  quotations  found  in  the  Clementine  Homilies,  so 
far  as  these  are  not  due  to  later  interpolations.  This  earliest 
'  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews '  was  the  only  Gospel  used 
by  those  Jewish  Christians  who  were  cut  off  by  their  geographical 
position  from  intercourse  with  tlie  Western  world,  but  was  soon 
felt  to  be  insuflficient  by  those  who  lived  in  Syria.     This  led  to 


THE   GOSPEL  ACCORDING   TO   THE   HEBREWS       371 

the  compilation  of  a  fuller  Gospel,  possibly  in  imitation  of  the 
Greek  Gospel  of  St  Matthew,  and  out  of  the  same  sources. 
It  is  possible,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  Syrian  compilation 
may  have  been  the  earlier,  and  that  the  Greek  one  was  the 
imitation.  In  any  case  the  time  at  which  it  was  produced  was 
probably  not  later  than  the  close  of  the  first  century,  while  the 
various  sources  were  still  extant  and  available.  The  resulting 
document  seems  also  to  have  borne  the  name  of  'the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews ',  and  to  have  been  fairly  widely  known. 
It  is  probably  quoted  by  St  Ignatius  {Ep,  ad  Smym.  c.  3) ;  by 
Fapias  (Euseb.  Hist.  Bed.  iii  39) ;  by  St  Clement  of  Alexandria 
{Strom,  ii  9) ;  by  Hegestppus  (Euseb.  H.B.  iv  as) ;  by  Origen 
(Comm.  in  loan,  ii  %  63),  and  by  Justin  Martyr.  These  quota- 
tions seem  to  imply  an  early  translation  into  Greek,  but  if  so 
that  translation  was  not  known  to  St  Jerome,  who  became 
acquainted  with  the  document  in  Aramaic  and  translated  it  into 
Greek  and  Latin.  Lastly,  the  original  Logia  Gospel  became 
more  and  more  corrupted  and  interpolated  as  the  Ebionites 
separated  themselves  more  and  more  from  orthodox  Christianity, 
and  by  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  seems  to  have  become 
a  mere  heretical  Gospel  overlaid  with  matter  drawn  from  other 
sources,  apparently  from  the  canonical  Gospels  amongst  others, 
and  deliberately  corrupted  to  favour  the  tenets  of  the  heretical 
sect  by  whom  it  was  used. 

A.  S.  Barnes. 


Bb  a 


37a         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

DOCUMENTS 
CODEX  TAURINENSIS  (V)'. 

[Ai  the  snceesiion  of  the  Editors  of  the  larger  Cambridge  Septoafiol  Dr  Swelc'i 

symbol  (Y)  has  been  retained,  though  the  Codex  is  no*  an  uncia!.] 

History  of  the  Manmcript. 

Or  the  origin  of  this  manuscript  DOlh?ng  is  known  ;  of  its  history  hal 
little.  It  belonged  formerly  to  the  Dukes  of  Savoy,  and  was  kept  in 
the  library  adjoining  the  ducal  i)alace  in  Turin.  In  the  year  1666 
B  fire  broke  out  in  the  palace,  and  much  damage  was  done  to  the 
library,  which  was  partially  destroyed ;  the  MS  under  consideralion 
suffered  a  good  deal,  but  not  so  severely  as  one  might  be  led  10  expect 
from  Stroth's  account,  who  speaks  of  it  as  *cin  leider  sehr  zenissenet 
Codex ',  and  adds :  'er  ist  aber  durch  die  vielen  Risse  nicht  allein  sehr 
unlcserlich,  sondem  cs  fehlt  auch  vieles".  In  the  same  year  the  MS, 
together  with  all  that  was  left  of  the  ducal  library,  was  delivered  over  |o 
the  care  of  the  University  of  Turin.  Here  it  has  remained  ever  since. 
It  has  been  bound  in  very  stout  leather,  and  is  secured  with  brass  clasps  i 
this  binding  is  comparatively  modem,  and  it  is  in  part  owing  to  this 
precaution  that  the  MS  escaped  unscathed  in  the  recent  disastrous  (ire- 
Fortunately  its  place  was  on  a  low  shelf,  from  which  it  was  easily 
snatched  soon  after  the  fire  broke  out ;  all  the  manuscripts  on  the 
upper  shelves  of  the  block  were  either  wholly  destroyed  or  very 
seriously  damaged.  The  only  signs  on  this  MS  of  its  recent  narrow 
escape  are  siome  marks  of  water  ;  but  these  happen  to  be  only  on  such 
parts  of  the  vellum  a«  have  no  writing  on  them ;  the  binding  is  con- 
siderably discoloured  by  water,  and  but  for  its  stoutness  the  MS  would 
assuredly  have  suffered  further  damage. 

But  though  so  providentially  preserved  from  the  fire  of  the  ye«r 
1904,  it  nevertheless  bears  grievous  marks  of  that  of  the  year  i66€.  The 
fire  must  have  attacked  the  MS  at  the  right-hand  comer,  at  tlie  bottom, 
and  must  have  been  extinguished  before  it  was  able  to  make  its  way 
through;  for,  while  on  the  first  few  pages  scarcely  anything  of  the 
biblical  text  is  wanting,  there  arc  increasing  lacunae  as  each   leaf  is 

■  1  dnir*  to  axprni  107  hearty  Uuuika  to  the  Managers  of  the  Hort  Fund  Ew 
their  kindness  In  giving  roe  a  grant  towards  the  expenses  involved  in  the  Jonrsey 
lo  and  sojourn  in  Turin. 

*  Eicbbom,  Rtptrlonu-t  fUr  btbtiatk*  utd  morgtnUUidiscfu  Litttratur  viii  pp.  sol  C 


DOCUMENTS  373 

turned ;  and  this  is  continued  up  to  the  last  few  pages,  which  again 
become  practically  intact,  as  far  as  the  biblical  text  is  concerned.  The 
damaged  zone  cuts  diagonally  across  the  page,  respectively  from  right 
to  left  and  left  to  right. 

I>ate  oftJu  Manuscript. 

Stroth ',  Fasini  *  and  Swete '  all  assign  this  MS  to  the  ninth  century^ 
Though  the  Introduction  to  Theodoret's  hwi^tavt  is  in  part  written  in 
uncials,  the  MS  itself  is  in  cursive  handwriting,  with  the  exception  of 
the  headings  to  the  various  books,  which  are  written  in  gold  uncial 
characters.  In  spite  of  this,  however,  there  are  a  number  of  considera- 
tions which  point  to  the  date  given  above,  or  at  latest  to  the  tenth 
century : 

(a)  The  handwriting  itself  is  certainly  a  very  early  form  of  cursive; 
it  is  fairly  upright,  for  cursive.  The  individual  letters  are  carefully 
mad^  the  exact  finish  of  a  and  S  is  noteworthy,  and  many  of  the  letters 
are  not  joined  to  one  another. 

(d)  In  accordance  with  the  general  rule  which  prevailed  down  to 
about  the  ninth  century,  the  writing  is  continuous,  without  separation 
of  words,  or  divisions  of  verses,  or  even  chapters;  one  exception  to  this 
latter  is  to  be  found  at  the  end  of  Hos.  i,  where  a  very  small  blank 
space  is  left.  There  are  no  coupling-strokes  between  parts  of  the  same 
word  on  different  lines;  these  being  unknown  before  the  eleventh 
century,  one  may  assume  that  the  date  is  at  any  rate  not  later  than 
the  tenth  century. 

(<:)  There  are  no  signs  of  the  division  of  paragraphs;  occasionally, 
and  without  any  assignable  reason^  a  capital  marks  the  commencement 
of  aline;  but  this  capital,  though  sometimes  the  beginning  of  a  verse, 
is  frequently  in  the  middle  of  one ;  sometimes  it  is  found  in  the  middle 
of  a  word  *.     No  proper  names  commence  with  a  capital. 

(</)  The  very  frequent  occurrence  of  the  middle  point  (oriy/*^  /t^(nr)i 
which,  soon  after  the  ninth  century,  gave  place  to  the  comma;  also 
the  sparing  use  of  the  note  of  interrogation,  which  is  only  found  twelve 
times  in  the  whole  MS.  The  double  stop  (:)  occurs  only  at  the  end 
of  a  book. 

(e)  The  square  form  of  the  breathings  (>■  <)  would  also  point  to 
a  comparatively  early  date. 

(/)  The  contractions  which  are  so  marked  a  characteristic  of  the 
later  cursives  are  almost  entirely  absent ;  and  the  abbreviations  are 
such  only  as  occur  in  early  MSS  (see  below). 

'  Op.  cit.  p.  aoa. 

*  Codiua  MatMacripH  B&Uothtcat  Rtgu  Taurimnsia  Atknuui  p.  74. 

*  Iiilroduttion  to  tht  Old  Ttstattunt  in  Gnth  p.  145. 

*  Once  only  doea  a  cfaapter  commence  with  a  capital,  viz.  Hos.  v. 


374-         THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

The  MS  may  therefore  be  assigned  with  some  probability  to  the 
ninth  century  ;  there  seeras,  at  any  rate,  no  adequate  reason  for  regard- 
ing it  as  later  than  the  tenth  century'. 


1 


General  Dtscripti&n  of  the  Manuscript 

The  Codex  consists  of  ninety-three  leaves  of  fine  vellum,  the  polished 
surface  of  which  is  characteristic  of  Italian  prei^aralion.  The  size  of 
each  leaf  is  34x25  cm.;  it  is  possible  that  the  original  sheets  may 
have  been  a  trifle  broader.  The  pages  have  been  skilfully  restored  by 
sticking  triangular  pieces  of  parchment  on  to  the  damaged  parts  of  the 
original ;  thus  the  jagged  edges  left  by  the  fire  are  prevented  from  being 
torn  further.  This  has  sometimes  necessitated  the  covering  o\'er  of 
letters  at  the  end  of  a  line;  but  it  was  clearly  unavoidable. 

The  text  is,  as  a  rule,  quite  easy  to  read ;  it  becomes  difficult  at 
times,  however,  to  decipher  words,  or  letters,  at  the  end  of  a  line  within 
the  damaged  zone ;  for  here  it  is  not  only  the  fire  which  has  turned  the 
vellum  to  diiferent  shades  (from  light  brown  to  black),  but  water  has 
made  the  ink  run,  so  that  in  some  instances  (though  fortunately  only 
a  few)  decipherment  was  found  to  be  impossible.  This  became 
especially  annoying  when  it  appeared  from  the  legible  jxirtion  of  the 
line  that  some  peculiar  reading  was  involved*.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  happened  over  and  over  again  that  on  portions  of  the  MS  which 
were  alra(>st  black  the  action  of  the  fire  had  turned  the  letters  white, 
which  were  therefore  as  clear  as  possible.  With  the  help  of  a  magni^'ing- 
glass  and  a  pocket  electric  light  many  words  which  at  first  sight  apjieaied 
quite  illegible  were  able  to  be  deciphered. 

There  are  generally  twenty-two  lines  to  a  page,  this  number  is  of 
course  reduced  on  those  pages  which  contain  the  title  of  a  new  book; 
these  titles  occur  at  the  top,  in  the  middle,  and  even  towards  the  liottom 
of  a  page.  The  line  has  thirty  to  forty  letters ;  a  few  lines  were  noticed 
which  had  even  less ;  forty  is  the  outside  limit ;  it  may  be  safety  said 
that  most  of  the  hnes  have  thirty-two  to  thirty -four  letters. 

The  accents  and  breathings  are  marked  throughout,  both  in  the 
uncial  and  in  the  cursive  portions;  in  a  few  cases  they  are  incorrect, 
e.g.  Jon.  iv  5  Jtus  oJ  for  cuw  oC ;  apostrophes  {e.g.  i^*)  and  marks  of 
diaeresis  occur  but  rarely  ;  1  adscript  is  invariably  used  when  the  letter 
to  which  it  belongs  ends  a  word,  while  if  a  letter  requiring  it  occurs 
anywhere  but  at  the  end  of  a  word  the  1  subscript  is  omitted. 

*  Even  if  intact,  the  dale  whicli  stood  at  the  foot  of  the  US  would  not  tw  of  nach 
value,  as  Ihe  wrtling  is  of  much  later  date  than  that  i>f  the  MS.  The  vellum,  which 
ta  of  good  (lualiijr,  b  however  not  aufficienllydistlinctive  to  enable  one  to  fix  iudate 
to  a  century, 

*  eg.  ioZech.  vi  10,  MaUiiiS. 


DOCUMENTS  375 

The  letter  rj  is  sometimes  written  H.  final  v  is,  in  the  earlier  parts 
of  the  MS,  omitted;  not  infrequently  it  was  written  by  the  original 
scribe,  but  erased  later ;  in  the  later  pages  final  v  is  often  inserted,  but 
as  frequendy  omitted.  Final  «  is  never  used ;  but  both  v  and  a  are 
sometimes  represented  by  —  at  the  end  of  a  line  above  the  final  letter. 

Abbreviations  are — S^  ko-  wa  owotr  ovoo-  oaS  wp«r  trpa  ftpa  w  (Ij^trow) 

cr/Hov  n/A.*  tXij/i  (on  one  single  occasion,  Zech.  xiv  is,  IcpovouXi^/ji  is 
written  in  full),  n  and  once  or  twice  the  sign  c  (*ca*)  occurs.  These  are 
the  only  abbreviations  contained  in  the  MS. 

The  only  itacism  that  occurs  is  the  substitution  of  i  for  «  (Xcun'  only 
occurs  twice,  Joel  ii  15,  23,  otherwise  always  Stwv). 

7%e  Marginai  Notes.^ 

The  marginal  notes  are  of  four  kinds : — 

(i)  Additions  to  the  text ;  made  by  the  original  scribe,  apparently ; 
there  are  only  two  of  these  additions.  Words  are  in  a  few  cases  added 
by  being  placed  over  the  line.    All  these  are  noted  in  the  A^,  Crit. 

(ii)  Very  short  comments  on  some  word  or  words  in  the  text ;  they 
are  by  a  later  hand,  and  do  not  by  any  means  occur  on  every  page ; 
moreover,  many  of  them  are  too  close  to  the  binding  to  be  read ;  they 
were  apparendy  intended  to  answer  the  purpose  of  ornamentation,  as 
well  as  explanation,  for  they  all  take  the  form  of  a  perpendicular  line 
intersected  midway  by  a  circle.    The  comments  are  not  illuminative. 

(iii)  Originally  there  was  a  commentary  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word, 
that  of  Theodoret ',  surrounding  the  text  on  three  sides ;  nine-tenths  of 
this  has  been  destroyed.  The  bulk  of  this  commentary  was  at  the 
bottom  of  thf  page ;  this  is  seen  by  the  commencements  of  the  lines, 
of  which  there  are  eleven  or  twelve,  whereas  at  the  top  of  the  page  there 
are  only  about  half  this  number ;  unfortunately  it  is  just  the  lower  half 
of  the  MS  which  has  suffered  most.  The  commentary  is  in  a  handwriting 
smaller  than  that  of  the  text,  but  evidently  both  are  by  the  hand  of  the 
same  scribe. 

(iv)  At  the  top  of  a  few  pages  there  are  the  remnants  of  what  appear 
to  have  been  marginal  notes  to  the  commentary ;  on  the  right-hand  side 
of  the  pages  in  question  one  sees  the  top  of  what  roust  have  been  a 
narrow  column ;  this  column  is  always  on  the  outer  side  of  the  com- 
mentary, hence  the  supposition  that  it  refers  to  this  rather  than  to  the 
text 

Owing  to  the  extremely  meagre  remains  of  the  marginal  notes,  and 

*  luart^,  V/^pat/t,  laim$  are  inviriably  written  in  fulL 

*  Theodoret's  Commentary  on  the  Twelve  Minor  Propfaets  is  pnblished  in  bii 
complete  works,  edited  by  Schulze  and  Noesselt  (Halle,  176(^1774),  and  ioHigne's 
Pair.  Grate,  vol.  Ixxx!  pp.  1546-1987. 


376  THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

the  difficulty  of  making  anything  of  them  because  of  their  mutilation, 
they  have  not  been  taken  into  consideration.  One  thing  appears  quite 
cert^n,  however,  that  they  arc  of  no  value  from  a  text-critical  point 
of  view. 

llie  lacunae,  which  are  to  be  found  on  almost  every  page,  in  ereiy 
line  on  most  pages,  vary  from  one  letter  to  almost  the  whole  lioa 
It  is  always  at  the  lower  parts  of  the  pages  that  the  larger  laciinae 
cxxur.     But  these  lacunae  are  not  so  serious  as  would  at  first  appear; 
the  writing  is  so  uniform  that  one  can  very  nearly  always  t^ll  bciw  many 
letters  are  missing ;  I  have  again  and  again  estimated  the  number  of 
letters  missing  in  a  line,  and  found  later  on,  when  collating  this  MS 
with  others,  that  in  most  cases  the  estimate  was  correct.     It  follows, 
therefore,  that,  generally  speaking,  missing  words  can  t-e  supplied  by 
some  other  MS.     One  or  two  instances  may  be  given  : — 

Hos.  xi  10  :  . . .  ••••••tr^c :  Che  words  previous  to  this  which  an 

missing  (««  iro[XAf  10  mruna  kv])  aie  common  to  al!  the  MS5,  and 
therefore  in  the  transcription  they  are  represented  by  ... ;  the  word 
of  which  trOc  is  all  that  remains  differs  from  B  (with  which  the  MS 
was  first  collated),  which  reads  voptm-ofuu  (so  too  AQ);  the  letters 
were,  however,  most  likely  correctly  estimated,  as  a  number  of  corsivo 
(33  36  51  6a  147)  read  xoptwtr^c. 
Amos  iv  15  :  «nii  (/•••••^u» :  the  reading  of  B  A  Q  s  <7wx«w>  only 

six  letters,  while  Y  has  eleven  ;  but  Q"«  reads  itm  a^vtpt^pt*. 
As  a  rule,  however,  wlien  a  lacuna  is  seen  to  contain  1  vaKous  read- 
ing, the  process  of  deciding  what  that  reading  was  cannot  be  immediately 
concluded;  an  instance  of  this  may  be  seen  in 

Mic.  vii  I  :  iKTHv  <l>ayfiv  ra  ir^Kur  [15  litt]  ^  j3 
V  ^Xyi  f'"^'  o(^i  >pv  [17  litt.]  ^  32. 
Taking  thirty-two  tetters  as  constituting  a  line,  there  was  dearly  some- 
thing in  the  text  of  Y  which  was  wanting  in  B  A  Q,  for  these  read : 
iK  TOv  tfmyuv  tu  TrfMiTuyova,  ^22 

In  the  former  of  these  two  lines  Y  had  ten  more  letters  than  would  be 
the  case  if  it  agreed  with  the  other  MSB  (there  might  have  been  more, 
but  I  usually  started  with  thirty-two) ;  on  examining  this  reading  later 
on  in  other  MSS  I  found  that  several  Lucianic  MSS  read  nmro^TOTr 
after  wpur^oycva] ;  this  gave  exactly  the  estimated  and  required  number 
of  letters. 

One  other  example  may  be  given,  again  from  Hosea : 

viii  I  :   ««*^a/>vya«aauf  yij  aparoi  luc  ToAwtyf-   ok,  CtC.  (Y) 
<iiT  KoAvof  avntv  vk  yij-  vk,  etc  (B  A  Q). 


4 


DOCUMENTS  377 

Here  the  number  of  letters  in  the  line  was  under-estimated,  as  the 
reading  of  Y  must  assuredly  have  been  that  of  the  group  32  36  63 
95  147  153  185  (all  Ludanic):  «rt  ^apuyyt  avni»  tot  ytt  afiiroi.  us 
VoXa-tyf  tos,  etc. 

Very  many  further  examples  could  be  given,  but  it  is  unnecessary 
here,  as  plenty  will  be  found  in  the  Apparatus  -Critims,  But  even 
from  these  few  instances  it  will  be  seen  that,  in  spite  of  the  laatnae,  the 
readings  can  generally  be  fixed  with  reasonable  certainty. 

Character  of  the  Text, 

That  Codex  Y  gives  the  text  of  the  Lucianic  recension  becomes 
obvious  after  a  very  brief  examination.  The  main  importance  of  the 
MS  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  the  earliest  known  text  (of  the  A(»Scmurpo- 
tprirvy)  of  the  Lucianic  recension  in  existence.  It  is  unnecessary  to  give 
instances  here  of  this  textual  character,  a  few  references  to  the  text  will 
suflSce :  Jon.  ii  10,  Mic.  i  r4,  iv  13,  vi  13,  Zech.  iii  5,  vi  7,  xiv  7,  etc.,  etc. 

There  are  many  points  of  much  interest  in  the  relations  of  this  MS 
with  others ;  but  as  the  details  of  these  have  not  yet  been  fully  Worked 
out,  nothing  more  than  a  reference  is  here  ^nade.  Thus,  Qms  often 
agrees  with  Y  a^nst  Bb4AQ*(r},  e.g.  Mic.  i  15,  16,  vi  15;  again, 
while  M  very  frequently  diflFers  from  Y,  there  is  much  affinity  between 
H°-*  and  t^<^'b  and  Y.  Very  striking  is  the  constant  agreement  of  Y 
with  the  Lucianic  group  of  MSS  33  36  5r  62  147  153,  in  a  somewhat 
lesser  degree  with  95  185,  also  reckoned  as  Lucianic,  but  with  a  special 
individuality  of  their  own. 

Contents  of  the  Manuscript. 

r.  Theodoret's  Introduction  and  Commentary  cdmmence  on  p.  r, 
under  the  title : 

+  TO?**&K»pi'oY9€oia>pi'TOTenicK6noYKYpOY€lcTiB.npo<t)Vn6eeciCi 

On  pp.  3,  3  are  miniatures  of  the  twelve  prophets,  all  in  perfect 
condition.  Theodoret's  Introduction  is  taken  up  again  on  p.  4,  and 
continues  to  p.  13*:  his  commentary  occupies  the  margin  round  the 
biblical  text,  where  not  destroyed. 

3.  On  p.  i3*>  is  a  large  illuminated  title  to  the  book  of  Hosea. 

3.  The  text  proper  begins  on  p.  14*  and  goes  on  uninterruptedly  to 
the  end,  p.  93**. 

Before  the  leaves  of  this  MS  were  bound  a  few  got  misplaced,  thus 
causing  some  confusion  in  the  text : 

Zech.  xiv  1 2  breaks  off  on  p.  88*  in  MS  and  is  continued  on  p.  90* 
in  MS ;  Mai.  i  1 1  breaks  off  on  p.  89*  in  MS  and  is  continued  on 
p.  91*  in  MS. 


378         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

TV  Apparatus  Criticui. 

(i)  Besides  the  various  readings  of  BMATQ,  for  which  Swc«'! 
edition  has  been  used,  the  App.  Crii,  contains  readings  from  tht 

following  authorities : 

(ii)  All  the  Lucianic  MSS  at  present  known,  vit  (Holmes  and 
Parsons')  22  36  48  51  62  95  97  (=  23S)  147  153  185  228  233.  ThU 
all  these  MSS  have  undergone  considerable  revision  in  what  may  be 
called  a  'Hesychian'  direction  scarcely  admits  of  doubt;  but  ihii 
process  is  more  strongly  marked  in  48  97  328  333  than  in  the  rest; 
indeed,  but  for  the  fact  that  in  some  of  the  books,  e.g.  Amos,  48  agrees 
somewhat  more  closely  with  the  other  MSS  of  the  group  than  in 
e.g.  Hosfa  and  others,  it  would  be  questionable  whether  48  ought  to  be 
reckoned  amotig  the  Lucianic  MSS.  The  same  must  be  said  of  233, 
wliilc  95  185  offer  many  individual  readings  of  a  perplexing  character. 
As  regards  9;,  Klosterniatin  {Ana/ecta,  p.  11)  has  pointed  out  that  ibe 
two  Vatican  numbers  gr.  1153  and  gr.  11 54,  which  are  parts  of  the  same 
MS,  arc  equivalent  to  33  97  238  of  Holmes  and  I'arsons,  these  beiif 
likewise  parts  of  the  same  MS;  1153  =  97  and  1154  =  a  238;  of 
these,  33  contains  Jcr.j  I>an.,  97  the  Min.  Proph.  and  Is.,  238  EzekieL 
Here  the  number  97  is  used  instead  of  Holmes  and  Parsons'  238.  The 
readings  of  all  these  MSS  are  taken  from  Holmes  and  Parsons,  excepting 
32  (Cod.  Pachomianus),  for  which  I  have  used  the  original  in  the  Brittsb 
Musuum  (I.  B.  ii),  and  the  Amos  portions  of  62  (New  College,  Oxford, 
XLIV)  and  147  (Bodleian,  olim  Laud.  K  96  nunc  Graecus  30),  which 
I  have  collated  myself. 

(iii)  The  Old  Latin  texts;  these  have  been  gathered  by  the  writer, 
and  can  be  found  in  the  Journal  (vol.  v  pp.  76  ff,  242  ff,  378  ff,  570  ff; 
vol  vi  pp.  67  ff.  217  £r),  whe^  the  references  to  the  patristic  quotations 
are  also  given. 

(iv)  Hexaplaric  readings ;  these  are  gathered  from  Held  ffexapta 
(Oxford,  1875);  Klostermann  Analecia  (Leipzig,  1895);  G.  Morin 
Antidota  Maredsolatia  III,  parts  i-iii  (Maredsous,  1895-1903).  To 
these  have  been  added  the  readings  of  the  hexaplaric  MS,  Cod. 
Barbcrinus. 

(v)  The  readings  of  Chrysostom,  gathered  from  Montfiucon's  edition 
(Parts,  1839),  and  of  Theodoret,  Migne  Patr.  Graec.  vols.  Ixjtx-lxxxiv. 

In  order  to  avoid  any  ambiguity  as  to  whether  any  of  these  authorities 
support  or  differ  from  Cod.  Y,  it  should  be  added  that,  as  r^ards  (i), 
where  M  is  wanting  P  supplies  its  place,  namely  in  the  following  passages: 
Hoa.  X  2'^-9'",  Amos  i  3  (fxovtrav)  -10  {tin  ra),  Zeph.  ii  1 1  (tfiovc)  -iii  9 
(iravras),  Hag.  ii  4-18  (xo^i&ac),  Zech.  i  21  (nrai/»/i«va)  -ii  4  (\cy>w»<),  iv 
9  («*iT«X*<roixnu)  -viii  j6  (rov),  ix  7  (««  i")  -xi  6  (firi  tovs),  xi  17  (rw 
l^wv)  -xiv  21,  Mai.  i  1 1  (Xcyu)  -iv  6 ;  H  is  wanting  in  the  whole  of 


DOCUMENTS  379 

Hosea,  Amos,  Micah ;  A  Q  have  all  the  books  complete.  R^ardiog  (n) 
t  will  be  noted  that  all  the  Lucianic  MSS  have  the  Minor  Fraphets 
romplete,  excepting  153  which  lacks  Zechariah.  As  regards  (iti),  the 
Did  Ldtin  texts  are  noted  when  they  differ  from  Cod.  Y  as  well  as  when 
ihey  support  it ;  for  references  to  the  Old  Latin  authorities  recourse  must 
t>c  had  to  the  numbers  of  the  Journal  cited  above.  All  the  Hexaplaric 
readings  (iv)  which  have  been  gathered  are  added,  whether  they  agree 
with  the  text  of  Y  or  not ;  an  exception  to  this  is  made  in  the  case  of 
Cod.  Barberinus  (86),  where  the  same  system  is  followed  as  in  (ii) ' :  it 
contains  all  the  books  of  the  Minor  Prophets  complete. 

Lastly,  as  r^ards  the  patristic  quotations  (v),  references  wilt  be  found 
below  the  text,  as  was  done  in  earlier  numbers  of  the  Journal  with  the 
Old  Latin  texts. 

The  following  symbols  are  used : 
B  =  Cod.  Vaticanus. 
t^  =  Cod.  Sinaiticus. 
A  =  Cod.  Alexandrinus. 
r  =  Cod.  Cryptofeiratensis. 
Q  =  Cod.  Marchalianus. 
Aq  =  Aquila. 
S  =  Symmachus. 
©  =  Theodotion. 
Quint  =  Quinta. 
Sext  =  Sexta. 

OL*  =  Cod.  Weingartensis. 
OL*>  =  Cod.  Wirceburgensis. 
OLo  =  Old  Latin  texts  from  Cyprian. 


OLt  =     „ 

»* 

Tyconius. 

OL-  =     „ 

>i 

Speculum  (Pseudo-Aug.). 

0L'»=    „ 

ji 

Speculum  (Augustine). 

OL*«t  =  „ 

ti 

Tertullian. 

OL^^    „ 

I) 

Collatio  Carthaginiensis. 

OLf=     „ 

1* 

Contra  Fulgent.  Donat.  (Donatist  quo- 
tations). 

ol™=  „ 

11 

Mozarabic  Breviary. 

OL*™=  „ 

ti 

Anecdota  Maredsolana  (ed.  G.  Morin). 

OLb  =     „ 

» 

the  MS  Auct.  F.  4,  33  in  the  Bodleian 
Library. 

I.  =  the  entire  group  of  Lucianic  MSS. 

86  —  Cod.  Barberinus. 

1  For  this  MS  Holmes  and  Parsons'  collaUon  and  Field's  notes  have  been  used, 
excepting  for  Hab.  iii,  for  which  KlostennAnn's  has  been  found  very  valuable  {Anm- 
Ucta  pp.  50-60)  ;  cf.  Field's  Htxapia  ii  p.  1007. 


38o         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

Theod  =  Quotations  in  the  writings  of  Theodoret. 

Chrys  =  „  „  „         ChiTSOstom. 

Dots  (.  .  .)  point  to  a  lacuna  in  which  there  is  every  reason  to  belien 

that  the  MS  agreed  with  B.      Asterisks  (*««)  indicate  the  estimated 

number  of  letters  missing.    The  chapter  and  verse  diTisioos  in  the  text 

follow  those  of  the  Cambridge  text  of  B. 

I  take  this  opportunity  of  expressing  my  indebtedness  to  the  antho- 
rities  of  the  Turin  Library  for  their  courtesy  and  kindness  in  a  number 
of  ways. 

W.  O.  E.  Oestbklet. 


3Bi 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES 

THE   METRICAL    ENDINGS    OF  THE   LEONINE 
SACRAMENTARY.    II. 

In  a  former  number  of  the  Journal  '  I  discussed  the  various  fonns 
assumed  by  the  final  phrases  of.the  prayers  and  prefaces  of  the  Leonine 
Sacramentary  {Leon.),  and  compared  the  results  of  an  examination  of 
these  phrases  with  those  recorded  by  M;  Louis  Havet  as  to  the  final 
phrases  of  the  Letters  of  Symmachus.  In  that  note  I  mentioned  two 
questions  which  seemed  to  deserve  further  consideration,  and  to  which 
I  hoped  to  return.  On  one  of  these  questions  ju^ement  had  already 
been  given  by  an  authority  which  may  be  regarded  as  decisive.  Pro- 
fessor Wilhelm  Meyer  has  very  kindly  referred  me  to  a  passage  in  his 
paper,  I>as  turiner  BruckstUck  der  SJtesten  irischen  Liturgie*,  containing 
a  concise  description  of  the  rhythm  of  the  prayers  of  Leon.,  taken  as  a 
whole.  That  description  seemed  to  me,  so  far  as  my  investigations  had 
enabled  me  to  form  an  opinion  on  the  matter,  to  set  forth  the  facts  of 
the  case  as  accurately  and  as  completely  as  they  could  be  expressed 
in  a  single  sentence.  But  it  still  seemed  to  be  worth  while  to  pursue 
the  task  which  I  had  begun,  not  only  because  it  was  necessary  to  ascer- 
tain the  facts  in  detail,  with  a  view  to  the  decision  of  the  second  question, 
but  because  it  seemed  that  a  detailed  statement  of  the  facts  he  had 
summed  up  might  be  of  some  value,  if  only  by  way  of  illustration  of  his 
statement 

I  have  endeavoured  to  take  account  of  every  phrase '  which  seems  to 
be  followed  by  a  pause,  whether  such  pause  would  be  more  or  less 
marked.  There  are  of  course  a  good  many  cases  where  the  occurrence 
of  a  pause  is  uncertain :  and  in  deciding  for  or  against  the  inclusion  of 

'  /.  r.  s.  vol.  V  pp.  586-95. 

*  Nachrichten  von  der  KOnigl.  Geaellacb.  der  Wissensch,  xa  GAttingen,  1903 
{Phiiologiaek'hisioriaclu  Kiaaae),  p.  164. 

*  I  have  omiUed  phrases  where  the  true  reading  appeared  to  be  quite  uncertain: 
the  number  of  these  is  very  small.  I  have  omitted  also  those  portions  of  the 
Christmas  prefaces  which  are  continuous  or  almost  continuous  extracts  from  Isaiah 
and  from  St  Luke.  These  amount  to  about  twenty  lines  of  Muratori's  columns. 
1  have  followed,  as  before,  the  text  of  Dr  Feltoe's  edition. 


ifia  THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

sDch  phrases  I  cannot  be  sore  that  my  judgement  has  always  Seen  ri^ 
or  consistent  I  am  mclined  to  think  that  mistakes,  when  I  hare  made 
them,  will  generally  have  been  on  the  side  of  inclusion.  Again,  tt  u 
probable  that  my  classiflcation  of  the  phrases  included  in  the  redtoad^ 
IS  not  always  free  from  error  or  inconsistency.  It  is  most  likely  thii 
a  fresh  reckoning  would  not  give  exactly  the  same  figures  :  but  I  bclterc 
that  those  which  are  stated  in  this  note  are  approximately  correct,  aod 
that  the  amount  of  error  is  not  such  as  to  affect  the  details  io  any 
material  degree. 

The  total  nuralxT  of  phrases  taken  into  account  (including  the  ij40 
final  phrases  considered  in  my  former  notc>  is  5362.  In  the  great 
majority  of  these  cases  the  phrase  ends  with  a  word  (or  a  combiiutioa 
of  closely  cormected  words)  belonging  to  one  or  other  of  the  pnndpil 
types  mentioned  in  the  former  note.  The  relative  frequency  with  irlucb 
the  various  types  of  last  word  occur  may  be  seen  from  the  foUoving 
tabic. 

Number  of  phrues. 


Type  of  lut  word. 

FiiMl. 

Hoa&aai, 

TouL 

(A)--« 

4»3 

1190 

1673 

(Bi)«w-^ 

73 

3*9 

40s 

(B  a)  -  w  w  ii 

218 

5>4 

74» 

(B3)---^ 

I3« 

6U 

76s 

(O-^-- 

31s 

77» 

>o93 

(D)«--^ 

46 

136 

182 

(E)---" 

49 

»3» 

38 1 

Unclassed 

«5 

109 

224 

Total 

1340 

402i 

53*2 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  table  exhibits  some  difTerences,  in  regard 
to  the  relative  frequency  of  the  various  types  of  last  word,  between  the 
two  classes  of  phrases.  The  three  types,  A,  B  2,  and  C,  which  are  pre- 
dominant in  the  final  phrases,  do  not  occur  so  frequently  in  the  non-&cul, 
or  minor,  jihrases.  On  the  other  hand,  the  proportion  of  B  3  is  much 
greater  in  the  minor  phrases  than  in  the  final,  while  B  i  and  E  are  also 
more  frequent.  The  cases  in  which  the  last  word  docs  not  exactly 
conform  to  any  of  the  principal  types,  which  in  the  final  phrases  bardlf 
exceed  i  per  cent.,  amount  in  the  minor  phrases  to  rather  more  than 
5  per  cent,  of  the  whole.  Some  of  these  differences  might  be  expected 
It  is  likely  that  special  atteniion  would  bi;  given  to  the  regularity  and 
smoothness  of  the  final  phrases  :  and  this  would  natumlly  result  in  the 
avoidance  of  such  forms  of  last  word  as  those  which  are  denoted  in 
the  table  by  the  term  '  unclassed '.  It  is  also  likely  that  considentioos 
of  quantity  would  be  more  carefully  observed  in  the  final  phrases  than 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  383 

in  the  other  portions  of  the  text :  and  to  this  cause  perhaps  may  be 
attributed  the  comparative  infrequency  in  the  final  phrases  of  the  types 
E  and  B  i,  since  the  fonner  seems  to  be  merely  an  accentual  equivalent 
of  C,  while  the  same  character  may  certainly  be  assigned  in  a  corisider- 
able  number  of  instances  to  the  type  B  i. 

For  the  same  reason  we  might  expect  to  find,  when  we  consider  the 
cadences  of  which  the  lost  words  are  constituent  parts,  that  the  cadences 
of  the  minor  phrases  are  less  strictly  metrical  in  their  character  than 
those  which  mark  the  endings  of  the  collects  and  prefaces;  that 
whereas,  for  instance,  it  is  only  very  rarely  that  we  find,  in  the  final 
phrases,  a  spondee  placed  before  a  last  word  of  the  ^pe  A,  such  usage 
would  be  less  rare  in  the  minor  phrases.  And  this  is  certainly  the  case. 
But  it  is  also  the  case  that  even  in  the  minor  phrases  the  cadences  which 
end  with  a  word  of  any  of  the  types  A,  B  i,  B  3.  B  3  are  in  the  great 
majority  of  cases  metrically  regular.  Of  the  77S  phrases  which  end 
with  a  word  of  the  type  C,  by  far  the  greater  part  shew  before  that 
word  a  combination  of  syllables  with  short  penultimate,  avoiding  th6 
faulty  cadence  of  '  trochaeus  triplex '.  The  exceptions  to  this  rule  are 
but  little  more  than  4  per  cent.  In  the  majority  of  the  phrases  which 
end  with  a  word  of  the  types  D  or  E  (accentual  equivalents  of  C)  the 
same  rule  holds  good :  the  proportion  of  exceptions,  resulting  in  an 
accentual  *  trochaeus  triplex '  (—  ^^  |  ii  —  —  i^),  is,  I  think,  not  more 
considerable  than  in  th6  case  of  C. 

The  details  with  regard  to  the  minor  phrases  which  end  with  A. 
*  molossus  *  (A),  or  with  one  of  its  metrical  equivalents  (B  i,  B  3,  B  3), 
will  appear  with  sufficient  accuracy  for  the  present  purpose  in  the 
following  table.  The  corresponding  details  for  the  final  phrases  ar6 
given  in  my  former  note^ 


A 

Bi 

Ba 

B3 

Total. 

Preceded  by  -  w 

"57 

304 

459 

547 

3367 

„    c  u  v^ 

S 

19 

0 

I 

25 

„    —WW 

1 

67 

I 

I 

70 

II     w  w  — 

0 

10 

I 

3 

13 

„    —  \^  — 

0 

24 

0 

7 

31 

„ 

20 

5 

51 

69 

H5 

„    ^y  w 

7 

0 

I 

3 

II 

»    «  — 

0 

0 

I 

4 

5 

Total 

1 190 

329 

5>4 

634 

3667 

It  will  be  seen  that  by  far  the  greater  pan(rather  more  than  88  per  cent) 
of  the  whole  number  of  these  phrases  exhibit  cadences  which  conform 
to  the  standard  of  the  metrical  rules  and  examples  of  Martianus  Capella, 
■y.  r.5.  vol.  V  pp.  389,391. 


«i  dc  ««hcn  a 

h  B«  ndBj  dv 
cog^vcaicsB 
Dk  col  be  Atf  of 

Mb  nflBo  praoulj  be  phcco 
of  ffOaUa  vUrh  bn  the 
diiyHsblci^  snd  im  Ac 


nc;  fbM  ii  to  107,  rcdf  GSBO  ofacctntiri  adeace  of  xaotber  type*. 

Sob  no  doobc,  are  tSk  the  loi  caes  io  vtudi  B  1  is  1  ■  iwtriBcd  att 
s  preceding  «bctyl,  mipeest,  or  acbc :  for  B  1.  as  has  beea  dnAf 
staled  IB  Toy  foraer  oote*  moit  nmBmUy  be  Tcpnoed  as  tbe  aoonliM 
cqaffikeat  of  C  And  it  taaif,  I  tfamk.  be  ^SksAf  thu  tbe  a|ipMCii 
regulanty  of  loine  of  the  pfaiases  nndcr  B  1  is  nmeal,  and  cxiaccili 
^&tax  from  the  aiebkal  poinl  of  view  ma^  be  described  as  a  doaWe 
ftalt,  tbe  last  word  of  tbe  t^pe  C,*^~^  bemg  icganSed  as  a 
trochee,  and  combined  with  preceding  -  ^^  or  -  -,  so 
accentual  '  trochaeus  triplex '.  If  no  allowance  be  made  for  sndi 
the  proportion  of  metrical  regularity  andcr  B  1  would  appear  to  be  xi 
great  in  tbe  minor  as  in  tbe  final  phrases.     But  eren  if  a  dedoctkn 


'  J,  T.  S.  rol.  V  p.  119a  I  ha7«  here  reckoned  as  meSsictSiy  repilsr  a  toil 
Btiait)^  of  caMi  in  whldi  tlic  cadeocc  iocludes  «  biatna :  this  scent  to  be  JaUifiil 
bj  tbff  exADiple  '  r«;ef«  uiuDonun  '. 

'  la  ftve  of  tliese  caacn  tbe  word  In  question  b '  prece*  or  '  preee*'.  He  ipdEof 
unal  In  Ibe  MS  MgceiU  thai  tbe  first  tylUble  of  diberwon)  mi)^t  tte  refnhJ 
■■  I«nff. 

'  The  nbftitution  of  frequcDtata*  for '  rrc<;ucntia '  a^d  of 'pneccpit*  Cor  *pree- 
Clplt '  would  in  eacb  case  improve  tb«  seose  of  the  text.    The  Utter  chatige  % 
Ketwlt)r  made  \ty  the  earlier  editor*. 

*  One  or  two  of  the  caacs  in  which  B  3  is  combined  with  a  preceding  trocbM, 
mHrlral  or  a«cntiul,  abould  perhaps  be  ranked  with  theee,  in  respect  to  the  foffli 
of  their  last  words. 


L 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  385 

on  this  score  be  made  on  a  liberal  scale  from  the  304  cases  of  metrical 
r^ularity,  the  majority  of  phrases  under  B  i  will  still  be  metrically 
regular  ^ 

The  type  B  2,  whenever  (as  is  practically  always  the  case)  the  second  of 
its  four  syllables  is  the  one  accented,  is  the  accentual  equivalent  of  B  3. 
From  this  point  of  view  it  might  be  said  that  all  or  nearly  all  the  phrases 
under  B  a  are  really  accentual.  But  the  distinct  recognition  given  to 
the  type  B  3  in  the  metrical  system  formulated  by  Martianus  Capella, 
and  the  frequency  with  which  the  type  appears  in  the  final  phrases 
of  Zeon.,  seem  to  tell  in  favour  of  the  metricai  character  of  the  group  as 
a  whole.  Certainly,  whether  by  accident  or  design,  the  great  majority 
of  the  phrases  which  it  includes  have  a  cadence  which  is  metrically 
r^^lar:  the  same  remark  applies  to  the  group  under  B  3,  and  still 
more  strongly  to  that  under  A.  Taking  the  whole  of  the  four  groups 
t(^ether  it  seems  impossible  to  suppose  that  without  design  and  careful 
attention  the  metrical  fault  of  placing  a  spondee  before  a  last  word  of 
any  of  the  four  types  could  have  been  avoided  so  consistently. 

The  'unclassed'  forms  might  be  simply  set  aside  as  irregular  or 
exceptional :  but  it  is  worth  while  to  see  whether  their  cadences  corre- 
spond with  those  of  the  principal  groups.  About  20  per  cent,  yield 
a  cadence  which  (save  for  the  position  of  the  caesura)  is  metrically 
r^ular*,  about  51  per  cent  a  cadence  which  is  accentuaUy  regular". 
Almost  all  the  rest  end  with  a  word  or  group  of  five  syllables,  of  which 
the  penultimate  is  short  and  the  ante-penultimate  either  long  or  accented*. 
There  are  also  a  few  cases  where  the  reading  is  uncertain. 

It  appears  then,  as  the  result  of  this  examination,  that  the  same  system 
which  prevails  in  the  final  phrases  of  Leon,  prevails  also  throughout  the 
text  of  the  book  as  a  whole :  that  while  the  minor  phrases  (as  we  might 
expect)  shew  a  larger  proportion  of  exceptions  to  the  metrical  rules  than 
the  more  important  cadences,  the  phrases  which  are  regular  both  by 
accent  and  by  quantity  far  outnumber  those  which  have  only  accentual 
regularity  or  which  shew  any  other  departure  from  the  ordinary  tj^pes. 
I  now  turn  to  the  other  question,  whether  particular  sections  of  the 

'  Th«  rarity  of  the  '  trochaeas  triplex '  (metrical  or  accentual)  formed  with  last 
words  of  tbe  typu  C,  D,  E  suggests  that  it  is  unlikely  that  the  cases  of  its  appear* 
ance  among  phrases  ending  with  B  t  would  exceed  10  per  cent,  of  the  whole 
number  (lao)  of  the  phrases  in  which  B  i  is  combined  with  a  preceding  foot 
appropriate  to  a  double  trochee. 

*  e.g.  'ronneris  gustu',  'effici  tribuas',  ' suffragan tibus  meritis',  'fructuum 
qnalitas',  '  passionis  triumphum'. 

*  e.g.  'laetamur  gustu',  'praeside  giegi',  'cura  regentium',  'adsit  bumilibus', 
*  tenwn  promissionis '. 

*  e.g.  'conuoissi  moderaminis',  'adhuc  clausus  utero',  'penecutiooe  Upidatus 
est ',  *  ingrati  beneficiis ',  '  patientiam  tolermntiac '. 

VOL.  VI.  C  C 


386         THE  JOURNAI.  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 
book  ibew  aaj  ctjtmiaabkc  vamtioa  m  respect  to  the 


wbtiBu  I 


The  rauki  of  the  coney  already  n«de  mnoc  ttm  the  prindpil 
points  to  wUch  tfteobon  sboald  be  p^en  aietlieae: 

1.  The  frequent  corabinsDaa  with  A,Bi,  B>,orB3ofan 

trochee  (-^ -,  ^  >^,  w -V 

2.  The  ftequent  oocaneoce  of  last  vords  at  the  type  E. 
5.  The  freqoeot  oocmrCDce  of   the  'trocbftetB    triplex ', 

metiicil  or  acccntoaL 

4.  The  frequeot  occorreDce  of  last  words  or  groups  of 
of  '  nndissed '  ionn. 

It  may  also  he  wonh  while  to  take  note  of  any  unosoal  freqocnfy 
of  poitjcnlar  qrpes  of  last  word,  and  of  cases  of  hiatos. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  enquiry  the  distributioa  of  the  cootents  of  the 
book  into  large  sections  ass%ned  to  the  various  months  from  April  to 
December  is  not  of  mttch  account :  but  it  may  be  well  to  stale  btiel^ 
some  general  results  with  r^ard  to  these  divisions.  If  we  take  as 
regular  al!  the  phrases  (save  those  in  which  the  cadence  supplies  one 
of  the  few  instances  of  hiatus)  which  end  in  a  combination  of  A,  B  1, 
B  2,  or  B  3  with  a  metrical  trochee,  or  in  a  combinalion  of  C  with  ^>^^, 
and  as  irregular  or  doubtful  a//  other  phrases,  the  proportion  of  the 
regular  and  irregular  phrases  may  be  stated  as  follows  for  the  seicnl 
months :  the  figures  are  approximate  only. 


Rc^Iar. 

Irrernlsr. 

April 

735 

26-5 

May 

77*4 

*a^ 

June 

77.1 

a*^ 

JtUy 

80.7 

19-3 

August 

835 

16.S 

September 

81 

»9 

October 

7« 

U 

November 

79-3 

20.7 

December 

77-5 

22*5 

The  high  percentage  of  irregularity  in  the  April  section^  ts  the  more 
remarkable  when  we  take  into  account  the  fact  that  the  section  includes 
few  liturgical  forms  of  any  considerable  length,  so  that  the  proportion 
of  final  to  minor  phrases  is  larger  than  in  most  of  the  months. 

All  the  ma&ses  in  this  section  are  for  festivals  of  saints :  in  a  few 
forms  the  names  of  saints  occur,  but  there  are  no  headings  assigning 

'  Tbe  beginning  of  tUa  section,  and  therefore  its  facwlint,  ue  lost:  bat  it  a«r 
Etirly  be  auuntcd  that  it  wu  unified  to  Ihb  mgnlh. 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES  387 

the  masses  to  particular  dajrs.  One  mass  appears  to  have  been  in- 
tended for  use  on  a  feast  of  St  Peter  in  a  churdi  containing  relics  of  the 
Apostle  ^  The  irregularities  are  distributed  pretty  evenly  among  the 
various  masses,  few  of  which  are  without  two  or  three  instances  of 
departure  from  rule.  The  number  of  phrases  ending  in  'unclassed' 
forms  is  unusually  large,  and  six  out  of  the  twenty-seven  cases  in  which 
A  is  combined  with  an  accentual  trochee  occur  in  this  group  of  masses', 
which  also  includes  several  of  the  cases  of  hiatus.  The  combination  of 
B  I  with  a  preceding  dactyl  is  frequent.  The  masses  which  shew  most 
irregularity  in  proportion  to  their  length  are  those  numbered  xvii,  xix, 
and  xxxix. 

The  masses  assigned  to  May  are  all  for  Ascensiontide  and  Pentecost 
They  are  on  the  whole  fairly  regular,  but  few  are  without  an  instance  of 
the  combination  of  B  3  with  a  preceding  spondee.  The  *trochaeus 
triplex '  is  almost  entirety  absent,  and  there  are  but  few  '  unclassed ' 
forms.  The  masses  for  Pentecost  are  rather  more  r^ular  than  those 
which  precede  them  :  but  the  difference  is  not  marked. 

The  June  section  and  all  the  other  remaining  sections  (except 
October)  are  wholly  or  partially  occupied  by  collections  of  masses  for 
festivals.  It  may  be  most  convenient  to  consider  these  tc^ether, 
leaving  the  other  portions  of  the  text  for  later  consideration.  The 
June  masses  are  connected  with  the  Nativity  of  St  John  Baptist,  the 
feast  of  St  John  and  St  Paul,  and  that  of  St  Peter  and  St  Paul.  The  first 
group  is,  save  for  the  occurrence  of  D  and  £,  very  regular :  there  are 
few  cases  of  the  accentual  trochee,  none  (I  think)  of  the  'trochaeus 
triplex  ',  and  but  few  *  unclassed  '  forms.  D  and  E  are,  however,  rather 
frequent.  These  types  appear  less  frequently  in  the  masses  of  St  John 
and  St  Paul :  but  here  the  accentual  trochee  is  more  plentiful,  mostly  in 
combination  with  B  3  and  A.  The  '  trochaeus  triplex '  is  again  absent. 
In  the  masses  of  St  Peter  and  St  Paul  there  are  some  cases  of  repetition  : 
e.  g.  the  preface  which  appears  in  that  numbered  t.  appears  ^ain  (with 
an  addition  marked  by  regularity  of  cadences)  in  that  numbered  xiv. 
The  preface  of  no.  v.  contains  a  lai^  proportion  of  accentual  cadences : 
but  some  of  these  mark  pauses  of  the  slightest  kind.  In  some  of  the 
masses  (iii,  xiv',  xvi,  xix,  xx,  xxii,  xxviii)  I  have  noted  no  instances 
of  accentual  trochee.    The  '  trochaeus  triplex  *  is  not  altogether  absent, 

'  A  margiiuil  note  indicates  its  use  '  in  dedicatione '.  This  mass  (no.  xxxiv)  ia 
&irl7  regular  in  its  cadences.  These,  bowercr,  include  one  case  of  '  trochaeus 
triplex'  and  one  'unclassed'  ending. 

*  Two  of  these  are  in  final  phrases. 

'  Save  in  the  portion  of  the  preface  common  to  L  In  that  portion  a  cadence 
with  accentual  trochee  is  substituted  for  one  of '  unclassed'  form  by  a  very  slight 
(•iian«w. 


388         THE  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

but  there  are  few  cases  in  i!ie  whole  group.     E  is  rather  more  fr 

in  ihc  last  half  of  the  series  than  in  the  first,  but  never  very  promiDcm. 

For  July  there  ts  a  group  of  masses  for  the  feast  of  the  nurtyrs  coiI^ 
jnemorated  on  July  lo.  These  shew  a  few  instances  of  'unclassed' 
forms,  a  few  of  accentual  trochee,  and  a  moderate  proportion  of  E. 
I  have  not  noted  more  than  two  instances  of  the  'trochacus  triplex'- 
The  August  section  includes  several  series  of  saints'-day  masses,  and  no 
other  matter.  In  all  the  series  which  it  contains  the  proportion  of 
irregular  or  accentual  cadences  is  very  small ;  and  the  same  remtik 
applies  to  the  festival  masses  of  September.  The  series  for  the  '  NaoUe 
Basillcac  S.  AngeH  in  Salaria',  except  for  a  few  phrases  ending  in  D  or 
E  {most  of  which  are  in  a  single  mass),  seems  to  be  entirely  free  from 
non-metrical  cadences. 

The  November  section  is  also  entirely  made  up  of  masses  connected 
with  festivals  of  saints.  It  begins  with  two  for  the  feast  of  the  *  Quattuoc 
Coronati ',  which  save  for  a  doubtful  case  of  the  combination  of  A  with 
a  preceding  spondee,  two  phrases  ending  in  D  and  one  in  E,  and  an 
'  unclassed '  form  which  gives  a  good  accentual  cadence,  are  regular 
throughout.  The  five  masses  of  St  Cecilia,  in  which  a  large  proportion 
of  the  phrases  end  with  a  word  of  the  type  A,  are  on  the  whole  extremely 
regular  in  their  cadences ;  those  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  are  almott 
without  exception  metrical :  the  other  three  masses  contain  a  few 
instances  of  'unclassed'  forms,  three  or  four  of  a  spondee  before  B  i 
and  B  3,  and  three  cases  of  '  trochaeus  triplex'.  The  first  has  also  two 
tases  of  hiatus.  D  and  E  each  occurs  once  in  the  five  masses.  B  t  b 
rare,  and  is  only  once  combined  with  a  foot  other  than  —\j  or  *>ww. 
The  prefaces,  which  are  of  considerable  length,  are  practically  as  regulal 
in  the  form  of  their  cadences  as  the  collects.  The  same  regularity  Is 
fotind  in  a  rather  less  marked  degree  in  the  group  of  masses  of 
St  Clement  and  St  Felicitas.  D  and  E  appear  rather  more  frequeiUly, 
and  there  ari^  fewer  appearances  of  A.  In  the  mass  of  St  Chrysogonus 
and  St  Gregory,  D  stand:>  at  the  end  of  two  phrases,  B  i  is  combined 
with  a  dactyl,  and  there  is  one  case  of  hiatus ;  the  remaining  fiiteea 
phrases  are  metrical.  The  four  mas-ses  of  St  Andrew  also  contain 
a  lai^c  projjorlion  of  phrases  ending  in  A  :  they  have  rather  a  larger 
proportion  of  D  and  E  than  the  preceding  groups,  but  no  *  unclassed' 
forms,  only  a  single  case  of  an  accentual  trochee,  and  none  of  the 
'trochacus  triplex '. 

The  Christmas  masses  shew  a  larger  proportion  of  departures  from 
the  metrical  standard  :  but  in  four  of  the  nine  which  form  this  group 
(nos.  iv,  V,  viii,  ix)  the  non-metrical  phrases  are  very  few.  In  the  first 
of  the  series  the  proportion  of  D  and  E  is  rather  large,  and  the  group 
contains  perhaps  rather  more  than  a  fair  share  of  the  examples  of  hiatus. 


A 


It  has  also  several  '  unclassed '  forma,  and  four  or  five  cases  of  the 
accentual  trochee.  The  masses  for  the  feasts  of  St  John  and  of  the 
Holy  Innocents  are  for  the  most  part  regular,  save  for  the  occurrence 
of  D  and  E,  ihe  latter  of  which  is  rather  frequent.  The  last  of  the 
four  masses  has  two  cases  of  a  spondee  in  comlii nation  with  A.  Taking 
Ihe  festival  masses  as  a  whole,  the  level  of  meirical  regularity  seems 
to  be  fairly  maintained  throughout.  The  highest  point  seems  to  be 
reached  in  the  August  and  November  groups,  the  lowest  in  the  group  of 
masses  for  the  feast  of  St  Peter  and  St  Paul  {or  rather  in  the  least  regular 
masses  of  that  series)  and  in  the  least  regular  of  the  Christmas  masses. 

The  October  masses  are  of  a  different  class.  They  consist  of  two 
groups,  one  '  de  siccitaie  temponim ',  the  other  (in  which  the  last  mass 
has  special  reference  to  St  Silvester)  'super  defunctos '.  Tlic  masses 
'de  siccitate  temponim'  contain  an  unusually  high  proportion  of 
D  and  £,  and  include  the  only  cases  I  have  noted  in  which  B  3  is 
combined  with  an  anapaest  or  tribrach,  and  one  of  the  few  instances 
in  which  it  is  preceded  by  a  creiic.  There  are  also  some  '  unclassed  ' 
forms  of  ending.  The  masses  'super  defunctos'  also  have  a  rather 
high  proiMjrtiun  of  H  and  K :  but  otherwise  their  cadences  are  with 
few  exceptions  metrically  regular. 

The  masses  '  in  ieiunio '  which  appear  in  the  September  and  December 
sections  contain  a  considerable  proportion  of  'unclassed'  forms,  of  which 
only  a  small  number  give  a  metrical  cadence.  The  accentual  trochee, 
though  not  very  frequent,  is  more  prominent  than  in  most  of  the 
festival  masses,  and  the  'trochaeus  triplex'  is  found  several  times  in 
the  September  group.  Some  of  the  masses  in  both  groups  have  a  large 
proportion  of  U  and  E.  The  average  of  metrical  regularity  for  the 
whole  of  the  two  series  is  however  fairly  high. 

The  '  Consecratio  Episcopi '  and  '  Benedictio  Oiaconi '  which  appear 
in  the  September  section  are  metrically  regular  almost  throughout 
Each  has  a  large  proportion  of  A,  and  a  very  small  proportion  of  D 
and  E.  The  'Consecratio  Episcopi'  includes  three  'unclassed'  forms, 
which  occur  together  near  the  end  of  the  long  consecratory  prayer. 
These  all  give  a  metrical  cadence,  but  one  of  them  (which  is  an  ins^nce 
of  hiatus)  yields  a  '  trochaeus  triple.K '.  In  the  '  Consecratio  Presbyteri  ' 
the  proportion  of  A  is  much  smaller,  that  of  E  larger,  than  in  the 
forms  for  Bishop  and  Deacon.  The  *  Benedictio  Virginum  '  contains 
several  '  unclassed'  forms,  of  which  not  quite  one-half  give  an  ordinary 
metrical  cadence.  Neither  in  it  nor  in  the  'Benedictio  Nuptialis'  is 
there  the  same  absence  of  accentual  trochee  which  marks  ihe  Ordination 
forms  :  but  the  cases  of  this  fault  are  rare  in  both.  In  the  five  groups 
of  prayers  taken  as  a  whole  the  standard  of  metrical  regularity  is  high. 


4 


390  THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Judged  by  the  same  rule  which  I  have  applied  to  the  nronthly  s«ctiOD! 
the  '  regular '  phrases  are  about  8i  per  cent,  of  the  whole  number. 

The  masses  '  in  Natale  episcoporum  '  which  are  placed  in  iht 
September  section  are  as  a  whole  equally  r^ular,  when  judged  by  the 
same  test.  The  proportion  of  'unclassed  '  forms  is  low,  that  of  D  and 
E  not  high.  In  the  mass  numbered  vi.  there  is  a  large  proportion  of  E, 
and  that  numbered  v.  contains  one  prayer  which  is  notably  irregular  in 
its  cadences.  The  most  regular  masses  of  the  series  are  perhaps  iboK 
numbered  x,  xi,  xii,  and  xxii.  B  i  is  joined  with  a  trochee  in  abotil 
two-thirds  of  the  cases  in  which  it  occurs  :  and  there  arc  sufficient 
instan(-es  of  the  '  trocliacus  triplex  '  formed  with  C  to  suggest  that  soidc 
of  these  apparently  regular  phrases  are  really  accentual.  But  e«n 
allowing  for  this  possibility  the  metrical  regularity  of  the  group  is  high. 

Almost  the  same  general  remarks  will  apply  to  the  '  Orationes  et 
prcces  diumae  '  which  form  the  greater  part  of  the  section  assigned  to 
July.  The  proportion  of  D  and  E  is  rather  less  than  in  the  masses  'in 
Natale  episcoporum  ',  that  of  '  unclassed  '  forms  rather  greater :  the  same 
doubt  attaches  to  the  apiwrent  regularity  of  the  phrases  ending  with 
B  I.  The  masses  which  shew  the  least  proportion  of  irregularity  fcom 
the  metrical  point  of  view  are  those  numbered  xxvili-xxxt  and  jxcn- 
xxxviii.  There  are  two  prefaces  in  this  section  which  have  been 
frequently  noticed  as  abnormal  in  tone  ;  they  are  those  of  the  nusses 
numbered  iii.  and  xx.  The  former  contains  two  or  three  irr^ubi 
phrases,  but  is  for  the  most  part  metrical  throughout ' :  the  latter,  while 
also  metrical  in  the  main,  has  a  good  many  accentual  phrases.  These, 
however,  are  almost  all  taken  from  Scripture,  the  number  of  citations 
being  large,  while  the  words  cited  do  not  always  lend  themselves  to  the 
formation  of  metrical  cadences.  The  writer,  while  he  has  apparently 
sometimes  modified  the  words  he  cites,  seems  to  have  contented  him- 
self with  securing  a  rhythmical  tadence,  even  though  the  form  of  il 
were  a  little  rugged,  and  to  have  refrained  from  alteration  beyond  what 
this  required.  The  inegularities  which  the  preface  contains  are  rather 
numerous :  it  includes,  for  instance,  five  *  of  the  cases  in  which  A  is 
combined  with  —  —  or  w  u  :  hut  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  this  is  due 
to  the  number  of  citations,  rather  than  to  disregard  of  the  ordinary  forms. 

In  this  survey  I  have,  I  think,  taken  note  of  all  the  principal  points 
in  which  the  various  portions  of  the  book  can  be  said  to  differ  in  regard 
to  their  observance  of  the  rule,  and  of  the  extent  of  the  variation.  The 
general  result  of  the  scrutiny  i&  in  one  sense  negative.     It  docs  not 

'  So  Ea  that  of  t)i«  Brst  mass  of  Uic  scries,  which  thougli  leu  cootrovcnul  ia 
character  presents  some  points  of  resemblance  to  ttie  two  in  question, 
'  Foar  of  these  are  incftatioiis. 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES  391 

appear  that  the  variation  is  in  any  group  of  masses  so  marked  in  character 
or  in  degree  as  to  warrant  the  opinion  that  the  group  stands  outside 
the  range  of  the  system :  the  same  system  which  prerails  in  the  book 
as  a  whole  prevails  also  in  every  group,  and  throughout  every  group. 
Further,  though  the  observance  of  the  system  may  fairly  be  said  to  be 
more  exact  in  some  parts  of  the  book  than  in  others,  the  variation  in 
this  matter  is  never  very  great  The  April  masses,  perhaps,  supply  an 
exception  :  not  only  in  respect  of  their  cadences,  but  in  general  arrange- 
ment, they  form  the  least  orderly  element  in  the  book.  But  apart  from 
this  division,  or  even  including  it,  the  general  impression  which  is  left 
by  a  comparison  of  the  various  sections  is  not  that  of  a  collection  of 
material  of  various  sources  and  dates  brought  together  without  revision. 
It  is  an  impression  of  uniformity  rather  than  of  difference — of  such 
uniformity  as  might  be  found  on  the  one  hand  in  a  collection  of  material 
composed  by  different  writers  guided,  as  to  the  forms  of  their  phrases, 
by  a  common  usage,  or  on  the  other  in  a  collection  of  forms  which  may 
have  been  gathered  from  different  sources  or  based  on  material  of 
different  dates,  but  which  have  for  the  most  part  been  subjected  to 
revision  by  a  single  hand.  At  the  same  time  there  seems  to  be 
discernible,  behind  this  general  uniformity,  a  certain  amount  of  variation 
between  particular  groups  of  masses,  or  between  particular  prayers 
which  are  parts  of  the  same  group,  such  as  may  support  an  opinion, 
formed  on  other  grounds,  as  to  the  date  at  which  particular  forms  or 
groups  of  forms  were  originally  composed,  or  the  date  and  character  of 
the  material  from  which  they  have  been  constructed. 

H.  A.  Wilson. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  ST  JUDE:    A  STUDY  IN  THE 
MARCOSIAN   HERESY. 

I.    The  date  of  the  Epistk. 

There  are  two  passages  in  the  Epistle  which  point  to  its  post- 
apostoUc  origin.  The  writer  is  moved  to  action  by  the  danger  which 
threatens  '  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints '  (v.  j).  It  is 
clear  that  the  faith  was  already  recognized  as  a  fixed  tradition,  treasured 
by  the  Church  as  the  safeguard  of  the  '  common  salvation'.  The  writer 
also  bids  them  remember  '  the  words  which  had  been  spoken  before 
by  the  apostles'  (v.  17)^  an  expression  which  implies  that  the  apostolic 
writings  already  enjoyed  some  kind  of  canonical  authority  in  the  Church. 
It  is  almost  the  same  view  of  apostolic  times  which  is  taken  by  the 


392  THE    JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

writer  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  St  Peter :  '  that  ye  should  remember 
the  words  which  were  spoken  before  by  the  holy  prophets,  and  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour  through  the  apostles ' 
{2  Pet  iii  2).  In  the  latter  epistle  this  reference  to  the  apostles  is 
linked  with  the  phrase  'from  the  day  that  the  fathers  fell  asleep' 
(a  Pet.  iii  4).  In  a  treatise  on  the  Alogi  quoted  by  Epiphanius*  the 
apostolic  age  is  limited  to  ninety-three  years,  and  it  has  been  suggested 
by  Hamack  that  the  year  122  a.  ».,  ninety-three  years  after  the  Ascension 
of  our  Lord,  may  be  regarded  as  (he  date  of  the  death  of  the  daughters 
of  Philip,  the  last  sun-ivors  of  the  apostles  in  Asia  Minor'.  The 
Epistle  of  St  Jude  may  be  placed,  on  these  grounds,  subsequent  10 
122  A.D. 

The  more  closely  this  Epistle  is  compared  with  a  Peter,  the  more 
clearly  it  may  be  asserted  that  2  Peter  is  dependent  on  Judc.  Thtt 
subject  has  been  discussed  from  the  point  of  view  of  2  Peter  in  1 
recent  number  of  the  Expeutor.  'ITie  judgements  of  Jude  are 
unrelieved  by  any  touch  of  mercy  (6-16).  The  judgements  of  3  Peter 
are  brightened  hy  the  mercies  shewn  to  Noah  (ii  5)  and  to  Lot  (ii  7-8).' 
'  This  sharpening  of  the  purpose  speaks  decidedly  for  the  priority 
of  Jude  5-7.  There  is  also  in  2  Peter  a  softening  down  of  the  referenccj 
to  Enoch  which  proves  the  priority  of  Jude." 

It  has  been  suggested  in  the  same  article  in  the  Expositor  that 
2  Peter  was  written  by  Thcmison,  Bishop  of  Fepuza.  the  champion  of 
the  Montanist  Churches,  to  justify  the  position  qf  Montanism  against 
the  hostility  of  the  Catholic  Church  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  anti- 
nomian  Gnostic  sects  on  the  other.  He  made  use  of  an  earlier 
document,  probably  of  prophetic  origin,  'words  spoken  before  by  the 
holy  prophets '  (2  Pet.  iii  3),  known  to  him  under  the  pseudonym  of 
Jude-  This  document  is  the  Epislle  now  recognized  as  the  Epistle 
of  St  Jude.  Themison  wrote  between  the  years  185  and  195.  This 
gives  the  years  122  and  185  as  the  period  within  which  the  EpisUe 
of  St  Jude  was  written. 

There  is,  however,  another  clue  to  a  nearer  estimate  of  the  date- 
The  salutation  is  unique  among  the  canonical  books  of  the  New 
Testament :     2A,«o?  v^uv   koX   •l/njn;  *ai  iyanij    TrXiT^vt^ii'i;  (v.    a).     The 

EpisUe  of  St  Polycarp  is  dated  110-117  or  117-125*.  It  cannot  be 
placed  later  than  125.  The  salutation  of  Polycarp  is:  IKao^  v/tu-  «ol 
tipi/»-rj  TTu/^  0*av  7ram)Nj»tTopoc  xiu  'tipoO  XpurToii  rov  trtwrnpoc  Vf^ir 
v\ij0w6tlT).  Bishop  Lightfoot,  in  his  comment  on  the  form,  x^ 
iifuv,  iktot,  tifn^,  inrofUfvi)  Bta.  -jramk  of  Ign.  Smym.  c.  xU  says : 
•The  additional  words,  !K«o^  vjro^vt/,  point  to  a  time  of  growing  trial 

>  Epiph.  Hatr.  h  33.  ■  H«n.  CbtM.  i  3^8. 

'  Ejrpoi.  May  19041  PP-  377»  38".  •  Ham.  CMmm.  (  406. 


d 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  393 

and  persecution.'  St  Ignatius  still  opens  his  salutation  with  the  word 
xdpi^  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  apostolic  formula.  St  Folycaip, 
writing  at  the  very  close  of  the  apostolic  age,  leaves  out  the  x^P*^  ^iid 
uses  only  2Xeos  Ktu  t^r^.  The  Letter  of  the  Smymaeans  on  the 
MartjTdom  of  Polycarp,  written  immediately  after  the  martyrdom  in 
155  or  156,  marks  a  further  step  in  advance.    It  opens  with  a  somewhat 

Tuller  form  :    iXtov  xot  tlpqirq  kcu  A-yam)  $tov  Tmrpm  xot  [rov]  levpCov  ^futv 

IiTo-oS  Xpurrov  irkij&vyOtirf.  It  is  a  fuller  form  than  that  of  Jude,  but  the 
same  words,  iXeot,  ttpi^,  iymnf  are  used,  and  used  in  the  same  order. 

It  is  therefore  probable  that  the  Epistle  was  written  somewhere  in 
Asia  within  the  range  of  the  traditional  use  of  Smyrna,  and  about  the 
same  period  as  the  Epistle  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna.  If  it  be  dated 
2.  160,  a  quarter  of  a  century  would  separate  it  from  its  reproduction  by 
rhemison  in  the  Second  Epistle  of  St  Peter. 

II.    TA£  authtrsMp  of  the  EpistU. 

There  is  internal  evidence  that  the  Epistle  may  be  ranked  in  the 
prophetic  literature  of  the  early  Church,  and  regarded  as  the  work  of 
a  member  of  the  prophetic  school.  This  would  render  it  acceptable 
to  Tbemison.  The  post-apostolic  character  of  the  Epistle  makes  it 
impossible  to  recognize  the  words  liScX^oc  Si  lamitjdov  as  part  of  the 
original  title.  It  has  the  appearance  of  an  early  interpolation  to  give 
apostolic  authority  to  the  letter.  It  has  been  argued  '  that  a  forger 
would  hardly  have  attributed  his  composition  to  a  man  otherwise  so 
entirely  unknown  as  Jude  was ' '.  But  if  the  reference  in  the  title  is  to 
5t  Jude  the  Prophet,  this  argument  loses  its  force.  Judas  was  the 
companion  of  Silas  (Acts  xv  32)  and  together  with  Barnabas  and  Paul 
iras  charged  by  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  with  the  letter  to  the  Churches 
of  Antioch,  Syria,  and  Cilicia.  His  duty  was  not  only  to  deliver  the 
letter,  but  by  word  of  mouth  to  exhort  the  people  to  abstain  from  things 
Difi^ed  to  idols,  from  blood,  from  things  strangled,  and  from  fornication. 
These  things  entered  into  Greek  life,  and  it  was  long  before  the  Gentile 
^inverts  could  altogether  set  themselves  free  from  their  national 
traditions.  Participation  in  these  things  was  regarded  among  the  more 
rigid  as  a  following  of  the  teaching  of  Balaam  (Rev.  ii  14,  cf.  Jude  v  11). 
The  Christian  prophets  witnessed  against  this  teaching,  and  Judas,  as 
tiaving  been  first  commissioned  by  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  to  set  his 
Tace  against  them,  became  identified  with  the  witness  and  protest 
against  this  teaching.  Nothing  is  known  of  him  after  his  return  from 
Antioch  (Acts  xv  34).  He  is,  however,  alluded  to  by  the  anti- 
Montanist  writer  of  192  as  one  among  the  new  prophets  of  the  Christian 
Church.' 

1  Alford,  Gh.  Ttst.  voL  iv  p.  19a.  *  Eus.  H,  E.  v  17.  3. 


394         THE  JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


The  Epistle  lias  a  good  deal  of  propheiic  colour.  It  is  itself  a  word 
of  'exhorution '.  'ITie  author  writes,  exhorting  (jm^wxaXwc)  them  to  strive 
earnestly ;  and  exhortation  {^apaxXijai^)  was  one  of  the  specia]  featons 
of  the  prophetic  office  (Acts  xv  31-2,  i  Cor.  xiv  3).  The  Christian 
prophets  like  those  of  old  were  the  watchmen  of  the  Church  (Isa.  xxi 
6,  12). 

The  writer  makes  use  of  three  apocryphal  works,  all  of  which  are 
prophetic  in  character.  The  '  Testament  of  Moses ',  which  ronacd  the 
first  part  of  the  so-called  'Assumption  of  Moses"  is  based  on  the 
propheiic  office  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxiv  10).  *  Then  will  they  remember 
me,  saying  in  that  day  tribe  unto  tribe  and  each  man  unto  his 
neighbour:  "Is  not  this  that  which  Moses  did  then  declare  unto  ds 
in  prophecies?""  The  writer  of  J ude  writes  in  w.  4,  16,  18:  •There 
are  certain  men  crept  in  unawares,  who  were  before  of  old  ordained 
to  this  condemnation,  ungodly  men,  turning  the  grace  of  our  God  into 
lascivious ness,  .  .  .  These  are  murmurers,  coroplaincrs,  walking  after 
their  own  lusts ;  and  their  mouth  speaketh  great  swelling  words  .  .  . 
mockers  who  .  .  .  walk  after  their  own  ungodly  lusts.'  The  writer 
seems  to  have  Iiad  these  words  of  ihe  Assumption  of  Moses  beEoce 
him :  '  And  in  the  time  of  these,  scornful  and  impious  men  will  rule; 
laying  tliat  they  are  just.  And  these  will  conceal  the  wrath  of  their 
minds,  being  treacherous  men,  self-pleascrs,  dissemblers  in  all  ibdr  own 
affairs  and  lovers  of  banquets  at  every  hour  of  the  day,  gluttons,  .  -  . 
Devourers  of  the  goods  of  the  poor,  saying  that  they  do  so  on  the 
ground  of  their  justice,  but  (in  reality)  to  destroy  thwi,  complaitiers, 
deceitful,  concealing  themselves  lest  they  should  be  recognized,  impious, 
filled  with  lawlessness  and  iniquity  from  sunrise  to  sunset,  saying :  "We 
shall  have  feastings  and  luxury,  eating  and  drinking,  yea,  we  shall  drink 
our  fill,  wc  shall  be  as  princes."  And  though  their  hands  and  their 
minds  touch  unclean  things,  yet  their  mouth  will  speak  great  things.'' 

The  evil-doers  in  the  'Assumption  'were  theSadducees  of  15-70  A.D.' 
They  were  the  party  among  the  Jews  who  endeavoured  to  assimilate 
Greek  thought  and  Greek  culture.'  They  were  regarded  as  antinomiin 
by  the  stricter  Pharisees  whose  opinions  are  reflected  by  the  author 
of  the  Assumption  of  Moses."  And  it  was  against  a  similar  moTemenl 
in  the  Christian  Church  that  the  writer  of  Judc  directs  his  attack. 

The  evil-doers  of  Jude  are  complainers(^/w^(Vioipoi),  the  'qiuenilosi' 
oi  Assumpt.  Moi.  vii  7.  'They  walk  after  their  own  lust,  and  their  mouth 
Bpeaketh  great  swelling  words':  and  in  this  they  agree  with  the  evil- 
doer? of  the  Assumption:    'et  manus  corum  et  mcates  tmrounda 


■  Ch>r)ea  Aaaump/.  Mas.  p.  xliL 

'  Ibid,  vii  3-^. 

*  Scfaarer  Ciuch^Jiii.  ii  406,  416. 


« ibid.m  to-ii. 

*  Ibid,  p.  15. 

■  Aisutnpl.  Mw.  p.  vU. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  395 

tractantes,  et  os  eorum  loquetur  ingentia '  {Assumpt.  Mos.  vii  9).  They 
shew  respect  of  persons  for  the  sake  of  advantage  as  do  those  of  the 
Assumption :  '  mirantes  personas  locupletum  et  accipientea  munera ' 
(Assumpt  Mos.  V  5).  The  'mockers'  of  Jude  18  may  be  the  'homines 
pestilentiosi '  of  Assumpt.  Mos.  vii  3,  and  the  '  ungodly '  of  Jude  the 
Mmpii'  oi  Assumpt.  Mos.  vii  3,  7.  This  comparison  of  Jude  and  the 
Assumption  of  Moses  seems  to  shew  that  the  Christian  prophet  was 
quick  to  note  in  the  heresy  of  160  a.  d.  a  recurrence  of  the  danger 
which  threatened  the  Jewish  Church  a  century  earlier  from  the  Greek 
movement  among  the  Sadducees. 

The  original  *  Assumption  of  Moses '  was  at  first  a  distinct  work 
from  the  '  Testament  of  Moses ',  though  published  together  with  it  in 
a  Greek  version  in  the  first  century  ^  It  only  exists  in  a  few  fragments, 
one  of  which,  Jude  9,  is  alluded  to  also  in  the  Acta  Syn.  Nic.  II  30 
as  Iv  ^tfiXuf  'AraA^cuc  t/LmxritiK'.  The  devil  in  his  dispute  with 
the  archangel  Michael  over  the  body  of  Moses  says :  '  The  body  is 
mine,  since  I  am  the  lord  of  matter.'  Michael  answers :  '  The  Lord 
rebuke  thee,  for  all  things  were  created  by  His  Holy  Spirit,  and  from 
the  face  of  God  His  Spirit  went  forth,  and  the  world  was  made.' 
'  Then  the  devil  brought  the  charge  of  murder  against  Moses,  saying ; 
**  Moses  is  a  murderer :  therefore  it  is  not  fitting  for  him  to  have  lawful 
burial."*  Reference  is  also  made  to  this  contest  in  the  commentary  of 
Didymus  of  Alexandria  on  Jude. 

The  references  to  Enoch  have  also  a  prophetic  character.  It  is 
as  a  prophet  that  Enoch  is  quoted  :  '  Enoch,  the  seventh  from  Adam  *, 
prophesied'  v.  14.  The  chief  quotation  in  St  Jude  14-15  is  from 
Enoch  i  9  :  *  And  lo  I  He  comes  with  ten  thousands  of  (His)  holy  ones 
to  execute  judgement  upon  them,  and  he  will  destroy  the  ungodly,  and 
will  convict  all  fiesh  of  all  that  sinners  and  ungodly  have  wrought  and 
ungodly  committed  against  him.' 

The  terms  in  which  the  inconstancy  and  instability  of  the  evil-doers 
is  set  forth  in  Jude  13-13  ^^^  ^'^  ^^  some  extent  coloured  by  the  language 
of  the  Book  of  Enoch :  *  Clouds  they  are  without  water,  carried  about 
of  winds;  trees  whose  fruit  withereth,  without  fruit,  twice  dead,  plucked 
up  by  the  roots, .  .  .  wandering  stars,  to  whom  is  reserved  the  blackness 
of  darkness  for  ever.'  They  destroy  by  their  antinomian  principles  the 
order  of  the  universe.  The  writer  seems  to  have  had  before  him  the 
words  of  Enoch  immediately  following  the  passage  already  quoted : 
'  I  observed  everything  that  took  place  in  the  heaven,  how  the  luminaries 
which  are  in  the  heaven  do  not  deviate  from  their  orbits '  (i.  e.  are  not 
vrandering  stars),  *  how  they  all  rise  and  set  in  order  each  in  its  season, 

'  Assumpt.  Mos.  p.  xiiL  *  Ibid.  p.  109. 

*  The  phrase  occurs  in  Enoch  xx  8. 


396         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


and  transgress  not  against  Ihcir  appointed  order.  Behold  ye  the  earth, 
.  .  .  how  unvarying  every  work  of  God  appears.  Behold  .  .  .  ho» 
(in  the  winter  season)  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  water,  and  clouds  and 
dew  and  rain  lie  upon  it  (i,  e.  they  are  not  clouds  without  water).  .  -  . 
I  observed  how  the  irec-s  cover  tJiemselves  with  green  leaves  and  beir 
fruit  (i.  e.  are  not  without  fruit) '  (Enoch  il  i-j,  v  i).  The  evil-doers, 
therefore,  like  wandering  stars,  like  clouds  without  water,  like  trees 
without  fruitj  are  out  of  harmony  with  God's  unvar)-ing  order  in  the 
universe.  Therefore  the  blackness  of  darkness  is  reserved  for  ihcni 
(Jude  13)  as  for  the  rebel  angels  in  Enoch.  ^  The  angels  which  kept 
not  their  first  estate,  hut  left  their  own  habitation.  He  hath  rescired 
in  everlasting  chains  under  darkness  unto  the  judgement  of  the  great 
day.*  This  judgement  is  clearly  parallel  with  that  of  Enoch:  'The 
Lord  spake  to  Rafael :  "  Bind  Azazcl  hand  and  foot,  and  place  him  in 
darkness  :  .  .  .  and  place  upon  him  rough  and  jagged  rocks,  and  cover 
him  with  darkness,  and  let  him  abide  there  for  ever  .  .  .  and  in  the 
great  day  of  judgement  he  shall  be  cast  into  the  fire  " '  (Enoch  x  4, 6)^ 
'j\nd  I  asked  the  angel  of  i>eace  who  vrzs  with  me,  saying:  "The* 
chain  instruments,  for  whom  are  they  prepared?"  And  he  said  unto 
me :  "  These  are  prepared  for  the  hosts  of  Azazel  .  .  .  Michael,  Gabriel, 
Rafael,  and  Fanucl  will  Uike  hold  of  them  on  that  great  day,  and  cMt 
them  on  tliat  day  into  a  burning  furnace  "'  (Enoch  liv  4-6). 

These  references  to  the  'Tesumeni  of  Moses",  the  'Assumption 
of  Moses',  and  the  'Book  of  Enoch'  not  only  shew  the  influence  of 
Jewish  apocalyptic  literature  on  tlie  writer  of  Jude,  but  also  the  prophetic 
point  of  view  from  which  he  looked  at  the  judgements  which  he  kne« 
were  laid  up  for  those  who  were  in  error  in  the  Church. 

The  Epistle  was  therefore  written  in  all  probability  by  a  Christivi 
prophet  under  the  name  of  Jude,  after  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age^ 
about  the  year  160  a.  d.  The  evidence  of  the  Muratorian  Canon  agrees 
with  this  conclusion.  It  recognizes  Jude  as  the  first  among  the  Epistks 
which  are  accepted  *in  Catholica'.  The  similarity  of  the  title  to  that 
of  the  Epistle  of  the  Smymaeans  points  to  Asia  as  its  home.  The 
study  of  the  heresy  of  the  Epistle  in  the  light  of  tlie  history  of  heresy 
in  Asia  gives  support  to  the  suggested  dale  of  160  a.  v. 

III.    TAi  heresy  of  the  Epistle. 

This  heresy  was  an  extreme  form  of  antinomian  Gnosticism.  *CcTtaJn 
men  are  crept  in  utuwares,  ungodly  men,  turning  the  grace  of  God  into 
lascivious ness,  and  denying  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ '  (v.  4).  *  These  filthy  dreamers  defile  the  flesh,  despise  dominion, 
and  sjicak  evil  of  dignities'  (v.  8).  Tliey  arc  not  altogether  separate 
from  the  Church.     They  have  crept  in  unawares  (v.  4).    They  are  siJOts 


A 


NOTES   AND  STUDIES  397 

in  the  love-feasts  of  the  Church  (v.  12).  They  walk  after  their  own 
lust,  and  Ihcir  mouth  spcakcth  great  swelling  words,  having  men's 
persons  in  admiration  for  the  sake  of  advantage  (v.  16).  But  though  stitl 
more  or  less  in  communion  witli  the  Church,  and  for  that  reason  a 
danger  to  faith  and  character,  they  are  in  fact  separatists.  They  separate 
themselves,  being  themselves  sensual  (i/a'x»xot'),  not  having  the  Spirit 
{v.  19).  The  writer  is  here  endently  throwing  their  own  phrase  against 
themselves.  They  claimed  alone  to  be  'spiritual',  looking  down,  like 
most  of  the  Gnostic  sects,  on  the  members  of  the  Church  as  merely 
'  sensual '. 
I  They  are  not  merely  libertines,  they  claim  a  superior  knowledge  and 
"are  to  the  fullest  sense  Gnostics.  Von  Soden,  who  regards  the  Epistle 
as  the  work  of  jude,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and  addressed  by  him 
to  a  Church  in  Asia,  finds  in  the  heresy  an  extreme  form  of  the  ami- 
nomian  error  shadowed  forth  in  the  Episile  to  the  Colossians.^  Har- 
nack  considers  the  false  teachers  of  the  Epistle  as  early  representatives 
of  the  group  of  Syro-Palestinifin  Gnostics,  who  are  described  by  Epipha- 
nius  under  the  names  of  Archonlilcoi,  Cainites,  Ntcolaitans,  Sic.  He 
goes  so  far  as  to  say :  *  Hicr  allcin  stimmen  alle  Mcrkmale  '.* 

He  gives  preference  to  the  Archontikoi.  They  were  an  old  sect  in 
the  time  of  Epiphanius,  and  the  mention  of  the  prophets  Marliades 
and  Marsianos  he  thinks  consistent  with  the  visions  of  Jude  (v.  8). 
They  do  not  occur  in  Irenacus  or  Hippolytus,  and  the  introductory 
words  of  Epiphanius  imply  that  they  were  found  in  only  a  restricted  area, 

and  that  not  m  v\sia  :  Ap^fovrutiav  rt;  aiptat^  tovtok  ^irrrof  ovk  iv  fl'oAAoc<{ 
Si  TOT-ors  avrr)  x^aiVcroJ.  ^  fidvov  iv  t§  IlaAoicrTtvwv  iirapx^9^*-  I'here 
is  DO  evidence  that  the  sect  ever  existed  in  Asia,  though  it  may  have 
been  akin  to  Asian  Gnosticism.  Its  late  appearance  in  the  lists  of 
heresies  and  its  restricted  area  would  appear  to  shut  it  out  from  being 
the  here^iy  referred  to  in  this  Epistle. 

The  Cainites  also  are  akin  to  the  evil-doers  of  the  Epistle.  They 
recognized  as  the  heroes  of  true  Gnosticism  the  great  evil-doers  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments.  These  heroes  of  evil  had  rebelled  against 
the  God  of  the  Jews  because  of  the  superior  knowledge  they  had  received 
from  the  Higher  Power.  Their  mission  was  to  overthrow  the  authority 
of  the  Demiurge.    Ircnaeus,  in  the  opening  words  of  his  brief  notice 

on  the  Cainites  says  :  oAAoi  Bi,  aw  Kaiyait^  avD/^o^truo't,  Koi  tov  Kaiv  </iairlv 
iic  r^S  avinQtV  Ai'Devn-df  XtKiTpoMrBai,  wai  riiv  Hcnu  wat  rnv  Ka/)}  Koi  rav^ 
SoSo/u'rat,  Kai  vuvrat  Bi  tov^  roioiJrovs,  trvyy<v<i%  tStov?  ifioXtyyowTt.  fcai 
TOVTOWS  vn-o  ftiv  ToZ  iroirfTOV  ^tOTj&^kut,  fj^jBtfiiay  Bl  fiXiiffvjv  tiaSi^atrOtu*. 

Tliey  held    Judas  Iscariot    in  high  esteem   and   made  use  of  an 

*  V.  Soden  I/d,  Kantnu  pp.  303-304.  *  Ham,  Chron.  t  46^. 

*  Epjpb.  Uwr.  xl  1.  *  treii.  adv.  Hatr.  i  3I,  (. 


398  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

apoctyphal  Gospel  of  Judas.  They  were  thoroughly  antinomiin  in 
conduct  as  in  thought.  They  boosted  the  presence  of  an  angel  «hco 
engaged  in  their  unclean  deeds,  and  said :  '  O  tu  angel^  abutor  opeie 
tuo :  O  tu,  iUa  potestas,  perficio  tuam  operationein.'  ^ 

There  are  some  features  in  the  Epistle  which  might  be  explained  by 
reference  to  the  sect  of  the  Cainitcs :  *  Woe  unto  them  t  for  they  haw 
gone  in  the  way  of  Cain  . . .  and  perished  in  the  gainsaying  of  Core' 
(v.  It).  There  is  also  in  v.  7  an  allusion  lo  the  judgement  on  Sodom. 
It  is  certainly  noteworthy  that  in  this  short  epistle  three  of  the  Cainlie 
heroes  are  selected  as  a  warning.  But  the  paiallelism  scarcely  goe 
further.  The  evil-doers  of  the  Epistle  may  have  been  akin  to  the 
Cainites,  but  too  little  is  told  of  the  Cainites  in  the  work  of  Ircnacus  to 
justify  any  certainty  on  this  point. 

'I'he  same  may  be  said  of  the  Nicolaitans.  Irenaeus  has  only  ooe 
short  paragraph  about  them.  He  says  the>-  have  Nicolas  the  Deacon 
as  their  master  and  refers  to  the  Apocalypse  as  a  wimess  of  ihdi 
fornication  and  their  practice  of  eating  things  sacrificed  to  idols  (Rev. 
ii  6).  He  sums  up  their  character  in  one  brief  phrase,  the  most  im- 
portant in  the  chapter — *qui  indiscrete  %*i%'UDt'. 

It  is  clear  from  this  that  they  were  not  a  great  danger  in  his  time,  nnd 
that  he  had  little  information  about  them.  There  is  very  little  reason 
in  the  light  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  for  regarding  Nicolas  as  the 
founder  of  the  sect.  They  may  have  chosen  him  as  their  representatite 
to  give  prominence  to  their  teaching  in  later  times,  or  to  identify  them- 
selves with  the  Nicolflitans  of  the  Apocalypse.' 

The  teachirg  and  works  of  the  Nicolaitans  are  fiercely  atucked  in 
the  Epistles  to  Ephesus  and  Fergamum  (Rev.  ii  6,  15).  But  they  TepK- 
sent  not  so  much  a  sect  as  a  tendency.  They  endeavoured  to  combine 
Creek  life  with  Christian  teaching.*  They  failed,  and  emphasized  the 
contrast  between  the  two  systems.  But  their  attempt  to  preserve  the 
customs  of  Greek  life  while  adopting  the  principles  and  enjoying 
the  privileges  of  the  Christian  revelation  was  repeated  again  and  igaiu 
The  earliest  records  of  Asia  are  rich  in  evidence  of  the  close  t:ontact 
of  Greek  life  and  Christian  thought  during  the  first  three  centuries. 
The  history  of  heresy  in  Asia  is  the  record  of  the  Church  from  time 
to  lime  sharpening  its  discipline  against  these  customs  of  Greek  society, 
'  the  teaching  uf  Balaam '  (Num.  xxxj  t6,  xxv  i  sq.),  and  of  the  Gnostic 
sects  assimilating  their  formularies  and  religious  rites  as  closely  as  po*- 
sible  to  those  of  the  Church.  Fierce  and  stem  as  the  invective  against 
the  Nicolaitans  is,  they  did  not  constitute  so  urgent  a  danger  to  the 
taith  as  the  heresy  against  which  the  Epistle  of  Jude  is  wntten.     The 

'  Iren.  adv.  Hatr.  i  31,  1,  »  Ne«Q<ler  i  £1^ 

*  RnnuKy  ExpM.  (July  1904)  p.  44. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  399 

elaborate  system  attributed  by  Epiphanius  to  the  Nicolaitan  heresy ' 
belongs  to  a  later  age.  Much  of  it  is  common  to  the  Barbelo  group 
of  heresies.  They  had  their  special  apocalyptic  books,  but  there 
is  nothing  distinctive  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude  to  connect  the  Asian 
heresy  of  160  a.  d.  either  with  the  Nicolaitans  of  the  Apocalypse  or  with 
the  well-defined  heresy  of  a  later  date  known  under  the  same  name. 

The  heresy  of  the  Epistle  has  also  been  identified  with  the  Car- 
pocratian  Gnosticism  of  Alexandria  on  the  ground  that  Qement  of 
Alexandria  refers  to  the  language  of  Jude  as  a  prophetic  anticipation 
of  this  form  of  Gnosticism.  Clement  identified  Jude  as  '  brother  of  the 
sons  of  Joseph ',  and  regarded  the  Epistle  as  'Catholic'.  But  if  the  later 
date  be  accepted,  the  writer  would  be  a  contemporary  of  Carpooates. 
The  Asian  origin  of  the  Epistle  is  against  the  identiflcation  of  the 
heresy  with  that  of  the  Carpocratians.'  But  Clement  does  not  limit 
the  reference  of  St  Jude  to  the  Carpocratians :  hn.  rovrui'  o^^ot  koi  tw 

ofjMiwv  alpia-ttnv  trpotfnjruc^  'lovSav  ^i*  rg  iwurroX.'^  tlp^Khmu  * 

IV.  T^  Marcosian  hertsy. 

The  note  of  urgency  in  w.  3-3  has  led  Hamack  to  assign  the  Epistle 
to  the  early  part  of  the  second  century,  when  Gnosticism  was  first 
becoming  a  danger  to  the  Christian  faith.*  But  the  same  note  would 
be  equally  suitable  if  the  Epistle  was  directed  against  the  outburst  of 
the  Marcosian  heresy.  Irenaeus  devotes  nine  chapters  (i  13-21)  to  the 
heresy  of  Marcus  the  Magician,  the  scholar  of  Valentinus.  These  chapters 
are  based  not  only  on  the  writings  of  Marcus  himself  and  apocryphal 
works,  such  as  the  Gospel  of  Eve,'  which  he  used,  but  also  on  the 
testimony  of  an  Asian  opponent  of  the  Marcosian  heresy,  h  Bwa^O^ 
■apta^vrtfi^  the  author  of  the  iambic  verses  against  Marcus.* 

The  Benedictine  editor  of  the  works  of  Irenaeus,  Dom  R.  Massuet, 
assigns  the  year  160  to  the  beginnings  of  the  Marcosian  heresy.  After 
stating  that  Irenaeus  wrote  about  180,^  he  adds :  *  Cum  vero  iam  longe 
lateque  propagata  esset  Marcosiorum  secta,  in  ipsumque  etiam  Occi- 
dentem  invasisset,  nee  id  nisi  plurium  annorum  spatio  fieri  potuisset; 
non  male  coniecerit  quisquis  huius  initia  ad  annum  circiter  160,  immo 
paulo  citius  ad  extrema  Valentini  vitae  tempora  retulerit.'  ■  The  date 
assigned  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Marcosian  heresy  corresponds  there- 
fore to  that  assigned  on  independent  grounds  to  the  composition  of 
the  Epistle  of  Jude  against  the  outbreak  of  an  antinomian  heresy  in 
^ia. 

>  Epiph.  Hatr,  xxv  a.  *  Etuyc  BStL  p.  3631. 

*  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iii  3.  *  Harn.  Oinm.  i  466. 

'  Iren.  i  13,  et  Harn.  AU-<kr.  Lit.  i  175.  *  Ibid,  i  15. 

'  H«rn«ck  datei  it  181-189,  Ckron.  i  320.  *  Op.  Irtn.  (Pim,  1710),  p.  L 


voriud  St  Rone  bam  c  135  id  c  160  a.  d.  ' 

■  d  Bfpom  (1  j&-t4aX  ^  flriMJifciJ  imjli  Pfaa 

there  ondt  the  time  of  *-^"^^  (155-146^ 

doofat  as  towbetiier  bevniledC^p^ 

Eone.    Epiphauiia  scatei  that  h«vai( 

he  firiKd  RflB^and  albnoiA  lift  Row  farC^pMB; 

aeceptt  the  iwiimcxiy  of 

Zahn*.    It  a  proiMble  tberefbre  that  ifaa  «a>  the 
viiit  of  hb  Kbobr  MjrciB  to  Asa.     Hiirarfr  dbc— ei  the 
M  10  vheifacr  ibe  opfNnem  of  Marcos  waa  a  ly jVi  y  of 
of  Ganl,  and  decides  m  bvoor  d  Asa.'.    The  writM^  of  d 
opponent  of  kbrcos,  incoqxinUed  ia  the  cfasptett  of 
therefore  crideoce  of  the  fai^wM  tnynmnpc  foe  the  hiicocT  of  tfe 
Astan  bere^  in  160. 

Marau  appealed  to  the  credolitr  of  the  people  of  Asa  bgr  the  padice 
of  tnspfal  arts,  as  the  fallowing  iambic  *etses  sbev : 

EtZwAorou  Umprntf  sol  rtfmrovMamtf 
itrrpoXoyut^  tttrttpt  ui  fuayuoft  r(j(9^ 

O^f/Miia  Scucyvt  rots  k^  q-ov  rXai  M/*ci'e<t. 

ti*  dyycAjx^  dwvE^wws  'AjaffX  «0Mw 
f;(M'  (T*  xpoSpofior  ^mMov  ro«vpr)n«e  *. 

He  led  awaj  men  and  women,  tndudi^  them  to  come  to  him  as  to  ooc 
endued  with  the  highest  knowledge  and  power :  be  claimed  the  assis- 
tance of  angelic  power,  and  under  its  evil  influence  wai  guilty  of  pnt 
wickedness. 

He  played  the  tricks  of  Anexilaus  as  described  by  Pliny:  'Lib* 
et  Anexilaus  co  (sulphurc)  candesccns  in  calicc  novo,  prunaque  snbdiis 
drcuraferens,  exardesccntis  repcrcussu  {lallorem  dinim,  Tctot  defidio- 
torum,  ofTundente  convivits.'*  By  means  of  these  fumes  be  not  oBif 
frightened  his  follower  by  the  death-like  pallor,  but  induct  a  sate 
of  drowsiness  which  became  the  occasion  for  dreams  and  obaoeae 
practices.  Epiphanius  alludes  to  these  dreams  in  his  chapter  on  the 
Gnostic  heresies*,  and  quotes  Jude  8:  'These  in  their  drcamiq^ 
defile  the  flesh.'  The  words  of  Irenaeus  illustrate  the  language; 
Judc:  'Aiuailai  enim  iudicra  cum  nequida  eonun  qui  dicuntur 

■  HanL  Otfom.  1  991.  *  Ibid,  i  993.  ■  Ibid,  i  jQf. 

*  Irea.  1  ts-     These  tt,n  tbe  eicht  tBrntkic  Udcs  ti  Hie  mftafSirr^.    oid.  p,  ^ti, 

*  PlIfiT  XXV  ic.  *  Eninh.  Uatr.  xzvi  ta. 


Plioy  XXV  I  j, 


Epi(>h.  Ha*r.  xzvi  13. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  4OI 

coinmiscens,  per  baec  virtutes  perficere  putatur  apud  eos,  qui  sensum 
non  ha.bent  et  a  mente  sua  excessenint.*  ^  Marcus  and  his  followers 
were  thus  in  very  truth  'spots  in  the  feasts  of  charity'  (Jude  12). 

The  prophesyings  of  Marcus  had  so  great  a  resemblance  to  Christian 
prophecy  that  they  must  be  supposed  to  be  not  so  much  exercises 
peculiar  to  Marcus  as  exercises  practised  within  the  assemblies  of  the 
Church.    There  is  authority  for  this  in  the  story  of  the  deacon  of  Asia. 

The  Deacon  received  Marcus  into  his  house,  not  aware  perhaps 
of  his  evil  practices.  The  Deacon's  wife  fell  a  victim  to  the  wiles  of 
Marcus  and  followed  him,  and  it  was  only  with  much  labour  that  she 
was  brought  back  by  the  brethren :  r^  ywau^  avrm  cv«5ovc  iwapxownjt 
Ktu  T^v  yviafx,ijv  koI  to  vZfta  Sia<f)$ap€unft  iirh  tov  fidyov  tovtov,  koi 
i^ajcoKav&ryrairT}^  aSry  iroAA^  rif  XP°*Y>  irtm  /urii  iroXAov  kowov  t&v 
dScA^uv    hnoTpeilfdynaVf    aMi   rov    airavTa    ^^xarov    i^ofioKtrfOViUyii    Sic- 

rikta*}  Marcus,  like  the  evil-doers  of  Jude,  'crept  in  unawares* 
(v.  4),  and  ruined  all  who  listened  to  his  seductive  wonjs. 

Some  resisted  his  charms,  and  frdm  the  first  refused  to  hold  com- 
munion with  him :  ^Sij  Si  twv  wportpav  (int.  irMrTOTarwy)  nvJ*  ywauaav 
Twv  ix!"^'*^^^  ™'  ^o/Jov  TOV  0t<m,  koX  ftrj  i^am/njBtuTStVf  tx  5/*otwc  nut 
AotTToxiE  ^cr^Scvcrc  ■jrapmnidtty,  KfXtwav  aimus  irpoi^i^rfvcu',  xai,  tasra' 
ifnur^^traam  Kcd  Kara^e/iaTtirairiu  abrov,  i)(iopuT0ri(niy  rot)  Totovrou  Oidami.* 

It  is  impossible  to  read  this  thirteenth  chapter  of  Irenaeus  without 
being  convinced  that  Marcus  took  advantage  of  the  regular  assemblies 
of  the  Church  to  further  his  teaching,  and  that  he  took  many  of  the 
faithful  unawares.  The  whole  chapter  illustrates  the  force  of  the  appeal 
in  Jude  3-4 :  '  Beloved,  it  was  needful  for  me  to  write  unto  you,  and 
exhort  you  that  ye  should  earnestly  contend  for  the  laith  which  was 
once  delivered  unto  the  saints.  For  there  are  certain  men  crept  in 
unawares  .  .  .  ungodly  men,  turning  the  grace  of  God  into  lascivious- 
ness,  and  denying  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.' 

He  professed  to  have  a  familiar  spirit  through  whose  influence  he 
prophesied,  and  taught  those  women  who  were  worthy  of  being 
partakers  of  his  grace  that  they  would  be  enabled  to  prophesy  as 
he  did.« 

He  especially  frequented  the  company  of  rich  women,  rac  cinrapv^ovs 
Ktu  irtparopi^vpoK  koX  irkawruiyrdTai,  and  flattered  them  with  his  cajolery. 

*  I  want  you  to  partake  of  my  grace,  since  the  Father  of  all  ever  sees 
your  Angel  in  His  presence.  ...  We  ought  to  be  one.  Take  first  of 
me,  and  through  me  receive  grace.'     The  women  at  first  resisted : 

•  I  have  never  prophesied  and  I  do  not  know  how  to.'  He  then 
mesmerized  them,  ftriJcX)Jo-«ts  nvas  Trotov/tevosi  and  having   put  them 

'  Iren.  i  13,  I.  '  Ibid,  i  13,  S-  '  ^^' »  »3»  4- 

*  Ibid,  i  i.i,  3. 

VOL.  VI.  D  d 


402       THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


into  a  trance  {tU  KoriirX-qCty),  he  said  '  open  your  mouth,  and  say  whit 
you  like,  and  you  will  prophesy'.  At  last  the)-  were  overcome  by  iin 
wiles,  and  thinking  themseU-es  prophetesses,  they  thanked  him  fn 
his  grace,  and  not  only  paid  him  handsomely,  but  gave  way  to  tb< 
grossest  sin  ;  koI  dirfj  tovtov  Xoiwov  n-po^^nSa  tavr^  furaXafi/iiif^  au 
tv)(ripifrrti  MapKi^  rifi  brLSiBoyri  TTp  ISiai  j^apvrtK  ovtq*  Ktu  Afuifitatai 
aiTnv  ntiparax,  w  fiovov  Kara  rifv  t<ii>'  inrapynimuv  hntrtv  (oOcr  «ai  j(pi)/tanm 
vXij&ot  TToXv  (TWO'^voj^O'),  oAXtt  «oi  Kara,  ttjv  toC  (TUifiarot  tcotvtat^v,  ■•« 
vavra  IvovtrOat  n&ry  wpoOvfi-avfiivr},  tra  viv  aiT-i  icaWX^  cl«  to  It. 
It  is  conduct  such  as  this  which  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  condemns 
when  he  speaks  of  the  false  teachers  not  only  as  turning  the  grace 
of  God  into  lasdviousness  (ver.  4)  but  as  walking  after  their  own  In?'; 
their  mouth  speaking  great  swelling  words,  having  men's  persx- 
in  admiration  (shewing  honour  to  persons)  for  the  sake  of  advantage 
(ver.  16). 

Marcus  took  advantage  of  the  position  of  women  in  the  Churches  nt 
Asia  to  further  his  purpose.    The  testimony  of  the  irpecr^iVF;^  of  Asu 
is  an  interesting  illustration  of  the  permanence  of  the  condition  whicli 
ciistcd  in  the  Church  of  Thyattra  at  an  earlier  dale,  on  which  so  mudi 
light  has  been  thrown  by  Professor  Ramsay  in  recent  numbers  of  the 
Expositor.     'The  prophetess  of  Thyatira  was  not  all  evil;   that  idti 
is  absolutely  contradictory  of  the  already  quoted  words  of  the  lettB 
(Rev.  ii  18).     There  were  certain  accepted  customs,  rules  of  pohteness 
and  courtesy,  ways  of  living  and  acting,  which  were  recommended  by 
their  graceful,  refined,  elegant  character.' '   Such  things  would  commeod 
themselves   to  women   who   were  ictf^imp^vpoi  koX  ■KKova-uam-mk — the 
women  who  hesitated  at  first :    '  I  have  never  prophesied,  and  I  don't 
know  how  to  prophesy.'    The  warnings  of  St  John  were  not  forgotten. 
Some  fell,  for  'the  idolatrous  ritual  of  paganism  was  always  io  practice 
associated  with  immoral  customs  of  various  kinds'.*     Some  fell,  but 
olliers  cursed  Marcus,  and  separated  Ihemselvcs  from  his  society.    They 
were  not  shocked  at  his  pretensions  or  his  practice  of  jjruphesying. 
They  were  only  shocked  when  they  realized  his  evil  purpose.    The 
women  of  Anatolia  enjoyed  considerable  liberties,*  and  the  practice 
of  the  Montanist  Churchci  is  witness  to  ihe  practice  of  prophesying 
by  women.     But  they  knew,  because  it  was  the  teaching  of  the  Church, 
that  only  those  could  prophesy  to  whom  God  had  given  His  giace: 

htpip5i<i  ilSvuii,  on  Ttpo^TjTtvfiv  oii\  viro  Mo/jkov  tow  payov  iyyiymx  to« 
A.vB(>tuiriyi%,    dXA'  tM   ar   It   8*6%   avot&tv   ivvrifu^    rTf   XH**^   avroi^  (wtm 

'  Iren.  I  13,  3. 

'  Expotitor,  July  1904,  pp.  47,  51,  '  Ramsay  '**/. 

'  Ramsay,  Exp.  July  1^4.    HvnAck  refen  In  one  place  to  sn  Anatolian  brmnch 
orUic  Marcosian  ticrcsy. 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  403 

fiovXmi,  AXX'  ovx  vr*  T&dpKK  xtXevti.^  It  would  seem  that  Marcus  took 
advanti^e  of  these  conditions  of  early  church  life.  He  and  his  followers 
*crept  in  unawares',  and  by  their  abuse  of  Christian  prophecy  turned  the 
grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness  and  undermined  '  the  faith  once  for  all 
delivered  to  the  saints '. 

Irenaeus  in  the  two  following  chapters  gives  in  great  detail  the  system 
of  letters  and  numbers  by  which  Marcus  explained  the  Creation  and 
the  coming  of  Christ  Much  of  it  is  common  to  the  system  of 
Valentinus.    The  '  genesis '  of  Jesus  is  unfolded  by  means  of  numbers. 

*  From  the  Mother  of  all,  that  is,  the  first  Tetrad,  the  second  Tetrad 
came  forth  in  the  place  of  a  daughter.  The  Ogdoad  was  made,  from 
which  came  forth  the  Decad.  Thus  originated  the  Ogdoad  and  the 
Decad.  The  Decad  being  joined  to  the  Ogdoad  by  way  of  multiplica- 
tion produced  the  number  lxxx  :  and  again  eighty  tens  made  the 
number  dccc,  so  that  the  sum  of  the  letters  progressing  from  the  Ogdoad 
to  the  Decad  is  8  and  80  and  800,  which  is  'Ii/erovc.  For  the  name 
Jesus,  according  to  the  reckoning  of  Greek  letters,  is  dccc  lxxx  viii. 
Thou  hast  here  the  genesis  of  the  supercelestial  Jesus  according  to  the 
Marcosians.''  Irenaeus  becomes  impatient  at  last:  ^  iraXtv  n'c  dWfcnu 
crov  <ic  (T^/iara  icai  Api$fu»v9,  vori  /icv  TptoKovra,  vori  Sk  (IxomWcrtFafM, 
■wori  Si  t$  fiofayf  <7vyicXeu)VTos  tov  twv  »o»Tttiv  tcTMrr^  «ai  Srifuavpyhy  xnl 
xotiTT^  Xoyov  ToC  ^cou,  xafaxep/uiTti^oiTOS  aurov  *U  truAAo^is  fiif  riirtTapa^, 
trnnxua  ik  TptoKoyra,  »tcu  riv  vdvrav  Kvpiov  tov  itrrtptuKOTa  tovs  ovpafcAs 
th  ta  TT  7}  KarayovTK  i^ptSjiov^ 

He  returns  to  the  theory  of  the  alphabet  in  chapter  xvi,  where  he 
criticizes  the  Marcosian  exposition  of  the  parable  of  the  lost  sheep  and 
the  lost  coin  by  means  of  numbers.  '  These  men  who  are  bold  enough 
to  reduce  all  things  to  numbers,  saying  that  all  things  arise  from  the 
Monad  and  the  Decad,  explain  the  wandering  and  the  finding  of  the  sheep 
by  this  mystical  theory  of  aeons  and  numbers ' — &irtfitU  &i  vwip  irSmur 
Atrifituw  ofiroL,  ol  ror  iroii^r^  ou^vov  koI  yrji  /ujvov  $fhv  TttvTOKpdTop<tf 
virkp  $v  SAAos  Bto9  ovK  ioTiy,  l(  iarfpi^fiaTOi,  »ciu  airov  i$  ctXAov  itmp^ftaToi 
ycyovoTOS,  wpofitfiXTJfrOcu  Acyo»Tts.* 

This  summary  is  important  as  giving  point  to  the  words  of  Jude ; 

*  There  are  certain  men  crept  in  unawares,  ungodly  men  (^c/3<ts) 
denying  the  only  (^voi')  Master  and  Lord,  Jesus  Christ '  (ver.  4).  It  has 
been  stated  by  von  Soden '  that  the  phrase  iiovm  Sccnron/s  is  Uturgical. 
The  word  /iAvik  may  be  liturgical  in  the  ascriptions  of  Jude  25  and 
in  Rom.  xvi  27,  and  perhaps  in  i  Tim.  i  17  and  vi  15,  16;  but  in 
Jude  4  as  in  John  v  44,  xvii  3  it  would  seem  to  have  its  full 

*  Iren.  i  13,  4.  •  Ibid,  i  15,  a.  '  Ibui.  i  15,  j. 

*  liid.  1 16,  3.  *  Hd.  comm.  pp.  304,  109. 

Dda 


404         THE  JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

value,  a  ibeological  phrase  introduced  to  emphasixc  the  tme  faith 
against  the  theological  and  theosophical  teaching  of  early  Gnostidsin. 

In  the  twentieth  chapter  Irenaeus  speaks  of  the  apocTTphal  booto 
which  Marcus  used  in  his  teaching.  This  also  forms  an  interestiqg 
link  with  the  similar  use  of  apocryphal  Hteiaturc  by  the  writCT  of  tJM 
Epistle  of  Judc  There  is  irKlccd  one  passage  which  shews  that  the 
writer  of  the  iambic  verses  against  Marcus  also  had  the  Book  of  £aocti 
in  bis  mind  in  his  controversy  with  Marcus : 

'A  <rv  X'^PTf**^  ^  xoriip  Sarara,  d 
it    'AyytXu(^  hvydfuuK  *A{a{^\  iroutr 
IX"^"  *"  wpoBpofiav  iyrtOiov  waifovpyia^ 

Azazel  is  the  evil  angel  of  the  Book  of  Enoch ;  '  The  whole  earth  his 
been  defiled  through  the  teaching  of  the  works  of  AKaze) :  to  hiffl 
ascribe  all  the  sin.''  The  anti-Marcosiao  writer  of  Asia  and  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  both  recognize  the  value  of  Enoch.  'Iliis,  though  ool 
a  proof,  is  a  clue  to  the  identification  of  the  heresy  of  Jude. 


V.  TAe  LiturfptcU  formularies  of  the  Afarcosian  heresy. 

Irenaeus,  in  his  account  of  the  teaching  of  Marcus,  not  only  dcrii 
his  facts  from  the  ajionymous  elder  of  Asia  and  from  the  testimony 
of  those  who  had  left  the  heresy  and  returned  to  the  Catholic  £lith, 
but  from  the  writings  of  Marcus  himself.*  'J'he  mystical  and  astro- 
logical speculations  of  chapters  xiv  and  xv  are  from  the  latter  source. 
The  knowledge  of  his  rites  and  forinularies  is  probably  from  the  fonncr 
sources, 

I.  Marcus  in  his  Eucharist  made  use  of  a  mixed  cup,  and  recitiif 
over  it  the  epiklcsis  or  word  of  invocation  {rhv  Aoyof  r^  ^xX^ottrt) 
made  it  appear  ruddy,  that  the  Grace  which  is  from  above  might  be 
thought  to  pour  his  blood  into  the  cup  at  his  invocation.  Those  «ba 
partook  of  the  cup  were  led  to  think  that  they  received  into  thcmsclKi 
'  that  which  was  called  by  ibis  magician  Grace  '.*  He  also  gave  cop* 
to  the  women,  and  made  them  consecrate  them  in  his  presence.*  The 
whole  de.scription  is  vivid  with  life,  and  is  almost  certainly  based  upon 
the  evidence  of  eye-witnesses.  It  throws  considerable  light  on  the 
meaning  of  Judc  12:'  they  are  spots  in  your  feasts  of  charity.' 

The  practice  has  its  parallels  in  the  early  history  of  Christianity  in 
Asia.    Epiphanius,  writing  of  the  I'epuziani,  a  branch  of  the  Monlaoist 

Church,    says  :   tiruTKatroi  tc  irap'  avrott  ywautf^,  kcu  irpttT0VT€pot  yvinMK, 

Kiu  ra  dAAa*   w;  fiij&iv  Stu^/xtf  ^tViv.'    And  Firmilian  in  his  letter  to 


'  Efloch  X  9. 
■  Irea.  i  13,  a. 


*  Uarn.  AJt-dir.  LU.  \  175. 
Ibid.  •  Epiph.  H»tr.  xliz  s. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  405 

Cyprian  makes  mention  of  a  Cappadocian  prophetess  who  took  upon 
herself  to  administer  Baptism  and  celebrate  the  Eucharist :  '  Atqui 
ilia  mulier,  quae  prius  per  praestigias  et  fallacias  daemonis,  multa  ad 
deceptionem  fidelium  moliebatur,  inter  caetera  quibus  plurimos  dece- 
perat,  etiam  hoc  frequenter  ausa  est,  ut  et  invocatione  non  con- 
temptibili  sanctificare  se  panem  et  eucharistiam  facere  simularet,  et 
sacrifictum  Domino  sine  sacramento  solitae  praedicationis  ofierret; 
baptizaret  quoque  multos  usitata  et  legitima  verba  interrogationis 
usurpans  ut  nil  discrepare  ab  ecclesiastica  regula  videretur.'^ 

The  practice  of  Marcus  may  not  therefore  have  been  new.  It 
became  necessary  to  extend  the  ApostoUc  rule  as  to  the  ministry  of 
women  (i  Cor.  xiv  34;  i  Tim.  ii  12)  from  teaching  to  every  other 
exercise.  TertuUian  wrote  between  204  and  206,  just  before  he  joined 
the  Montanists,  'Non  perraittitur  mulieri  in  ecclesia  loqui,  sed  nee 
docere,  nee  tinguere,  nee  offene,  nee  ullius  virilis  muneris,  nedum 
sacerdotalis  officii  sortem  sibi  vindicare  '.* 

The  Eucbaristic  formula  of  Marcus  is  given  in  Iren.  i  13,  2  ^  wpo 
tS>v  oAiuv,  17  dvewdipw  xoi  SpfnfTiK  x*V**  irX)7pii)<rai  am  rov  lcr«  8vOponrot>t 
Koi  irti7]0vvai  ly  ax>i  rrpf  yvwnv   avrfjs,    iyKaTtunrtipotxra  tov   kokkov  toC 

trtvaTreas  th  r^  &yad^  y^.  The  form  finds  an  echo  in  the  words  of 
2  Pet.  iii  18 :  '  Grow  in  the  grace  Ocv*")  and  knowledge  {yvao-ti)  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.' 

2.  The  formula  of  dedication  to  the  Prophetic  office  is  given  in 

Iren.  i  13,  3  :  furaSovyal  <roi  dcX(i>  t^c  ifi^  jfoptros  .  .  .  Xafifiayi  wpwrov 
Air  ifjjm,  Kal  &*  ifMv  r^  x4P"'  ■  >  •  *^^v  ^  X^^  Kar^A^cv  hri  <rf  Jdvifov 
rv  trrofjM  (rov  xal  vpotfy^^twrov.  The  words  of  St  Paul,  Rom.  i  II, 
*  I  long  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart  (/MraStS)  to  you  some  spiritual 
gift  (xopur/ia) ',  taken  in  connexion  with  i  Cor.  xiv  i,  '  Desire  spiritual 
gifts,  but  rather  that  ye  may  prophesy ',  seem  to  suggest  that  there 
is  possibly  in  the  words  of  Marcus  some  echo  of  the  formula  of  the 
Church.  This  suggestion  is  strengthened  by  a  comparison  of  the  words 
of  Ezekiel  ii  8,  '  open  thy  mouth,  and  eat  what  I  give  thee ',  with 
Rev.  X  8-1 1,  'Take  it  and  eat  it  up:  .  .  .  and  I  took  it  and  ate  it 
up.  . . .  And  they  say  unto  me,  Thou  must  prophesy  again  before  many 
peoples,  and  nations,  and  tongues,  and  kings'.  The  Marcosian  rite 
may  be  a  clue  to  an  early  rite  of  dedication  to  the  Prophetic  order 
in  the  Church. 

3,  A  form  of  prayer  is  preserved  in  Iren.  i  13,  6,  which  is  addressed 
to  Wisdom  {<ro<f>{a)  * :  &  n-opcS/x  Otov  Kal  fiwrriK^  wpit  atSivov  StyTS  •  ■  . 
iSoii  6  KptTrji  iyyvi,  koX  i  Kijpv^  fu  kcXcvcl  iiroXoyturOai,  irv&iwt  hrttrraftanj 
Ta  dfuftonpiM'  Tw  inrtp  iifi^oripwy  rjfiStv  Aoyof,  a>s  &a   ayra  ry   "P^tq 

*  St  Cyprian  Ep.  Ixxv.  *  Tert.  dt  virg.  tW.  c  tx. 

*  Ben.  ed.  note  ad  loc.     Hamack  aaya  it  is  addressed  to  S>7^. 


4o6         THE  JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Topaxmjffoy.  The  »ords  thoii  i  Kpirtj^  ^yy-^  ^'"6  similar  lo  Jas.  t  9 
l&ol  o  Kpvrijt  vfio  Tuf  OvftHit  lanjKfv,  I'hey  may  both  be  an  echo  of 
the  old  formula  *  Maran  atha '  of  i  Cor.  xvi  33  and  Didaeht  c  x.  Tbe 
words  6  Kiipvi  fu  Ktkfiti  diroAoycwrflat  may  refer  to  the  authority  tested 
in  chL-  apostle  in  the  earliest  ages  of  the  Church  :  tU  5  iriBipr  eyii  Kv*f 
Kul  airoirroAcK.  The  'Hv  Si  recalls  the  old  apostolic  formuta  Sv  nfu 
Kop^uryvCiirra  vatrrtuy,  Acts  1  24.  It  was  to  check,  such  perversions  of 
ihe  forms  of  prayer  that  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  of  St  Jude  bids  tbe 
faithful  to  'pray  in  the  Holy  Ghost'  (Jude  20). 

4.  The  Baptismal  formuU  in  Iren.  i  21,  3  is  of  special  interest, 
because  it  has  every  appearance  of  being  a  Gnostic  travesty  of  tbe 
Baptismal  Creed  of  the  Church,  'the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to 
the  saints '  (J  ude  3}, '  the  most  holy  faith  ',  in  which  the  faithful  wac  to 
build  themselves  up.    The  Creed  consists  of  six  short  arUdes : 

i.   ««  Svofta  AyviMTTov  IlaTpb^  TtStv  oXotv. 
ii.    tli  akrjOtiai'  ^.r^ipa  vavnav. 
Jti.  €17  Tw  taTtKBovta,  cis  'l»f<roi*. 

iV.    tlf  Vf^lKTiV. 

V.   xoi  avokvTpatiTiV. 
vi.   Koi  Kwviaviav  rutv  iwdft^tuv. 

The  first  three  articles  have  the  Baptismal  formulary  of  St  Matt. 

XJtviii  18  and  Didache  c.  vii  behind  them ;  the  last  three  are  almost  the 
earliest  witness  to  the  articles  on  the  unity  of  the  Church,  the  Remission 
of  sins^  and  the  Communion  of  Saints  in  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

Art.  i  is  a  Gnostic  variation  of  cec  ro  ovo/ut  roC  trnr/xk  (St  MatL)> 
The  phrase  rwv  Ihav  appears  also  in  the  Creed  of  TTieophronius  of 
Tyana  among  other  iVsiatic  formulae.  The  uyiwTvu  is  Gnostic,  a&d 
cf.  Acts  xvii  33. 

Art.  ii  is  a  perversion  of  the  Jttu  tow  tjEow  of  St  Matthew,  the  words 
of  St  John  xiv  6  "Eyw  «J/u  17  aX>;tfiC»a  being  the  link  between  the  t«o 
forms.    The  fjLTjripa  iravriov  IS  Gnostic. 

Art.  iii  is  equivalent  to  <rai  rw  ayCou  rrvtv^uiTo^  (St  Matt.),  and  refers 
to  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the  Baptism  of  our  Lord. 

Art.  iv.  The  phrase  o's  €vwriv  is  illustrated  by  tbe  Ejustles  of 
St  Ignatius,  where  the  words  ivavo^ai.  &c.  arc  frequent.'  The  words 
ivwTw  trapKov  xai  irfcv/iiaror  (Ign.  Maga.  1)  must,  according  to  Lightfoot, 
be  referred  lo  the  Churches  and  not  to  Christ.  This  unity  is  brought 
into  close  relationship  with  the  Church  in  Ign.  Ephes.  v :  wt  1^  husktf^ 

li^trot'  Xpjimii  Ku^  UK  1i7<7i)t-c  X/)urrus  tu  •xa.Tpi,  Xvfk  iniiTa  iv  cv^nffi 
vv^^tMo.  %  and  is  expressed  clearly  in  Ign.  Phil,  w  iv  ^  wai  irurT«wm»- 
T<s  i<ty^yfn.v  iv  kv&rrffi.  *l»j<rov  Xy>i47Toil.    The  whole  group  of  passages  is 

>  Lightfoot,  v&l.  ii  p.  109. 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES  407 

an  echo  of  the  unity  of  the  Church  as  the  Body  of  Christ  which  is 
expressed  in  St  John  xvii  22,  23  and  Ephes.  iv  4-13.  The  Creed-fonn 
of  Marcus  is  little  more  than  a  variant  of  the  Creed-fonn  etc  /uay 
JKKX170-UU',  which  would  appear  to  have  been  in  the  Creed  of  Finnilian  of 
Caesarea  in  356. 

Art  V  KoX  dirokvTpMnv.  This  Redemption  was  among  the  Marcosians 
a  fomi  of  initiation,  accompanied  with  certain  outward  signs,  such  as 
the  use  of  water,  oil,  or  balsam,  and  a  set  formula.  This  Gnostic  idea 
of  &ToXvTpMrK  was  not  new.  Something  of  the  same  kind  was 
practised  in  the  Colossian  Church,  and  is  referred  to  in  the  words 
iv  ^  i)(0fuv  •njy  iirokvTptoaa',  Tijv  S/^<tiv  tw  anapriav,  CoL  i  14. 
Irenaeus  recognizes  this  relation  to  Baptism  in  the  words :  koI  dn  /tiy 
th  {(ofiyTftrty  rov  pawruriMTOt  t^  els  Btov  atnaycw^trctDs,  koi  vdtnfi  T7S 
TurrcttK  &v69arw  vropi^kifrat  ro  cZSoc  rov  (rovro)  vn-o  Tou  Sarava, 
iX.irjp(ovTtv  aurovs  ttirayy«Aovp«K  iv  t^  vptxr^Kovn  rdinp.*  There  is  there- 
fore little  doubt  that  the  article  in  the  Marcosian  Creed  conesponds  with 
the  article  on  Remission  of  sins  in  the  Apostles*  Creed.  The  Marcosian 
form  emphasized  the  idea  of  Perfection,  the  Church  the  idea  of  Remission 
and  R^eneration. 

Art.  vi  Kot  KotMuvmF  rStv  hwifttoiv.  Zahn  *  says  of  the  article 
satut&rum  communionem  —  'It  is  Highly  probable  that  the  Latin 
words  are  the  translation  of  a  Greek  original  This  could  scarcely 
have  been  anything  else  than  t^v  KOivwytav  rStv  aytW.  'Ayui  would 
certainly  first  suggest  to  Greeks  the  Lord's  Supper/  This  interpretation 
of  sanctorum  as  referring  to  the  holy  things,  sanc/a,  rather  than  to 
members  of  the  Church,  saru/i,  was  lost  very  early  in  the  expositions 
of  the  Creed.  Niceta  of  Remesiana  in  the  fourth  century  interprets 
it  of  the  satuti.  Dom  Morin,  in  an  article  on  Codex  Sessorianus 
52,  writes :  'A  propos  de  I'article  sanciorum  ammum'tmem  on  rappelle 
I'obligation  impost  k  chaque  fidMe  de  communier  tous  les  dimandies ; 
ce  qui  oblige  d'assigner  k  la  pi^e  une  assez  haute  antiquity."  The 
older  meaning  had  not  been  lost.  The  Collection  of  sermons  in  this 
Codex  was  formed  in  the  ninth  century.  Caspari  assigns  the  particular 
sermon  to  which  Dom  Morin  refers  to  the  seventh  century.  But  a 
reference  to  the  'septem  remissiones  peccatorum'  with  its  third  're- 
missio  per  martyrium '  points  to  an  even  earlier  date.  The  article 
'sanctorum  communionem'  first  occurs  in  the  Danubian  Creed  of 
Niceta,  and  then  in  the  Galilean  Creed.  It  may  be  traced  with  other 
Greek  features  of  the  Gallican  use  to  the  influence  of  the  Latin 
Christianity  of  the  Danube,  a  Christianity  which  was  in  close  contact 
with  the  Greek  Christianity  of  Thrace,  and  owed  its  origin  ultimately 

I  Iren.  i  31,  I.  *  Expoa.  1898,  a,  p.  i^ 

■  Kattenbusch  A^.  Symb.  ii  743. 


4o8         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

to  AEifl\  It  may  be  therefore  that  this  Marcosian  formulary  of  ifi* 
is  the  first  evidence  of  this  article  in  the  Creed  of  the  Church.  It 
is  also  noteworthy  that  in  the  Creed  of  the  Bangor  Anliphonary  the 
article  'sanctorum  communionem '  follows  the  article  'abremisa 
peccatonim '  as  the  Marcosian  article  on  the  Communion  follows  tha 
on  the  Redemption.  This  would  seem  to  shew  that  the  Creed  Artidc 
on  the  Holy  Communion  originally  followed  that  on  Holy  Baptism, 
and  ihnt  its  position  was  altered  only  when  its  original  meaning  was 
obscured. 

Is  there  not  some  reason  therefore  for  restoring  the  '  most  holy 
faith'  of  Jude  20,  the  form  of  faith  'once  for  all  delivered  to  the 
saints'  ver.  3,  from  this  Baptismal  formula  of  the  Marcosians,  and  to 
recognize  in  the  restoration  the  form  of  the  Baptismal  Creed  of  Asia 
in  160? 

Hurrtvofuv  th  rov  mrepa 

«K  TO  TTVfVfia  TO  Z.ytov, 
tk  f-ifiv  fiemXijiriav, 

C(;  KOtvutviat'  rtSf  dyLW. 

5.  The  rite  of  initiation  (XuTpdwris)  was  accompanied  by  the  foUowiltg 
formula :  to  Srofia  to  a.iroK€KpVfLfUrov  ujTo  Trdffijt  BivtrfTO^  Kot  KvpvvnjnK 
Kfu  dXi]6fia.ii  &  lyi^raro  Irftrovi  o  ^a^afnjvo^  iv  Tali  {cucuc,  Tov  ifnarvt  fw 
\purro\t,  Xpitrrow  £wi>tos  &i.k  irvevftaro^  ayiov  tfe  XvrptMTiv  AyytXiKrjv.   TillS 
giving  of  a  hidden  name  recalls  the  new  name  referred  to  in  the  Eptstk 
to  the  Church  of  Pergamum :   'To  him  that  conqucreth  will  I  give  d 
the  hidden  manna,  and  I  will  give  to  him  a  while  stone,  and  upon  the 
stone  a  new  name  written  which  no  one  knoweth,  but  he  who  receiTCth 
it '  (Rev.  ii  1 7).   The  Hidden  Name  in  the  Marcosian  rite  was  the  Name 
of  Christ,  the  Living  Christ,  the  Living  One  of  Rev.  i  17.     The  fonn 
used  in  the  Marcosian  nte  was  probably  closely  akin  to  the  form  whkfa 
accompanied  the  giving  of  the  white  tessera  in  the  Pergamene  Church. 
The  rite  corresponds  to  the  'scaling'  in  the  Church,  in  all  probability 
a  ceremony   rather  than   a   mere    mcuphor.    The   Church    in   .Asia 
regarded  this  sealing  as  part  of  the  ministry  of  the  HolyGhost ;  'Grieve 
not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  ye  were  sealed  unto  the  day  of 
redemption  {AirtiXuTpoMHio^y  Eph.  iv  30.    So  also  the  Marcosian  formula 
has  &u  TmvfuiTv^  ayiov.    And  the  place  of  the  Angels  in  the  rite  o£ 

'  '  Das  thncische  Christcntum  war  das  bitbyniBchc'  Ham.  Mujum  umd  Aytir, 
P  49' ■ 

'  Ii  is  notewonhythat  the  evil  doers  of  Jude  'setatnouirht  dominion  (myt^nfra}'. 
Tbc  word  only  occurs  in  z  PcL  ii  10,  Epb.  i  31,  Col.  i  16,  all  Atiao  witnesses. 


JVo.  23  now  ready 

JOURNAL  OF 
THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

PUBLISHED  QUARTERLY 
AnmttU  subscription  12s  net  post  free 

Complete  sets  of  the  Journal  are  already 
unprocurable:  but  the  publisher  has  copies 
of  most  of  the  back  numbers  still  on  sale; 
these  are  offered  for  the  present  at  the  follow- 
ing prices : 

Nos  1  and  6  at  7/6  net  each. 

Nos  8,  4,  14,  15,  16  at  5/-  net  each. 

Nos  5,  8,  9-18, 17-22  at  3/S  net  each. 

A  few  copies  of  vol.  2,  containing  nos.  5-8, 
are  still  on  sale,  bound  in  cloth,  at  24/-  net 
each.  Vols.  8,  4,  and  5,  containing  nos.  9-20, 
can  be  had,  bound  in  cloth,  at  14/-  net  each. 

OXFORD 

AT  THE  CLARENDON   PRESS 

LONDON,  EDINBURGH,  NEW  YORK  &  TORONTO 

HENRY  FROWDE 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  409 

sealing,  ci;  Xvrptao-iv  AyytXiic^y,  is  illustrated  by  the  sealing  of  the 
140,000  in  Rev.  vii  1-8.  The  angel  has  the  'seal'  of  the  Living  God 
(9c(n)  ^wyrm)  engraven  perhaps  with  the  name  of  the  Living  Christ 
{Xpurrov  Cf^vroi)  of  the  Marcosian  formula.  It  is  perhaps  in  reference 
to  this  *  angelic  redemption '  that  the  writer  of  St  Jude  alludes  in  his 
censure  of  the  angels  who  'kept  not  their  first  estate,  but  left  their  own 
habitation'  (ver.  6). 

The  Marcosian  formulary  is,  like  the  others,  similar  to  or  identical 
with  the  form  of  initiation  used  in  the  early  Church  of  Asia  in  con- 
nexion with  or  as  the  complement  of  Holy  Baptism.  It  was  the 
prototype  of  Confirmation,  the  Sacrament  of  Perfection.  'They  say 
that  it  is  necessary  to  those  who  have  received  the  perfect  knowledge 
to  be  regenerated  into  that  power  which  is  above  all.  Otherwise  it  is 
impossible  to  enter  into  the  Fleroma.'  to  fihf  yap  ySairur/ta  rov 
i^taivofuvov  Tijtrov,  it^tirtim  a/iafnuav,  rtjv  Bi  diroXvr/MKnv  rov  iv  afry 
Xpurrov  KartXBovTOi,  fis  rcXcuMnv*  koX  to  fih'  ^niyuiSv,  r^  h\  wwofuvrv^ 
Aoi  v^toravTai.'  The  distinction  not  only  shews  the  difference  between 
remission  and  perfection  among  the  Marcosians,  but  also  gives  point 
to  the  words  of  Jude  19:  'These  be  they  who  separate  themselves 
(i.e.  make  separations),  sensual  (^^ucoi'),  having  not  the  Spirit  {tvcS/ui 

After  the  giving  of  the  Hidden  Name,  the  candidate  for  initiation 
(or  Redemption  or  Confirmation)  responded  in  the  following  words : 
'E<rTij/»y/uu  Koi  Xxkvrptafiat  Koi  Xvrpov/uu  rip'  ijfV)(<qy  /jlov  airi  rov  alSn'Ot 
TOvTov  Kol  wdvTiav  Twv  Trap'  avTov  iv  T«  ivofw-ri,  rov  'lotd,  Ss  lXvTpfi<ran  r^ 
t^vj^v  airrov  eh  airoXvrpoKny  iv  rif  Xpwrrw  t^  {wvti.'  Then  those  who 
were  present  add  Elprjyrf  iraaiv  i<l>'  oU  to  ovo/ia  tout©  iwavavavvnu.  After- 
wards they  anoint  the  initiate  (tov  rtrfXttrfUvoy)  with  opobalsamum, 
which  is  a  type  of  the  sweetness  which  is  above  all  things. 

The  whole  passage  throws  light  on  the  words  of  i  John  ii  20-27  •  '  Ye 
have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  know  all  things  . .  .  And  the 
anointing  which  ye  have  received  of  him  abideth  in  you,  and  ye  need 
not  that  any  man  teach  you.'  The  testimony  of  i  John  is  Asian,  and 
the  passage  seems  to  refer  to  the  Catholic  form  of  this  Sacrament  of 
Redemption,  which  in  160  the  Marcosians  said  was  'necessary  for 
perfect  knowledge  * '. 

There  is  therefore  good  reason  for  regarding  the  form  and  ritual  of 
this  Sacrament  as  a  witness  to  the  form  and  ritual  of  the  Sacrament 
of  Confirmation  in  the  early  Church.  The  Hidden  Name  which  was 
given  in  the  Church  was  the  Name  above  every  name  (Phil,  ii  9). 
The  form  of  Invocation  used  is  probably  identical  with  that  of  the 

'  Iren.  i  31,  i,  *  Ibid,  i  ai,  3. 

'  Jbiti.  i  31,  2. 


410         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Church :  Jmip  vatrav  Svvafuv'  ruv  irctrpus  rirueuXovfLiu  ^w;  Svoftaio/urm 
K<u  wrCfia  aya6oy  Koi  Cf^'    on  iv  aiiifuirt  i^afrike\-(Taf.      The    form   fot 

the  giving  of  the  Name  to  ovo/xa  to  iTroxtMpvfifUvov,  &c,  which  Irenaeus 
gives  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  varied  little  from  the  Church  form.    It 

vras  accompaniedj  according  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,  by  the  lajit^ 

on  of  hands  :  8*o  xai  iv  rp  )(tipo$(eTia  KiyQWiv  tvi  riKovr  <is  Xvrpitvtr 
iyy*Awt^i'.'  The  form  of  response,  also  given  in  two  languages,  in  the 
words  Of  T^  ovofiari  tuu  'law,  IS  an  echo  of  the  Apostolic  formulary  'in 
the  Name  of  Jesus'  (Phil,  ii  lo.  Acts  six  5).  The  Pax  is  the  tl/xp^ 
crotofj  John  15.  Tlve  whole  description  of  the  Marcosian  Sacrament 
of  Redemption  is  therefore  of  the  utmost  value  as  a  vitncss  to  the 
form  and  rite  of  'Laying  on  of  hands'  as  practised  in  the  Apostolic 
and  sub-Apostolic  Church. 

6.  One  other  liturgical  form  is  preserved  by  Iretueus,  the  form  fa 
the  Baptism  or  Unction  of  the  Dead  :  *  Alii  sunt  qui  mortuos  rediinuni 
ad  finem  defunctioni^  mittentes  eorum  capitibus  oleum  et  aquam,  sire 
praedictum   unguentum  cum  aqua,  et   supradtctis   invocationibus,  ut 
incomprehensibites  et  invistbiles  principibus  ct  potestatibus  fiunt,  el 
ut  superascendat  super  invisibilia  interior  ipsorum  homo  ('the  inna 
man'  of  Eph.  iii  16)  quasi  corpus  quidem  ipsorum  in  creatura  mundi' 
relinquatur,  anima  vero  proiiciatur  Demiurgo."     The  water  points  to 
Baptism,   the   oil   to   Unction.     This  Baptism   and  this  Unctiwi  are 
given  that  the  person  may  rise— 'ut  superascendat '.     It  is  an  echo 
of  the  early  rite  of  Baptism   for  the  Dead;    'What  shall  they  do 
which  are  baptized  for  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not?'  i  Cor.  xv  29. 
The  Old   Latin   'qui  mortuos  redimunt'  has  been  turned    by  the 
Benedictine  editor  into  'moricntes'.     But  the  periphrastic  Greek  of 
Epiphanius — tow  TcAci/rinM  ilir'  atrutv  «al  <Vt  ttjv  ai-r^f  !(a&ov  ttt&anr- 
TttC  .   .   ■   XvTpovyTM.  •   •   •  iror)  yap  tu'CS  i^  airrZv  Ikauov  vSart  /u^utk 
iirt^aXXoxMn  Ty  jKi^oAg  toZ  i^iXSoiTo^ — sccms  to  confirm  the  transUtioa 
imrtvos.     The  Baptism  in    i    Cor.   xv   39  was   perhaps   a  vicaxioss 
Baptism.     Tertullian  speak.*;  of  it  as  such'.     But  the  Baptism  of  the 
Dead  was  praciisett  in  the  early  Church,  and  especially  amoi^  the 
Phrygian  followers  of  Montanus*.     Two  forms  of  commendation  are 
given :  the  lirst  of  them  contains  the  words  fyu  vw  Atko  waTpm,  n-arpac 
TTpooiTfts,  vtoH  Si   iv  ry  irapatm.      rjXOav  iravra  thuVf  t«  ilAAvrpia   k<u  ri 
Sua.    They  arc   taught  to  s^iy  these  words  when  they  comu  to  the 
Powers,     The  word  of  Commendation  on  the  Cross,  taken  with  the 
\'erse  that  follows  it,  connects  the  Christian  idea  of  commcndatioa 
and   redemption   with   that   shadowed   forth   in   the   Marcosian   rite: 

'  St  Clem.  AUx.  Exttrpt.  Thtoi.  xxxu 

*  Ircn.  i  31,  >;.  *  Dt  Cam.  R*t.  c.  xlviiL 

*  Philostr.  (&  Haar.  c.  3  ;  Dkt.  Attit.  I  {35. 


NOTES   AND  STUDIES  41I 

*  Father,  into  Thy  Hands  I  commend  my  Spirit ;  Thou  hast  redeemed 
me,  O  Lord,  Thou  God  of  Truth '  (St  Luke  xxiii  46,  Ps.  xxx  6). 

St  Jude  will  have  nothing  of  Achamoth  and  Sophia  in  his  view  of  the 
last  things.  He  says  'Keep  yourselves  in  the  love  of  God,  looking 
for  the  mercy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  unto  eternal  life'  (Jude  ai). 

VI.  2^  Verses  agmrtst  Marcus. 

The  iambic  verses  cited  above  are  interesting  not  only  as  corroborating 
the  evidence  brought  forward  by  Irenaeus  in  his  chapter  on  the  Mar- 
cosian  heresy,  but  because,  if  the  identity  between  this  heresy  and  that 
of  the  Epistle  of  St  Jude  be  established  by  the  forgoing  study,  they  help 
to  shew  the  identity  of  thought  and  responsibility  between  the  '  elder ' 
of  Asia  and  the  writer  of  the  Epistle,  in  their  treatment  of  the  apostate 
magician. 

Thomas  Basns. 


NOTES  ON  THE  DIDACHE. 

in. 

There  are  some  other  points  in  the  Didacfu  that  call  for  notice. 

Let  us  look  at  xvi  3  *£v  yap  rots  itr^arois  ^/UpOK  vkrfSwOijvovTaL 
01  ^tvSoJTpotftiJTai  KaX  01  tf>6op€ii  koI  vrpatfr^ayraL  r4  irpa^aro,  tli  XvKm% 
KoX  1}  iyamf  trTpaxfti}<T€Ttu  ci9  fiZiroi,  ai^ayownp  yap  t^  Avoiiiaf  iwrq- 
tnva-tv  dXAiJAovs  mu  Bua^ovtrt  xat  irapa&mrovtru 

The  passage  is  modelled  upon  Matt,  vii  15,  xxiv  10;  but  the  word 
vapaSwTcvtn  is  the  only  one  which  in  any  way  suggests  danger  from 
heathen  nu^strates.  The  writer  would  hardly  have  expressed  himself 
thus,  if  he  had  lived  within  range  of  Nero,  Trajan,  Decius  or  Dio- 
cletian. What  he  appears  to  have  in  his  mind  is  the  persecution  of 
Christians  by  Christians,  when  sheep  turn  into  wolves.  Now  he  was 
certainly  not  a  Gnostic  nor  a  Quartodecimanj  but  he  may  have  been 
a  Montanist  The  Montanists  were  persecuted  by  Christians  in  the 
second  century  (see  the  words  of  Maximilla  £us.  v.  16,  17  SuMOfuu 
a>s  \vK<n  iK  wpo/SoTwv,  and  Tert.  adv.  Prax.  1),  by  Constantine  (Soz.  ii 
33;  vii  19:  Eus.  V,  C.  iii  63-66:  Epiph.  Ilaer.  xlviit  14),  and  by 
later  emperors  (see  Cod.  Theod.  xvi  5,  59,  65),  and  are  classed  with 
heathen  in  what  is  given  as  the  seventh  canon  of  the  council  of  Con- 
stantinople. 

Immediately  after  this  passage  on  persecution  comes  the  prophecy 


412         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

about  the  End.  It  is  the  work  of  one  who  professed  to  be  himsdf  ) 
prophet,  and  to  know  many  other  prophets,  but  it  does  not  exbib^ 
the  faintest  trace  of  ecstatic  fervour;  it  is  in  fact  nothing  but  ■  bald 
reproduction  of  what  the  author  had  read  in  the  New  TestsmcnL 
It  is  bookish,  and  further  it  is  critical.  Its  significance  lies  in  the 
points  which  it  omits.  It  leaves  out  the  return  of  Nero^  which  «u 
expected  by  St  John,  the  StfyUiiu  Oracles,  and  Commodian ;  and  it 
knows  nothing  of  the  rex  oUent^na  of  the  Tatamcnhan  Donim 
(Rahmani,  p.  7).  The  author  makes  no  attempt  to  connect  the  End 
with  the  history  of  his  own  time,  because  he  is  critical  and  has  cooe 
to  see  the  futility  of  such  endeavours.  Again,  he  is  evidently 
a  Chiliast,  and  here  again  vc  have  an  indication  that  he  K-rote 
the  time  of  the  Alexandrines.  He  tells  us  of  the  sound  of  the  trumpet 
but  makes  no  mention  of  the  angels ;  indeed,  one  of  the  most  pecaliit 
features  of  the  book  is  the  entire  absence  of  allusion  to  good  or  eril 
spirits.  What  Barnabas  entitled  'ilie  Way  of  the  Black  One',  is  ta 
the  Didacke  '  the  Way  of  Death ' ;  the  petition  in  the  Lord's  Prayer  is 
understood  apparently  to  mean  'deliver  us  from  evil',  not  from  'the 
Evil  One '  (sec  x  5).  Again,  there  is  no  resurrection  for  the  wicked, 
nor  docs  the  author  speak  of  a  resurreaion  of  the  body.  He  refcn 
to  Zech.  xiv  5,  but  whether  he  means  that  the  wicked  perish  at  deub. 
or  that  when  ihey  die  they  enter  at  once  into  everlasting  punishment 
and  have  no  share  in  the  resurrection  ithis,  according  to  Josej^us,  wtf 
the  teaching  of  the  Pharisees),  is  not  clear.  He  may  be  folio 
Enoch  (see  the  article  Eichatohgy  in  Hastings'  Dictionary,  by  R- 
Charles).  Bui  it  is  noticeable  that,  while  copying  the  Way  of  Deatti 
from  Barnabas,  the  author  of  the  Didache  has  omitted  the  words  oiw 
yo^  icmv  ^avarov  akaivlov  ficra  TtfMupia.^,  and  fiom  this  we  might  iofet 
that  he  believed  in  the  extinction  of  the  wicked  at  death. 

The  prophecy  is  studied,  dull  and  unreal ;  there  is  no  existing 
specimen  of  the  kind  that  is  so  uninteresting.  The  author  is  devoid 
not  only  of  inspiration  but  of  imagination.  He  has  seen  too  many 
predictions  falsified  by  the  event,  and  is  too  timid  to  let  himself  go. 
He  does  not  believe  in  others,  and  he  does  not  believe  in  himsdf, 
but  just  repeats  in  a  perfunctory  official  kind  of  way  the  two  or  three 
things  that  he  thought  might  possibly  still  come  to  pass.  It  is  surely 
lurdly  conceivable  that  this  bankrupt  seer  should  have  lived  in  the 
first  century.  The  second  century  Inigins  with  Hermas  and  ends  with 
Pcrpciun,  produced  the  Apocafypie  of  Peter,  and  abounded  in  Gnostic 
and  MonLinist  visionaries,  who,  whatever  else  wc  may  think  of  them, 
did  not  want  fire,  conviction,  matter  or  power.  Even  in  the  third 
century  we  find  Cyprian  and  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  who  were  pto> 
phcts,  and  Commodian,  who  tliough  not  a  prophet,  knew  and  believed 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  413 

what  other  prophets  had  satd.  The  exaltation  of  Pentecost  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  exaltation  of  the  times  of  persecution,  and  this  again  by 
the  exaltation  of  asceticism.  Prophecy  was  rife  in  the  Egyptian 
monasteries.  But  nowhere  along  the  whole  line  shall  we  find  any  one 
who  talks  so  much  and  knows  so  little  about  prophecy  as  the  author 
of  the  Didache.  The  afflatus  was  not  djring,  but  dead,  in  the  community 
to  which  he  belonged. 

There  are  a  few  words  in  the  Didache  which  may  help  us  to  fix  its 
date. 

KAotr/xo,  used  (ix  3)  of  the  bread  broken  in  the  Eucharist.  It  is 
taken  from  the  story  of  the  feeding  of  the  Five  Thousand,  and  is  an 
appropriate  term  for  the  *  fragment '  given  to  a  communicant.  Never- 
theless it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  so  employed.  Hamack  says 
that  no  instance  can  be  found  in  the  first  or  second  century,  and, 
so  far  as  I  am  aware,  none  has  been  produced  from  the  third.  But 
the  word  occurs,  used  in  this  particular  sense,  in  the  Coptic  Liturgy 
(see  Brightroan  Liturgies  E.  and  W.  p.  464  line  5,  and  Ghssary  of 
Technical  Terms,  s.v.  'Particle')-  Add  Acta  Andreae  (Tisch.  p,  109) 
where  rd  xXtur/ia  -niv  o^n-ov  is  used  of  the  sop  which  our  Lord  gave 
to  Judas.  The  attestation  is  probably  at  earliest  of  the  fourth  century, 
and  points  to  Egypt. 

Sirta.  See  xiii  5  lo.v  vvrwy  megs-  The  Only  lexicon  I  have  seen 
which  notices  the  word  is  that  of  Sophocles,  where  two  passages  from 
the  Apophthegmata  Patrum   are  cited — Migne  Ixv  192  A  koI  Xa/3^ 

(TiruiV  <tt  TO  ^E/}TOKOir<M>V,  and    196  B  LtT^ISw  0&  flf  TO  iS^irOKOTCtOT'  ITM^CRU 

8vo  o-tTta?.  Here  we  find  ourselves  again  in  Egypt  and  in  the  fourth 
century,  for  both  passages  occur  in  sayings  of  Abbot  Theodore,  who 
was  a  contemporary  of  Athanasius,  The  word  was  strange  to  the 
compiler  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  for  he  replaces  it  by  B^^jA 
apToi  (vii  29). 

XpurriftTropot  (xii  5).  It  is  SO  used  as  to  form  an  epigram,  'not  a 
Christian  but  a  Christmonger '.  The  epigram  is  found  in  pseudo- 
Ignatius  TraU.  vi  2,  and  in  Basil  £pp.  240 ;  the  words  xpurnfjunpot 
or  xpuTTCftiropw  in  ps.-Ign.  Magn.  ix  5 :  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  xl  1 1  (i  p. 
698);  Carm.  de  Vita  sua  1756  (ii  p.  766):  Chrysost  Horn,  vi  in 
I  Thess.  (vol.  V  p.  378  of  Field's  edition) :  Theodoret  Hist.  EccL  i  3 
(in  letter  of  Alexander  of  Alexandria);  Epp.  i  4  (Migne  iii  729): 
p5.-Cleraent  <&  Virg.  i  10,  4;  11,  4;  13,  5.  From  the  fourth  century 
onwards  the  word  appears  to  be  fairly  common,  but  it  is  not  to  be 
found  before.  Indeed  it  belongs  to  that  later  age  when  alm^ving 
has  become  a  dubious  virtue. 

These  three  words  are  probably  all  late.  It  may  be  of  course  that 
our  information  is  defective ;  the  '  leopards '  of  Ignatius  may  warn  us 


be  Mpcdcd  flf  bci^  bK  m  ciwa  «« ite  ■  cawoMDa 'dc 
oTi 
'.    He  I 

As  to  das  fOBKi  the  teader  bbs  do«  jh^ 
lidKf  if  ibai,  acBiqg  aiiie  the  vcqr 

oalf  lo  sidt  pcntm 
h^  so  ailvred,  it 
.  Sone  ue  fepond  to  ifamk  ih«  ■! 
is  to  be  tfcaied  m  caofeatio— ^ —i  ttit 
or  pcifinMMi  MS  in  bet  tne  gf  iifiiil  prattice  bob  vny  flutf 
times;  ba^  if  ifaii  is  to^  ii  iidifficah  to  see  ^lat  rdiuKc  «e  can (Ive 
■poo  any  ttaiqpents  aboot  xnyliiin^  Radf,  Mr  VenoD  Bndtf 
woald  pbce  tbe  date  of  tbe  cowpfcied  UUackt  about  loo^  aad  pBi> 
sibly  between  80  and  90  a.  d. 

My  own  view,  if  I  may  ventuic  to  give  it  bere  in  ootKne,  b 

r.  Hiat  tbe  Two  Wayt  is  the  work  of  Baniafau.  Mr  Bartlet  dos 
not  qttite  admit  thtt,  Ijot  be  alknrs  that  It  may  have  been  'wmteo  dova 
far  the  first  time  at  his  request  and  for  his  benefit '. 

1.  That  tbe  Way  tf  Life  was  drcalated  as  an  indepeadeot  tract, 
under  the  title  xA  The  Ttaching  of  tht  Twthe  ApostUi.  See  Mis  Gilaon^ 
translation  of  tbe  Harris  codex  of  the  Syriac  Didascalia  p.  i  a :  the 
Sjriac  Text  and  translation  of  TSf  Ttoihing  of  the  Twthe  Aposties,  by 
J.  P.  Arendien  in  J.  T.  S.  iii  p.  60  :  and  the  Greek  text  of  the  Apo$tdiicd 
Church  Order.  In  these  free  reristons  the  Greek  of  Barnabas  wu 
a  tittle  varied  and  elaborated  and  a  few  verses  were  omitted. 

3.  Some  time  after  tbe  cessation  of  persecution  an  Eg>-ptian  writa 
took  up  this  revised  Way  of  Life^  added  to  it  from  Barnabas  the  Way 
of  Death  and  the  omitted  verses,  and  inserted  a  passage  of  his  own 
composition  (i  3— ii  i\  in  which  he  made  use  of  the  Didascalia^  d 
Hermas,  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  of  an  unknown  Gospel-  He 
then  proceeded  to  append  to  this  nucleus  a  church  manual,  exhibiting 
the  practice,  doctrine  and  organization  of  the  sect  to  which  he  belonged. 

What  this  sect  was  it  is  hardly  possible  to  say.    The  author  has 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  415 

little  or  no  interest  in  the  Humanity  c^  our  Lord,  or  in  angels  or 
demons.  He  was  strongly  ascetic  and  draws  a  distinction  between 
the  *  perfect '  Christian,  who  bears  the  *  whole  yoke  of  the  Lord ',  and 
the  '  imperfect '  Christian,  who  does  not  (vi  1-3).  While  on  this  side 
exceedingly  Judaic,  he  yet  detests  the  Jews,  and  is  remarkably  free 
from  scholasticism,  formalism  or  mechanism.  Affusion,  perfusion, 
immersion  are  quite  indifferent,  and  his  view  of  the  Eucharist  is  that 
of  Clement  of  Alexandria  or  Origen.  Church  organization  he  would 
remodel  in  the  light  of  Alexandrinism  and  of  the  Pauline  Epistles. 
That  he  was  acquainted  with  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  need 
not  be  doubted,  but  he  masquerades  as  a  contemporary  of  the  Apostles, 
and  is  therefore,  like  the  author  of  the  Clementine  HomiUeSy  debarred 
from  formal  quotation,  except  as  r^ards  '  the  Gospel '.  Somewhere 
in  Egypt  there  may  have  been  a  sect  answering  to  this  description. 
But  it  is  possible  that  this  strange  book  merely  expresses  the  ideas 
of  a  solitary  thinker.  For  it  never  came  to  anjrthing,  and  nobody 
appears  to  have  read  it  except  the  compiler  of  the  Comtitutienes  Apo- 
stoHcM. 

C.  Bigg. 


NOTES  ON  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO 
ST  JOHN. 

I. 

iv  23  '^p)(erox  (ipa  KCu,  vvv  ioTW,  St€  o!  AXtfBivoi  irpovKVtnifTal  irpotrKmrq- 
irown  Ty  va.T(M,  iv  irvevfuin  Kal  iXijBtC^ 

V  25  'Epxtrtu  &pa  koX  vw  itrny,  art  61  v€Kpol  &Ko6troynu  t§s  t^vrji  toS 
uunJ  ToB  9cov,  koX  ol  &KOWTavTK  Cqtrovrai. 

I  wish  to  surest  that  in  both  of  these  passages  the  clause  luu  vw 
coTiv  is  not  a  part  of  our  Lord's  words,  but  an  editorial  comment  added 
by  the  Evangelist  to  point  out  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  contained 
in  the  previous  words  ipxrrat  wpa.  *  An  hour  is  coming ' — aye  and  it 
is  now  present — 'when,'  &c.  I  quite  admit  that  there  is  no  necessity 
for  such  an  interpretation,  for  our  Lord  may  quite  naturally  indicate  the 
germs  of  the  future  in  the  present ;  nay,  there  are  arguments  against  it : 
the  absence  of  the  words  in  iv  21  and  xvi  2,  where  it  would  have  been 
equally  natural  for  the  Evangelist,  though  not  for  our  Lord,  to  add  this 
note,  and  the  analogy  of  xvi  33,  where  the  additional  words  koi  lKj^v$w 
seem  to  be  the  Lord's  own,  both  make  for  the  common  view. 


4l6        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STtTDIES 

But  on  the  other  hand  such  coaunents  an  nttnol  tt>  the  EvanedB 
(i  16,  iii  16-21,31-6,  xi  52,  ^c);  in  both  of  tboe  oses  tfae  witnes  of 
hu  Uter  experience  is  specially  ngnifioBtt ;  aad  bis  first  Epode  (An 
tome  suikiog  aiulogies.  A  compArison  of  any  ooe  of  the  kMamisf 
puMges,  and  above  all  the  combined  effect  of  them  all,  makes  siraagi; 
for  the  view  here  advocated. 

I    St   John   ii    l&   llat&ia.  iaymi  ifia  irri'    «w    wmBJK    ^Kmtvmrt  in 

tb.  iii  1  '^rr4  wvnjnp^  &ymnjv  ScStvKcr  i^ftU'  i  Ttmgp^  o«  TUMt  9«m  cXif 

ib.  tv  3  Kal  TDvrt}  j<m  to  tov  Jinx^Mrrots  ft  diniiisrc  Sn.  fyg^cm,  ol 
rvr  Jr  r^  totrfuf  iorXr  {f^. 

If,  then,  we  adopt  this  interpretation,  St  John  will  in  it  33  be 
bearing  his  witness,  at  the  end  of  his  life,  to  the  change  that  has  passed 
over  worship.  "  The  temple  is  gone,  the  mass  of  Samaritans  have  been 
convened ;  but  there  has  arisen,  as  the  Lord  said  there  would,  a  hJ^vr 
worship ;  the  '  reasonable  ser^-ice '  of  which  St  Paul,  the  '  SfMl^ol 
sacrifices'  of  which  St  Peter  has  spoken,  have  taken  the  place  of  ii 
that  was  ignorant  arid  formal :  I  too  have  seen  true  worafaippen  from 
manj'  a  nation  and  in  many  a  place." 

En  V  35  the  Lord's  prophecy  '  An  hour  cometh  when  the  dead  rial 
hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  they  that  hear  shall  live,'  may  have 
referred  to  literal  resurrection,  such  as  that  of  Lazarus,  but  more  probably 
to  a  spiritual  resurrection  from  the  death  of  sin.     In  either  case  St  Joho 
may   have  had   not  only  the  varied  experience  of  a  later  Christiio 
generaticn,  but  also  a  special  experience  of  his  own  in  his  mind  as  he 
added  '  aye  and  now  it  is  true  ' ;  for  Euscblus  tells  us,  on  the  authority 
of  Apollonius,  that  a  dead  man  was  through  the  power  of  God  rraed 
to  life  by  John  himself  (Euseb.  ^is/.  Eui.  v  18) :    and  Oement  o( 
Alexandria    has   gi%'en    us    Ihe   beautiful   story   of  St  John    vinnii^ 
bock  the  brigand  to  the  faith  of  Christ :  *  Where  is  tlie  young  man,'  he 
bad  said  to  the  bishop  to  whom  he  bad  entrusted  him,  'whom  I  left  in 
thy  care?'    'Alas/  was  the  answer,  *  he  is  dead,'  dcy  n&vifKaf.    But  the 
aged  A[x>slle  found  him,  called  after  bim  with  a  loud  voice  {Kotperfiiii, 
pleaded  with  him  as  sent  by  Christ  to  save  him,  promised  him  forgiveness 
in  Christ's  name, '  nor  left  him  before  he  had  restored  htm  to  the  church, 
giving  a  great  example  of  genuine  repentance,  a  great  proof  of  re- 
generation, a  trophy  of  a  visible  resurrection,'  rpiyTraxov  Avwrritmai  pKtrtt- 
fUvTjv  {Qur's  diTf^s  sa/vf/ur  t  c.  43).     The  original  saying  of  the   Lord, 
'the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  they  that  hear 
shall  live,'  may  well  have  come  to  bis  mind  at  such  a  moment,  and  it 
would  be  with   a  full  heart  that,  when  afterwards  he  recorded  thX 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  417 

saying,  he  paused  to  add  the  words  koi  vOv  itmv,  and  set  to  his  seal 
that  God  is  true.  If  this  interpretation  is  right  we  should  punctuate 
the  sentence  ipxtrat  Stpa,  ko!  vvv  iariv,  ore  ktX. 

II. 

ix  2  *Va^pL,  T«  rjfiapT€v,  ovroc  ^  ol  yovctc  airm,  tva  rv^Xic  ytwi^  ; 
The  first  half  of  this  question  has  always  caused  perplexity  :  in  what 
way  could  a  man  have  sinned  before  birth  so  as  to  be  bom  blind  in 
penxdty  for  his  sin  ?  The  common  answer  to  this  question  is  to  appeal 
to  a  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  souls  found  in  later  Judaism  and 
imported,  perhaps,  from  Hellenic  sources,  and  an  illustration  has  been 
drawn  from  Wisdom  viii  19,  30  : 
irtus  Si  ^/tyfy  twf>vTJ^ 

^nr)^  Tc  2Xaxov  iyaO^ 

fi^XXoy  Si  iye^hv  Jiir  ^X^ov  th  armfxa  i^jlayrov. 

But  neither  this  passage  nor  any  other  quoted  seems  to  give  such 
a  doctrine  of  pre-existence  as  is  needed  for  the  purpose  here :  they  are 
all  consistent  with  the  belief  which  is  drawn  out  at  full  length  in  the 
passage  (quoted  by  Weber  Alt^netg.  Pal.  I^ologie  p.  217)  from 
Tanchuma,  Pikkude  3.  According  to  this,  all  sovls  were  created  by 
God  from  the  first ;  they  were  created  good,  they  existed  in  a  heavenly 
region,  and  one  was  joined  with  each  body  at  the  time  of  conception. 
This  theory  not  only  does  not  support,  it  contradicts,  the  possibility  of 
sin  in  the  pre-existent  state. 

There  would  be  stronger  ground  for  assuming  that  the  disciples 
believed  that  the  child  might  have  sinned  in  the  womb.  Some  belief 
in  consciousness  of  the  child  while  in  the  womb  is  implied  in  St  Luke 
i  44,  and  both  Lightfoot  (ad  ioc.)  and  Weber  (p.  335)  quote  the  Midiasch 
rabba  on  Ruth  iii  13  as  contemplating  it  as  an  unusual  case.  But  it  is 
scarcely  likely  that  either  of  these  theories  should  have  become  current 
coin  or  been  present  to  the  minds  of  simple  Galilaeans.  This  is  equally 
true  of  a  thinl  theory,  illustrated  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria  {ad  he.)  from 
some  Gentile  beliefs  of  his  time,  and  by  Dr  Pusey  (  What  is  of  Faith  as 
to  Everlasting  Punishment  p.  65)  from  Rabbinic  sources,  the  theory  of 
a  transmigration  of  souls  by  which  a  soul  brings  into  a  new  body  the 
results  of  sins  committed  in  its  former  life  :  but  here  all  the  illustrations 
are  of  late  date. 

In  this  place  too  I  would  surest  a  slight  change  of  punctuation  and 

read  rtt  ^fiapTw ;    ofn-oc ;    ^   01  yoveif  avrov    tva  TwfeXxK   ytw7j&§ ',     So 

punctuated,  the  words  'va .  .  .  ycwi;^  will  only  apply  to  the  last  question : 
and  the  meaning  will  be — 'Master,  whose  sin  caused  this  blindness? 
was  it  the  man's  own  sin  causing  him  to  be  struck  blind  by  God  in  bis 
own  lifetime  ?  or  was  it  his  parents*  sins  causing  him  to  be  bom  blind  ?* 
VOL.  VI.  EC 


4l8        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

This  interpretation  would  assume  that  at  the  time  of  the  question  tte 
disciples  were  ignorant  that  the  man  had  been  bom  blind :  but  dm 
would  be  quite  natural ;  the  Jews  needed  at  a  later  stage  in  thb  inridft* 
to  ask  questions  on  the  point  (19,  30) :  and  ignorance  is  more  proboblr 
than  knowledge,  at  the  first  sight  of  one  who  seems  to  tare  been  1 
stranger  lighted  upon  by  accident.  St  John  in  describing  the  incidat 
afterwards  naturally  emphasizes  from  the  start  this  ituportant  point  Ihii 
he  was  blind  from  birth,  but  he  leaves  the  original  questioa  in  its  origina] 
form,  probably  Iwcause  it  never  would  liave  occurred  to  his  mind  that 
any  one  would  think  of  interpreting  the  question  '  Did  this  man  sin  ? ' 
in  any  way  except  the  natural  way,  that  it  meant  con^rcious  sin  in  tbe 
man's  own  life. 

W.  Lock. 


THE  MEANING  OF  THE  LEVDEN   GRAECO- 
DEMOTIC  PAPYRUS  ANAST.  65. 

This  papjrnis,  known  as  Pap.  Anastasy  65  (L  383),  contains  in  ia 
demotic  text  besides  some  Greek  words  the  following  passage: — 

MH   Me  MOiKt  0&£   AN0][T1ATTl   TTETO[.]  MerOYSANCC    BaCTaZOI 
THNT&(t)HNITO   YOCIpeWC  K&l  Yn&rO0K*TA[.  .JHCAlAYTHNe   C*B)AOC 
KAT&CTHC&ieiCT&CT&C   KAlKAT&eec8ai€lc[.]    AX^^^^'^'^'^   lO^KOHOYC 
Tt4p&C)(H  npOCpeYWiYTHNAYTW 

In  a  modern  form,  we  might  read  this : — 

T4CT&C    «u   Kara$iiT$at  tU  AA){aC'     iw  fiot   o   ^€tra)   itoxovt  |  mfiirxS' 

irpofTpiiptii  [1.  -pi'i^cii ']  aWr^v  avri^ 

Messrs  Griffith  and  Thompson  have  shewn  {Demotic  Mag,  Paf.  ^ 
London  and  Leiden,  London,  Grevel  &  Co.,  1904,  pp.  n  and  13)  thai 
the  present  demotic  text  is  only  the  retranslation  of  the  Greek  version  of 
a  late  Egyptian  (early  Coptic)  document.    We  may  therefore  define 

I  XlfoVfA^.  Brugich.  R^villout,  MBSpiro,  DebsoMiia  kmI  v/>ocr(r)p4y««,  Lce- 
tnans,  Monummi,  p.  9,  guessed  that  the  scribe  meant  itpoapi^  A  combiaition 
with  upoafiww  is  impouiblc.  The  nTitini;  of  «n  -<-  instead  of -1-  before  f  ta^htbc 
a  Creek  phonetic  phenomenon,  Yet  the  fact  that  t  is  long,  and  moreover  bclo&p 
to  lh«  aeetntuaud  syllable,  makes  this  aot  probable.  We  have  here  a  Coptk 
iDJSUke,  cCO.v.  Lemm/jM/Zi-tin  lUFAs.  imp.tifS(-P*lirahoui'gv^\.j\V\  i  (June  lyoo)  : 
■  Gricchische  u.  laL  LehnwOrter  im  KuptiacLcn ',  GrcnfeU  and  Hunt  Grttk  Psfyts 
Second  Senes,  No.  caiii. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  419 

the  problems  in  tbe  following  manner,  in  order  to  explain  the  obscure 
ANOXHAnineTOY  MeroYBANec  as  a  Coptic  magical  fonnula : — 

I.  ANOx-    (a)  Linguistic  character  of  the  word. 
{fi)  Exact  meaning. 

II.    nAnin6T0YMET0YB&N6C. 

(a)  Is  this  one  word  or  more  ? 

{^)  Philolc^cal  analysis. 

(y)  The  meaning  of  TTAnmerOYMeT-. 

(S)  The  meaning  of  -oyB&n6C. 
I  (a).  The  first  word  &nox  has  long  been  recognized  as  the  common 
Coptic  &noK,  We  might  consider  the  aspiration  *  of  the  last  radical 
as  a  proof  of  the  '  lower-Sahidic '  character  of  the  formula.  This  is 
a  priori  probable,  as  the  body  of  the  work  as  well  as  the  '  glosses '  have 
been  proved  to  be  written  in  one  and  the  same  dialect  *  (op.  cit  ch.  v 
p.  10).    This  dialect  was  distinctly  'lower-Sahidic'. 

I  03).  In  Deissmann's  Bible  Studies,  p.  289,  where  this  formula  is 
mentioned,  it  is  said  that  similar  cases  of  iya  cl/u  with  tbe  name  of  a  god, 
by  which  the  conjurer  identifies  himself  with  the  god  in  order  to  give 
a  particular  force  to  his  incantation,  are  very  often  found  in  Greek  books 
on  magic  art.  ^noR,  however,  is  linguistically  identical  with  *3!lM  and 
has  exactly  the  same  meaning,  which  is  simply  *I'.  In  both  cases 
the  notion  '  I  am  *  springs  only  from  the  context. 

II  (o).  The  second  part  of  our  problem  is  somewhat  more  compli- 
cated. In  the  text  itself  the  word  is  separated  thus ;  &noxn«'ni,  ncTOT, 
jueTOT&«.nec,  but  it  is  obvious  that  this  external  testimony  is  of  little 
importance.  Even  less  evidence'  can  be  brought  forward  to  support 
the  reading  Papipetou  Metoubams  as  accepted  by  R^villout  and  others*. 

'  Aspiration  is  here  a  doubtiiil  tenD,  for  tbe  real  value  of  the  Coptic  symbol  ^ 
is  at  least  as  difficult  to  determine  as  the  exact  historical  character  of  the  souod 
represented  by  the  Greek  sign  x* 

In  Coptic  we  need  urgently  :  (a)  a  complete  and  ssrstematic  study  of  the  present 
pronunciation  in  the  various  districts  of  Egypt  by  a  trained  student  of  phonetics  ; 
(0)  a  complete  and  systematic  sjmopsis  of  all  MS  evidence  on  the  use  and  history 
of  the  graphic  symbols  as  related  to  the  real  sounds  which  occurred  in  the  language 
of  the  later  Egyptians. 

*  I  cannot  strongly  enough  insist  on  the  intrinsic  value  of  Prof.  Victor  Henry's 
book  AMtinomits  linguistiquta,  Paris,  1896. 

'  No  evidence  at  all,  for,  if  the  separating  of  words  in  Greek  writing  is  purely 
accidental,  this  is  still  more  the  case  with  the  Demotic  symbols. 

'  Rtfvillout.  E.  Rtvu*  igyptologiqtu  i  (1880)  p.  164  sq. ;  Les  arts  i^yptitna 
ii  p.  10  sq. ;  Un/ragmtHt  dt  la  Ugtnd*  Osiriaqut  \  Maspero,  G.  CoUectiona  du  Muatt 
ttAlaoui  t  5,  Paris,  1890,  p.  66  sq. ;  Rtcutil  dV  Trav4atx,  hudss  dttnotiqiua 
i  p.  49  sq. ;   F.  LI.  Griffith  and  H,  Thompson,  op.  cit. 

£  e  2 


420         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Therefore  there  is  no  reason  for  not  considering  all  the  tetten  s 
belonging  to  one  vord 

II  {fiy  Philological  analysis  by  itself  has  not  as  yet  adequately  shewn 
the  manner  in  which  the  letters  ought  to  be  separated.  The  recent 
editors  of  the  Dem.  Mag.  Pap^  while  doubting  whether  th«  formdi 
really  meant  anything,  and  suggesting  that  it  must  be  corrupt,  have 
tentatively  proposed  the  following  solution  : — 

'nk  pc  pa  p  nt  'o  my  t  w«bn-s 

translated :   '  I  am  the  servant  of  him  that  is  great  \  give  disdiuge 
(juATorio)  (of  the  liability)  to  her  (jiV,  for  *to  roe'?).' 

I  quote  the  whole  of  this  explanation,  as  it  is  hidden  in  a  footnos 
(p.  io8)  which  might  fail  to  attract  attention.  Apart  from  very  serioiB 
doubts  as  to  the  suitability  of  this  translation  to  the  circumstances 
given  in  the  charm,  the  philological  grounds  seem  not  to  be  sound 

For,  if  wc  transliterate  the  projxjsed  reading  ('nk  pc  pa  p  nt  "o  my  I 
w»bn-s)  into  Greek,  according  to  the  system  which  the  editors  ht« 
adopted,  in  which  '  =  a  and  y  =  i,  we  reach  a  result  which  diSen 
considerably  from  the  Greek  of  the  Papyrus. 

It  is  of  course  possible  to  assume  a  far-reaching  corruption,  but  if 
a  simpler  solution  can  be  found,  it  is  probably  preferable. 

II  (-y).  It  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  general  wish  of  the 
persecuted  person  was  to  represent  himself  in  such  a  way  that  no  fix 
would  be  willing  to  attack  hinj.  From  the  context,  and  from  the 
analogy  of  similar  cases  \  it  is  probable  that  be  declared  himself  u> 
be  the  servant  of  some  of  the  Osiriac  deities.  Following  up  this  line 
of  thought  we  might  explain  the  first  half  in  this  manner: — 

possessive  prefix  (§  57)' ;  A  wv  toS  .  .  . ; 

demonstrative  pronoun  (§  58}  of  the  weaker  class,  a  secondaiy 

form  of  nei'  (S. ) ; 
definite  article,  by  which  a  sentence  of  relation  is  roidc 

substantive  (§  504) ; 
particle  of  relation,  in  Sahidic  often   connected  with  rfic 

definite  article  [he  who  is :  (S. )  ncTugunc,  (B.)  ^^h  CT^en 

indefinite  article,  always  used  as  an  introduction  to  nouns  of 
a  general  or  abstract  character,  forra^  by  the  prefix  (S.) 
Hnr,  (B.)  jucT  (§5  90,  127); 

'  Cf.  £(Airr)  JV(c>WHPrM>M).  du  ix,  cb.  xlviii,  ch.  Luuivl;  Miiangtt  {tartkeoti^ 
tg,  ti  ass.  t  p.  1 18  (J^.  M,  ch.  Ixix,  col.  6)  f  Lecatans  Paf.  and  vol..  Pap,  v,  coL  6  ■, 
line  13  sq. 

*  Th«  pirftKraph  numbera  refer  to  tfae  flnt  editbin  of  Siciiulorff'*  K«fiudn 


-n\- 


-K- 


-rr- 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  42I 

-juter-  :  prefix  of  generalization  or  abstraction,  forms  nominafemimna 
of  a  general  or  abstract  meaning  from  other  nouns  [e.  g. 
nttTeiuT,  paternity :   eiuT,  father ;  XEnT«.ce&Hc,  wicked* 

•  t  ness :  cxefiiHc,  wicked ;  XCitToireeiiun,  Greek  (language, 

■^  &c.) :  oTceinin ',  Greek], 

The  Bohairic  form  of  this  prefix  is  aict-.  This  is  one  proof  more 
that  our  scribe  knew  the  Sahidic  dialect  in  a  '  lower ',  a  Northern  formi 
and  is  the  more  probable  explanation  (cf.  «noXj  I  («) )-  One  mighty 
however,  suggest  that  a  top-stroke,  representing  n,  was  omitted; 

We  may  therefore  translate  the  first  lines  of  our  formula  thus : — 

'  Do  not  persecute  me  N.  N.,  for  lam  the  servant  of  an  OYB&N£c-/i'ifo 
oiKy  I  bear  the  mummy  of  Osiris,  &c.  . .  . ' 

It  would  be  possible  to  leave  here  the  field  of  philological  research* 
and  considering  that  many  Egyptian  gods  have  an  animal  face  we 
might  tiy  to  find  out  some  member  of  the  Osiriac  fomily  who  had 
something  to  do  with  the  mummy  of  that  god  and  with  the  frightening 
of  harmful  demons  or  persons,  while  his  outward  appearance  might 
suggest  some  explanation  for  the  epitheion  '  0YB&N€t:-like '.  I  prefer, 
however,  the  philological  method. 

II  (S).  oyBancc  phonetically  transcribed  represents  the  sounds : 
u-w-a-n-e-s  (or  S) '. 

Probably  these  sounds  represent  some  word  in  a  lower  Sahidic  dialect, 
which  perhaps  described  some  striking  peculiarity  (the  animal  face  ?)  of 
one  of  the  Osiriac  gods. 

To  this  purpose  the  *  pure '  Sahidic  otuHds  ',  jackal^  answers  best, 

'  oreeiiun  cf.  Hebr.  criT|ri  ^i,  ]v  ;  Aram,  nj^,  mj::  Syr.  juioJ;  Arab.  ^Vj»>j 
Assyr.  jftvonu  ;  Sanskr.  javani  ;  ^d-pers.  jaunA,  Geseniiia-Kautsch'*  p.  317. 

Stade  Dt  populo  Javan,  Giessen,  18&0  ;  HaMvy  Rnnu  aimiHqHt  ii  p.  101  sq. 

'  s  or  S.  Cf.  Hesycht  Haaa&pta  rd  dAonr^xia  d  Af^vci  kiy>wii» :  (A)  &&g«,p 
(S.)  &«.gop.  The  c  is  the  only  symbol  which  the  Greek  alphabet  knows  for  all 
kinds  of  sibilants.  So  even  the  modern  Athenian  Ay9 :  ^x*'  "^t  thus  hellenizing 
the  cosmopolitan  '  chic  '. 

Od  lonians  in  Egypt  cfl  Hahaffy  A  Survty  0/ Grttk  CivHiaatum  pp.  33, 64,  71  sq. 

*  OTCiin|g.  Peyron  Ltxkon  lingttiu  Coplicat,  Taurini,  1835,  p.  149,  states  the 
fact  that  OTton^  is  used  several  times  in  the  N.  T.  ts  represent  the  Greek  aVkoc; 

When  representing,  however,  a  living  animal  in  Egypt,  and  not  some  letters  in 
a  foreign,  written  book,  it  always  has  the  meaning  '  jackal '. 

As  we  have  no  firm  ground  to  assert  that  to  the  readers  of  the  Greek  N.  T.  in 
general,  and  especially  to  those  who  dwelt  in  Egypt,  the  five  signs  A.t.k,o.c. 
conveyed  the  idea  of  that  animal  which  we  call  a  '  wolf,  and  not  the  far  more 
common  inhabitant  of  the  Eastern  deserts,  the  'jackal ',  there  is  no  reason 
at  all  to  maintain  on  this  doubtful  evidence  a  meaning  which  the  Sahidic  OTb>na| 
is  not  known  to  have.  We  should  rather  suggest  that  XiKot  means  the  same  as  the 
Coptic  word,  i,  e.  a  jackal. 


42a        THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

but  the  exact  phonetic  value  of  this  word  ought  first  to  be  stated,  iot 
the  identity  of  llie  two  words  can  only  be  proved  if  the  equanoa 
oyB  =  OT  can  be  adequately  justified. 

To  this  end  it  may  be  suggested  that  in  Sahidic  writing  the  symbcJ 
OT  represented  two  sounds,  viz.  the  vowel  o  and  the  scmiconsooar. 
w(a),  while  the  lower  dialects  in  this  case  were  on  the  same  lines  as  tl* 
Bohairic  in  using  ov  for  the  simple  vowel  «-  Thus  o-rtuiiuj  phooettcaUji 
transcribed  represents  the  sounds  :  o-w4-n-*-5. 

May  wc  assume,  then,  that  the  lower  Sahidic  utvanel  is  one  and  the 
same  as  the  'pure'  Sahidic  ou'in'i?  The  answer  cannot  be  doubcftil 
if  it  is  possible  to  shew  other  traces  of  this  Umlaut  at  an  d-souod 
towards  a,  and  of  the  different  value  or  the  symbol  ot  in  Sahidic  and 
in  lower  dialects.  The  first  may  be  done  by  the  perusal  of  PeyrooS 
dictionary ;  I  need  but  mention  the  Sahidic  &&gop,  Akhmimic 
£&^«>p,  &c. 

The  second  statement  is  confirmed  in  a  general  way  by  a  pheno- 
menon observed  by  Prof.  J.  Dyneley  Prince,  viz.  the  difference  in  pro 
nunciation,  which  still  pre\-ails,  of  the  symbol  or  in  Lower  and  in 
Upper  Egypt  {Joum.  Am.  Or.  Soc.  23',  1902,  pp.  289-306). 

The  difference  which  we  were  induced  In  assume  exists  at  the  present 
day :  in  the  lower  districts  ot  is  pronounced  «,  while  in  the  surroundings 
of  AssuAn  the  pronunciation  is  ou  {&w). 

Referring  for  further  details  to  the  note'  betow  it  is  now  possible  to 
propose  a  translation  ; — 

A  ctirious  pjirallel  is  to  be  nbserved  \n  the  reUtians  between  the  names  of  tbe 
same  Bninul  in  the  Old  Tcsuuncnl  and  in  Old  Egypl :  Hcbr.  z^  Arsb.  i^jj 
Aram,  m)'^,  Ass.  zibu,  shauld  m««n  'woir';  Aetli.  IHI  'hyena*;  while  ^e  OM 
EgyptJui  woixt  sjb  ii  tfaougbt  to  rcprcacnt  otir  'jackal 'I  It  i»  probable  ttuH 
the  distinguishing  between  a  'wolf,  a  'hyena',  and  a  'jackal'  at  a  dbtsncc 
cf  Bomc  thousand  years  has  its  particular  difficulties.  It  is  equally  tnie  thai  jackali 
are  more  ctrmmon  than  <wolvt^9  '  in  the  deserts  of  Arabia  and  S^gypt. 

On  the  same  phenomcncin  of  constant  canfusion  between  thc4c  animaU  in  Greek 
and  L.atin  documents  cf.  Pauly-Wissowa.  i  189^^,  coll.  1645  aq. 

'  Tbough  the  conditions  pointed  out  in  note  J  on  p,  4 19,  have  not  yet  been  fuUiilcdi 
we  may  however  judge  it  a  probable  view  that  tJiosc  phenomena  which  seen  (n 
the  older  texts)  to  point  in  the  same  direction  aa  Prof.  Prince's  ob«crvM>oBS  oo 
modem  pronunciation  are  not  entirely  heterogeneous.  We  have  no  riebl  lo  dvy 
this  historical  nexus  till  we  can  prove  it  non-existent.  On  the  subject  ot  (fce 
eonionanttc  value  of  the  t  in  the  Sahidic  symbol  OT,  I  may  refer  to  the  Vito^rr 
i'wpigrapkit  ft  dt  Utguistt^tie  rgyplimrtt  by  E.  Riivillout  in  the  third  volume  of  tbe 
itil,  itarth.  tg.  ti  an.,  Vieweg,  Pnria,  lS;5,  p.  44  >q.  Also  to  the  first  voluac. 
p,  iSl,  and  to  some  articles  by  Masp^ro,  i,p.  144$^.   Some  proofs  may  be  quoted  >- 

B.   4.0T4A.      S.  4kT«.n. 

B.  &OTin.    S.  a^Ttin. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  423 

*  Do  not  persecute  me  N.N. :  I  am  the  servant  of  JUm  that  is  j'acAal- 
like.  I  bear  the  mummy  of  Osiris  and  J  am  about  to  deposit  it  at 
Abydos  in  the  inner  sanctuary^  to  deposit  it  in  the  eternal  abodes.  If 
N,  N.  gives  me  troubk ',  /  will  cast  it  before  htm' 

III.  It  may  be  suitable  to  test  in  a  third  part  our  results  by  comparing 
them  with  some  facts  of  Egyptian  religion. 

(a)  That  the  'jackal-like'  is  Anubis  is  evident  The  use  of  such 
a  circumlocution  as  a  sacred  name  may  be  paralleled  from  the  XJifber) 
Af{prtuorum)  ch.  135  (forty-two  instances*).  That  we  are  right  to  press 
the  exact  phonetic  value  accords  with  the  high  importance  of  the  '  right 
voice"   in  pronouncing   charms.      Therefore  the  Demotic  doublet 

B.   j6pK-;6pKOvI.      S.  2pK-£pHvC. 

B.  ep^Hi-ep^Hovt.    S.  pne-fSitHue. 
B.  «>^e-^^Hovt.    S.  «.ne-&nHve. 
B.  cge-egHov.    S.  e^-egHu. 
B.  igne-igitMoii.    S.  ^ne-ignKv. 

Tfaesc  iosUnces  can  be  furnished  in  greater  numbers,  and,  in  my  opinion, 
R^villout  is  approximately  right  when  claiming  for  the  Sahidic  t  the  value  of 
Semitic  1 :  vol.  iii,  op.  cit  p-  45  :  '  £n  tout  £tat  de  cause  t  peut  Ctre  complitement 
compart  en  copte  au  vav  del  langues  stfmitiques,  C'est  le  plus  souvent  une 
veritable  consonne  et  toujours  un  des  tfl^ments  essenttellement  significatiis  du 
langage.    Dana  le  corps  des  mots  il  joue  ordinairement  te  rOle  de  radicale.' 

When  using  the  or  in  current  Greek  and  Lower  Egjrpdan  fashion  for  the 
sound  u,  our  scribe  had  no  other  symbol  to  represent  the  first  radical  va  than  the  &. 
In  Coptic  too  the  transition  B'*'^-*'^  is  not  uncommon.  A  striking  parallel 
is  to  be  found  in  the  extremely  conservative  Syriac  writing  where  we  yet  read 
^Z»So^  =  ya-u^i ;  o^oi  =  y^-\ ;  )yL»(oi  =  *3J'u^.  Cf-  Nflldeke  Syriaeht 
Gramm.*  5  a?:  'Die  Ostsyrer  haben  das  a  schon  frOh  ganz  wie  e  (w,  u,  n) 
gesprochen :  «9  wird  dann  zu  an  und  m&  zu  w.*  This  latter  stadium  our  scribe  has 
not  atuined  :  uSaneS.  How  (ar  such  weakening  goes  is  patent  from  a  phrase  like 
this  :  '  Aucb  A  spracben  sie  wie  o,  wo  sic  es  in  aussergewOhnlicher  Weise  weich 
llessen  und  nicht  zu  p  machten.'  Similar  things  might  be  observed  in  Coptic,  e.  g. 
«,qpA.9bJU,  and  A^p&gtJUl,  both  -  avmham  I  For  many  things,  especially  for  the 
textual  criticism  of  the  Sahidic  fragments  of  the  New  Testament,  we  cannot 
strongly  enough  regret  that  so  much  fundamental  work  is  still  undone  or  not 
adequately  done.  Cf.  Schwartze's  phonetics  in  his  Koptisck4  Grammatik  or  the 
confused  statements  sometimes  found  in  French  works. 

*  K&wovt  mpixfiy  means  to  ghit  trouble,  to  annoy:  et.  Matt,  xxvi  10,  Mk.  xiv  6, 
Lk.  xi  7,  xviii  5,  GaL  vi  17. 

'  Circumlocutions  as  sacred  names,  i.  Af.  1 15 :  'The  full  uja-eye  (in  Heliopolis) * 
'you  that  run  far  out  (in  HeUopolis)',  'you  that  bear  fire  in  your  arms  (in 
Cherau) ',  Sic  

•  Cf.  L.  M.  ch.  48  :  'Text  to  go  out  as  [mj*  ferw  :  ^^  ]  a  person  who  haa  tkt 
right  intonatum  (of  the  magical  sentences),'  &c. 


r 


424         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

of  this  chann  retiansliterates '  the  Greek  transliteration  of  the  origiiul 
lower  Sabidic  sounds. 

(j3)  For  the  connexion  between  Osiris'  munnny  and  Anubts  cC  Paul^ 
Wissowa's  ReaUncydop^it  dts  klassischcH  Alterthums  vol.  i  colL  2645- 
50  (Pictschmann),  Meuler,  Stuttgart,  1894. 

(y)  Anubis'  function  as  a  frightener  of  demons  &c.,  op.  cit.  Lc. 

(6)  Id  perfect  harmony  with  the  supposed  'lower'  Sahidic  character 
of  our  text  is  the  fact  that  Anubis  was  especially  honoured  in  Middle 
Egypt:  the  twelfth- thirteenth  and  the  seventeenth -eighteenth  districts 
of  Upper  Egypt  (the  Cynopolites  and  the  Lycopolites  nomos)  occupy 
the  northern  part  of  the  territory  of  the  Sahidic  speech  (Lat.  28'*-39''  N, 
and  Long.  iZ^-tCf^  E.  for  the  Cyn.  nomos  j  Lat.  2^°-^%^  N.,  Lon^ 
aS^-ag"  E.  for  the  Lye  nomos).  Cf.  Brugsch  Gesduckte  AegyfUns 
uttter  den  Pharaenen,  Hinrichs,  Leipzig,  1S77. 

J.    DB  ZWAAH. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN   'GOSPEL  OF  BARNABAS'. 

In  April,  1903,  there  appeared  in  \ht  Journal  0/  Thfol^gicai  Stvdte 
(toI.  iit  pp.  441-451),  an  article  by  Dr  William  Axon  *0n  the  Moham- 
medan Gospel  of  Barnabas'.  That  article  was  based,  so  far  as  it  dealt 
with  the  Italian  Barnaias,  on  material  drawn  mainly  from  Sale  and 
Toland,  while  extracts  from  the  Spanish  version  were  reprinted  frOf 
Ur  White's  Hampton  Lectures  of  1 784. 

But  the  point  of  greatest  interest  and  importance  in  the  paper  was 
the  statement  with  which  the  author  concluded,  namely,  that  he  had 
traced  the  Italian  MS  to  Vienna.  With  this  announcement  he  coupled 
the  suggestion  that  a  transcript  should  be  made  of  the  Vicrma  MS,  afld 
a  judgement  formed  as  to  the  desirability  of  printing  it. 

Acting  on  that  suggestion,  the  Delegates  of  the  Clarendon  Press,  who 
were  already  in  correspondence  on  the  subject  with  the  late  Ur  Hastie 
of  Glasgow,  have  secured  a  transcript  of  the  document,  the  text  of  which 
will  shortly  be  published  by  them,  together  with  an  English  transLuioo. 
It  occurred  to  the  translators,  with  the  approval  of  the  Press  authorities, 
that  pending  the  publication  of  the  MS  a  second  paper  might  be 

'  The  man  who  rctmnsbced  the  Greek  into  old  Coptic,  written  in  Doaotk 
symbols,  rendered  the  tircck  TTAnirTtTOYMirOT^ANCc  ptioncti cully  not  '  as  if  it 
consisted  of  magic  names'  op.  at.  p.  108,  but  simply  Trotn  religious  fear  of  altehAg 
the  exact  Mund  of  the  furmiUa,  which  of  coune  he  underauwd  very  wctl. 


IfOTES   AND   STUDIES  425 

acceptable,  which  should  to  some  extent  fill  up  the  gaps  in  Dr  Axon's 
article,  and  answer — so  far  as  is  possible  at  this  stage — the  questions 
raised  therein. 

Summarily,  then,  the  document  seems  to  have  been  described  quite 
accurately  by  Sale,  Toland,  and  La  Monnaye.  Toland's  version  of  the 
concluding  words  is  however,  to  say  the  least,  very  free — he  renders,  e.g. 
quanto  habia  scrito  by  '  according  to  the  measure  of  our  knowledge '. 
Nor  is  it  easy  to  point  to  any  definite  passage  in  our  MS  which  can 
be  identified  with  the  sentence  quoted  by  Grabe  from  the  Gnostic 
Gospel  of  Barnabas  *.  Further,  whatever  Toland  may  have  found  in 
the  complete  Spanish  version,  we  have  not  found  in  the  Italian  text 
the  title  Parackte  ascribed  to  Mohammed,  who  is  most  often  entitled 
il  spUndore  and  il  nontio  *. 

The  Two   Versions. 

With  regard  to  the  lost  Spanish  version  (to  discover  a  trace  of  which 
all  our  efforts  have  so  far  been  fruitless),  the  extracts  reprinted  by 
Dr  Axon  (Lc.  pp.  446-51)  differ  very  considerably  from  the  corre- 
sponding passages  of  the  Italian  text.  They  are  much  less  diffuse,  and 
moreover  actually  diverge  in  several  important  points.  On  the  other 
hand,  Sale's  extracts  from  the  original  Spanish  represent  the  Italian  text 
almost  word  for  word.  As  these  latter  passages  are  few  and  short,  it 
may  be  worth  while  to  print  them  here,  side  by  side  with  the  Italian. 
The  likeness  is  so  remarkable  that  it  would  seem  much  more  probable 
that  one  of  these  should  be  translated  from  the  other,  than  that  th^ 
should  be  independent  sister-translations  of  a  lost  Arabic  originaL 

Sfiatu'sA.  Haiian. 

Origin  of  Circumcision. 

Entonces  dixo  Jesus ;  Adam,  el  Allora  disse  iessu  adamo  primo 

primer  hombre   aviendo  comido  uomo  avendo  mangiato  per  &aude 

por  engaiio  del  demonio  la  comida  di  satana  il  cibo  proibito  da  Dio 

prohibida  por  Dios  en  el  parayso,  nel  paradisso  si  ribelo  al  spirito  la 

se  le  rebelS  su  came  ^  su  espiritu ;  charne  sua  onde  giuro  dicendo  per 

*  Grabe  SptdUgium  I,  303  (ez  cod.  barocc.  39) :  BofF^ot  &  dvdtrraXor  1^'  Iv 

'  There  U  one  passage  where  Christ  is  repreaeated  as  revealing  the  name  of  the 
'  messenger'  in  which  the  phrase  is  i7  nome  dtl  Messia  ht  admirabUt;  and  shortly 
afterwards  Machomth  ht  il  suo  fiottu  bttudtto  (ch.  xcvii  p.  303*').  There  is  nothing 
of  the  kind  in  the  chapters  which  correspond  to  St  John  xiii-xvi.  Toland's  remark 
seems  to  be  based  upon  the  Arabic  gloss  on  p.  46^,  which  runs  thus:  m  iht 
Arabic tOHgut  Abmcd,  in  tluAmran  /omjw/ Anointed,  m  Ae  Latin  (ottgutQQtaalaliax, 
in  Gmk  Paradetua. 


426        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


por  loqual  jurb  diziendo,  Por  Dios 
que  yo  te  quiero  corUr ;  y  rompi- 
endo  una  piedra  tomb  su  carnu 
para  cortaria  con  cl  cortc  dc  U 
piedra.  Por  loqual  fue  rq>rehcn- 
dido  del  angel  Gabriel,  y  el  le  dixo ; 
Yo  he  junido  por  iJios  que  lo  he 
de  conar,  y  mentiroso  no  lo  scr^ 
jamas.  Ala  hora  el  angel  le  enseiio 
la  ^iLiperlluidad  de  su  came  y  a 
quella  cort6.  De  manera  que 
ansi  como  todo  bombre  toma 
carne  de  Adam,  ansi  esta  obltgado 
a  cumpHr  aqucllo  que  Adam  con 
juramento  proinett6. 

[a/.  Sale,  /Vr/.  Dist,  §  iv.] 


Dio  chio  ti  volgio  talgiare  .  be  roto 
uno  sasso  presse  la  sua  chame  pet 
talgiarlla  con  il  talgto  delta  [uela 
onde  ne  fu  ripresso  del  angdo 
gabrielo  .  he  lui  risspose  io  bo 
giurato  per  Dio  di  talgiarlo  bugiardo 
non  sero  giatnai.  allora  langelo  li 
mosstro  la  superfluita  della  sua 
chame  he  quella  talgio.  he  pcro 
si  chome  ognl  homo  prende  charne 
dalla  charne  di  Adamo  chosi  elgie 
obligatu  di  usscrvarequantoAdano 
giurando  promisse. 

[MS  ppi  23  a  and  A] 


Abraham  and  the  Angel. 


Dixo  Abraham,  Que  harfe  yo 
para  servir  al  Dios  de  los  sanctos 
y  prophctas  ?  Respondi<>  el  angel, 
Ve  a  aquella  fuence  y  la  vale,  porque 
Dios  quiere  haUar  contigo.  Dixo 
Abraham,  Como  lengo  de  lavar- 
rae  ?  Lutigo  el  angel  se  le  appa- 
rcci6  como  uno  bello  mancek»o,  y 
se  lavb  en  la  fucnie,  y  le  dtxo, 
Abraham,  haz  com  yo.  Y  Abraham 
sc  lav6. 

[ap.  Sale,  /^/.  Disc.  §  iv.] 

The  Judgement 

Y  llamd  [Dios]  a  la  serpiente  y 
a  Michael, aquel  que  tiene  la  espada 
de  Dios,  y  le  dixo ;  Aquesta  sierpe 
ea  celerada,  echala  la  prinicra  de 
parayso,  y  cortale  las  piernas,  y 
si  quisiere  caminar,  arrastrara  la 
vida  ]ior  tierrx  Y  llamd  a  Satanas, 
el  qual  vino  riendo,  y  dixole ; 
Porque  tu  reprobo  has  enganado  a 
aqucstos,  y  los  has  hecho  imraun- 


.  .  .  disse  abraham  che  dionl 
fare  debo  per  ser\ire  lo  Dio  di 
angiotli  he  santti  proflcti .  Risspote 
langello  va  in  quel  fonte  he  Iinti 
perche  Dio  vole  parllare  leco  • 
Risspose  abraham  hor  cbomc  l4- 
varmi  debo ;  allora  langelo  se  li 
apprescnto  chome  uno  hello  g"*" 
vine  he  si  lavo  nel  fonte  dioen^ 
fa  chossi  hanchora  tu  ho  abrahio- 
lavatosi  abraiiam  .  .  . 

[MS  pp.  30  a  and  ^-1 

ON  THE  Serpent. 

he  chiam.110  il  serpe  Diochiamc 
langelo  micchacllequellochelieoc 
la  spada  di  Dio  [he]  dis^c  .  questo 
sccUerato  serpe  scatia  prima  dd 
paradisso  he  di  fuori  talgiali  1^ 
gambe  it  quale  si  lui  vora.  duuni- 
nare  si  strascini  la  vita  per  la  tern- 
chiamo  Dio  dapoi  satana  il  quale 
vene  ridcndo  he  disscli  per  che  tu 
reprobo  hai  inganalo  costoro  be  l> 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  427 

dos  ?   Yo  quiero  que  toda  immun-  hai   fato  diventare  inmcmdi  .  10 

dicia  suya,  ye  de  todos  sus  hijos,  volgio  che  ogni  inmonditia  loro  he 

en  saliendo  de  sus  cueipos  entre  di  tutti  li  loro  fioli  che  con  verrita 

por  tu  boca,  porque  en  verdad  farano  penitenzza  he  mi  servirano 

ellos  haran  penitencia,  y  tu  que-  nello  usscire  del  corpo  lore  hentri 

daias  harto  de  imoiundicia.  per  la  bocba  tua  he  chosi  serai 

[ap.  Sale  on  Koran  ch,  vii.]  satio  de  inmonditie.  [MS  p.  43  a.] 

Contents  of  the  Document. 

Reserving,  for  the  moment,  any  further  remarks  on  the  extracts  just 
given — which  indeed  speak  for  themselves — we  may  proceed  to  give 
a  slight  sketch  of  the  contents  of  our  MS. 

It  claims  to  give  a  true  account  of  the  life  and  ministry  of  Jesus 
Christ,  from  the  hand  of  Barnabas,  who  is  represented  as  one  of  the 
Twelve,  and  writes  with  the  express  purpose  of  correcting  the  false 
teaching  of  St  Paul  and  others,  who  have  preached  Christ  as  Divine, 
the  Son  of  God.  The  narrative  opens  with  an  account  of  the  Nativity, 
based  on  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke,  and  ends  with  an  Ascension. 

The  matter  falls  into  three  groups :  (1)  about  one-third  of  it  is  directly 
taken  from,  or  dependent  on,  our  four  canonical  Gospels ;  {2)  with  this 
is  interpolated  a  lai^e  amount  of  l^endary  and  characteristic  Moham- 
medan matter,  chiefly  put,  as  discourses,  into  the  mouth  of  Christ ;  and 
(3)  there  is  a  miscellaneous  group  of  touches  not  easily  accounted  for 
as  definitely  Mohammedan  or  Gospel  matter.  To  take  these  groups 
in  order. 

A.  Gospel  material.  The  most  prominent  characteristics  of  this 
group  are  its  expurgation  and  its  arbitrary  arrangement.  In  accordance 
with  the  avowed  abject  of  the  writer,  anything  which  would  tell  in  favour 
of  the  Divinity  of  Christ  is  conscientiously  eliminated  from  the  narrative. 
In  the  case  of  a  well-known  miracle  for  instance,  the  narrative  will  often 
follow  the  Gospels  word  for  word  till  it  comes  to  the  critical  point,  and 
then  instead  of  the  authoritative  7^0/  we  have  a  prayer,  and  that  often 
accompanied,  if  the  healed  man  shews  a  disposition  to  worship,  by 
a  direct  denial  of  any  superhuman  power  in  Himself.  Christ's  rebuke 
of  Peter  at  Caesarea  Philippi  is  turned  into  a  direct  condemnation  of 
the  great  confession  \  and  the  Master  is  made  to  declare  that  he  will 
suflfer  loss  in  the  other  world  owing  to  the  inexcusable  way  in  which 
he  is  reluctantly  made  an  object  of  worship  in  this  world. 

The  Gospel  matter,  again,  is  most  capriciously  arranged,  and  the 
writer  shews  a  supreme  ignorance  alike  of  the  geographical  and  of  the 
chronological  data.  For  this  reason  the  attempt  to  give  a  sketch  of  his 
account  of  the  Ministry  would  be  at  once  difficult  and  unprofitable. 


436  THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOaCAL   STUDIES 


*  The  iccond  year  of  fm  pfopbeck  rnimauj '  m  acalioaed  oo  pt  49  ^ 
aiH)  the '  third  jotx '  oo  p.  50  ^.  lo  oae  or  oAer  of  chae  ycaos  oocan 
a  journey  to  Sinai,  where  the  Master  uul  hii  dtodplg  ne  aaid  to  ban 
fpenc  ihc  Quetrtsima ;  while  the  finx  yew  is  dado^idKd,  afpsrcndy, 
Iqf  a  disembarlution  u  the  port  of  Naavedi  I 

Similar  runatives  6txD  the  same  or  firon  dJfcwBl  Goqicfa  ne  oAn 
Meoded :  c  g.  the  miracle  of  the  witfased  hand  (Ul  ti)  wiifa  Ak  of 
the  dropsical  man  (Lk.  sir),  the  hf^tuge  of  the  first  rieaarog  of  the 
Tonple  {Jd.  ii)  with  that  of  the  second  (Mat  xa),  the  story  of  tbe  ca- 
turioo  (MaL  Tiii)  with  that  of  tbe  ^wnAtJuk  (J"-  ^\  ■'■d  so  ocl  In  one 
point  at  least  the  writer  seems  to  hare  acddentaOy  andcipaxed  raodos 
criticism— tbe  nanative  of  the  wocnaa  taken  in  adnkery  is  liamfatrd 
to  a  later  position  than  it  holds  in  our  fourtb  Gospd !  Space  farfaab 
lu  to  enlarge  on  this  part  of  our  theme.  Svffice  it  to  point  ovt  that  ov 
'  Barnabas ',  who,  by  the  by,  undoubtedly  knows  many  of  tfac  Ke* 
Testament  Epistles  \  has  a  modem  schoolboy's  affmaintance  wkfa  ikc 
main  narratives — and  ignorance  of  the  seqoeoce — of  the  Gospd  record 
of  Christ's  ministry. 

B.  Mohamnudan  Matter.  As  tbe  writer  in  tbe  Emycl^oedii  Sritta- 
ttUa  remarks,  what  was  most  ordinal  in  tbe  doctrine  of  tbe  Koran  wai 
its  teaching  about  the  Last  Judgement  and  the  Future  State,  lo  OQI 
MS  quite  a  Urge  proportion  of  tbe  bulk  is  taken  up  with  these  eicfarta- 
logical  subjects. 

Tbe  judgement  and  the  torments  of  the  damned  are  described  it 
great  length  and  with  characteristic  Mohammedan  Tigoar  and  realisaL 
An  interesting  feature  of  'Bamabas's*  yn/<!''''K>  >s  its  arrai^ement  according 
to  tbe  recognized  seven  capital  sins,  which,  however,  appear  in  an  order 
apiiarently  not  found  elsewhere 

Paradise  also  occupies  a  great  deal  of  space,  but  the  picture  is^  on  the 
whole,  purer  and  less  sensuous  than  we  might  have  expected.  Hen 
again  there  is  a  feature  of  s^Kcial  interest — the  astronomy  is  Ptolenuic 
in  character,  and  there  are  nine  heavens  (exclusive  of  Paradise  itself)  in 
place  of  the  seven  heavens  of  the  Koran. 

Other  recognized  characteristics  of  Islam  are  an  admiration  for  asceti- 
cism and  the  hermit-hfe,  an  eager  discussion  of  tbe  problem  of  pre^ 
destination,  and  a  certain  strain  of  mysticism  (SdHism)  hard  to  combine 
logically  with  the  savage  sternness  of  the  Mohammedan  doctrine  of  the 
Almighty :  the  two  latter  being,  of  course,  developemcnts  of  a  period 
somewhat  later  than  the  Koran. 

The  ascetic  tendency  iinds  expression  in  our  MS  in  many  pithy 
utterances,  and  is  embodied  in  the  quaint  pictures  of  anchorite  life 

'  There  Mcm  to  be  anmistnkeablc  rcminisccDcca  of  the  following  Episdc*  *l 
kut :  Si  James,  I  St  PcteTi  1  St  John,  Roiukm,  GaUtians,  PliUippia»,  UefarewK 


4 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  429 

drawn  in  the  narrative  of  the  '  True  Pharisees ' — Hosea,  Haggai,  and 
Obadiah  (pp.  196  sqq.). 

The  mystic  chord — which  supplies  the  undertone  of  the  anchorite 
ideals — is  struck  most  nobly  now  and  again  in  language  that  could 
scarcely  be  matched.  L' amare,  we  are  told,  he  una  tessoro  inequi- 
paradiie;  poseia  che  chi  amma  Dio,  sua  ha  Dio,  e  eht  ha  Dio  ha  ogm  (hossa 
— '  Whoso  loveth  God,  hath  God,  and  having  God  hath  all  things ' 
(p.  25  h).  Again,  the  faithful  are  exhorted  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses, 
for  thus  they  shall  attain  to  a  union  with  God  independent  of  time  and 
place — che  talmente  trovarete  Dio^  eke  in  ogni  tempo  he  locho  sentirtte 
voi  Dio  he  Dio  in  vot  (p.  159  b). 

Most  wonderful  of  all  is  the  mystic  ideal  set  forth  in  a  passage  too  long 
for  quotation  (p.  186  a),  where  God  Himself  is  proclaimed  to  be  the 
reward — '  the  wages ' — of  faithful  service. 

The  true  end  of  asceticism  is  recognized  as  being  so  absolute  a  sub- 
mission to,  and  self-identification  with,  the  Divine  Will,  that  the  ascetic 
actually  prays  for  punishment  instead  of  pardon  (p.  197  a),  in  the  spirit 
of  Jacopone  da  Todi's  remarkable  rime 

O  Signor,  per  cortesia 
Mandami  la  malsania,  &c. 

Predestination,  again,  is  discussed  at  length  (pp.  180-4).  The 
extreme  doctrine  is  ascribed  to  the  evil  Pharisees,  and  the  '  true  doc- 
trine '  affirmed  to  be  founded  on  the  double  basis  of  the  Law  of  God 
and  man's  free-will,  talmente  che  se  bene  potria  saivare  Dio  iutto  1?  monddo 
senza  che  neruno  perissi,  non  il  voile  fare  per  non  privare  lo  homo  de 
liberty  (p.  183  a).  The  mode  of  predestination,  we  are  told,  is  obscure, 
but  the  fact  is  certain^  and  must  be  faced  (p.  184  a). 

The  foregoing  are  subjects  lai^ely  discussed  in  the  later  schools  of 
Islam.  Themes  characteristic  of  the  Koran  itself  are  to  be  found  here 
in  stories  of  Creation  and  the  fall  of  angels  and  of  mankind,  and  in 
various  fantastic  legends — partly,  perhaps,  Rabbinical,  partly  of  uncertain 
origin — attached  to  fiamiliar  Old  Testament  names.  It  is  from  this 
section  of  the  matter  that  the  Spanish  extracts  printed  above  are  taken. 

Among  the  l^ends  of  Old  Testament  worthies,  the  story  of  Abraham 
given  here  stands  supreme  in  its  quaintness  and  life-like  huiqour.  The 
altercation  of  the  child  with  Terah  his  image-making  father  is  very  racy 
reading,  and  full  of  human  nature.  This  narrative,  as  a  whole,  is  a 
complete  and  circumstantial  filling  up  of  the  outUne  sketched  in  the 
Koran  xxi  and  xxxvii.  Here,  as  there,  Abraham  is  represented  as  mocking 
the  idolatry  of  his  father,  as  indulging  in  energetic  measures  of  icono- 
clasm,  and  as  escaping  the  summary  vengeance  of  the  idolaters  by 
a  miracle,  God  forbidding  the  fire  to  burn  him. 


4Q»        -ntt  JOUSSJO.  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUOtES 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  431 

are  deceived,  and  Jesus  is  allowed  to  appear  temporarily  to  them  and  to 
His  mother—  somewhat  (J  la  Keim — in  order  to  reassure  and  to  explain. 
It  is  in  this  third  group  of  matter  surely,  if  anywhere,  that  experts 
may  expect  to  find  traces  of  the  lost  Evan^Uum  Bama3e  mentioned 
in  the  so-called  Gelasian  Decretal. 

delation  to   Vemacuiar  Bible. 

Leaving,  however,  such  problems  to  more  competent  investigators, 
who  will  soon  have  the  text  itself  before  them,  we  may  conclude  with 
a  few  remarks  on  the  language  and  diction  of  the  MS,  and  its  relation 
to  the  Italian  Vemacuiar  Bible. 

The  Italian,  though  well  and  fluently  written^  is  very  curious,  alike  in 
its  orthography  and  its  grammar,  as  may  be  judged,  to  some  extent, 
from  the  foregoing  extracts.  Perhaps  the  most  likely  solution  of  the 
problems  it  raises  may  be  stated  as  follows :  The  original  appears 
to  have  been  written  in  Tuscany  in  the  thirteenth  or  early  fourteenth 
century,  but  the  existing  MS  is  the  work  of  a  Lombardo-Venetian 
scribe  perhaps  a  couple  of  centuries  later,  who  is  responsible  in  the 
main  for  the  orthography,  and,  in  part  perhaps,  for  the  grammatical 
solecisms '. 

The  relation  of  our  text  to  the  Italian  Vernacular  Bible  would  seem 
to  be  a  matter  of  some  importance  in  connexion  with  the  question 
of  its  origin — the  question,  i.e.  whether  the  original  document  was 
Italian  or  whether  the  Italian  is  a  translation  of  a  lost  Arabic  document 

In  view  of  this  I  have  compared  passages  of  Biblical  narrative 
incorporated  in  '  Barnabas '  with  the  leading  types  of  Italian  version, 
down  to  the  firat  printed  Bible  of  Malermi  in  the  fifteenth  century. 
So  far  as  can  be  judged  from  a  somewhat  cursory  examination,  the 
'Barnabas'  version  is  independent  It  is  true  indeed  that  there  is 
perpetual  variation,  of  a  sort,  between  the  several  MS  versions  of  the 
thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries — quot  codices  tot  varietaUs;  but 
Prof.  Samuel  Berger  has  shewn  that  all  the  extant  Italian  versions, 
though  independent  in  a  modified  sense,  belong  to  a  single  family, 
typically  represented  by  the  Old  Provencal. 

The  independence  of  our  version  seems  to  be  of  a  different  character, 
and  to  represent  either  an  original  translation  from  the  Vulgate  or 
a  translation  from  another  tongue  by  one  to  whom  the  Vulgate  was 
extremely  familiar.  Frequently,  and  especially  in  the  Psalms,  he  closely 
follows  the  Vulgate's  wording,  even  where  he  departs  a  little  from  the 
sense.  In  Ps.  Ixxxiv  5, 6,  e.g.we  have  lo  ascendere  nello  char  sua  dispone 
rtella  vaiie  delie  lachrime,  following  the  Vulgate  word  for  word — and 
equally  obscure.  And  many  similar  instances  might  be  quoted. 
^  The  suggestion  is  due  to  Pror.  C.  A,  Nallino,  of  Pftlenno. 


496         THE  JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


por  loqual  jur6  dtziendo,  Por  Dios 
que  yo  le  quiero  cort.ir ;  y  rompi- 
endo  una  piedra  tomb  su  came 
para  cortarla  con  cl  cortc  de  la 
inedia.  Por  loqual  fue  reprehen- 
dido  del  angel  Gabriel,  y  cl  le  dixo ; 
Yd  he  jurado  por  Dios  que  lo  he 
de  cortar,  y  mcntiroso  no  lo  scr^ 
jamas.  Ala  hora  el  angel  le  enscno 
la  superfluidad  de  su  came  y  a 
quella  cortb.  De  man  era  que 
an  si  como  todo  horabre  toina 
came  de  Adam,  ansi  esta  obligado 
a  cumptir  aquello  que  Adam  con 
jurainento  pToineti6. 

[ap.  Sale,  J*re/.  Dise.  §  iv.] 


Dio  chio  li  volgio  talgiare  -  he  roto 
uno  sasso  presse  la  sua  chame  per 
lalgiarlla  con  il  talgio  delta  pJetn 
onde   ne   fu   riprcsso   del   angeki 
gabrlelo  .  he  lui  rtsspose  b  ho 
giurato  per  Dio  di  talgiarlo  bugiardo 
Don  sera  giamai.     allora  langclo  li 
mo.sstro    la    superfluita   ddk   sua 
chame  he  quella  talgio.    he  pero 
si  chome  ogni  homo  prendc  charw 
dalla  chame  di  Adamo  chosi  dgtf 
0  bl  igato  d  i  osscn-are  qua  n  to  Adaao 
giurando  promisse. 

[MS  pp.  2J  AiodA] 


Abraham  and  the  Angel. 


Dixo  Abraham,  Que  harfe  yo 
para  servir  al  Dios  de  los  sanctos 
y  prophctas  ?  Rcspondib  el  angel, 
Ve  a  aquetla  ftiente  y  la\'ate,  porque 
Dios  quiere  hahlar  contigo.  Dixo 
Abraham,  Como  tengo  de  lavar- 
mc  ?  Lucgo  el  angel  se  le  appa- 
recib  como  uno  bello  mancebo,  y 
se  lavb  en  la  fuente,  y  te  dixo, 
Abraham,  haz  com  yo.  Y  Abraham 
selBvb. 

[ap.  Sale,  Prei.  Disc.  §  iv.] 


.  .  ,  disse  abraham  che  ch«a 
fare  debo  pet  servire  lo  0io  <t 
angiolli  he  santti  proSeti .  Risspose 
langello  va  in  quel  fonte  he  Umi 
perche    Dio  voie    parllarc  teco  ■ 
Risspose  abraham  hor  chome  U- 
varmi  debo ;  allora  laogelo  sc  li 
appresento  chome  uno  bello  gi^ 
vine  he  si  lavo  nel  fonte  diooido 
fa  chossi  hanchora  tu  ho  abrahani. 
lavatosi  abraham  . . . 

[MS  pp.  30  a  and  ^1 


The  Judgement 

Y  llamd  [Dios]  a  !a  scrpiente  y 
aMichad.aquelque  ticnc la  espada 
de  Dios,  y  le  dixo ;  Aquesta  sierpe 
es  celerada,  echala  la  primera  de 
parayso,  y  cortale  las  picmas,  y 
si  quisiere  caminar,  anastrara  la 
vida  i>or  tierra.  Y  llamd  i  Satanas, 
el  qual  vino  riendo,  y  dixole ; 
Porque  lu  reprobo  has  cnganado  a 
aquestos,  y  los  has  hecho  immun- 


ON  THE  SeRPEMT, 

he  chiamato  il  serpe  Dio  chiamo 
langelo  micchaellequellochciienc 
la  spada  di  Dio  [he]  disse  .  questo 
scellerato  serpe  scatia  prima  del 
pamdissu  he  di  fuori  talgialt  le 
gambe  il  quale  si  tut  vera  cbami- 
nare  si  strascini  la  vita  per  la  tena . 
chiamo  Dio  dapoi  salana  tl  quale 
vene  ridendo  he  disseli  per  che  to^ 
reprobo  hai  inganato  costoro  he  U' 


1 


NOTES  AND    STUDIES  437 

dos  ?   Yo  quiero  que  toda  immun-  bai  fato  diventare  inmondi  .  io 

dida  suya,  ye  de  todos  sus  hijos,  volgio  cbe  ogrd  inmonditia  loro  he 

en  saliendo  de  sus  cuerpos  entre  di  tutti  li  loro  fioli  che  con  TOtrita 

por  tu  boca,  porque  en  verdad  &rano  penitenzza  he  mi  serriimno 

ellos  haran  penitencia,  y  tu  que-  nello  usscire  del  corpo  lore  hentri 

daras  harto  de  immundtda.  per  la  bocha  tua  he  chosi  serai 

[a/.  Sale  on  Koran  cb.  viL]  satio  de  iDmonditte.  [MS  p.  43  a.] 

Contents  of  the  Document. 

Reserving,  for  the  moment,  any  further  remarks  on  the  extracts  just 
given — which  indeed  speak  for  themselves — we  may  proceed  to  give 
a  slight  sketch  of  the  contents  of  our  MS. 

It  claims  to  give  a  true  account  of  the  life  and  ministry  of  Jesus 
Christ,  from  the  hand  of  Barnabas,  who  is  represented  as  one  of  the 
Twelve,  and  writes  with  the  express  purpose  of  correcting  the  false 
teaching  of  St  Paul  and  others,  who  have  preached  Christ  as  Divine, 
the  Son  of  God.  The  narrative  opens  with  an  account  of  the  Nativity, 
based  on  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke,  and  ends  with  an  Ascension. 

The  matter  falls  into  three  groups :  (i)  about  one-third  of  it  is  directly 
taken  from,  or  dependent  on,  our  four  canonical  Gospels ;  (3)  with  this 
is  interpolated  a  large  amount  of  l^endary  and  characteristic  Moham- 
medan matter,  chiefly  put,  as  discourses,  into  the  mouth  of  Christ ;  and 
(3)  there  is  a  miscellaneous  group  of  touches  not  easily  accounted  for 
as  definitely  Mohammedan  or  Gospel  matter.  To  take  these  groups 
in  order. 

A.  Gospel  material.  The  roost  prominent  characteristics  of  this 
group  are  its  expurgation  and  its  arbitrary  arrangement  In  accordance 
with  the  avowed  object  of  the  writer,  anjrtbing  which  would  tell  in  favour 
of  the  Divinity  of  Christ  is  conscientiously  eliminated  from  the  narrative. 
In  the  case  of  a  well-known  miracle  for  instance,  the  nanative  will  often 
follow  the  Gospels  word  for  word  till  it  comes  to  the  critical  point,  and 
then  instead  of  the  authoritative  ^a/  we  have  a  prayer,  and  that  often 
accompanied,  if  the  healed  man  shews  a  disposition  to  worship,  by 
a  direct  denial  of  any  superhuman  power  in  Himself.  Christ's  rebuke 
of  Peter  at  Caesarea  Philippi  is  turned  into  a  direct  condemnation  of 
the  great  confession ;  and  the  Master  is  made  to  declare  that  he  will 
suffer  loK  in  the  other  world  owing  to  the  inexcusable  way  in  which 
he  is  reluctantly  made  an  object  of  worship  in  this  world. 

The  Gospel  matter,  again,  is  most  capriciously  arranged,  and  the 
writer  shews  a  supreme  ignorance  alike  of  the  geographical  and  of  the 
chronolc^cal  data.  For  this  reason  the  attempt  to  give  a  sketch  of  his 
account  of  the  Ministry  would  be  at  once  difficult  and  improfitable. 


438         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

'The  second  year  of  his  prophetic  ministry'  is  mentioned  on  p.  494 
and  (he  '  third  year '  on  p.  50  b.     In  one  or  other  of  these  years  occur 
a  journey  to  Sinai,  where  the  Master  and  his  disciples  are  said  to  have 
spent  the  Quansima ;  while  the  first  year  is  disdnguishcd,  apparenUy, 
by  a  disemlurkation  at  the  port  of  Nazareth  I 

Similar  narratives  from  the  same  or  from  different  Gospels  are  often 
blended :  e.  g.  the  miracle  of  the  withered  hand  (Lk.  vi)  with  that  ctf 
the  dropsical  man  (Lk.  xiv),  the  language  of  the  Arst  cleansing  of  the 
Temple  (Jn.  ii)  with  that  of  the  second  (MaL  xxi),  the  story  of  the  ccn- 
turiun  (Mat.  viji)  with  that  of  the  ffacriXutov  (jn.  ivj,  and  so  on.  In  00c 
point  at  least  the  writer  seems  to  have  accidentally  anticipated  modem 
criticism— the  narrative  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  is  transferred 
to  a  later  position  than  it  holds  in  our  fourth  Gospel !  Space  forbids 
us  to  enlarge  on  this  part  of  our  theme.  SutTice  it  to  point  out  that  our 
'Barnabas',  who,  by  the  by,  undoubtedly  knows  many  of  the  New 
Testament  Epistles',  has  a  modern  schoolboy's  acquaintance  with  the 
main  narratives— and  ignorance  of  the  sequence— of  the  Gospel  record 
of  Christ's  ministry. 

B.  Mohammedan  Matter.  As  the  writer  in  the  £tuyei(^aedia  Britm- 
nica  remarks,  what  was  most  original  in  the  doarine  of  the  Koran  was 
its  teaching  about  the  Last  Judgement  and  the  Future  State.  lo  our 
MS  quite  a  large  proix>rtion  of  the  bulk  is  taken  up  with  these  eschato- 
logical  subjects. 

The  judgement  and  the  torments  of  the  damned  are  described  at 
great  length  and  with  characteristic  Mohammedan  vigour  and  realism. 
An  interesting  feature  of '  Barnabas  s '  Inferno  is  its  arrangement  according 
to  the  recognized  seven  capital  sins,  which,  however,  apjicar  in  in  order 
apparently  not  found  elsewhere. 

Paradise  also  occupies  a  great  deal  of  space,  but  ttie  picture  is,  on  the 
whole,  purer  and  less  sensuous  than  we  might  have  expected,  Here 
again  iKere  is  a  feature  of  special  interest — the  astronomy  is  Ptolemaic 
in  character,  and  there  are  nine  heavens  (exclusive  of  Paradise  itself)  in 
place  of  the  seven  heavens  of  the  Koran. 

Other  recognized  characteristics  of  Ifilam  are  an  admiration  for  asceti- 
cism and  the  hermit-life,  an  eager  discussion  of  the  problem  of  pre- 
destination, and  a  certain  strain  of  mysticism  (SUflism)  hard  to  combine 
logically  v-ith  the  savage  sternness  of  the  Mohammedan  doctrine  of  the 
Almighty  :  the  two  latter  being,  of  course,  devcloperaents  of  a  period 
somewhat  later  tlian  the  Koran. 

The  ascetic  tendency  finds  expression  in  out  MS  in  many  pithy 
utterances,  and  is  embodied  in  the  quaint  pictures  of  anchorite  life 

'  There  seem  to  be  unmisukcablc  reminiaccoccs  of  the  following  Epistles  kt 
leut:  St  Junes,  1  St  Peter,  1  SI  John,  Romans,  GsUtiuu,  Ptulippuos,  Hebrews. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  429 

drawn  in  the  narrative  of  the  *  True  Pharisees ' — Hosea,  Haggai,  and 
Obadiah  (pp.  196  sqq.). 

The  mysHe  chord — which  supplies  the  undertone  of  the  anchorite 
ideals — is  struck  most  nobly  now  and  again  in  language  that  could 
scarcely  be  matched.  L' amore,  we  are  told,  he  urto  tessoro  inequi- 
parabiU;  posda  che  ehi  amma  JDio,  suo  ha  Dio^  e  eJu  ha  Dto  ha  ogni  chossa 
— '  Whoso  loveth  God,  hath  God,  and  having  God  hath  all  things ' 
<p.  25  b).  Again,  the  faithful  are  exhorted  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses, 
for  thus  they  shall  attain  to  a  union  with  God  independent  of  time  and 
place — e?u  talmente  trovarete  Dio^  che  in  ogni  tempo  he  locho  sentirtte 
voi  Dio  he  Dio  in  voi  (p.  159  b). 

Most  wonderful  of  all  is  the  mystic  ideal  set  forth  in  a  passage  too  long 
for  quotation  (p.  186  a),  where  God  Himself  is  proclaimed  to  be  the 
reward — '  the  wages  '—of  faithful  service. 

The  true  end  of  asceticism  is  recognized  as  being  so  absolute  a  sub- 
mission  to,  and  self-identification  with,  the  Divine  Will,  that  the  ascetic 
actually  prays  for  punishment  instead  of  pardon  (p.  197  a),  in  the  spirit 
of  Jacopone  da  Todi's  remarkable  rime 

O  Signor,  per  cortesia 
Mandami  la  malsania,  &c. 

Predestination,  again,  is  discussed  at  length  (pp.  180-4).  The 
extreme  doctrine  is  ascribed  to  the  evil  Pharisees,  and  the  *  true  doc- 
trine '  affirmed  to  be  founded  on  the  double  basis  of  the  Law  of  God 
and  man's  free-will,  talmente  che  se  bene  potria  salvare  Dio  tutto  il  monddo 
senza  che  neruno  perissi,  non  il  voile  fare  per  non  privare  lo  homo  de 
liberty  (p.  183  a).  The  mode  of  predestination,  we  are  told,  is  obscure, 
but  the  fact  is  certain,  and  must  be  faced  (p.  184  a). 

The  forgoing  are  subjects  largely  discussed  in  the  later  schools  of 
Islam.  Themes  characteristic  of  the  Koran  itself  are  to  be  found  here 
in  stories  of  Creation  and  the  fall  of  angels  and  of  mankind,  and  in 
various  fantastic  l^ends — partly,  perhaps,  Rabbinical,  partly  of  uncertain 
origin — attached  to  familiar  Old  Testament  names.  It  is  from  this 
section  of  the  matter  that  the  Spanish  extracts  printed  above  are  taken. 

Among  the  I^ends  of  Old  Testament  worthies,  the  story  of  Abraham 
given  here  stands  supreme  in  its  quaintness  and  life-like  hun)our.  The 
altercation  of  the  child  with  Terah  his  image-making  father  is  very  racy 
reading,  and  full  of  human  nature.  This  narrative,  as  a  whole,  is  a 
complete  and  circumstantial  filling  up  of  the  outline  sketched  in  the 
Koran  xxi  and  xxxvii.  Here,  as  there,  Abraham  is  represented  as  mocking 
the  idolatry  of  his  &ther,  as  indulging  in  ene^etic  measures  of  icono- 
clasm,  and  as  escaping  the  summary  vengeance  of  the  idolaters  by 
a  miracle,  God  forbidding  the  fire  to  burn  him. 


43©         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Among  characterib-tically  Mohammedan  matter  wc  may  also,  in  vie* 
of  the  mediaeval  Arabic  philosophy,  class  the  freqnent  traces  of  Anstol^ 
liuiism  that  thi&  document  exhibits  ;  among  which  may  be  instanced  the 
doctrine  of  the  mean  and  the  tripartite  division  of  the  human  souL 

C.  There  remains  a  third  strain  in  the  document  rather  difficult  to 
classify  :  an  clement  which  is  not  dearly  Mohammedan  in  tendency, 
and  not  drawn  from — though  partly  modelled  on— our  four  Gospds. 

For  instance,  there  are  several  apocryphal  parables  of  varying  tone 
and  value — some  of  them  distinctly  good ;  there  are  one  or  two  apo- 
cr)'phat  miracles — the  sun  is  made  to  stand  still,  and  the  harvest  at  Nab 
is  miraculously  hastened.  Certain  apocryphal  miracles  are  indeed  attri- 
buted to  our  Lord  in  the  Koran,  but  these  are  connected  with  His 
iniancy,  a  period  for  which  our  writer  has  collected  little  or  no  extianeota 
mauer. 

Other  peculiarities  of  this  'Gospel'  are  the  absence  of  all  mcntioc 
of  St  John  the  Baptist  (whose  role  is  taken  by  his  Master,  as  herald  of 
Mohammed'),  the  unaccountable  prominence  of  Pilate,  Herod,  and 
Caiaphas,  the  substitution  of  Barnabas  for  Thomas  (or  for  Simoa 
Zelotes)  in  the  list  of  the  Twelve,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  Jewish 
story  mentioned  by  St  ^fatthew,  as  an  explanation  of  the  empty  Tomb- 
But  one  of  the  most  Ktriking  features  of  all  is  the  ^tory  of  the  Passion. 
The  gerni  of  this  may  indeed  be  found  in  the  Koran*,  but  may  it  not 
also  be  possible  that  we  have  incorporated  in  Barnabas  an  origiDal 
Gnostic  account  of  which  the  Koran  lus  but  echoes? 

The  '  docetic  passion '  of  the  scatteitMi  references  in  the  Kocan  is 
vague  and  indefinite.  No  substitute,  as  e.g.  Simon  ibe  Cyrenian,  or 
'Titian',  or  Judas,  is  named.  Here,  on  the  other  band,  we  have 
an  elaborate  and  consistent  stor)',  in  which,  ^m  the  moment  of  the 
capture,  Judas  occupies  the  place  of  the  supposed  Jesus.  BrieAy, 
the  story  is  as  follows*: — 

The  moment  before  the  betrayal  is  consummated,  Jesus  is  caught  up 
into  the  Third  Heaven,  and  Judas  magically  transfonncd  into  His 
likeness.  The  trial  before  Caiaphas  and  that  before  Pilate,  the  sending 
to  Herod,  the  moclcing  of  the  soldiers,  and  the  crucifixion  itself  assume 
an  entirely  new  character — one  of  intensest  tragic  irony.  For  throu^- 
out  it  is  Judas  who  is  seized,  questioned,  scourged,  insulted,  crucified; 
and  he  dies  naively  protesting  his  innocence.     The  disciples  themseli 

1  It  it  renuricablc  that,  where«s  In  the  Koran  'Jesus,  son  of  Hary'  it  \ 
lo  Dam^ias  (though  'chiwnato  Chrisslo']  He  b  made  to  deny 
HiiDfictf  anil  to  attribute  it  to  the  coming  Mohainmed. 

*  See  csp.  Koran  chapa.  iij  and  iv. 

'  The  portions  concerned  arc  printed  in  full  (from  the  Spanish  vanioa]  hjr 
Dr  Axon. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  43I 

ire  deceived,  and  Jesus  is  allowed  to  appear  temporarily  to  them  and  to 
His  mother— somewhat  i  h  Keim — in  order  to  reassure  and  to  explain. 
It  is  in  this  third  group  of  matter  surely,  if  anywhere,  that  experts 
may  expect  to  iind  traces  of  the  lost  Evan^Uum  Bamabe  mentioned 
in  the  so-called  Gelasian  Decretal. 

Relation  to   Vernacular  Bible. 

Leaving,  however,  such  problems  to  more  competent  investigators, 
who  will  soon  have  the  text  itself  before  them,  we  may  conclude  with 
\  few  remarks  on  the  language  and  diction  of  the  MS,  and  its  relation 
to  the  Italian  Vernacular  Bible. 

The  Italian,  though  well  and  fluently  written,  is  very  curious,  alike  in 
its  orthography  and  its  grammar,  as  may  be  judged,  to  some  extent, 
from  the  foregoing  extracts.  Perhaps  the  most  likely  solution  of  the 
problems  it  raises  may  be  stated  as  follows :  The  original  appears 
to  have  been  written  in  Tuscany  in  the  thirteenth  or  early  fourteenth 
century,  but  the  existing  MS  is  the  work  of  a  Lombardo-Venetian 
scribe  perhaps  a  couple  of  centuries  later,  who  is  responsible  in  the 
main  for  the  orthography,  and,  in  part  perhaps,  for  Uie  grammatical 
solecisms '. 

The  relation  of  our  text  to  the  Italian  Vernacular  Bible  would  seem 
to  be  a  matter  of  some  importance  in  connexion  with  the  question 
3f  its  origin — the  question,  i.e.  whether  the  original  document  was 
[talian  or  whether  the  Italian  is  a  translation  of  a  lost  Arabic  document 

In  view  of  this  I  have  compared  passages  of  Biblical  narrative 
incorporated  in  '  Barnabas '  with  the  leading  types  of  Italian  version, 
iown  to  the  first  printed  Bible  of  Malermi  in  the  fifteenth  century. 
So  far  as  can  be  judged  from  a  somewhat  cursory  examination,  the 
'Barnabas'  version  is  independent.  It  is  true  indeed  that  there  is 
perpetual  variation,  of  a  sort,  between  the  several  MS  versions  of  the 
:hirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries — quot  codices  tot  varietaies\  but 
Prof.  Samuel  Berger  has  shewn  that  all  the  extant  Italian  versions, 
;hough  independent  in  a  modified  sense,  belong  to  a  single  family, 
■Tpically  represented  by  the  Old  Provencal. 

The  independence  of  our  version  seems  to  be  of  a  different  character, 
md  to  represent  either  an  original  translation  from  the  Vulgate  or 
L  translation  from  another  tongue  by  one  to  whom  the  Vulgate  was 
extremely  familiar.  Frequently,  and  especially  in  the  Psalms,  he  closely 
bUows  the  Vulgate's  wording,  even  where  he  departs  a  little  from  the 
sense.  In  Ps.  Ixxxiv  5, 6,  e.g.  we  have  lo  ascendere  nello  chor  suo  dispone 
tella  valle  delle  lachrime,  following  the  Vulgate  word  for  word — and 
Mjually  obscure.  And  many  similar  instances  might  be  quoted. 
*  Ilie  suggestion  is  due  to  Prof.  C.  A.  Nallino,  of  Palermo, 


43a        THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

T  subjoin  a  short  passage  from  the  Parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  in 
which  our  MS  shews  more  freedom,  but  also  a  decided  independence 
of  the  Provencal  type. 


B«rn.  p.  16011. 

Cgli  fu  uno  padre 
di  fami]gia  il  quRle 
havcv*  dui  filgioli 
tie  il  piu  piovine 
dine  'padre  dairti  Is 
mu  portionedl  roba 
ilctie  It  dcte  il  padre 
sua  il  quale  rjceuCa 
la  partione  sua  si 
parti  Ke  and«te  tn 
paesseloDtanoonde 
sconsstmio  Lutla  Ib 
fachulta  sua  choa 
meretricc  vivendo 
lussurioumente. 


ProvenraJ 

thtneenth  cent. 
(ap.  Berjer). 

Un  homo  era  lo- 
qiuU  aveva  ij  Rolj  e 
llo  pin  fovene  disse 
a  so  pare  pare  dame 
la  mia  pane  de  Eo 
chaste  llo  chc  mi 
toe  ho,  e  lo  pare 
parti  la  sustanda  e 
di  a  queltiy  la  soa 
parte  ct  dentro 
briei'e  lermtne  tute 
cose  asemblade  in- 
Bembrc  lo  plu  fo. 
»enc  fyo  and*  fuore 
de  lo  paesc  c  spendj 
li  tula  la  aoa  bus- 
Ian  cjavivandoluxu- 
riosamenCe. 


[latnn  fourteenth 

cent.  (MS  Riccardi 
No.  iiSJ). 
Uno  huomoebbe 
tlui  figluoli  et  disse 
lo  piu  giovane  di 
qurtii  padre  dami 
la  pane  mia  delta 
nostn  suitantia  et 
non  dopo  motti  die 
raghuno  luttc  le 
partJ  delle  eose  sue 
to  piu  giovane  fi- 
gluolo  et  andone 
malandrinando  in 
un  paese  alungi  cl 
ta  distnisM  et  scia- 
lacquCi  la  ausuntia 
sua  vivendo  lussu- 
nosamcntc. 


Vulcate 
(Lu.  XV  11-13). 

Homo  qnidaa 
habuit  duos  filioa  d 
dixit  adolesceaUir 
ex  iltiiipatri:  Paler 
da  ntihi  portioBM 
Bubatan  tiae  quae  or 
contingiU  £tdi*iail 
illis  subatantiaa. 
El  non  post  laalM 
dies,  concntiM 
omnibus,  adole> 
■ceutior  Klius  pe^ 
cgTc  profectis  est 
in  regioncBi  longiB- 
quam,  et  ibi  dim- 
pavit  substasliM 
Buam  vlvcndo  Icnc 
riosc 


£viden(e  for  an  Arabic  Original. 

Mention  has  been  made  of  a  supposed  Arabic  original.  The  con- 
jecture was  made  by  Cramer,  in  the  preface  affixed  to  ttie  copy  which 
he  gave  to  Prince  Eug^ne-=the  actual  copy  of  which  the  Clarendon 
Press  is  publishing  a  transcription — and  it  has  often  been  repeated. 
But  no  trace  of  such  an  Arabic  text  has  yet  been  discovered.  And  the 
Italian  text  aH'ords  little  or  no  decisive  material  for  a  conclusion. 
A  Mohammedan  document,  e%*en  if  compiled  by  a  European  renegade 
and  in  a  romance  language,  would  necessarily  be  tinged  in  general  and 
in  detiil  with  Semitic  colouring.  When  that,  and  the  orientalisms  due 
lo  our  document's  obvious  dependence  on  the  Bible,  have  been  sob- 
tracted,  there  remaitui,  apparently,  little  or  no  evidence  in  favour  of  m 
Arabic  original.  The  text  does  not,  according  to  experts,  read  like 
a  literal  translation  from  the  Arabic ;  and  the  lact  that  it  is  annotated 
with  Arabic  glosses  in  the  margin  would  seem  to  tell  against  rather  than 
in  favour  of  the  theory.  The  purpose  of  these  glosses  is  somewhat 
mysterious.  It  has  been  suggested  to  rac  by  Mr  F.  C  Durkitt,  that 
their  function  may  have  been  to  protect  the  MS  from  destruction  ax  the 
hands  of  Moslems  ignorant  of  western  languages.  Thus  the  internal 
evidence  remains,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  pcrplcxingly  indecisive. 

If  we  assume  that  Italian  was  the  original  language,  the  compilatioo 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  433 

must  probably  be  the  work  of  a  Christian  renegade.  There  are  no 
traces  of  southern  or  Sicilian  dialect,  so  we  are  forbidden  the  romantic 
conjecture  that  it  had  its  birth  at  the  court  of  Frederic  II.  There 
remains  the  equally  interesting  possibility  that  its  author  may  have 
been  one  of  the  apostate  Templars. 

But  whatever  may  have  been  the  place  and  the  environment  of  its 
origin,  the  document  may  well  prove  to  be  one  of  considerable  interest 
and  importance — perhaps  to  the  student  of  early  Gnostic  literature, 
certainly  to  the  student  of  mediaeval  thought,  and  to  those  interested 
whether  academically  or  practically  in  the  relations  between  Islam  and 
Christianity. 

Lonsdale  Ragg. 


NOTES  ON  THE  DE  LAPSU  VIRGimS  OF  NICETA. 


Among  the  opera  dubia  in  his  admirable  and  epoch-making  edition 
of  the  works  of  Niceta  of  Remesiana  Dr  A.  E.  Bum  prints  fh>m  two 
manuscripts  of  the  seventh  and  tenth  centuries  a  treatise  inscribed 
epistula  NUetM  episeopi  de  Iqpsu  Susannae  deuoiae  et  atiusdam  Uctoris. 
It  bears  the  same  title  in  a  MS  of  Einsiedeln  (186  saec.  xi),  which  he 
has  not  collated.  In  all  three  manuscripts  is  found  a  remarkable  colo- 
phon in  which  this  (revised)  form  of  the  text  is  attributed  to  Ambrose. 

The  same  work,  with  considerable  differences,  especially  in  the  direc- 
tion of  expansion,  is  found  in  many  manuscripts  of  Ambrose  and  Jerome, 
and  has  been  printed  by  Migne  in  7^.  Z.  xvi  as  a  genuine  work  of  the 
former  Father.  Dr  Bum,  being  mainly  and  rightly  concerned  with 
the  form  attributed  to  Niceta,  has  not  provided  collations  of  MSS 
of  the  longer  form  :  he  has  however  printed  a  complete  collation  of  the 
shorter  form,  with  the  text  as  it  appears  in  Migne. 

The  treatise,  whether  it  be  founded  on  fact  or  be  merely  Action,  is 
one  of  the  most  interesting  remains  of  Latin  literature,  and  it  seemed 
worth  while  to  call  attention,  by  the  publication  of  a  few  notes  about  it^ 
to  the  need  which  exists  for  a  new  edition  of  the  longer  form.  It  is 
desirable  to  find  out  exactly  what  the  correct  text  of  the  longer  form 
is,  not  only  for  its  own  sake,  but  also  for  the  sake  of  the  shorter  form. 
Only  when  a  complete  collation  has  been  made  of  all  the  old  MSS  of  the 
longer  form  (or  forms)  will  it  be  possible  to  say  where  this  form  took  its 
rise,  and  what  claim  it  has  to  be  associated  with  Niceta,  Ambrose,  or 
Jerome. 

VOL.  VL  F  f 


434        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

I  have  not  undertnken  anything  like  &  complete  examination  of  cata- 
logues of  MSS  for  this  article,  but  in  the  course  of  a  partial  examination 
of  a  few  for  another  purpose  I  have  noted  various  MSS-  They  are  the 
following':— (A)  attributed  to  Ambrose;  Avignon  276  (sacc  x\  Toun 
340  (s,  xv),  Miinchen  496  (s,  xv),  Cambridge  Trin.  CoH.  B.  4.  31 
(«.  xii),  B.  4.  30  (s.  xi-xii),  Chartres  172  (s.  xii),  Oxford  Bodl.  23S 
(s.  xiv),  768  {s.  xi-xii),  793  (s.  xii),  757  (s.  xiv-xv),  Si  John's  Coll. 
163  (s.  xii),  Mcrton  Coll.  47  {s.  xv,  ch.  9  only):  (B)  attributed  to 
Jerome;  St  Omcr  3S7  (s.  ix),  K6ln  LX  (s.  ix),  K6ln  L!X  (s.  m\ 
Miinchen  4723  (s.  xv),  15912  (s.  xii-xiii),  18523''  (s.  xii),  Trier  aij 
(s.  xv),  Troyea  $$&  (s.  xii-xiii),  637  (s.  xii),  Escortal  b  iii  la  (i.  m\ 
Madrid  Biblioteca  Nacional  11,  20  (s.  xiv),  Cambridge  Kk  III  14 
(5.  xii),  Dd  VII  2  (f.  349  vb.  5.  xv),  London  British  Museum  Hari.  3164 
(s.  XV  f.  i5o  b),  Holkham  (Eari  of  Leicester's)  128  (s.  xv).  The  numben 
are  about  equal  and  the  dales  also.  The  oldest  MSS  known  to  me  iR 
those  of  St  Omer  and  K6ln,  which  support  Jerome ;  the  oldest  in  fkvoor 
of  Ambrose  is  that  of  Avignon.  Italy  does  not  appear  to  contain  any  oM 
MS  of  the  treatise  at  all;  Spain  knows  only  the  attribution  to  Jeronx. 
It  seems  improbable  that  N'iceta  issued  two  forms,  and  certain  tbii 
neither  Ambrose  nor  Jerome  had  anything  to  do  with  the  treatise. 

Of  the  MSS  enumerated  I  possess  a  full  collation  of  the  Holkhm 
MS  (which  was  deposited  in  the  Bodleian  by  the  kindness  of  its  owner'), 
a  fairly  full  collation  of  the  Cambridge  Dd  VII  j  (which  seems  a  worth- 
less copy),  and  a  full  collation  of  portions  of  MSS  Bodl.  76S  and  79>. 
These  collations  will  he  gladly  put  at  the  disposal  of  any  editor  of  the 
longer  form.  A  study  of  ihem  has  led  me  to  the  view  that  the  JcrotM 
form  was  the  earlier  revision  of  the  pure  Niceta,  and  that  the  Ambrose 
form  is  .1  revision  of  the  Jerome  form.  Lord  Leicester's  MS,  though 
of  late  date,  is  of  high  quality,  as  its  readings  and  orthography  she*. 
In  the  following  passages  it  seems  to  have  preserved  the  correct  reading 
of  the  oldest  form  :  p.  1 12,  10  (Bum)  passhni  (fiatsianis  Burn),  p.  114. 
I  ^uoii  {t/uae  Burn),  p.  1 1 6,  12  l/t  (£"/  Bum),  p,  116,  17  hthescii  {taiesai 
Burn),  p.  117,  17  e  {tie  Bum),  p.  118,  15  pcUieeris  {f>oUicita  es  Bum). 
p.  119,  5  ac  {auf  Bum),  p.  119,  14  oc/w  (Ja^o  Bum),  p.  las,  3  /yfw 
{iignum  Burn),  p.  123,  9  iuo  hoc  {fuo  BumX  p.  122,  13  ticUsietm  satictam 
{safutam  ticlesiam  Burn],  p.  123,  16  mart  {mart  Bum),  p.  123,  6-4 
follow  the  MS  in  punctuating  ihwi^/afnitential*  *  Quae  aui  aegvtt . . . 
ex^-edaf;  et .  .  .  magmtfudc\  p.  12 ^^  1  &  conuertimini  {wnufrfemini  Bam)\ 

AlSX.   SotTTEK. 

'  I  borrow  four  from  Dr  Bum's  Introduction. 

*  Imaicdialcly  on  the  completiun  of  the  cclUlion  of  the  Holkham  MS.  it  wu  put 
intn  the  Iwnda  of  Dr  Burn,  but  unfortunately  loo  late  for  use  in  bia  edition.  Tbe 
fttHSve  notes  appear  here  with  bi»  approval. 


« 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  435 


LUCAS  OR  LUCANUS? 

That  *  cata  Lucanum '  is  the  genuine  formula  for  quotations  from 
5t  Luke's  Gospel  in  the  Tesfimom'a  of  St  Cyprian  has  now  been  put 
beyond  doubt  by  the  evidence  of  the  wide  use  of  the  formula,  both  in 
Cyprian  and  in  three  at  least  of  the  old  Latin  Biblical  texts  (a,  ^,  j), 
adduced  by  Mr  Turner  in  the  January  number  of  the  Journal 
'vi  256  ff).  But  to  make  the  account  of  the  extant  evidence  complete, 
it  may  be  worth  while  to  add  that  on  the  well-known  sarcophagus  of 
Concordius,  at  Aries,  the  inscription  under  the  representations  of  the 
Tour  evangelists  runs  as  follows  mattevs  marcvs  lvcanvs  ioahnis  : 
see,  for  the  most  recent  publications  of  the  text,  Le  Blant  Inscriptions 
■hritiennes  de  la  Gauk  W  no.  542  (p.  277),  the  same  writer's  Etu^  sur 
fes  soTcophages  chritiens  antigues  de  la  ville  d' Aries  p.  8,  and  Garrucd 
S^»ia  deir  arte  cristiana  plate  343  no.  3  (text  v  70) ;  compare  also  the 
discussions  in  de  Rossi  BulUttino  d'archeologia  cristiana,  a.d.  1866,  p.  34, 
md  Gatti  BulUttino  della  commissione  archeologica  comunale  di  Roma 
i.D.  1904,  p.  328. 

Again,  on  the  fragmentary  cover  of  a  sepulchral  chest  in  the  Museo 
[Circheriano  (Gatti  lix.  cit.  by  mistake  says  of  Apt  near  Avignon)  occur 
he  letters  .  .  .  vs  ioannis,  where  Tongiorgi  and  de  Rossi  I.e.,  com 
aaring  the  Aries  sarcophagus,  supply  (lvcan)vs.  But  though  this 
lupplement  is  probable  enough,  in  order  to  make  it  certain  we  should 
leed  to  be  certain  that  the  order  of  the  evangelists  was  that  now  in 
»mmon  use,  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John,  seeing  that  it  was  exactly 
rith  the  Westerns  that  this  order  was  not  invariable  (Zahn  Geschtchie 
tes  NTlicken  Kanons  ii  367  ff). 

Anyhow,  whatever  may  be  said  of  this  second  instance,  we  have  in 
he  other  a  quite  certain  example  of  '  Lucanus '  from  an  inscription  (and 
hat  a  localized  one)  to  bring  into  comparison  with  the  examples  of  the 
ame  form  in  MSS. 

And  \  propos  of  this,  would  it  not  be  a  useful  thing  for  some  one  to 
iollect  all  inscriptions,  be  they  few  or  many,  in  which  occur  the  names 
>f  the  Evangelists,  and  to  classify  them  (in  respect  both  of  the  order  of 
he  names  and  of  their  forms)  according  to  place  and  time  ?  The 
ttempt  has  been  already  made  to  collect  the  similar  evidence  of  the 
iISS  of  the  Gospels,  and  of  the  lists  of  Canonical  books. 

G.  Mercati. 
Ffa 


436  THE  JOURNAL    OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

THE  COMING  CAMBRIDGE   SEPTUAGINT: 
A   PLEA  FOR  A   PURE  TEXT. 

Thbre  are  few  works  whose  appearance  is  more  anxiously  looked 
forward  to  by  scientific  theologians  than  the  great  edition  of  the  Greek 
Old  Testament  upon  which  Mr  Brooke  and  Mr  McLean  have  been 
working  for  many  years. 

Recent  criticism  has  made  it  plainer  and  plainer  that  the  decisioa  of 
the  Reformation  divines  to  substitute  what  they  called  the  Hcbreir 
Verity,  by  which  they  meant  the  Masorctic  text  of  the  Bible,  for  ihit 
once  accepted  by  the  Jews  tliemselves  as  well  as  by  all  members  of  the 
primitive  Christian  Church,  naineiy  the  Septuagint  text,  was  at  least 
a  doubtful  experiment  and  one  which  might  reasonably  claim  rerision. 
The  opinion  of  the  relative  value  of  the  Scptuagint  text,  as  compared 
with  the  Hebrew,  has  indeed  been  revolutionized  even  since  the  last 
great  rcvisiun  uf  the  English  Bible,  and  there  can  be  little  or  no  doubc 
that  if  that  work  had  to  be  done  again  now,  the  new  revised  reniao 
would  shew  a  very  much  larger  infusion  of  Septuagint  readings  tlon 
the  present  one  does. 

This  being  so,  those  of  us  who  have  tried  in  late  years  to  champion 
the  Scptuagint  text  as  against  the  Hebrew  are  natunlly  very  anxioos 
that  the  great  Cambridge  Bible  shall  be  (what  it  was,  I  take  it,  Dieani 
originally  to  be)  a  collection  of  all  the  manuscript  materials  available 
for  the  reconstruction  of  the  Septuagint  text  in  its  original  purity,  aod 
a  sifting  out  of  all  those  materials  hy  which  the  true  Septuagint  text  its 
been  sophisticated  at  different  times,  and  more  especially  by  the  syncietic 
handiwork  of  the  initiator  of  Biblical  criticism,  Origen. 

I  am  not  quite  sure,  however,  that  this  most  admirable  aim  will  be 
secured  by  what  I  understand  to  be  the  intention  of  those  responsible 
for  the  new  Cambridge  corpus  of  Old  Testament  readings.  They 
apparently  contemplate,  not  as  complete  a  collection  of  Septuagiot 
variants  as  they  can  secure,  but  merely  a  more  complete  and  elaborate 
edition  of  Professor  Swcte's  admirable  Greek  Bible. 

Professor  Swete's  Greek  Bible  has  on  its  title-page  this  inscription: 
•The  Old  Testament  in  Greek  according  to  the  Septuagint.'  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  merely  a  careful  edition  of  the  Vatican  Codex, 
with  various  readings  from  all  the  uncial  MSS  and  in  certain  pans 
from  some  cursives,  and  it  confessedly  contains  at  least  one  work  which 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Scptuagint  at  all,  namely  Theodotion's  Greek 
translation  of  Daniel.  This  appears  in  the  book,  I  take  it,  merely 
because  it  is  contained  in  Codex  B  and  the  other  uncials,  but  no  one 
now  believes  that  it  formed  part  of  the  Septuagint  Bible,  and  to  print 


{ 


1 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  437 

it,  not  as  an  appendix  with  a  proper  *  caveat ',  but  as  an  integral  part  of 
the  text,  in  a  work  claiming  on  its  title-page  to  be  an  edition  of  the 
Septuagint  Old  Testament  is,  I  think,  misleading. 

Lately,  I  have  been  permitted  to  write  a  series  of  articles  in  the 
Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology.  In  these  I  have  at 
some  length  argued,  what  was  long  ago  urged  by  Grotius  and  later  by 
Whiston,  namely,  that  not  only  Daniel,  as  it  appears  in  the  great  uncials, 
was  derived  from  Theodotion,  but  that  the  certainty  once  imited 
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah,  and  probably  Esther,  as  they  appear  in 
the  same  uncials,  are  not  in  any  way  Septuagint  texts,  but  are  all 
derived  from  Theodotion  also.  In  the  case  of  one  of  these  books  we 
still  possess  the  Greek  rendering,  namely  the  long-neglected  document 
called  I  Esdras  in  the  English  'Apocrypha  *. 

The  conclusions  I  have  ventured  to  urge  have  been  accepted  (as 
I  am  assured  by  themselves)  by  the  greatest  authorities  on  the  Greek 
Bible  in  this  country,  in  Germany  and  America,  and  notably  by  those 
who  have  made  a  special  study  of  the  books  in  question. 

It  seems  to  me  that  when  the  New  Cambridge  Bible  appears,  it  ought 
not  to  contain  any  of  these  translations  of  Theodotion,  and  for  two 
reasons.  In  the  first  place,  it  would  utterly  mislead  every  student  into 
the  notion  that  we  have  in  them  parts  of  the  great  work  of  the  Seventy, 
which  we  wish  so  much  to  recover  in  its  integrity.  Secondly,  it  would 
repeat  the  inducement  to  the  compilers  of  Septuagint  lexicc^raphy  to 
introduce,  as  they  have  done  previously,  a  large  number  of  words  into 
their  lexicons  which  have  nothing  to  do  with  Septuagint  Greek  at  all, 
and  merely  represent  the  Greek  of  the  second  century  a.  d.  in  the  dis- 
trict where  Theodotion  lived  and  worked. 

May  I  venture  to  urge,  while  it  is  still  not  too  late,  that  before  any 
Greek  text  is  admitted  into  the  Cambridge  Bible  there  shall  be  at  least 
an  a  priori  probability  that  it  is  a  Septuagint  text  ? 

May  I  further  urge  that  it  would  be  an  excellent  complement  to 
the  new  corpus  of  Greek  Bible  readings,  if  it  were  possible  to  bring 
together  all  the  remains  of  the  other  Greek  translations  of  the  Bible, 
namely  those  of  Aquila,  Theodotion,  Symmachus,  &c.,  and  to  print 
them  tc^ether  and  not  scattered  (as  they  are  in  Field's  great  work)  over 
the  various  books  of  the  Bible  ?  In  this  case,  Theodotion  would  naturally 
loom  very  big,  and  the  various  books  now  attributed  to  him  and  printed 
in  Dr  Swete's  professedly  Septuagint  Bible  would  find  a  very  natural  place. 

Dr  Nestle  assured  me  some  time  ago  that  he  had  once  contemplated 

such  a  work,  and  looked  upon  it  as  one  of  great  value  and  perhaps 

necessity. 

Henrv  H.  Howorth. 

[The  title  of  the  manual  edition  of  the   Cambridge  Greek  Old 


438         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

Testament  was  adopted  after  full  discussion  by  the  Committee  u 
whom  the  Editor  was  responsible.  It  is  right  to  add  that  be  fullf 
concurred  with  the  dedsion  at  the  time,  and  still  sees  no  reason  10 
regret  it. 

To  exclude  a  text  which  holds  the  place  of  the  Alexandrine  versioo 
of  Daniel  in  all  our  MSS  but  one  might  have  been  held  to  savoor 
of  pedantry,  and  would  certainly  have  caused  much  inconvenience 
to  the  majority  of  readers.  Ii  is  not  easy  to  understand  how  any  one 
can  be  misled  by  the  presence  of  the  Theodotionic  version,  when  everf 
page  on  which  it  appears  bears  the  s>'rabol  of  Theodotion. — H.B.S.] 


THE  MIRACLE   OF  CANA. 

Has  it  ever  occurred  to  the  reader  what  a  singularly  ancompliroenttry 
speech  (hat  was  which,  according  to  our  version,  the  ruler  of  the  feast 
addressed  to  the  bridegroom,  when  he  said  to  him  'Thou  hast  kept  the 
good  wine  until  now'?  It  was  as  though  he  had  said:  *  Other  people 
give  their  good  wine  first,  and  their  inferior  wine  later,  but  you  have 
given  us  your  inferior  wine  first,  and  kept  your  good  wine  until  no*. 
when  we  have  already  drunk  freely,  and  it  matters  little  whether  the 
wine  be  good  or  bad.' 

And  yet  the  words  were,  rightly  rendered,  an  intended  compliment, 
and  not  the  contrary.  The  error  has  lain  in  the  mistaken  interpretatioa 
of  Tcr)Jptj<as.  The  verb  rrffKtf  does  not  mean  '  to  retain  ',  but  *  to  main- 
tain', i.e.  'to  maintain  as  it  was',  'to  preserve  unbroken',  'to  keep 
inviolate'.  Thus— 'He  keepelh  not  (unbroken)  the  Sabbath-day' 
(John  ix  16);  'If  ye  love  me  keep  (unbroken)  my  commandments' 
(John  xiv  15);  'Endeavouring  to  keep  (unbroken)  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit'  (Eph.  iv  3) ;  *I  have  kept  (inviolate)  the  faith',  or  'my  faith' 
(i  Tim.  iv  7].  These  examples  Illustrate  the  true  significalion  of  the 
term. 

Hence,  in  the  present  passage,  the  sense  is  not  that  of  'guarding, 
reserving,  retaining',  and  so  (here)  'keeping  in  store',  but  of  'main- 
taining', 'keeping  up',  'keeping  going',  which  throws  quite  a  differeat 
light  upon  the  words  used.  'Thou  hast  kept  going  the  good  wine  even 
until  now',  this  is  what  the  ruler  of  the  feast  said.  Good  wine  at  the 
beginning  and  good  wine  at  the  end.  Not  a  limited  amount  of  good 
and  an  unlimited  amount  of  inferior  wine,  but  good  wine  all  thiouf^. 
The  compliment  is  manifest 

W.  Spicer  Wood. 


439 


REVIEWS 

Eahsiae  Ocddentaiis  Mtmumenta  Juris  Anfiguissima.  Canonum  et 
CondUorum  Graecontm  InterpretaHotus  Latinae.  Edidit  Cuth- 
BERTUS  Hamilton  Turner,  A.M.  Fasciculi  primi  pars  altera. 
Nicaeni  Concilii  praefationes  capitula  qrmbolum  canones.  (Oxford, 
at  the  Clarendon  Press,  1904.) 

Mr  Turner  and  his  University  are  to  be  congratulated  on  the 
appearance  of  the  second  part  of  the  first  fasciculus  of  his  Momtmenta. 
It  is  hardly  too  much  to  suggest  that  he  is  himself  the  only  scholar  fiilly 
competent  to  criticize  it.  The  minute  care  and  accurate  scholarship 
which  have  been  devoted  to  its  production  leave  almost  nothing  to  be 
said— unless  a  critic  were  fortunate  enough  to  have  discovered  a  manu- 
script which  Mr  Turner  had  overlooked.  Mr  Turner  has  indeed  found 
some  new  MSS  since  the  publication  of  the  first  part  of  the  work  five 
years  ago,  and  has  made  a  careful  examination  of  others  which  were 
imperfectly  known.  From  these  sources  he  has  drawn  additional 
material  for  the  Subscriptions  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea  which  he  edited 
in  Part  I. 

The  present  instalment  contains  the  Nicene  Symbol  and  Canons  in 
ten  Interpretations,  which  fall  into  three  groups.  I.  (a)  The  Interpre- 
tation found  in  the  Codex  Ingilrami  (saec  ix),  apparently  made  in  the 
fourth  century  in  Italy,  {b,  c)  The  Interpretations  of  Caecilian  and 
Atticus,  made  for  the  benefit  of  the  African  Church  in  419  a.d. 
{d)  Interpretatio  Prisca,  compiled  from  (o)  and  (r)  in  the  fifth  or  sixth 
century.  II.  (a)  Interpretatio  Gallica,  fourth  century,  {b)  The  pant< 
phrase  of  Rufinus  {Hist.  Ecc.  x  6),  beginning  of  fifth  century,  {e)  In- 
terpretatio Gallo-Hispana,  compiled  in  the  fifth  century  from  (a)  with 
help  of  (b).  {d)  Interpretatio  Isidori  (so  called),  composed  at  Rome  in 
second  quarter  of  the  fifth  century ;  Mr  Turner  shews  that  the  oldest 
tradition  of  this  Interpretation  is  contained  in  the  three  codd.  which 
he  has  grouped  together  as  M,  and  that  the  text  in  the  Quesnel  Sylloge 
(Q)  depends  on  M.  HI.  Two  Interpretations  of  Dionysius  Exiguus, 
difiering  little  from  each  other.  The  first  of  these  Mr  Turner  has 
edited  for  the  first  time  from  four  MSS.  Dionysius  had  before  him 
the  Interpretatio  Isidori  in  its  Q  form,  and  amended  it  from  the  Greek 
text. 

The  text  of  the  Prisca  raises  critical  questions  on  which  a  few  obser- 


440         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

vations  may  be  offered.  N^Iecting  the  late  Ccxlex  Veronensis,  then 
are  two  independent  traditions  of  this  Interpretatio :  one  represented 
by  a  Bodleian  MS  of  the  seventh  century  (J),  the  other  by  three  MSS, 
of  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries,  which  hang  together  (v).  For  the 
restoration  of  the  original  text  the  sys^tcm  on  which  the  compiler  pro- 
ceeded must  he  noted.  Collating  the  jiarallcl  texts,  we  soon  dixOB 
that  he  has  generally  followed  the  Interpretation  of  Atticus,  and  btt 
used  the  Int.  Cod.  Ing.  where  it5  language  seemed  clearer  (mon 
familiar)  or  fuller.  Thus  in  Canon  II,  last  sentence  (p.  1 1 5),  the  brief 
ipse  f>erielitahitur  de  eJero  is  expanded  into  the  clearer  ipse  se  pcruHtma 
prxTfabUur  a  c/ero,  with  the  help  of  Ini.  Cod.  Ing.  In  Canon  IV,  where 
the  written  consent  of  bishops  who  are  unable  to  be  present  at  u 
episcopal  ordination  is  required,  Atticus  has  simply  '  conscntientibus 
et  his  qui  absentes  sunt  episcopis  et  Kpondentibus  per  scripta',  and  the 
Frisca  udds  the  unnecessary  hut  vivid  iamguam  se  praesentes  from  the 
auxiSiar)*  source.  Again,  in  Canon  VII,  the  more  precise  statement  of 
InL  Cod.  Iiii;.  as  to  the  position  of  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  is  preferred 
In  Canon  IX,  the  substitution  of  interrogati  for  cum  discmtnutttir  vrA 
the  insertion  of  temere  are  similarly  characteristic.  Only  occasional^) 
as  in  portions  of  Canon  XIX,  De  Pauliamstts,  does  the  preference  of  the 
InL  Cod.  Ing.  to  Atticus  appear  arbitrary. 

The  following  three  cases  are  sul^cient  to  prove  that  the  two  traditicns 
of  the  Prisca  are  derived  from  a  manuscript  which  was  not  free  fawn 
errors.  P.  113,  1.  11,  the  codd.  gives  alios  for  alias  (so  Ail),  which 
is  restored  by  the  editor.  P.  120, 1. 14  'hunc  consilium  censuit  sanctum 
et  magnum  concilium  non  esse  episcopum '  was  the  rcadmg  of  the 
common  tradition  {cotuilium  for  tonsilium  in  two  codd.  of  the  v  faailf 
being  evidently  a  correction).  In  the  next  following  sentence,  ib.  L  i;, 
all  the  codd.  omit  the  indispensable  word  decreto  whidi  Mr  Turner 
restores  from  Atticus. 

The  archetype  then  was  not  flawless.  Was  it  the  compiler's  ante- 
graph  or  only  a  copy?  Mr  Turner's  acute  treatment  of  a  passage  in 
Canon  IX  is  based  on  the  hypothesis  that  it  was  a  copy  of  a  (the 
compiler's?)  corrected  manuscripL  Here  the  MSS  have  "tales  enim  \ 
canon  non  susdpiu  quod  autem ',  &c.  The  sense  repudiates  emm.  ' 
Attfcus  has  'tales  canon  non  suscipit  sed  abiciL  hoc  enim  quod',  &c 
Mr  Turner  accounts  for  enim  by  supposing  that  the  text  which  the 
copyist  transcribed— presumably  the  compiler's  autograph — presented 


tales 

enim 

canon  non  susdpit  quod  autem 


'4 


and  that  the  copyist  thoughtlessly  supposed  that  enim,  which  had  been 


REVIEWS  441 

written  as  a  substitute  for  autem  (q).  Atticus  and  Cod.  Ing.),  was  to  be 
inserted  after  taies. 

The  consilium  passage,  referred  to  above,  I  would  interpret  as  con- 
firmatory evidence  of  the  conclusion  that  we  have  to  do  with  a  copyist 
who  sometimes  went  wrong  in  copying  out  fair  a  corrected  or  semi- 
corrected  original.  Here,  I  think,  we  get  a  glimpse  of  the  compiler 
busy  at  his  work  of  conflation  with  his  two  sources  in  front  of  him. 
Atticus  has  'talem  concilium  magnum  definiuit  non  debere  esse  epi- 
scopum '.  The  compiler  preferred  the  other  rendering, '  hunc  concilium 
hoc  sanctum  et  magnum  censutt  non  esse  episcopum '.  His  first  thought 
was  to  write  *hunc  consilium  censuit  non  esse  episcopum ';  but  when  he 
had  written  tensuit  he  changed  his  mind  and,  deciding  to  preserve  the 
honourable  epithets  of  the  Council,  he  proceeded  with  sanctum  et 
magnum  concilium,  but  without  deleting  the  superfluous  concilium  which 
he  had  already  written.  But  concilium  was  not  exactly  what  he  had 
written,  though  it  was  what  he  had  intended  to  write.  He  actually 
wrote  consilium^  and  it  is  easy  to  see  why.  His  eye  had  been  on  the  text 
of  the  Atticus,  where  in  the  preceding  clause  consilium  occurs  correctly, 
proicter  consilium  metropolitani  (for  which  the  compiler  with  Cod.  Ing. 
wrote  sine  arbitrio  eius  gui  est  in  metropoHm). 

A  parage  in  Canon  V  must,  I  think,  be  explained  as  another  instance 
in  which  the  scribe  of  the  common  parent  of  J  and  v  misunderstood 
his  exemplar. 

'  Et  si  quis  incunctanter  offenderint  episcopum  suum  et  rationabiliter 
excommunicati  apud  omnes  esse  probatum  et  omnium  consilio  innote- 
scat,  quamdiu  episcopo  placeat  humaniorem  pro  his  ferre  sententiam.' 

Here  there  is  an  important  omission ;  Atticus  has  '  quamdiu  out  in 
communi  aut  episcopo  placeat ',  &c,  and  Cod.  Ing.  expresses  the  same 
alternative.  The  whole  character  of  the  Prisca  excludes  the  supposition 
that  the  omission  was  intentional.  If  we  observe  that  the  expression 
'  apud  omnes  esse  probatum  et  omnium  consilio  innotescat '  corresponds 
to  'apud  omnes  esse  putentur'  (Att.)  and  'constet'  (Cod.  Ing.),  and  reSect 
that  it  is  unlike  the  compiler  to  employ  such  a  circumlocution  without 
a  cue  from  either  of  his  sources  j  and  if  we  observe  further  that  Cod. 
Ing.  has 'omnium  consilio  uel  episcopo  eorum  placeat'^  it  occurs  as  a  very 
probable  solution  that  the  words  omnium  consilio  were  inserted  in  the 
wrong  clause  by  a  mistake  of  the  scribe,  with  the  substitution  of  et  for 
uel.  The  mistake  could  have  easily  arisen,  if  the  words  had  been 
accidentally  omitted  in  the  original  MS  and  subsequently  added  supra 
limam. 

There  are  some  other  places  where  we  are  entitled  to  suspect 
that  errors  were  committed  by  the  writer  of  the  parent  of  J  and  v. 
Ceieri  in  Canon  I  (p.  113  1.  5)  is  probably  a  mistake  of  his  for  cetero 


442         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

or  ceteroqui.  And  we  may  perhaps  impute  lo  him  loo  the  omUaoa 
of  matrtm  in  the  list  of  innocuous  female  persons  mentioned  in  Cmon 

III  (p.  117.  L  9). 

The  compiler  adhered  dosely  to  his  two  sources,  but  in  one  or  i«o 
cases  he  wrought  mo  mar/e.  In  Canon  X  (p.  117),  to  the  wotdi  of 
Atticus  cogniti  ttemm  defxmuntur  he  added  (^idantttr  (suggesced  pertil* 
by  $id abicit  in  Atlicus,  Canon  IX,  p.  126,  I.  8).  Ueniam  HKntertMiiii 
C&non  VIII  (p.  135, 1-  >S)  seems  to  be  another  case  of  such  iniliatnc 
Here  Att.  and  Cod-  Ing.  have  inutnti  fverint,  and  Mr  Turner  soggctfs 
that  ueniam  merutrirtt  (v ;  menantur  J)  arose  out  of  this  by  corTU[<iaa 
But  the  precedingytmW  (1.  16)  is  against  this  view ;  '  ubiciunqQe  oen 
fuerint '  (Prisca)  corresponds  to  *  ubicumquc  ucro . . .  inuenti  fuerint'  (Alt). 
The  compiler  has  modified  the  Interpretation  of  Atticus  so  as  to  indttde 
a  wider  category  than  the  ordinaH. 

I  do  not  quite  agree  with  the  exegesis,  which  Mr  Turner  Lmposoby 
his  punctuation,  of  this  passage  in  Atticus.  The  comma,  I  concetK, 
should  be  after  Juerinf,  not  after  ordtnaii.     Punctuated  thus  it  runs : — 

'ubicumque  uero  omnes  siue  in  castellis  sine  in  ciuitatibus  ipsiKsfi 
inuenti  fuerint,  ordinati  qui  inueniuntur  in  clero  sint  in  codcm  habitn.' 

Ordita/i  goes  closely  with  inueniymtur  •,  and  ord.  qui  tmufn-  arc  a  ponion 
of  the  larger  class  {omnes)  of  the  preceding  clause,  /n  eodem  kakitk 
means  in  the  same  clerical  order. 

Mr  Turner's  corrections  of  bis  texts  are  nearly  always  convindog; 
some  of  them  are  remarkable.  I  may  specially  notice  ifuia  adseittiani 
for  ^uid  sentiant  (p.  202),  and  <x  traetatione  for  extra  iegatione  (p.  137). 
which  deserves  to  take  rank  with  Maassen's  sequestrentur  for  tequenniuf 
(p.  228).  In  the  Decretal  of  Damasus  (p.  157  1.  35)  be  has  boldly 
adopted  uas,  the  reading  of  the  best  MSS,  as  a  genitive  (  ** — "^  "f^jt— 
uas  eieetionii),  appealing  to  the  well-known  statement  in  Cicero's  ^''^^H 
45  as  to  the  colloquial  elision  of  -is. 

There  are  still  some  passages  in  these  documents  which  reqtiiie 
emendation.  In  the  text  of  the  Quesnel  Sylloge,  Can<Hi  XIX  (p.  177)^ 
qui  ex  nudo  corporis  readunf,  we  should  probably  restore  nodtff  *tran 
the  bond  of  the  body '.  There  is  a  graver  difficulty  in  one  of  die 
spurious  canons  which  are  found  in  the  MSS  of  the  Prisca  (except  J). 
The  canon  is  as  follows  (p.  146)  ;— 

'  Hoc  placuit  ut  si  quis  subdiaconus  aut  diaconus  aut  presbiter  uet 
episcopus  fuerit  ordinatus  in  his  personis  tsi  neclectust,  episcopus  qui 
hoc  fecerit  personam  tnntum  uindjcet,  peculium  qui  ordinatus  est 
resiiluat  domino  huiiis;  cicricus  tantum,  dcponatur,  ctiam  etsi  domino 
interueniente.  illut  tantum  obseruandum  sit  ut  liber  militct  aecclesiae. 
(variants :  si  neg/ee/us,  se  negleftus). 

Mr  Turner's  exj^aAation  of  the  general  meaning  is  unquestionably 


A 


REVIEWS  443 

right.  A  slave,  ordained  to  the  subdtaconate  or  a  higher  order,  thereby^ 
acquires  his  freedom,  but  must  compensate  his  master  by  giving  up  his 
ptculium.  This  does  not  apply  to  lower  orders  (Jettons^  exonisiac).  Now 
in  the  former  case,  ordinations  might  be  of  two  kinds,  ordinations  of 
Ia]rmen,  and  ordinations  of  clerics  to  a  higher  order.  I  suspect  that  this 
distinction  is  concealed  in  the  corruption  si  necUcius,  and  propose  to 
restore 

siue  clericus  {siue  laicus). 

Reference  must  be  made  to  the  instructive  notes  on  special  points 
which  will  be  found  in  Mr  Turner's  Addenda,  particularly  to  the 
material  which  be  has  collected  on  the  dating  ^si  consuUtfum  in  Africa, 
to  his  ordered  presentation  of  the  tesiimonta  concerning  the  deaths 
of  the  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  and  to  his  note  on  the  use  of  in/eri 
and  infemi. 

J.  B.  Bury. 


Das  morgenldndische  Momhium.     Von  Stephan  Schiwietz.     Band  I, 
PP-  35^-    (Mainz,  Kirchheim,  1904.) 

The  greater  part  of  this  volume,  the  first  instalment  of  Dr  Schiwietz's 
work  on  Eastern  Monachism,  had  already  seen  the  light  in  the  Archiv 
fur  ka/holisches  Kirehenrtcht  (1898-1903),  and  the  present  reviewer 
bad  there  learned  to  appreciate  its  value.  The  book  is  divided  into 
three  parts,  whereof  the  first  treats,  in  fifty  pages,  of  pre-monastic  Chris- 
tian asceticism  and  ascetics  during  the  tirst  three  centuries.  As  is 
common  on  all  hands  nowadays,  the  beginnings  of  Christian  asceticism 
are  traced  back  to  apostolic  times,  and  its  root  and  justification  are  found 
in  the  New  Testament  itself.  In  these  pages  probably  most  that  can 
be  known  concerning  ante-Nicene  Christian  ascetics  among  men,  and 
dedicated  virgins  and  deaconesses  among  women,  has  been  brought 
together,  and  Schiwietz's  articles  are  put  in  the  first  place  among  the 
authorities  on  the  subject  in  Grutzmacher's  article  '  MCnchtum '  in  the 
new  edition  of  Herzog.  But  whatever  anticipations  there  may  have 
been  in  earlier  times,  Schiwietz  concludes,  and  surely  rightly,  that 
Christian  monachism  properly  so  called  began  only  with  the  opening 
of  the  fourth  century. 

The  rest  of  the  volume  is  a  portrayal  of  Egyptian  monachism  during 
the  fourth  century.  It  opens  with  thirty  pages  on  St  Anthony  \  the 
first  fifteen  pages  are  a  laboured  refutation  of  Weingarten's  theories : 
this  surely  was  quite  unnecessary  in  face  of  the  practically  unanimous 
verdict  of  critics  during  the  past  few  years  in  lavour  of  the  historical 


444  THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

character  and  the  Athanastan  authorship  of  the  Vita  Antonu.  And 
Schiwietz  does  not  ntention  the  really  new  factor  in  the  case — the  Synac 
version  of  the  yUa  signalized  by  Schulllicss  in  1894  ;  indeed,  he  wnia 
in  apparent  unconsciousness  that  any  advance  has  been  made  since 
1886.  The  two  sections,  however,  describing  St  Anthony's  work  and 
place  in  the  history  of  Christian  monachism,  and  based  mainly  on  liie 
fiVrt,  are  well  done.  The  nionacUisni  of  tlie  Nitrian  and  Scetic  deserts 
and  of  the  Nile  valley  from  Siout  to  Alexandria  is  described  in  forty 
pages.  This  portion  is  practically  an  analysis  of  the  Jftstoria  ilon^ 
chvrum  and  the  relevant  parts  of  the  Iliiloria  Lausiaca.  It  again  is  nil 
done ;  but  1  hope  it  is  nut  an  illusion  to  think  that  the  author  has  been 
at  a  disadvantage  in  not  knowing  the  first  volume  of  the  Lausiat  J&terj 
of  ralladiui,  published  in  1898 :  it  is  referred  to,  indeed,  in  one  not<v 
but  it  was  not,  used  in  the  makinf;  of  the  book.  However,  SchiwieU 
has  been  guided  aright  by  Preuschen's  PaUadius  und  Rufinus  as  to  tbe 
main  ground-tines  of  the  criticism  of  the  two  chief  sources;  but  the 
views  adopted  in  regard  to  the  authorship,  original  language  and  liteary 
character  of  the  Ilistoria  Monachorum  are  not  those  of  the  generality  of 
critics.  The  hundred  pages  on  Pachomian  monachism  are  still  nwre 
thoroughly  executed,  and  furnish  a  solid  contribution  tliat  may  fitly  nnk 
with  the  monographs  of  recent  years  on  this  branch  of  the  subject  In 
the  criticism  of  the  documcms  Schiwictz  closely  follows  Abb£  Lftdane 
in  his  excellent  Cfnabitisme  Pakhemien,  and  so  has  been  led  on  lo  coned 
lines,  [jarticularly  in  regard  to  the  priority  of  the  Greek  Life  over  the 
Coptic  and  of  the  Coptic  over  the  Arabic,  In  tlie  matter  of  the  evaluation 
of  sources  for  the  history  of  Pachomian  monachism,  Schiwictz  fotkivs 
Ladeuze  also  in  his  unfavourable  estimate  as  to  the  trustworthiness  of 
Patladius's  account  of  the  Pacliomtan  Rule  and  organization :  here  I  have 
to  disagree;  1  have  dealt  with  the  question  in  a  partial  manner  in  nota 
50-9  of  my  second  volume  of  the  Lausiat  History,  but,  as  there  slated, 
I  hope  to  have  an  opportunity  hereafter  of  going  into  the  matter  fiiUy. 
Here  I  shall  only  direct  attention  10  what  I  have  said  in  note  53,  <* 
the  liturgical  practices  of  the  P.ichoniian  monks :  it  is  there  shewn 
that  Palladius's  evidence  is  to  be  preferred  to  Cassian's,  because  Pil- 
ladius  had  visited  a  Pachomian  monastery  and  Cassian  had  not,  and 
because  Palladius's  statements  arc  borne  out  by  the  earliest  Pachomian 
documents. 

The  Third  Part — 'A  Survey  of  Egyptian  monachism  in  the  fourth 
century  '■ — is  not  only  the  newest  but  also  the  most  original  and  con 
structivc  portion  of  the  book,  It  contains  interesting  discussions  of  the 
p5.-Athan.isian  'Syntagma  Uoctrinae',  of  the  early  ethical  teaching 
(fotmd  in  Evagrius  and  Cassian)  on  the  Eight  Capital  Situ,  and  of  the 
relations  of  the  Egyptian  monastic  system  to  the  general  ecclesiastical 


REVIEWS  445 

life  of  the  time.  There  is  also  a  refutation  (mainly  following  Ladeuze's) 
of  Am^lineau's  chaises  of  geneial  immorality  against  the  Pachomian 
and  Nitrian  mcmks  :  in  a  system  embracing  many  thousands  of  men  and 
women  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  there  must  be  many  individual 
failures  and  falls ;  but  after  going  over  the  documents  carefully  I  can 
say  nothing  else  than  that,  so  far  as  extant  records  go,  Am^lineau's 
sweeping  accusations  are  baseless  and  frivolous ;  and  I  see  that  this 
is  the  verdict  of  a  quite  independent  judge,  von  der  Goltz,  in  his 
review  of  Schiwietz  {2^o/.  LiUratunxitung,  1905,  79).  The  case  of 
Schenoudi's  monastery  is,  perhaps,  less  clear;  but  lAdeuze  and  Leipoldt 
f^Schenute  von  Atripe)  both  reject  Am^lineau's  inferences.  Schiwietz 
does  not  touch  on  this  part  of  the  question,  nor,  indeed,  on  Schenoudi 
and  his  monks  at  all ;  and  the  most  serious  criticism  on  his  book  must 
be  this  unaccountable  lacuna  in  any  picture  of  fourth-century  Egyptian 
monachism.  For  Schenoudi's  was  the  most  permanently  exclusive  Coptic 
manifestation  of  monastic  life ;  and  the  literature,  being  largely  letters 
and  conferences,  illustrates  the  inner  working  of  the  system  in  a  more 
vivid  and  realistic  way  than  is  possible  with  the  more  formal  Pachomian 
documents.  All  this  matter  has  been  admirably  collected  by  Leipoldt 
in  his  ScAenute  von  Atripe  (1903).  It  has  also  to  be  said  that  Dr  Schi- 
wietz's  articles  needed  much  more  revision  before  re-publication  than 
they  received,  in  order  to  bring  them  up  to  the  level  of  present  know- 
ledge, the  seven  trifling  alterations  in  the  'Nachtrage*  being  wholly 
inadequate:  e.g.  the  conditions  of  the  problem  concerning  the  Vita 
Pauli  Eremitcu^  as  stated  in  the  note  to  p.  50,  have  been  completely 
changed  by  the  Greek  text  printed  by  Bidez  in  1900.  But  in  spite 
of  such  defects  the  book,  as  a  co-ordinated  digest  of  the  matoials, 
is  a  meritorious  and  useful  contribution  to  history,  monastic,  eccle- 
siastical, and  religious.  Still  more  welcome  will  be  the  second  volume, 
if  it  treats  with  like  thoroughness  of  the  less  worked  iields  of  Asiatic 
and  Greek  monachism. 

E.  C.  Butler. 


De  Timotheo  I Nes/orianorum  Patriarcha  (728-823)  et  ChrisHanorum 
OritntaHum  condidone  sub  Caliphis  Abbtisidis.  Accedunt  XCIX 
eiusdem  Tlmothei  DtfiniHorus  Canonical  e  textu  Syriaa>  inediio  nunc 
primum  Latine  redditae,  Thesim  facullati  Ziterarum  Parisiensi  pro- 
ponebat  Hieronymus  Labourt  (pp.  xv,  86).     (Paris,  1904.) 

In  the  preface  to  this  little  treatise  M.  Labourt  informs  us  that  he 
has  abandoned  his  intention  of  writing  a  history  of  the  Oriental  Churches 
under  the  Ommayad  and  Abbasid  Caliphs  (thus  continuing  the  work 
commenced  in  his  Le  Christiamsme  dans  I' Empire  Perse,  Paris,  1904), 


446         THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

owing  to  the  unsatisfactory  nature  of  the  available  material.  Here  he  con- 
fines himself  to  the  histor)'  of  the  famous  Nestorian  Patriarch  Timothy  1, 
which  occupies  a  little  more  than  half  of  the  volume,  and  presents  us 
with  a  translation  of  an  unedited  document,  viz.  the  Ninety-nine  Canons 
of  Titnotheus  1.  The  treatise  itself  (which  is  pre^iced  by  a  useful  list 
of  Timotheus*  writings)  he  divides  into  three  chapters.  The  first  deob 
somewhat  briefly  with  the  life  of  the  Patriarch,  giving  an  account  of  the 
troubles  incident  to  his  election.  The  second,  which  is  of  more  geneni 
interest,  deals  with  a  variety  of  topics  connected  with  the  Ne&toriin 
Church  of  that  age:  interesting  is  the  section  (II)  in  which  the 
authorities  employed  by  Timothy  are  discussed,  and  a  list  of  (he  works 
referred  to  by  him  is  given.  Constant  reference  is  made  to  unpublished 
writings  of  Timothcus  in  illustration  of  various  points  which  are  addoocd. 

The  third  chapter  is  rather  of  the  nature  of  an  appendix,  and  dab 
with  Neslotian  Missions.  Here  much  intL-resting  and  valuable  matera) 
is  brought  forward  from  the  letters  of  Timotheus,  who  li\-ed  at  a  timerf 
great  activity  in  this  respect.  The  treatise  is  interesting  reading,  and 
suggests  several  lines  of  thought  and  research  capable  of  further  develojw- 
ment,  especially  in  chapter  3.  It  is,  however,  difficult  to  criticae 
conclusions  which  are  to  so  great  an  extent  based  on  inaccessible 
documentary  evidence. 

The  document,  a  translation  of  which  is  here  printed  for  the  fiis 
time — the  Ninety-nine  Canons  of  Timothcus — contains  several  points 
of  interest.  Two  pages  of  the  MS.  arc  wanting,  and  consequently 
seven  entire  sections  and  parts  of  two  others  are  lacking ;  this  is  i!i( 
more  unfortunate  as  it  occurs  at  the  point  wliere  Timothy  is  dealing 
with  forbidden  degrees  in  matrimony,  in  which  connexion  his  decisions 
arc  noteworthy.  As  a  whole  the  Canons  bear  a  strong  resemblance 
to  the  Western  penitential  books — e.g.  the  Penitential  of  Theodore, 
some  points  of  contact  with  which  are  noted  below.  In  form  it  take* 
the  shape  of  questions  and  answers,  thereby  resembling  the  KVHf 
HiSponsa  Canonita  of  Timotheus  of  Alexandria  (Reveridgc  Paidtd 
Can.  II  165);  but  there  appears  to  be  no  matter  common  to  ilie  two 
documents.  This  is  not  the  case  with  the  Canons  of  St  Basil-' 
adopted  by  the  Trullan  Council — which  agree  in  places  with  oui 
document  (cp.  Basil,  Can.  23  [Bcveridge  II  p.  81J  and  Tirootlifi 
qu.  30  p.  61,  both  prohibiting  marriage  with  a  deceased  wife's  sister  or 
a  deceased  brother's  wife).  The  Canons  are  prefaced  by  a  short  intr& 
duction  containing  some  autobiographical  matter,  and  are  divided  into 
three  sections  as  follows : — 

Can.  I-XVIII.     De  ordinibus  ecclesiastids. 
Can.  XVIII-XLVI.    De  re  matrimonii. 
Can.  XLVI-XCIX.    De  hereditetibus. 


REVIEWS  447 

Throughout,  the  Canons  cast  interesting  sidelights  on  the  conditions 
of  the  times,  the  internal  discipline  of  the  Nestorian  Church,  and  the 
relations  of  Christians  to  the  civil  (Mohammedan)  power.  (Cp. 
especially  qu.  12,  13,  31,  75,  76,  77.) 

The  5rst  section,  which  deals  chiefly  with  matters  of  the  internal 
discipline  of  the  Nestorian  Church,  bears  strong  testimony  to  the  firm- 
ness of  Timotheus'  rule  and  the  extension  of  his  activities ;  it  is 
difficult  to  fail  to  see  herein  some  reflection  of  the  difficulties  attendant 
upon  his  own  election  and  consecration.  Only  one  Canon  deals  with 
a  liturgical  matter,  and  it  is  of  some  interest  In  reply  to  the  question 
*  Num  liceat  reHnqui  Eucbaristiam  super  altari  in  diem  alterum  7 ' 
Timotheus  replies  in  the  n^ative,  basing  his  decision  on  Ex.  xii  10, 
and  xvi  4  ff.  In  the  second  section,  dealing  with  matrimony,  the 
discipline  enforced  by  Timothy  is  considerably  stricter  and  more  in 
accord  with  later  Western  practice  than  that  prescribed  in  Theodore's 
Penitential.  It  is,  on  the  other  hand,  noteworthy  that  Timotheus 
(qu.  32}  permits  a  man  to  divorce  his  adulterous  wife  and  to  marry  again 
if  he  does  not  wish  to  forgive  her,  and  take  her  back ;  but  he  prohibits 
either  the  adulterer  or  adulteress  from  marrying.  With  r^ard  to 
'  prohibited  degrees ',  Timotheus  forbids  a  father  and  son  to  marry 
a  mother  and  daughter  (qu.  18) ;  this  is  permitted  by  Theodore  (ch.  s8). 
On  the  other  hand,  Timotheus  forbids  two  brothers  to  marry  two 
sisters  (qu.  19);  but  this  is  allowed  by  Theodore  (ch.  28). 

In  the  third  section,  dealing  with  the  laws  of  inheritance,  there  are 
two  passages  of  some  interest,  giving  us  specimens  of  Timotheus' 
exegesis  (pp.  73,  74),  by  which  he  justifies  his  enactments  with  regard 
to  inheritance  by  women.  One  or  two  other  matters  are  dealt  with  in 
this  section,  e.g.  the  question  of  the  appointment  of  a  Mohammedan 
as  the  guardian  of  Christian  children  (qu.  75,),  the  credibility  of  the 
testimony  of  a  Mohammedan  against  a  Christian  (qu.  76),  whether  it 
is  permissible  to  a  Christian  to  take  an  oath  (qu.  80),  &c.  On  the  whole 
the  responses  impress  one  with  the  wisdom  and  moderation  of  the 
author,  and  explain  to  some  extent  his  amicable  relations  with  the 
civil  powers  (cp.  especially  qu.  76). 

In  conclusion,  a  careful  perusal  of  this  treatise  seems  to  emphasize 
the  desirability  of  publishing  in  a  convenient  form  the  text  of  the 
Canons,  and  of  other  unedited  writings  of  Timotheus,  in  order  that 
the  undoubtedly  valuable  material  therein  contained  may  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  students  of  Oriental  Christianity  with  as  little  delay 
as  possible. 

H.  Leonard  Fas& 


448         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

Ztaei  GnostUehe  Hymntn,  au^elegt  von  Erwin  Preuschen,  mit  Text  o. 

Oberseuung.  (Giessen,  J.  Rickcr'schc  Verlagsbuchhandlung,  1901. 

Pr.  3  m.) 
The  object  of  this  work  i$  to  reconsider  the  meaning  of  the  two  well- 
known  hymns  in  the  Acts  of  Thomas,  and  to  bring  out  thetr  enct 
relation  to  Gnosticism.  The  Syriac  text  is  best  known  in  Wrighr'i 
edition  {Apoc.  Acts  of  tht  Aposiks  \  p.  a.^^  [wrongly  printed  oh^son 
p.  9  of  this  book]  sq.  and  [k  |-i.*  sqq.)-  Tlie  Greek  text  is  found  ia 
M.  Bonnet's  Acta  ApoU.  apocr.  it  t  (Lips.  1903)  p.  109  sqq.,  aigsqq- 
Tbe  Syriac  text  printed  here,  however,  is  G.  Hoffmann's  reconstnicted 
text  published  in  Zeitsekr.  f.  neuUst.  Wissenseh.  Vi  373  ff.  In  the  tast 
of  the  first  hymn  M.  Bonnet's  Greek  text  is  given  as  well,  and  German 
translations  of  both  Greek  and  Syriac.  The  second  hymn,  the  so<iil«l 
Hymn  of  the  Soul,  is,  of  course,  wanting  in  the  Greek.  The  Gennin 
translation  in  each  case  seems  to  be  identical  with  Hoffmaon's.  Seven 
lines  of  a  fragment  of  an  Armenian  transbtion  of  the  first  hymn  fton 
Cod.  Parts,  Fonds  Armin.  46  III  now  appear  for  ilic  first  lime.  The 
main  characteristic  of  Hoffmann's  Syriac  text  is  an  almost  nuUee 
attempt  to  reduce  or  increase  each  line  to  exactly  six  syllables.  Thos, 
in  the  Hymn  of  the  Soul,  there  are  more  than  twenty  alterations.  Pre- 
positions and  conjunctions  are  omitted  and  inserted  freely.  Soaie 
interesting  corrections  of  the  text  arc  made  on  other  grounds.  Thai 
in  IL  13  and  14  of  the  first  hymn  instead  of  *The  twelve  Apostloof 
the  Son  and  the  seventy-two  thunder  in  her '  we  have 

which  is  founded  partly  on  the  Greek,  partly  on  a  hint  of  Thilo's- 


01 

A 


In  the  second  hymn  in  I.  26  for  the  difficult  U^jbta  Hoffmann  reads 
)JLuuai^  and  translates  'Sohn  Gesalbier'  with  the  footnote'  =  Kdnignohn 
=Chri5tianus  [Oder  Christus  ?  vgl.  Schluss]'.  Preuschen  accepts  tbc 
translation  but  omits  the  note.  They  both  agree  that  there  is  no  tacma 
here,  as  against  Bcv.in  {Texis  and  Studies  v  3,  pp.  14,  15,  35). 
Preuschen  follows  Uoffniann  in  suggesting  ihat  'He'  shotild  be  read 
instead  of  '  I '  in  1.  28.  In  1.  29  b  the  dilTicuU  ujjOi.aAj  is  avoided  by 
reading  woi^mj.  In  90  b  Hoffmann  reads  «pV*oo  (singular).  In 
103  b  surely  ^''o^-  Bevan's  \m»o}}  is  more  reasonable  than  translauflf 
ibv  text  'mit  Wasser-Orgelstimmen  prdscn,'  and  supposing  \m&i^  la  be 
the  same  as  JloJfot  (vS/mhX<wv). 

In  the  case  of  the  fu^  hymn  Preuschen  regards  the  Greek  text  as 
having  the  greater  originality,  and  gives  for  his  authority  Lipsius  Dit 


4 


REVIEWS  449 

apokr.  Apostel^schichten  \  p.  301  If,  which  in  his  view  settles  the 
question.  But  Ltpsius  himself  seems  to  have  later  leaned  to  the  other 
view,  cf.  vol.  ii'  423-5,  and  especially  Mr  Burkitt's  article  in  this  Journal, 
Jan.  1900,  p.  280  (to  which  this  reference  is  due).  The  Syriac  shews 
signs  according  to  Preuschen  of  having  been  altered  to  suit  Church 
feeling.  In  this  he  is  opposed  to  Hoffmann  who  holding  to  the  priority 
of  the  Syriac  supposes  the  Greek  to  contain  Gnostic  glosses.  Both, 
however,  agree  in  emending  wl^  to  mm  m]^.^  in  the  first  line,  in- 
fluenced no  doubt  partly  by  the  metre. 

Preuschen's  view  is  that  the  hymn  is  modelled  upon  the  marriage- 
songs  of  Syria,  but  it  is  not  secular  as  such  expressions  as  *  Daughter  of 
Light ',  *  splendour '  ()a«l)> '  S^^^  ^^  heaven '  shew.  Who  is  the  bride  ? 
He  realizes  that  the  Syriac  gives  an  intelligible  answer  when  it  says  the 
Church.  But  this  he  puts  on  one  side,  though  the  Armenian  apparently 
supports  the  identification.  He  shews  how  natural  the  expression  was 
in  this  connexion  by  references  to  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  and  in  the  New  Testament  to  Eph.  v  23.  But  it 
will  not  do  to  apply  this  meaning  to  the  Hymn,  because  it  must  be 
Gnostic.  This  Preuschen  regards  as  practically  settled  by  Thilo  Acta 
TAomae  p.  121  sqq. 

A  careful  and  highly  interestii^  discussion  of  early  Semitic  views  of 
creation  follows.  The  presence  of  masculine  and  feminine  elements  in 
the  Godhead  is  brought  out  by  references  to  Ba'al,  Ba'alat,  nvi  and  the 
part  of  the  Spirit  in  Creation.  The  importance  of  Wisdom  (^okhmi)  in 
later  Jewish  literature  in  similar  connexions  is  pointed  out  These 
elements  are  shewn  to  be  found  in  Irenaeus'  description  of  Gnostic 
cosmogonies.  It  is  interesting  to  find  the  author  placing  such  reliance  on 
the  exactness  of  Irenaeus'  descriptions  as  he  does.  Turning  to  the  song, 
he  identifies  the  Daughter  of  Light  with  Wisdom  who  is  shut  up  by 
Matter  and  waiting  for  the  coming  of  Christ  to  release  her.  The 
connexion  of  Wisdom  with  the  Holy  Spirit  is  shewn  by  the  pleasant 
smell  that  hangs  about  her. 

Then  we  come  on  something  definitely  Gnostic — the  hands  which 
shew  the  way  to  the  land  of  Aeons.  But  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
Syriac  has  '  place  of  life  *,  and  there  seems  no  doubt  that  Hoffmann  is 
right  in  supposing  tov  \S>pov  alaviav  to  be  a  '  falsche  Auslegung '. 

Similarly  our  author  finds  difficulty  in  the  thirty-two  who  offer  praise. 
The  Syriac  suits  the  connexion  at  least  as  well.  The  seven  male  and 
seven  female  attendants  of  the  bride  are  Aeons  of  course  It  should  be 
noted  that  they  occur  both  in  Greek  and  Syriac.  This  mysterious  pair 
of  sevens  certainly  lends  colour  to  the  idea  that  the  author  of  the 
hymn  was  influenced  by  something  like  Gnostic  thought,  especially  if 
'  The  Twelve '  really  refers  to  the  signs  of  the  Zodiac. 

VOL.  VI.  G  g 


i50        THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Finally  it  maj'  be  said  that  much  that  is  clearly  Gnostic  in  the  Grtd 
is  much  simpler  and  more  natural  in  the  Syriac,  which  forms  a  yerf 
nearly  coherent  whole.  If  the  ascription  of  praise  at  the  end  is  compucd 
in  the  Greek  and  Syriac  it  irill  be  seen  how  much  more  primiUre  and 
convincing  the  Sytiac  is.  If  on  other  grounds  we  are  led  to  supposetbe 
Syriac  older,  this  tends  to  confirm  the  view. 

In  his  treatment  of  the  second  hymn  Preuschcn  objects  to  the  tie* 
of  its  meaning  usually  held.  The  story  of  a  soul  going  on  a  journey  lo 
seek  another  soul  has  no  parallel  in  Gnostic  s>-$tems,  in  so  iar  as  thq 
are  known  to  us.  Moreover  the  story  is  quite  out  of  place  in  sudi 
a  system.  For  the  soul  that  undertakes  the  mission  must  be  an  Aeoa 
This  suggests  to  Frcuschcn  what  he  r^ards  as  the  true  explanation 
The  subject  of  the  poem  can  be  none  other  than  Christ.  He  is  tbe 
speaker.  It  is  His  descent  from  Hea\'en,  life  on  earth,  and  return  to 
the  Father  that  is  described. 

The  hymn  is  regarded  as  embodying  in  a  poetical  form  the  teaduog 
of  the  Gnostics  on  Redemption,  and  thus  fills  a  gap  in  our  knowledge- 
The  'brother '  ^it,  ef.  11.  15G,  42a,  48a,  60a,  would  seem  to  cnatt 
a  difficulty.  This  is  disposed  of  by  a  comparison  with  Ircn.  i  30.  iC 
from  which  it  appears  chat  the  Aeon  Christus  proceeds  from  the  unioooT 
Filius  Hominis  and  Spiritus  Sanctus. 

Prctischen  supports  his  identification  as  follows.  The  bunko  is 
a  reference  to  Matt,  xl  50.  Egypt  is  the  World  (Clem.  Al.  .Si!lnHii.i  5. 
30 ;  Orig.  //om.  in  Gtn.  liv  3).  The  serpent  is  Nus  (iws)  of  IretL  i 
30.  5.  The  two  couriers  are  compared  with  the  two  companioru  of  ^ 
Transfiguration.  Reference  is  also  made  to  Ev.  Petri  39  f,  and  U^ 
xxiv.  PisHs  Sophia,  p.  133,  Schwartz  gives  a  similar  account  of  two 
accompanying  angels.  Mais^  and  SarbOg  are  '  Aonenherrschafteo' 
through  which  Christ  has  to  pass  to  reach  the  underworld. 

Jesus  is  the  companion,  whom  Christ  takes  to  Himself.  l*be  dothii^ 
which  he  puts  on  to  avoid  remark,  is  the  body  of  this  pure  man  JcfUS. 
llie  eagle  that  brings  the  message  presents  a  more  stubborn  obstacle 
Preuschen  thinks  the  reference  may  be  10  the  Transfiguration. 

The  theory  is  inti;resting  and  in  some  ways  attractive.  liut  it  leans 
certain  points  in  tlie  liytnn  unexjilained.  For  iiuitance  the  idea  tlol 
Christ  fell  asleep  and  forgot  His  heavenly  origin  seems  difficult  to 
understand.  Preuschcn  represents  it  as  the  result  of  partaking  qX  the 
food  of  the  world.  The  view  that  this  established  communion  if 
perfectly  natural.  But  to  what  period  of  Our  I/jrd's  life  are  we  to 
suppose  that  the  Gnostics  referred  ?  If  it  was  the  childhood,  the 
conneuon  with  the  food  of  the  Eg)-ptians,  even  supposing  the  expressioo 
to  be  entirely  allegorical,  seems  out  of  place.     It  is  difficult  to  think. 


REVIEWS  451 

that  the  su^estion  really  explains  the  Hymn  as  well  as  the  'soul' 
theory. 

In  a  final  chapter  Freuschen  inclines  to  the  proposition  that  Bardaisan 
was  the  author  of  both  hymns,  finding  in  the  first  the  closest  points  of 
connexion  with  his  teaching  as  given  by  St  Ephrem. 

His  view  of  the  significance  of  the  Hymns  is  thus  summed  up : 
*  Die  Grundfrage  war  nicbt  die  philosophische,  woher  das  Ube!  in  der 
Welt  stamme,sondem  die  religids-sittliche,wie  man  vom  tjbel  loskomme.' 

A.  S.  Duncan  Jones. 


UAfrique  chritienne,  by  Dom  H.  Leclercq.     2  vols.     7  fr.    (Paris, 
Lecoflre,  1904.) 

Dom  Leclercq,  who  is  not  only  a  really  great  archaeologist  but 
a  Frenchman  with  all  the  patriotic  interest  in  Roman  Africa,  regarded 
as  a  part  of  the  national  soU,  which  inspires  the  scholars  of  his  country, 
has  written  a  very  interesting  and  in  many  respects  a  very  valuable  book. 
The  first  volume,  with  its  wealth  of  illustration  from  inscriptions,  is  an 
admirable  account  of  the  African  Church  down  to  the  rise  of  Donatism, 
though  the  inevitable  allowance  must  be  made  for  anachronism  in  regard 
to  the  relation  of  Rome  to  other  Churches  in  that  early  period,  and  the 
Italian  element  in  the  population  of  the  provinces  seems  to  be  understated. 
DomLeclercq  lajrs  due  stress  on  the  simultaneous  rise  of  the  African  cities, 
and  on  their  close  resemblance  to  one  another,  adopting  tn  this  the  views 
of  Toutain ;  he  might  have  said  that  the  nearest  analogy  to  them  is  that 
of  the  young  cities  in  the  Western  States  of  America.  The  latter,  we 
know,  have  grown  throi:^h  immigration ;  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that 
the  former  sprang  up  simply,  or  mainly,  through  prosperity  due  to 
settled  government  without  an  influx  from  abroad.  But  French  scholars, 
reasonably  ambitious  that  their  nation  should  repeat  the  civilizing  work 
of  Rome,  though  unable  to  supply  a  preponderant  share  of  the  poptda- 
tion,  are  unconsciously  prejudiced  in  favour  of  the  view  that  Rome 
triumphed  over  African  barbarism  by  administrative  methods.  Dom 
Leclercq  is  not  alone  in  overlooking  the  evidences  for  a  close  con- 
nexion with  Southern  Italy,  and  among  them  the  multiplication  of 
bishoprics,  which  can  best  be  explained  by  a  large  immigration  &om 
the  region  which  is  now  peopling  with  its  surplus  the  Argentine 
Republic 

The  interest  of  the  present  work  is  very  largely  one  of  detail,  and 
Dom  Leclercq,  with  singular  conscientiousness  and  skill  in  selecting 

Gga 


452         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

points  of  interest,  has  collected  the  epigraphic  evidence  for  the  earUeE, 
and  some  of  the  Eater,  stages  of  .'Vfrican  Christianity.  But  the  iroik 
is  unequally  done,  and  there  are  large  omissions  at  some  of  the  most 
important  points.  Nor  is  the  general  treatment  of  the  history  of  ucifom 
excellence.  St  Cyprian  does  not  receive  justice,  and  Doni  Ledero] 
ignores  recent  researches,  I>eing  content  to  hase  himself  upon  Beosao, 
or,  in  other  words,  practically  on  Fell.  For  St  Augustine  and  his  period 
he  deliberately  omits  the  archaeological  evidence,  preffrrring  to  d«dl 
upon  the  hackneyed  episode  of  Apiarius  and  other  commonplaces  of  tbe 
older  school  of  controversialists.  His  treatment  of  Pelagius  is  peculiady 
unfortunate;  he  plunges  without  warning  into  the  subject,  in  a  mamis 
that  must  confuse  an  unfamiliar  reader,  and  some  pages  after  we  cook 
to  the  preliminary  matter  which  was  needed  to  reader  it  intcUigibk 
In  fact,  the  volumes  shew  signs  of  tiaste;  much  of  them  is  completdf 
worked  out,  and  much  appears  to  have  been  strung  together  in  haste  ia 
order  to  connect  the  isolated  pieces  of  finished  work.  And  in  these 
less  serious  chapters,  which  are  chiefly  to  be  found  in  the  second  TotnnK^ 
there  is  an  amazing  quantity  of  matter  conveyed  within  invened  coobos 
from  other  writers.  Ilie  passages,  of  course,  are  well  chosen  and  the 
oan  is  always  acknowledged;  but  it  is  disappointing  that  a  writer  who 
has  so  rich  a  knowledge  of  his  own  should  hurriedly  copy  page  tlux 
page  fttjm  others. 

But  Dom  Leclercq,  profound  as  is  his  archaeology  and  wide  as  is  his 
reading — indeed,  his  bibliography  by  itself  would  make  the  book  worth 
buying — has  unfortunately  made  psychology  his  foible.  There  is  a  great 
deal  of  it,  and  it  is  not  convincing.  He  has  a  preconcei^'ed  notion  of 
wliat  the  Africans  must  have  been,  and  anything  appropriate,  howerer 
generally  characteristic  of  the  whole  society  of  the  Imperial  period,  U 
made  a  peculiar  feature  of  theirs  if  only  it  be  suitable  to  fomi  part  of  tbe 
picture.  And  a  certain  amount  of  violence  is  used  in  forcing  the  rri- 
dence,  such  as  it  is,  into  its  place  in  the  pattern.  'I'hc  result  is  much 
as  we  should  have  expected ;  we  find  the  narrowness,  the  vehemeixt, 
and  the  othcrr  qualities  for  which  we  look  in  the  conventional  Africaa 
If  Stridon  had  not  been  unhappily  situated  on  the  wrong  side  of  the 
Mediterranean  we  should  have  had  from  Dom  Leclercq  a  study  of 
St  Jerome  as  the  typical  African.  He  would  have  served  the  purpose 
better  than  any  personage  native  to  the  soil  whom  Dom  I-eclercq  c«a 
produce,  fiut  all  this  generalizing  fails  to  give  the  impression  of  reality. 
The  characteristics  of  the  Nonh-African  subjects  of  Rome  were  as 
various  as  their  origin,  and  it  is  only  by  an  artiitrary  process  of  choice 
and  rejection  that  the  illusion  of  a  uniform  type  is  imperfectly  produced- 
How  arbitrary  it  is  may  be  judged  by  some  of  the  Mier  dicta  of  the 
discussion.    TertuUian  is  among  those  who  are  'decidedly  dead  for  os': 


REVIEWS  453 

the  Catholic  conception  is  too  vast  for  the  Africans ;  it  escapes  a  race 
irbose  imagination  does  not  pass  the  frontiers,  political  or  national,  of  its 
province.  St  Augustine  alone  escapes  this  condemnation ;  yet  Cyprian 
had  a  reasoned  theory,  which  still  seems  to  have  some  life  in  it,  and  his 
horizon  included  Cappadocia. 

But  Dom  Leclercq,  even  where  he  fails  to  convince  us,  is  always 
interesting ;  and  nowhere  more  interesting  than  in  passages  which  carry 
us  back  to  the  age  when  his  Order  was  pre-eminent  in  scholarship.  There 
is  a  robust  Gallicanism  about  some  of  his  utterances,  as  when  he  speaks 
of  the  African  Church  as  that  which  '  la  premiere  en  Occident  donnait 
le  mod&le  de  ces  institutions  si  glorieuses  qui  ne  sont  plus  que  des 
souvenirs :  les  ^glises  gallicane  et  wisigothique ',  or  contemns  a  '  poor 
episcopate,  eager  to  efface  itself,  which  allowed  Rome  to  become  a  court 
of  first  instance  for  African  affairs.  The  age  seems  to  be  that  of  Louis  XIV; 
and  surely  so  vigorous  a  defence  of  violence  as  a  means  of  converting  dis- 
senters has  not  been  printed  since  the  Dragonnades  required  an  apology. 
Yet  we  are  conscious  of  a  slight  anachronism  when  we  find  the  Chouans 
classed  with  Donatists  and  Calvinists  as  appropriate  subjects  for  such 
treatment;  and  perhaps  a  mild  Anti-semitism  belongs  to  a  still  later 
phase  of  thought.  But  a  good  book  concerning  the  past  is  all  the 
better  when  it  gives  an  insight  into  feelings  and  policies  of  the  present, 
and  if  Dom  Leclercq's  work  is  not  always  on  the  level  of  its  best  pages, 
it  is  as  a  whole  incomparably  the  best  compendium  of  African  Church 
History  that  is  at  present  accessible,  and  students  who  are  specially 
concerned  with  any  aspect  of  Roman  Africa  will  be  grateful  for  the 
wealth  of  knowledge  from  his  own  stores  and  from  literature  not  easily 
accessible  that  Dom  Leclercq  has  put  at  their  service. 

E.  W.  Watson 


Ideali  of  ScUnct  and  Faith.    Edited  by  T.  E.  Hand.    (G.  Allen,  1904.) 
$s.  net 

This  volume  consists  of  a  number  of  essays  by  various  writers.  The 
first  six  endeavour  to  sketch  how  far  each  of  several  branches  of  science 
supplies  an  approach  to  religion,  or  to  the  fundamental  theological 
beliefe  on  which  religion  rests.  At  the  same  time  some  of  them 
describe  the  '  ideals' — in  one  or  more  senses  of  that  ambiguous  word — 
of  the  sciences  from  whose  standpoints  they  are  respectively  written. 
The  essays  comprised  in  the  latter  portion  of  the  book  similarly  describe 
the  religious  or  theological  ideals  of  some  of  the  historic  forms  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  the  attitude  of  various  Churches  towards  science.    Though 


454         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

wriEten  in  complete  indepeodence  of  ooe  wictlier  the  eaajs  see,  u 
a  coondexxble  caent,  motialljr  cuuitfauentiiy.  Ttwf  indiratr  ibe 
cum  of  unnecesnry  nn>nce>  bctveen  ideBtific  thinkci»  snd  diev 
logtua  is  the  past,  and  iiiEsest  tioes  aloqg  vfaicfa  mat  be  Mq^ 
■  beCUr  fDuttal  underetanding  and  a  «^>— *»*  faatstt  for  icocgininticn 
■ad  co-opetatioo  m  the  fntiir& 

The  fint  etsay  oT  tbe  Tofanike  describes  a  pbT^sicist's  nnHWcfc  w 
r^gioo,  and  it  is  (roni  the  pen  of  Sir  Olim  Lodlge.  This  vr:. 
anributes  the  bostilit;  of  the  scientific  temper  towards  the  relipc^ 
to  the  nairowness  of  tbe  field  of  orthodox  science  as  fixed  hf  itscK 
He  hopes  that  when  science  is  wiOing  to  take  acsoum  of  tbe  phenoowim 
which  we  may  describe  as  those  of  spiritism,  and  which  are  at  pRxnt 
beyond  her  pale,  though  some  of  them  are  *  inside  the  Univctse  of  htx', 
tbe  regions  of  religion  and  science  will  be  found  to  be  one.  Sir  Oii«v 
Lodge  is  writing  very  freely  jnst  now  on  qnestioos  as  to  wfaid  adatt 
aod  religion  are  supposed  to  be  at  issue,  and  in  so  far  as  hit 
administer  a  rebuke  to  the  natanUistic  do^natism  which  is  at  the 
time  being  widely  read  in  England,  be  is  lendeiii^  a  oseful  servicetD 
religion  and  to  truth. 

Ac  the  same  time,  it  must  be  questioned  whether  his  staadpoint  sad 
mode  of  argument  are  the  best  which  can  be  adopted.  Then  ne 
physicists  who  have  found  a  better  method.  Though  Sir  OUtct  fo&f 
believes  that  science  and  religion  admit  of  '  reoondltation '.  he  wains 
aside  the  aid  of  philosophy  for  the  purpose.  He  ignores  the  critic^ 
invesligaxion  of  scientific  presuppositions  which  has  been  one  of  Ac 
most  important  of  the  nxent  tendcoctes  of  scientific  thought.  In  spitC 
of  his  leanings  to  some  kind  of  religious  belief,  his  essay  seems  lo  fam 
more  kinship,  in  method  and  standpoint,  to  the  writing  of  Tyndall  and 
Huxley  than  to  those  of  the  physicists  who  hare  lately  gi\'en  their  atm- 
tion  to  the  relations  of  science  and  religion. 

Tbe '  trend  and  temper'  which  Sir  O.  Lodge  attributes  to  the  orthodox 
science  of  to-day  does  not  really  inhere  in  science  at  all.  It  ts  tbe 
naturalistic  philosophy  which,  no  doubt,  many  men  of  science  pnfen. 
Science  itself  has  no  metaphysics,  though  scientific  men  have:  Yet 
Sir  Olivet  can  hardly  discover  such  a  'trend'  as  he  describes  in 
science,  unless  he  first  reads  into  scit^cc  several  metaphj-sical  presup- 
positions. Whether  matter  is  ontologically  prior  to  mind,  whether  Uw 
world  is  'self-existent'  and  wholly  independent  of  our  experience. 
whether  '  law '  is  a  physical  hci  or  a  subjective  postulate  and  wbetber 
it  applies  to  mental  life  as  well  as  to  physical  phcnumena,  whether  the 
mechanical  models  in  terms  of  which  physics  describes  Nature  are  only 
ctjnceptual  or  are  something  more  real  than  the  phenomena  themselves: 
all  these  are  questiotta  with  which  physical  science  has  nothing  to 


REVIEWS  455 

and  yet,  if  Sir  O.  Lodge's  account  of  the  '  trend '  of  science  is  correct, 
science  must  assume  one  of  each  of  these  pairs  of  alternatives  as  if  the 
other  were  non-existent  And  if  she  be  allowed  to  do  so,  it  must  be 
remarlced  that  there  is  then  an  end  to  all  *  reconciliation '  of  science  and 
theology.  Modem  spiritism  may  or  may  not  be  supplying  us  with  an 
extended  knowledge  of  the  cosmos ;  but  it  is  not  thence  that  we  hope 
for  relief  from  the  anti-theistic  tendencies  attributed  to  physical  science. 
It  is  rather  from  a  frank  facing,  on  the  part  of  the  students  of  the 
physical  sciences,  of  those  fundamental  questions  with  regard  to  reality 
and  knowledge  which  the  scientific  worker  may  afford  to  ignore,  but 
which  the  scientific  opposer  of  religious  beliefs  cannot  be  allowed  to 
take  for  granted,  that  it  will  become  easier  to  escape  the  seductiveness 
with  which  naturalism  often  appeals  to  the  scientific  mind. 

Professors  J.  A.  Thomson  and  P.  Geddes  write  with  more  care  and 
caution  on  the  biological  'approach'.  They  are  fully  aware  of  the 
limitations  of  natural  science.  These  writers  handle  a  number  of  points 
that  are  of  interest  to  philosophy  and  theology,  but  their  treatment  of 
them  suffers  from  extreme  compression.  It  is  shewn  that  biological 
analysis  is  not  the  same  thing  as  ultimate  explanation  of  biol<^cal  facts; 
that  heredity  must  not  be  understood  to  suppress  individuality  and 
responsibility ;  that  the  anti-ethical  aspect  of  Evolution  was  exaggerated 
by  Huxley  and  by  Darwinistic  writers  generally;  and  thus  correction  is 
meted  out  to  the  tendency  to  solve  certain  problems  over-hastily  in 
a  sense  at  variance  with  theological  doctrine.  But  more  than  this : 
in  establishing  inductively  the  Unity  of  Nature,  in  revealing  ever  more 
and  more  mystery  and  wonder  and  beauty  in  the  world,  and  by  dis- 
covering possibilities  of  '  betterment,  saving,  strengthening,  regenerating 
men ',  biology,  it  is  maintained,  is  positively  approaching  one  aspect  of 
the  idea  of  God. 

The  approach  which  psychology  presents  is  treated  of  by  Prof.  Muir- 
head.  He  notes  the  change  of  tone  in  the  expressions  of  men  of  science 
with  regard  to  religion  which  has  come  about  during  the  last  generation. 
The  attempt  to  reduce  mind  to  a  mode  of  matter,  he  points  out,  has 
been  abandoned;  the  conceptions  of  causahty  and  law  have  been 
revised ;  the  limits  of  mechanical  interpretation  have  come  to  be 
generally  recognized ;  attempts  to  explain  our  mental  life  by  laws  of 
association  of  ideas  on  the  analogy  of  the  physical  sciences  belong 
to  a  day  now  past;  and  these  changes  are  attributed  to  psychology. 
W'e  should  have  thought  that  epistemology  should  be  credited  with 
them  to  a  greater  extent  than  psychology ;  but  perhaps  the  former 
science  is  meant  to  be  included  in  the  latter.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
the  mental  sciences  have  done  a  considerable  work  for  religion  in 
'  removing  the  difficulty  that  comes  from  the  opposition  of  the  physical 


456        THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

to  the  mental,  and  ftom  the  apparent  socondariness  of  the  latter  in  tfae 
order  of  creation '.  We  are  not  told,  in  this  essay,  of  any  positiTe  coo- 
Iributions  from  psychology  which  tend  to  make  the  scientilfic  approach 
to  religion  more  easy ;  but  its  criticism  of  materialistic  and  mechantcil 
theories  represents  a  permanent  contribution  to  philosophy  of  rdigion. 

The  essay  on  the  sociot<^cal  ajiiiroach  does  not  contribute  so  mud) 
that  is  relevant  to  the  title  or  the  aim  of  the  book  of  which  it  forms 
a  part.  It  is  intended  by  its  author  to  suggest  a  practical  policy  whicb 
he  stales  thus  :  '  Let  the  religious  idealists,  putting  themselves  of  for- 
malism, laying  aside  desancti6ed  ceremonialism,  take  the  lead  in  cotn- 
bining  the  naturalists,  the  workers,  the  humanists,  the  educationists,  tfat 
evolutionists,  and  the  sages  into  one  joint  movement  for  the  awakeaing 
of  the  young,  for  the  salving  of  the  degenerate,  for  the  conversicm  of  the 
unregenerate.' 

The  Hon.  Bcrtrand  Russell  writes  &om  the  standpoint  that  science 
presents  tis  with  a  world  such  that  nian,  his  hopes  and  fears,  his  loves 
and  beliefs,  are  but  ihc  transient  product  of  accidental  collocations  of 
atoms.  The  only  attitude  which  we  can  take  up  with  regard  to  such 
a  Fate-ruled  world,  and  the  human  destiny  which  it  implies,  is  said  to  be 
one  of  resignation  rather  than  of  Promethean  rebellion.  Even  in  such 
a  world  as  this  there  is,  however,  still  room  for  ethical  ideals.  'Brief 
and  powerless  is  man's  life ;  on  him  and  all  his  race  the  slow  sure  doom 
falls  pitiless  and  dark.  Blind  to  good  and  evit,  reckless  of  destruction, 
omnipotent  matter  rolls  on  its  relentless  way  ;  for  'Man,  condemned 
lo-diiy  to  lose  his  dearest,  to-morrow  himself  to  pass  through  the  gate 
of  darkness,  it  remains  only  to  cherish,  ere  yet  the  blow  falls,  the  lofqr 
thoughts  that  ennoble  his  little  day ;  disdaining  the  coward  terrots  of 
the  slave  of  Fate,  to  worship  at  the  shtine  his  own  hands  have  buih; 
undismayed  by  the  empire  of  chance,  to  preserve  a  mind  free  from  the 
wanton  tyranny  that  rules  his  outward  life;  proudly  defiant  of  the  titc- 
sistible  forces  that  tolerate,  for  a  moment,  his  knowledge  and  his  coti- 
demnation ;  to  sustain  alone,  a  weary  but  unyielding  Alias,  the  world 
that  his  own  ideals  have  fashioned  despite  the  trampling  march  of 
unconscious  power.'  Is  this,  we  would  ask,  an  'ethical  approach'  to 
'religion',  or  is  it  eloquent  mockerj-?  Again  we  recummend  to  would- 
be  reconcilers  of  science  and  theology  a  study  of  what  science  really  b 
and  a  critical  examination  of  the  first  principles  of  the  naturalism  which 
is  weakly  allowed  to  usurp  its  name. 

Prof.  P.  Gcddes  brings  the  Brsi  part  of  the  volume  to  a  condusioo 
with  a  contribution  on  the  ideals  common  to  education  and  rcligioiL 
Again  there  is  not  much  said  that  is  directly  relevant  to  the  maia 
purpose  of  the  book,  though  this  chapter  contains  much  refreshing 
criticism  of  our  educational  methods. 


REVIEWS  457 

or  the  latter  portion  of  the  book,  dealing  with  *  approaches  through 
Faith ',  not  much  needs  to  be  said  by  way  of  criticism.  The  first  treat- 
ment of  the  conflict  between  science  and  reh'gion  ts  presented  from 
a  Presbyterian  standpoint.  A  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  Presbyterian 
attitude  towards  scientific  doctrines  which  have  in  the  past  seemed  to 
conflict  with  theology  is  given ;  and,  speaking  of  the  present,  the  writer 
is  proud  to  recognize  '  in  Presbyterian  faith  the  basal  principles  of  all 
true  science — the  demand  for  unity  and  order,  and  the  assertion  of  the 
rights  of  intellect '.  These  principles  are,  of  course,  not  the  unique 
property  of  any  one  branch  of  Protestant  Christendom. 

It  would  seem  that  the  Anglican  Church  is  the  one  that  most  rapidly 
adapted  its  teaching  to  the  new  light  on  Nature  and  the  Bible  which 
during  the  last  century  poured  in  upon  us  in  continuous  streams.  But 
the  author  representing  the  Anglican  standpoint  in  this  volume  is  less 
concerned  to  dwell  upon  his  Church's  attitude  towards  science  than 
upon  its  ideals — nationality,  as  against  the  inevitable  limitations  and 
over-emphasis  of  seceding  bodies,  and  comprehensiveness  or  spiritual 
spaciousness,  as  against  departmental  types  of  mind  such  as  Puritanism. 
The  Anglican  Church  is  admitted  to  be  *  tormentingly  below  what  she 
might  be ';  but  her  ideal,  as  embodied  in  her  most  typical  son,  Richard 
Hooker,  is  'to  be  as  full  and  passionate  and  strong  as  English  human 
nature '. 

Father  Waggett's  paper  on  '  The  Church  as  seen  from  outside '  is  not 
so  plainly  connected  as  most  of  the  others  with  the  general  aim  of  the 
volume,  but  it  is  none  the  less  valuable  on  that  account.  It  needs 
a  high  churchman  to  describe  the  idea  of  the  Church  in  its  length  and 
breadth  and  height,  and  the  editor  could  not,  perhaps,  have  entrusted 
this  subject  to  better  hands.  The  essay  is  marked  by  many  fine 
qualities,  amongst  which  breadth  of  mind  and  generous  sympathy  are 
conspicuous.  The  force  of  the  word  'outside',  in  its  title,  is  not 
self-evident ;  certainly  the  conception  of  the  Church  presented  to  us  is 
one  which  could  only  be  arrived  at  from  within. 

The  reader  will  doubtless  turn  with  some  curiosity  to  Mr  Wilfred 
Ward's  defence  of  the  attitude  of  the  Church  of  Rome  towards  scientific 
pronouncements  concerning  Nature  and  the  Bible.  He  will  find  a  clear, 
able,  and  a  partially  acceptable,  if  somewhat  plausible,  apologia.  The 
relative  slowness  of  the  Roman  Church  to  adopt  the  results  of  natural 
science  and  biblical  criticism  is  represented  as  a  virtue  and  not  a  fault. 
We  can  readily  admit  that '  what  is  advanced  as  science  is  in  reality 
often  subtly  coloured  by  the  presuppositions  of  its  advocates ',  and  that 
the  alleged  results  of  science  need  careful  scrutiny  before  they  can  safely 
be  assimilated  by  the  Church.  Further,  tt  must  be  granted  that  it  is 
the  business  of  the  appointed  rulers  of  the  Church  of  Rome — or  of 


458         THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

any  other  Church — to  guard  the  'deposit'  of  traditional  doctrine;  and 
over-suspiciousness  of  no\*elty  on  Ihcir  part  may  be  looked  u]X)n  as  do 
greater  a  failing  than  over-hastiness  of  reconstruction.  But  wheni 
this  h^is  been  said,  it  may  be  qut-stioned  whether  the  Church  of  R< 
is  best  adapted,  as  Mr  Ward  daims,  'by  its  constitution  and  even  its 
mcnius  <tgendi\  for  the  synthesis  of  science  and  faith.  It  is  one  tfaiqg 
to  wait  for  verification  of  alleged  facts ;  it  is  another  to  ban  than 
previously  to  a  judicial  hearing  and  to  repress  critical  inquiry  within 
predetermined  bounds.  Yet  tliis  line  of  action  must  be  attribi 
to  the  appointed  rulers  of  the  Koman  Church.  Mr  Ward's  « 
tation  of  the  Romanist  attitude  is  therefore  too  favourable  a  picnic^ 
and  even  as  it  stands  it  tails  to  present  an  ideal  condition.  Jealouqi 
of  the  tradition  to  be  safeguarded  is  compatible  with  honest  scrutiny,  in 
the  light  of  facts  from  external  sources,  of  the  premisses  on  which  tndi- 
tiona!  doctrines  rest,  and  with  a  fervent  and  transparent  desire  to  keep 
them  pure  from  error.  And  it  is  only  a  Church  which  freely  and  frankly 
encourages  and  stimulates  such  investigations,  Without  assigning  any 
limits  whatsoever,  to  which  we  can  attribute  an  ideal  attitude  towaids 
natural  science  and  biblical  crttictstn. 

F.  R.  Tennamt, 


A  RmrtetHih-Century  EngUsh  Biblical   Vtrtion,  edited  by  Anma  C 
Paues,  Ph.D.    (Cambridge  University  Press,  1904,  Svo,  pp.  haxr! 

+  263.) 

This  is  a  solid  piece  of  work,  conscientiously  performed.  It  bad  its 
origin  in  a  tliesis  sent  in  for  the  degree  of  Ph.D.  in  the  University  of 
Upsala.  What  was  then  a  brief  Ituroduction  has  been  developed  into 
the  eighty-six  i^iages  forming  the  Introduction  to  the  present  work;  and 
Miss  Paues  already  contemplates  a  further  expansion  which  shall  take 
in  the  general  subject  of  early  English  Versions  of  the  Bible.  Wc 
heartily  wish  her  success  in  her  important  undertaking.  What  interest- 
ing discoveries  in  this  branch  of  Biblical  study  may  still  await  the 
explorer  wil]  be  nppjircnt  when  it  is  mentioned  that  of  the  five  MSS 
here  printed,  three  were  unknown  to,  or  at  least  are  not  mentioned  by, 
I'orshall  and  Madden,  while  one  was  not  known  to  Miss  Paues  hersdf 
till  the  work  of  publication  had  begun.  Of  these  five  MSS,  it  should 
be  added,  three  are  in  Cambridge  Libraries,  those  of  Selwyn  College, 
Corpus  Christi  Collie,  and  the  University  respectively;  the  fourth  is 
in  the  Bodleian,  and  the  last  in  the  Library  of  Holkham  Hall,  Norfolk. 


i 


REVIEWS  459 

For  the  purposes  of  the  present  work  these  are  severally  denoted  by  the 
letters  S,  P,  C,  D  and  H. 

The  reader  will  notice  how  fragmentary  and  incomplete  in  many 
instances  is  the  Version  here  given  of  some  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  Thus,  for  example,  we  have  no  more  of  the  Gospels  than 
a  fragment  of  St  Matthew  (i-vi  13),  while  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  and 
the  Revelation  are  absent  altogether.  A  general  Prologue,  breaking 
off  abruptly,  is  prefixed  to  the  Version  as  a  whole,  while  shorter  ones 
precede  some  of  the  separate  books.  A  dramatic  effect  is  given  to 
some  of  these,  as  well  as  to  the  general  Prologue,  by  the  introduction 
of  interlocutors — an  unlearned  '  brother '  and  '  sister '  seeking  instruction 
from  a  more  learned  member  of  the  fraternity.  That  a  monk  and  nun 
are  signified  by  these  terms  of  human  relationship  will  be  readily  under- 
stood by  the  reader  who  recalls  Scott's  lines  : — 

Sister,  let  thy  sorrows  cease; 
Sinful  brother,  part  in  peace. 

Several  questions  of  interest  are  sug^sted  by  the  facts  thus  briefly 
noted.  For  one  thing,  it  would  appear  that  there  was  not  that  hostility 
shewn  by  the  rulers  of  the  Church  to  translations  of  the  Bible  into  the 
vernacular  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century,  which  some  writers 
assume  to  have  existed.  It  is,  indeed,  true  that  by  the  Constitutions 
of  Arundel  in  1408  the  making  a  translation  of  the  Scriptures  or  any 
part  of  them  into  English  was  forbidden  under  pain  of  excommuni- 
cation, unless  sanctioned  by  the  proper  authority.  But  it  is  plain  from 
such  works  as  the  Myroure  of  oure  Ladye,  written  in  or  about  the  year 
1415,  that  considerable  latitude  was  allowed  to  the  members  of  religious 
houses.  In  the  anonymous  Chastising  of  Goddis  children^  composed 
during  the  Wycliffite  period,  it  is  distinctly  stated  by  the  author  that  he 
will  not  'repreue  suche  translaciouns,  ne  I  repreue  not  to  haue  hem 
on  Englische,  ne  to  rede  on  hem  where  Jsei  mowe  stire  jou  to  more 
deuocioun  and  to  l^e  loue  of  God '. 

Another  interesting  point  to  be  noticed  is  the  support  given  by  the 
Version  to  a  statement  by  Sir  Thomas  More,  which  some  have  sought 
to  discredit;  namely,  that  he  had  seen  with  his  own  eyes  Bibles  in 
English  made  long  before  the  appearance  of  the  Wycliffite  Versions'. 
For  it  is  evident  that  the  Version  edited  by  Miss  Panes  shews  no  traces 
of  any  attempt  to  introduce  Wycliffite  doctrines.  It  follows  the  Vulgate 
with  a  closeness  that  is  almost  servile,  as  will  appear  from  one  or  two 
examples: — offendiculum  (Acts  xxiv  16),  'offendikel';  annumeratus 
(Acts  i  26),  *  anoumburde '  j  finitimae  civitates  (Jude  6),  '  ]«  cytee  of 
Fynytyme ' ;    insigne   Castorum  (Acts  xxviii   11),  '  fairnes  of  castels ' ; 

'  See  More's  Dyalogues  (ed.  1530)  p.  138,  and  compare  Gasquet  Th*  Old  EigUsh 
Bibltp.  176. 


460         THE  JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Aristartho  Afacedone  Thessatonkensi  (Acts  zxrii  3\  '  Anstxrdins  TAaat 
donye  of  Thessalonye '. 

It  is  needless  to  accumulate  more  mstances.  Enoog^  has  been  sni 
to  shew  the  bearing  of  this  Version  on  the  podtioii  taken  \tj  Sir  Tlioiius 
Ihtoie,  and  his  followers  in  modem  times,  on  the  subject  of  eulf  ^"t^ 
tnuislations  of  the  Bible.  While  thanking  Miss  Panes  for  the  bboor 
she  has  already  spent  on  this  field,  we  shall  await  with  much  intena 
the  appearance  of  her  third  and  concluding  work,  which,  Uke  t^ 
&bled  Tyiun-/ua  of  the  Greeks,  is  to  surpass  and  complete  the  rest 

J.  H.  Lcraa. 


461 


CHRONICLE 

OLD  TESTAMENT. 

1.  Dr  Driver's  Book  of  Gtnesis  is  in  a  sense  the  most  valuable 
of  all  his  published  works.  Probably  it  does  not  bring  to  scholars 
so  much  new  light  as  the  Notes  on  Samuel  or  the  Commentary  on 
Deuteronomy.  Perhaps  it  will  not  be  so  acceptable  to  the  general 
reader  as  Isaiah:  I/is  Life  and  Tintes.  On  the  other  hand  none  of 
these  three  works  responds  to  so  crying  a  need  as  does  this  volume, 
none  of  them  combines  so  well  help  for  the  scholar  with  help  for  the 
English  student  of  the  Bible. 

The  Introduction  of  seventy-four  pages  is  full  and  yet  remarkably 
concise.  The  subject  of  the  Antiquity  of  Man  is  admirably  handled 
and  references  are  added  to  the  best  relevant  scientific  literature.  The 
Religious  Value  of  Genesis  is  treated  with  a  fullness  and  a  sense  of  the 
importance  of  the  subject  which  are  often  absent  from  modem  works. 
The  text  is  that  of  the  Revised  Version,  and  the  limits  of  the  various 
'  documents '  are  marked  clearly  but  unobtrusively  in  the  margin.  The 
comments  are  usually  as  brief  as  they  are  good,  but  there  are  more 
than  thirty  detached  notes  on  important  subjects,  and  an  Excursus 
of  five  pages  on  Gen.  xlix  10,  'Until  Shiloh  come*.  Among  the  notes 
which  may  be  specially  recommended  for  study  are  those  on : — 

xi  31.    'Ur  and  the  Hebrews.' 

xii  I  ff.     '  The  method  of  transmission  of  Patriarchal  History.' 

xii  3.  On  the  words,  And  in  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed. 

xxii  19.     'The  Sacrifice  of  Isaac' 

xxxiv  31.    'The  Narrative  of  Jacob's  dealings  at  Shechem.* 

xlix  {passim). 

This  Commentary  for  candour,  reverence,  and  thoroughness  has  few 
equals  in  the  field  of  modem  exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament. 

2.  Dr  Preserved  Smith's  Old  Testament  History  is  a  disappointing 
piece  of  work.  The  author  has  read  widely  and  possesses  a  considerable 
knowledge  of  his  subject  On  the  other  hand  the  book  is  too  lon^ 
and  the  narrative  often  degenerates  into  mere  talk.  The  style  has 
neither  dignity  nor  force.  The  tone  throughout  is  '  superior ',  and  the 
writer  manifests  hardly  one  touch  of  sympathy  with  Eastern  modes 
of  thought  and  feeling.    Dr  Smith  has  read  many  German  monographs, 


I 


462         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

but  he  has  not  sounded  the  depths  of  the  Hebrew  spirit.  Difficoit 
questions  are  settled  with  a  stroke  of  the  pen. 

A  few  specimens  of  the  style  of  the  book  may  be  giren.  *The 
Canaanites  had  pulled  themselves  together'  (p.  91);  'So  indeticate 
a  denunciation  could  not  fail  to  offend  the  smart  set'  (p.  ts6); 
'I  remember  the  love  of  thy  youth,  the  affection  of  thy  honesnaooo' 
(translated  from  Jer.  ii  2  on  p.  287);  'The  Edomites  were  ptishii^  up 
from  the  south — sniall  blame  to  them'  (p.  3S9)- 

It  must  be  recorded  in  the  author's  favour  that  he  has  not  been 
carried  away  either  by  the  Jcrahmeelite  theory  or  by  the  [Mt)posed 
identification  of  Zerubbabel  with  the  Servant  of  the  Lord  of  Isa.  hii. 

3,  Mr  A.  H.  M<'Neite's  Jntroduttion  to  EaltstasUt  contains  not  onlj 
an  Introduction  but  also  an  important  collection  of  Notes  on  Select 
Passages,  a  Translation  in  which  the  different  elements  in  the  book  ire 
distinguished  by  the  use  of  different  type,  and  lasdy  two  Appendices, 
one  on  the  Gredc  version  of  the  book,  the  other  on  the  Greek  text. 
The  author  by  a  careful  investigation  extending  over  twen^  psges 
shews  how  strong  is  the  probabihty  that  the  version  of  Ecdentstes 
printed  in  editions  of  the  Scptuagint  is  in  truth  the  first  editioa  of 
Aquila.  The  discussion  of  the  Integrity  of  the  hook  is  dear  aiul 
interesting ;  the  suggestion  that  the  author  wished  to  represent  the 
contest  of  two  voices  is  decisively  rejected.  As  regards  a  possible 
influence  of  Greek  thought  on  Ecclesiastes  Mr  M*>Neile  holds  thai 
while  there  are  at^nitics  with  Stoicism,  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  thai 
Koheleth  was  well  acquainted  either  with  Stoicism  or  with  Eptcareanisin. 
Mr  M^Neile's  book  is  fuU  of  good  work  both  in  religious  philosophy 
and  Semitic  philolog)*. 

4.  Mr  A.  S.  Pcakc,  Professor  of  Biblical  Gx^esis  in  the  Univeisiiy 
of  Manchester,  who  contributed  the  article  Ecclesiastes  to  Hastings' 
Dictionary  of  tht  Bible,  has  written  an  interesting  volume  entitled. 
Tkc  Probiem  of  Suffering  in  the  Old  Teitament.  The  book  is  divided 
into  eight  chapters,  the  first  of  which  discusses  the  rise  of  the  probleci 
in  connexion  with  the  utterances  of  Habakkuk,  though  Prof.  Peake 
is  by  no  means  assured  that  Hah.  1,  ii  are  pre-cxilic.  Chapter  II  deals 
with  the  prophecies  of  Ezckiel,  and  chapter  III  with  the  figure  of  the 
Servant  of  the  Loro  as  portrayed  in  Deutero-Isaiali  and  in  Psalm  xiii 
Chapter  IV,  headed  A  Century  of  Disillusion,  discusses  briefly  Haggai 
and  Zuchariah,  Malachi,  and  Isa.  Ivi-lxvi.  The  Book  of  Job  fumisbes 
the  subject  of  Chapter  V.  Chapter  VI,  entitled  Songs  in  the  Nighi, 
touches  on  the  problem  as  presented  in  the  Psalms,  with  a  fairly  ^ 
discussion  of  Psatro  Ixxiii.  Chapter  VII,  T/u  Apocaiyf'tist  and  iJk 
Pessimist^  embraces  Isa.  xaiv-xxvii,  Daniel,  and  Ecclesiastes.  I*roL  Peake 
assigns  the  first  of  these  to  the  period  extending  from  Artaxcrxes  Ochos 


CHRONICLE  463 

to  Alexander  the  Great,  but  be  also  believes  with  Duhm  that  the  passage 
is  not  homc^eneous.  There  are  two  Appendices,  one  discussing  the 
date  of  Hab.  i,  ii,  the  other  treating  the  critical  problems  of  Isa.  xl-lxvi. 
The  book  is  written  in  an  interesting  way,  and  though  it  is  of  a 
'popular'  character,  it  contains  not  a  little  worthy  of  the  attention 
of  scholars. 

5.  Les  Psaumes  traduits  de  Pkibrtu  par  M.  B.  d'Eyragues  is 
introduced  by  a  letter  from  M.  Vigouroux  to  the  Archbishop  of  Paris 
urging  that  a  good  translation  of  the  Psalms  may  be  of  great  use  to 
priests,  seminarists  and  the  faithful  generally,  because  *  La  version 
latine  de  la  Vulgate,  quelque  v^n^rable  qu'elle  soit,  est,  de  I'aveu  de 
tous,  imparfaite '.  M.  d'Eyragues*  rendering  keeps  closely  to  the 
Hebrew,  as  a  few  extracts  will  shew. 

Ps.  xxii  3,  'But  thou  art  holy,  O  thou  that  inhabitest  the  praises 
ot  Israel'  (R.V.). 

'  Et  pourtant  tu  es  le  saint,  tu  r^nes  au  milieu  des  louanges  d'Zsrael  * 
(d'Eyragues). 

'  Tu  autem  in  sancto  habitas,  laus  Israel  *  (Vulgate). 

Ps.  Ixviii  27,  'There  is  little  Benjamin  their  ruler,  the  princes  of  Judah 
and  their  council  *  (marg.  '  company ',  R.V.). 

'C'est  Benjamin,  le  plus  jeune,  qui  les  domine,  les  princes  de  Juda 
avec  leur  troupe '  (d'Eyragues). 

'  Ibt  Benjamin  adolescentulus  in  mentis  excessu,  prindpes  Juda  duces 
eorum  *  (Vulgate). 

Some  of  M.  d'Eyragues*  notes  contain  questionable  statements, 
e.g.  on  Ps.  xlv  10,  'Le  substantif  h^breu  ll^l  signifie  Spouse,  mais  il 
est  employ^  seulement  dans  des  drconstances  solennelles  et  marque  la 
dignite,  la  prominence  du  rang.' 

6.  7^  book  of  Isaiah  according  to  the  Septuagint  (Codex  Alexandrinus), 
translated  and  edited  by  R.  R.  Ottley,  M.A.,  ought  to  prove  a  useful 
book.  A  translation  of  the  LXX  into  English  by  Sir  L.  Brereton  was 
published  some  years  ago  by  Messrs  Bagster,  but  it  was  not  furnished 
with  such  useful  notes  as  Mr  Ottley  gives  us.  A  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  is  interpaged  with  the  translation  from  the  LXX  for  the  sake  ot 
ease  of  reference,  and  an  Introduction  is  prefixed  dealing  with  the 
Early  History  of  the  Septuagint,  the  Text  of  the  LXX  in  Isaiah,  Methods 
of  rendering,  and  differences  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  LXX.  The 
task  of  translating  the  rather  bald  Greek  is  a  very  difficult  one,  e.  g.  in 
X  32  ;  liii  2,  3,  and  though  Mr  Ottley  has  not  always  succeeded,  he  has 
given  us  a  literal  rendering  of  no  slight  value.  A  few  more  ex^etical 
notes  on  each  chapter  would  have  been  welcome. 

7.  Le  iivre  d^Isa'ie,  par  le  P.  Albert  Condamin  (Paris,  1905),  consists 
of  a  French  translation  of  Isaiah  accompanied  by  brief  textual  notes. 


464         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Ixfnger  notes  embodying  literary  and  historical  discussioas  are 
frequently  added  at  the  end  of  the  sections  to  which  they  refer.  From 
one  or  the  other  of  these  two  sets  of  notes  a!l  that  is  required  for  as 
intelligent  reading  of  the  text  is  supplied,  but  for  a  fuller  presentatioa 
of  critical  material  the  author  refers  us  to  a  forthcoming  volume  lo  he 
called  IntroduiUon  au  Hvrc  d'/saJe. 

The  present  volume  is  an  excellent  piece  of  work,  and  must  be 
alloved  a  high  place  among  the  best  recent  commentaries  on  Isaiah- 
French,  German,  and  English.  P^rc  Condamin  shews  an  jntiinate 
acquaintance  inth  the  work  of  his  predecessora,  and  exercises  vtsj 
sound  judgement  in  handling  it.  He  always  knows  his  own  mind,  and 
states  his  i-iews  with  lucidity  and  brevity.  A  student  of  Isaiah  who  mi 
restricted  to  one  book  could  hardly  do  better  than  choose  this. 

The  text  is  arranged,  except  in  narrative  passages  which  are  plainly 
prose,  according  to  parallel  raeniliets  and  strophes.  Pfcre  Condamin, 
while  avoiding  certain  dogmatic  views  about  'metre',  attaches  gnat 
importance  to  the  theory  of  strophes  defended  by  illustration  in  his 
book.  For  this  theory  indeed  there  is  much  to  be  said,  and  tbe 
author's  well-reasoned  defence  of  it  is  certainly  persuasive. 

W.  Emery  Barnes. 


g  been] 


The  Th£6hgy  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  the  late  A.  B.  Daviosok,  D.D., 
LL.]-)-,  LittD.    Edited  from  the  authors  manuscripts  by  S.  U  i\ 
Salmond,  D.D.,  F.E.I.S.     (International  Theological  Li 
T.  &  T.  Clark,  1904.) 
Dr  Davidson's  book  on  Old  Testament  Theology  has  long 
awaited  by    Biblical  students,  and  it   is  needless  to  say  that  it  well 
deserves  the  warm  welcome  which  it  will  receive  as  the  most  impoitaot 
contribution  to  the  subject  as  a  whole  which  this  country  has  prodoced. 
I )r  Salmond  alludes  to  the  'difficult  and  anxious  task'  which  he  has 
had  in  dealing  with  the  mass  of  material  contained  in  Dr  Davidson'! 
manuscripts;  and  it  will  be  evident  to  readers  how  large  a  debt  is 
due  to  the  labour  of  the  editor,  involving  as  it  did  the  selection  and 
arrangement  of  matter  which  came  to  him  '  in  a  variety  of  editions- 
four,  five,  or  six  in  not  a  few  cases — the  long  results  of  unceasing  studh^J 
and  searching  proljation  of  opinion  '.  ^^| 

Looking  at  the  author's  work  as  a  whole,  and  endeavouring  t^^ 
express  in  a  few  words  the  impression  which  it  leaves  upon  the  mind, 
it  may  be  said  that,  whereas  so  many  Old  Testament  scholars  appear 
to  be  belter  versed  in  the  latest  results  of  modern  criticism  than  tbey 
are  in  first-hand  study  of  the  materials  of  criticism,  Dr  Davidson  knowi 
liis  sources  first  of  all ;  and,  in  this  as  in  his  other  books,  what  be 


CHRONICLE  465 

ofiers  to  the  world  represents  the  result  of  minute  original  study  and 
of  judgements  based  upon  the  careful  weighing  and  sifting  of  all  available 
evidence. 

In  a  work  which  was  unfortunately  never  finished  by  the  author 
it  is  inevitable  that  there  should  be  found  great  inequality  in  the  treat- 
ment of  the  several  departments  of  the  subject.  Hius,  whilst  the 
doctrine  of  the  Last  Things  (pp.  402  ff)  is  worked  out  with  wealth 
of  detail  by  a  master-hand,  the  discussion  of  Sacrifice  (pp.  311  ff)  is 
very  thin  and  unsatisfactory,  and  was  probably  intended  to  undergo 
revision  and  expansion.  To  the  same  cause  we  may  assign  some 
amount  of  repetition  which  is  likely  to  prove  irksome  to  the  reader. 
Under  this  head  may  be  noticed  the  duplicate  discussions  of  the  root 
VTp  and  its  derivatives  (pp.  144  f,  164  f,  2521),  of  pnt  and  its 
derivatives  (pp.  129^  365  f),  and  of  the  distinction  between  soui  and 
spirif  in  the  N.  T.  (pp.  184^  419  0- 

I  have  spoken  of  Dr  Davidson's  work  as  bearing  the  impress  of  his 
independent  judgement,  and  it  is  perhaps  not  unnatural  that  it  should 
sometimes  exhibit  the  defects  of  this  admirable  quality.  The  dis- 
cussion of  Jehovah's  natural  attributes  as  seen  in  Isa.  xl-lxvi  ^p.  161  f) 
might  have  gained  in  value  had  the  author  reviewed  the  commonly 
received  opinion  that  these  chapters  are  not  the  work  of  one  hand 
or  of  one  age.  Similarly,  consideration  of  Jehovah's  love  and  fHoice 
of  Israel  (pp.  170  f)  would  certainly  have  reached  greater  breadth  and 
lucidity  if  something  bad  been  said  about  the  chronological  develope- 
ment  of  these  ideas.  And  the  writer  would  scarcely  so  confidently 
have  placed  Isa.  Itii  in  the  mouth  of  'Israel  redeemed*  (p.  263)  had 
he  given  due  consideration  to  Budde's  masterly  review  of  the  con- 
ception of  the  *  Servant  of  Jehovah '  in  Isa.  xl-lv  which  appeared  a  few 
years  ago  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology.  Under  this  head  may 
be  noticed  such  unsupported  statements  as  those  of  p.  61,  'And  it 
caxmot  be  doubted  that  all  the  leading  minds  tn  Israel,  and  many  of 
the  people,  had  from  the  beginning  reached  this  high  platform '  (virtual 
monotheism) ;  and  p.  66,  '  the  xvtiith  Fsalm,  the  undoubted  com- 
position of  David '.  In  both  cases  very  delicate  questions  are  involved, 
and  the  reader  would  be  glad  to  be  convinced  that  doubt  can  really 
be  excluded. 

In  certain  cases  the  renderings  of  passages  from  the  Hebrew  are 
not  such  as  might  have  been  expected  from  so  refined  a  scholar  as 
Dr  Davidson.  Some  of  these  are  citations  from  the  A.  V.  which  will 
scarcely  pass  muster.  So  p.  96,  *  As  if  the  rod  should  say  it  was  not 
wood'  (Isa.  X  15;  apparently  a  free  reminiscence  of  A.  V.);  p.  143, 
'The  righteous  Lord  loveth  righteousness'  (Fs.  xi  7);  p.  264,  'As  a 
brid^room  decketh  &c.'  (Isa.  Ixi  10;  similarly  mistranslated  in  R.  V. 

VOL.  VI.  H  h 


466         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

instead  of  '  As  a  bridegroom  who  deckcth ') :  and,  in  the  same  wj. 
p.  164,  *As  the  potter  treadeth  clay'  (Isa.  xli  25).  Other  passages 
are  rendered  or  explained  in  a  manner  whicli  scarcely  admits  of 
justification.  So  on  p.  139  we  have  an  explanation  of  Joel  ii  t\ 
'"For  he  shall  give  you  the  former  rain  for  rigbteousr>e8S " — ■'^Tp. 
i.e.  in  token  of  righteousness,  right  standing  with  God'.  Bat  suniy 
the  preposition  can  be  nothing  else  than  V  o/  norm — 'm  aaorJdma 
with  righteousness',  1.  e.  as  His  righteousness  sees  fit  to  gire  iL  Apia 
on  p.  190  Deui.v  26  is  rendered  'For  what  is  all  fiesb,  thai  it  migfai 
hear  the  voice  of  the  living  God  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire, 
as  we,  and  live?'  This  translation  exhibits  an  extraordinaiy  disregwl 
of  the  Hebrew  tenses  {perfects  -.—"^X'-  •  '  •  ^^  ''^)^  *nd  the  tne 
meaning  of  the  passage  is  certainly  that  which  is  given  by  A.V.,  R.V. 
Further,  the  explanation  (p.  56)  of  the  formula  of  Ex.  iii  14  irtl  WK 
n*n[*  is  in  defiance  of  Hebrew  idiom  : — '  Or  if  it  mean  "  I  will  be  whU 
I  will  be",  it  resembles  the  expression  in  Ex.  xxxiii  19,  "I  will  lurt 
mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy",  the  miraning  of  which  would 
appear  better  if  it  were  read,  "On  whom  I  will  liave  mercy,  I  will  haw 
mercy";  I  will  have  mercy  fully,  absolutely.  The  idea  of  selection 
scarcely  lies  in  the  formula ;  it  is  rather  the  strong  emphatic  aJTuitiatioa, 
I wiU  have  mtrty'  This  explanation  is  repeated  on  p.  70.  Bui  wh*C 
is  the  justification  for  importing  into  the  words  'I  will  be*,  'I  will 
have  mercy ',  a  fuller  and  more  emphatic  connotation  in  their  firat 
occunence  in  the  sentence  than  in  their  second?  No  such  justificatioa 
exists.  On  the  contrary,  both  passages  are  good  illustrations  of  a  br 
from  infrequent  mode  of  expression  which  I)r  Driver  has  suitably 
Tumcd  '  the  idtm  ptr  idem  idiom  ',  employed  when  the  speaker  is  aosUe 
or  unwilling  to  speak  more  explicitly.  Examples  of  this  may  be  aeea 
in  Deui.  i  46,  *  Ve  abode  in  Kadesh  many  days,  according  unto  the 
days  that  ye  abode  there ',  i.  e.  for  a  period  which  need  not  be  specified 
precisely:  1  Sam.  xxiii  13,  'And  they  went  about  where  they  went 
about',  i.e.  It  is  unimportant  to  specify  their  wanderings  more  closely: 
a  Sam.  xv  ao,  '  Seeing  that  I  go  whither  I  go '.  Similarly,  *  I  will  have 
Biercy  upon  whom  I  will  have  mercy'  implies  that  God  refuses  to 
define  beforehand  a  course  of  action  which  will  l>e  determined  by  Ha 
sovereign  will;  and  'I  will  become  what  I  will  become'  means  that 
what  He  will  become  is  at  the  time  of  speaking  not  to  b«  specified, 
but  will  be  unfolded  in  the  course  of  Israel's  future  history. 

Whilst  alluding  to  the  significance  of  the  formula  by  which  the  Tetni- 
prammaton  is  explained  in  Exodus,  we  may  question  the  statement  of 
pp.  46  f,  repeated  on  p.  102: — Mt  seems  certain  that  in  Isa.  xl  seq. 
the  name  Jehovah  is  not  used  as  having  any  special  significance 
ciymulogtcally,  but  is  the  name  for  God  absolutely.'     *  Here  the  name 


A 


CHRONICLE  467 

tX  Jehovah  has  no  special  meaning;  it  is  the  highest  name  of  God.' 
Such  a  passage  as  Isa.  xlii  8,  *  I  am  Jehovah,  that  is  my  nam^  and 
my  glory  will  I  not  give  to  another,  nor  my  praise  to  graven  images  *, 
is  by  itself  sufficient  to  contradict  such  an  assertion,  since  the  state- 
ment, 'that  is  my  name'  can  only  signify,  'I  am  all  that  the  name 
implies '.  But  if  we  compare  Mai.  iii  6, '  For  I  am  Jehovah,  I  change 
not ;  therefore  ye  sons  of  Jacob  are  not  consumed ',  and  the  constantly 
recurring  formula  of  Ezekiel,  'And  they  (y^  thou)  shall  know  that 
I  am  Yahwe'  (vi  7,  13;  vii  4,  9,  &c),  it  is  surely  clear  that  for  the 
later  prophets  a  very  special  meaning  was  attached  to  the  Divine  Name. 
'  I  will  become  what  I  will  become '  suggests  the  idea  of  absolute  self- 
determination.  'He  who  will  become'  is  absolutely  self-determined, 
and  therefore  unchangeable,  true  to  His  promise  and  His  threatening. 
That  this  was  the  underlying  idea  for  Isa.  xl  A*  is  further  substantiated 
by  the  repeated  occurrence  of  the  alternative  formula  'I  am  He\ 
where  it  is  difficult  to  escape  the  impression  that  a  play  is  intended 
upon  the  similarity  of  the  consonants  MVi  and  nvi*.  We  may  notify 
Isa.  xli  4,  '  I,  Jehovah,  first  and  with  the  last  I  am  He ',  and  especially 
Isa.  xliii  10-13,  '  ^^  ^^  '"y  witnesses,  saith  Jehovah,  and  my  servant 
whom  I  have  chosen :  that  ye  may  know  and  believe  Me,  and  under- 
stand that  I  am  He;  before  Me  there  was  no  God  formed,  neither 
shall  there  be  after  Me.  I,  even  I,  am  Jehovah,  and  beside  Me  then 
is  no  Saviour.  I  have  declared,  and  I  have  saved,  and  I  have  shewed, 
and  there  was  no  strange  God  among  you :  therefore  ye  are  My 
witnesses,  saith  Yahwe,  and  I  am  God.  Yea,  since  the  day  was  I  am 
He ;  and  there  is  none  that  can  deliver  out  of  My  hand :  I  will  work, 
and  who  can  reverse  it  ? '  Of.  also  Isa.  xlvi  4,  Deut  xxxii  39,  Ps.  cii  37. 
In  concluding  this  notice,  it  must  be  added  that  such  criticisms  as 
are  here  offered  are  made  in  no  captious  spirit.  In  proportion  to  the 
importance  of  a  book  lies  the  obligation  upon  the  reviewer  to  make 
such  criticisms  as  may  surest  themselves  to  him ;  and  in  a  work  which 
contains  so  great  a  mass  of  learning  extending  over  so  wide  a  field  it 
is  inevitable  that  details  here  and  there  should  afford  occasion  for 
criticism.  Had  Dr  Davidson  lived  to  carry  his  work  to  completion,  it 
is  probable  that  some  of  the  points  to  which  exception  has  been  taken 
would  have  been  modified  or  altered.  As  the  book  no  doubt  will  run 
into  more  than  one  edition,  it  is  worth  while  to  chronicle  such  printer's 
errors  as  have  been  noticed.  On  p.  45  read  '  Ammon '  for  '  Moab ',  and 
viu  versa;  p.  56  read  Ex.  xxxiii  19  for  xxxiii  9;  p.  151  read  Hos.xi  13 
for  X  13;  p.  438, 1.  10  correct  'His  feet  is  set';  p.  333,  I  18  correct 
*  effect '.     Misprints  in  Hebrew  words  are  to  be  found  on  pp.  41, 65  (4), 

85.  149.  293.  ^95*  3*0.  336,  350.  448- 

C.  F.  BURMEY. 
Hh  a 


468        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION,  APOLOGETICS. 
AND   HOMILETICS. 

Selbstbcumsstitin  und  WUfens/rttfieit,  von  D.  Georc  Graux.    (fierim, 
C.  A.  Schwetschke  und  Sohn,  1904.) 

Self-consciousnkss  and  frce-wJll  are  treated  in  this  work  as  fund*- 
mental  presuppositions  of  the  Christian  view  of  life,  and  with  especul 
reference  to  modem  controversy. 

The  book  fells  into  two  parts.  The  former  of  them  endeavours  to 
establish  that  seiif-consciousness  is  *a  new  thing',  *an  absolute  begis- 
ning',  something  over  and  above  Nature.  After  criticizing  the  viein 
of  certain  recent  writers,  among  whom  Avenarius  and  Mach  may  be 
mentioned,  as  to  the  so-called  'inner'  and  'outer'  experience^  ^ 
author  urges  that  the  contents  of  sclf-consctousness  are  to  be  studied 
by  obser\'ation  of  the  individual's  inner  experience  as  it  is  for  himsdf 
and  not  as  that  experience  presents  itself  to  another.  TTiis  is  a  point 
of  great  importance,  and  is  ably  discussed.  Such  study,  the  aulbcr 
admits,  is  beset  with  difficulties,  but  nevertheless  can  yield  results 
equally  objective  with  those  of  physical  science.  The  writer  then  pro- 
ceeds to  argue  that  such  a  'new  thing*  as  self-consciousness,  with 
its  'absolute  beiginning'  in  the  course  of  Nature,  is  not  precluded  by 
the  law  of  causality,  the  principle  of  the  conservation  of  energy,  ot  the 
doctrine  of  descent,  rightly  understood.  The  argument  here  is  perhaps 
not  wholly  convincing.  The  psychical  life  of  man,  it  is  conc]ude<^ 
presupposes  a  real  and  permanent  ego ;  and  it  is  from  self-consciousness, 
and  not  from  human  environment,  that  the  moral  consdousness  caVcs 
its  rise. 

In  the  latter  portion  of  the  book,  which  deals  with  free-will,  that 
is  not  much  that  is  new,  though  many  of  the  writer's  comments  ere 
good.  The  author  here  traverses  well-trodden  ground,  and  does  not 
take  us  to  the  root  of  the  problem. 

Das  Weltbild  ier  Zukunft^  von  Dr  Karl  Heim.  (Bcriin,  Schwttschke 
und  Sohn,  1904.) 
The  preface  and  introduction  to  this  1)ook  arouse  great  cxpectotiops. 
The  work  is  addressed,  its  author  tells  us,  to  such  as  are  oppressed 
with  the  burden  of  their  own  thought ;  and  it  undertakes  to  elaborate 
a  Weltanschauung  on  the  foundation  of  'four  tendencies  of  modem 
thought '  which  are  '  characteristic  of  our  time '.  These  tendencies  arc 
(i)  Kantism  purged  of  scholastic  elements,  {3)  phenomenalism  such  as 


CHRONICLE  469 

is  represented  by  Mach,  (3)  the  substitution  of  energetics  for  atomism 
in  natural  philosophy,  and  (4)  the  search,  represented  by  the  Ritschlian 
school,  for  a  theology  purified  of  metaphysics.  This  pri^ramme  sounds 
interesting;  but  I  must  confess  that  ihe  high  hopes  which  it  raises 
are  somewhat  dashed  when  one  tries  to  read  the  book. 

Dr  Heim  attributes  the  intractability  of  the  great  problems  which, 
for  thousands  of  years,  have  engaged  Western  speculation,  to  the 
assumption,  by  the  European  mind,  of  certain  fundamental  distinctions 
or  dualisms,  such,  for  instance,  as  those  between  the  subject  and  the 
objective  world,  perception  and  thought,  thought  and  will  It  may  be 
granted  to  Dr  Heim  that  the  intractability  of  some  of  the  greater 
problems  of  philosophy  may  krgely  be  due  to  the  faulty  way  in  which 
they  have  been  stated ;  but  the  attempt  to  state  some  of  them  at  least 
in  ways  which  render  the  prospect  of  ultimate  solution  more  hopeful 
has  already  been  made,  and  with  some  success.  I  do  not  feel  that 
the  reconstruction  which  Dr  Heim  offers  us,  in  so  far  as  I  can  under- 
stand it,  rids  us  of  the  (fifficulties  in  which  philosophy  finds  itself 
enveloped,  nor  that  it  brings  us  much  relief  fVom  the  burden  of  the 
insolubility  of  metaphysical  problems. 

7^  Parable  t^  Man  and  of  God,  by  Harold  B.  Shefheakd,  M.A. 
ys.  net    (Longmans,  Green  &  Co.,  1903.) 

The  author  of  this  little  book  is  to  be  congratulated  upon  its  gmceful 
and  admirably  lucid  style.  It  is  a  great  achievement  so  to  have  written 
on  the  deep  things  of  science  and  philosophy. 

The  writer  contends  that  both  science  and  philosophy  are  of  the 
nature  of  parable.  Science  does  not  *  explain',  lliis  is  true  of 
her  utterances  as  a  whole,  but  it  is  most  evidendy  illustrated  in  her 
account  of  the  phenomena  of  organic  life.  Her  axioms — we  should 
prefer  to  say  postulates — involve  antinomies ;  her  mechanical  models 
are  symbols,  not  reality.  All  this  has  been  often  and  strenuously  insisted 
upon  lately  \  but  we  are  glad  to  witness  another  attempt  to  push  the 
truth  home  and  to  give  it  increased  currency. 

In  a  somewhat  different  sense  the  utterances  of  philosophy  too  are  of 
the  nature  of  parable.  Perhaps  the  writer's  treatment  of  Agnosticism, 
which  he  examines  as  one  type  of  philosophy,  is  not  wholly  satisfactory; 
it  does  not  seem  true  to  say  of  it,  for  instance,  that  it  is  an  attitude  of 
mind  and  not  a  system  of  philosophy :  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  its 
assertion  that  ultimate  reality  is  unknowable  supplies  a  basis  for  the 
contention  that  all  philosophy  speaks  in  parables.  Neither  is  this 
wholly  true  of  Idealism,  though  we  may  grant  that  all  attempts  to 
describe  the  Supreme  Mind  are  necessarily  symbolical  in  nature. 


^^^  470         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

^M  The  writer  proceeds,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  book,  to  examine  nun't 

^M  limitation  to  such  symbolic  Icnowiedge  both  from  the  side  of  man  and 

^B  from  the  side  of  God.     '  it  is  no  evil  fate  that  causes  man  to  lean 

^M  in  parables,  but  a  beneficent  provuion  which  ensures  hts  possession 

^m  of  knowledge  equal  to  his  power  and  not  dangerous  to  himself,  and 

^1  affords  the  opportunity  for  thorough  and  full  understanding'  (p.  139). 

^M  But  justice  cannot  be  done  to  Mr  Shepheard's  treatment  of  this  theme 

^L^  by  brief  citations ;  the  reader  must  be  referred  to  his  interesting  book. 

^^H  F.  R.  Tennaitt. 

^M  In  Some  Chriitian  Difficulties  ef  the  Setond  and  Txvcntietk  Cat 

turies,  the  Hulsean  Lectures  for  1903-3  (London,  Edward  ArooldX 
Mr  Foakcs  Jackson,  Fellow  of  Jesus  College,  Cambridge,  gi«s 
a  clear,  popular,  and  interesting  account  of  the  controversy  betweai 
Tertulltan  and  Marcton,  with  the  special  object  of  bringing  out  the 
resemblance  between  Marcionism  and  our  modem  difliculues.  The 
main  points  were  the  imperfect  morality  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  appearances  of  waste  and  bad  design  in  Nature.  These  antttbeies 
led  Marcion  to  dualism,  to  the  rejection  of  science  as  a  helpmate  to 
reh'gion,  and  to  an  attempt  to  build  theology  upon  the  love  of  God 
alone.  Mr  Foakes  Jackson  rightly  regards  the  great  Gnostic  as  a  nwst 
interesting  personage,  but  perhaps  rather  misses  the  mark  when  be 
says  {p.  52)  that  'Marcion  represents  the  mystic,  the  sentimemalist. 
the  dreamer'.  At  any  rate  the  last  two  epithets  do  not  seem  to  conrer 
quite  the  right  impression  of  this  austere  rationalist  and  agnostic  to 
whom  neither  sentiment  nor  science  revealed  a,nything  but  an  e*il 
or  half-evil  Creator,  and  who  therefore  was  obliged  to  fall  back  upoa 
a  wholly  arbitrary  mysticism.  Mr  Foakcs  Jackson's  book  may  be  found 
very  useful  by  iliose  who  have  to  grapple  with  the  religious  difficulties 
of  our  artisans. 

C  Bicc 

iV^re  Believers  way  doubt,  or  Studies  in  Biblical  Inspiration  and  other 
Problems  of  Faith,  by  Vincent  J.  MoNabb,  O.P.  (Lorwlon, 
Bums  &  Oates,  1903.) 

The  oddly  chosen  first  title,  which  gives  no  hint  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  book,  is  due  to  the  author^R  desire  to  make  it  clear  that  be  is  nut 
writing  a  textbook  upon  tlie  recognized  teaching  of  the  Churdi, 
but  tenutivety  putting  forward  a  theory  of  inapiratiDD  which  is  more 
or  less  new,  but  which  as  he  thinks  ts  not  excluded  by  the  de5mticiii 
on  the  subject  which  have  already  been  prnmulgatcd.  The  subject  is 
one  in  which  oil  just  now  are  keenly  interested,  and  many  will  tike  to 


CHRONICLE  471 

know  what  one  of  the  subtlest  thinkers  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
possesses  in  England  has  to  say  about  it  The  most  important  part 
of  the  book  is  that  in  which  he  deals  with  Cardinal  Newman's  classical 
article  on  Inspiration,  which  appeared  in  the  NimU$nth  Century  in 
February,  1884.  He  defends  the  Cardinal  against  the  attacks  which 
have  been  made  upon  his  teaching,  chiefly  by  those  who  desired  to 
submit  what  he  had  written  to  an  excessive  accuracy  of  '  paper-logic  *, 
which  was  foreign  to  Newman's  mode  of  thought  Father  M^Nabb 
thinks  it  is  mainly  a  question  of  terminology,  and  that  Newman  did 
not  distinguish  sufficiently  between  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  with 
the  consequence  that  his  meaning  is  sometimes  uncertain.  The  treat- 
ment of  the  subject  is  very  technical,  and  hardly  likely  to  be  interesting 
to  any  except  professed  theologians,  and  the  style  tends  to  be  a  little 
obscure.  Father  M°Nabb  often  seems  to  be  thinking  aloud,  rather 
than  giving  us  the  results  of  his  thought  in  a  clear  and  luminous  form. 
At  the  same  time  the  book  is  a  real  contribution  to  the  literature  on 
the  difficult  question  of  Inspiration,  and  ought  not  to  be  neglected  by 
any  student  of  the  subject. 

A.  S.  Barnes. 

Three  Bufwarks  of  the  Faith  :  Evolution,  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  the 
Resurrection  of  Christ,  by  the  Rev.  E.  H.  Archer-Shepherd  (Rivingtons, 
London,  1903),  is  a  book  which  may  with  safety  and  advantage  be 
placed  in  the  hands  of  students  entering  on  a  scientific  study  of  the 
Bible.  The  chapter  on  the  results  of  the  Higher  Criticism  states  them 
clearly,  and  gives  the  evidence  on  which  they  rest.  The  chapter  on  the 
Paschal  Lamb,  a  study  in  comparative  religion,  seems  iandful  and 
overdrawn ;  and  the  author  throws  little  fresh  light  on  the  evidence  for 
the  historical  truth  of  the  Resurrection.  The  book  combines  acceptaiKre 
of  the  position  of  the  Higher  Critics  with  a  reverent  use  of  the  Bible. 

TTiings  Fundamental,  a  course  of  thirteen  discourses  in  modem 
Apologetics,  by  C.  E.  Jefferson  (London,  Brown,  Langham  &  Co.,  1904), 
contains  a  rather  wordy  treatment  of  such  fundamentals  as  faith,  reason. 
Scripture,  the  Deity  of  Jesus,  miracles,  sin,  the  Person  and  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  They  are  dealt  with  in  a  practical  way,  and  in  every-day 
language.  The  book  contains  popular  sermons,  and  appeals  rather  to 
the  rapid  reader  than  to  the  careful  student.  But  one  might  reasonably 
expect  more  sustained  thought,  as  the  sermons  profess  to  be  '  for  the 
man  who  does  not  really  know  what  the  foundations  of  the  Christian 
faith  are*.  They  are,  however,  an  earnest  and  honest  effort  to 
interpret  things  fundamental  to  the  modern  and  practical  man  in  the 
light  of  modern  knowledge  and  the  Higher  Criticism. 

W.  L.  E.  Parsons. 


472         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

In  Some  DiffUuIHts  in  the  Lift  of  our  Lord,  by  the  Rev.  Georgt  S. 

Cockin  (Elliiit  Stock,  Ixtndon  1904),  the  author  follows  the  Gaspd 
narrative  of  our  Lord's  life  from  the  Genealogies  to  the  Ascension  ;  ind 
under  each  section  he  mentions  difficulties  and  objections  that  have 
been  raised  in  various  quarters,  and  suggests  a  solution.  No  dium  ii 
made  to  originality.  The  aim  is  praiseworthy,  but  the  value  of  the 
book  would  liave  been  greater  if  its  scope  had  been  less  ambitioai 
It  is  not  likely  to  be  used  by  more  ad%'anced  students,  but  mainly  by 
those  to  whom  the  questions  propounded  are  new.  For  such  readers 
a  careful  and  lucid  discussion  of  some  fundamental  questions  wmld 
have  been  more  useful  than  (he  mass  of  heterogeneous  matter  whicfa  ii 
dealt  with  in  the  present  work.  A  large  number  of  questions  are  dif- 
cusscd,  and  the  treatment  of  many  of  these  is  too  sketchy  to  be  of  much 
real  value  to  a  sincere  enquirer.  There  are  numerous  quotations  fron 
modern  writers,  but  often  the  references  are  not  given.  The  aaihof 
has  not  been  sufficiently  careful  to  avoid  mistakes,  e.g.  on  p.  12  he 
argues  that  the  Massacre  of  the  Innocents  may  well  be  an  bistonail 
event  because  Herod,  who  caused  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  wobU 
have  little  hesitation  in  destroying  a  number  of  young  babes— 41 
though  it  were  the  same  Herod  in  each  case.  On  pp.  95-96  he  seenu 
to  confuse  the  image  of  Christ  as  the  comcr-slonc  with  the  totally 
distinct  image  of  Christ  as  the  foundation.  Still,  the  book  may  offet 
helpful  suggestions  to  some  students. 

G.  A.  S.  SCHNBU>SIL 


Ckrhtus  in  Ecclesia.  Sermons  on  the  Church  and  its  Institutioftf. 
by  Hastings  Rashdall,  D.Utl.,  D.C.L.  (Edinburgh ;  T.  &  T. 
Clark.) 

This  volume  of  sermons,  representative  of  the  five  years  durit^  which 
the  author  held  the  oflice  of  Preacher  to  Lincoln's  Inn,  will  be  reaA  with 
interest  and  respect  even  by  those  who  are  least  prepared  to  accept  its 
point  of  view. 

Dr  Rashdall,  while  acknowledging  unreservedly  the  debt  whkli  the 
English  Church  owes  to  the  Oxford  Movement,  never  attempts  to 
minimize  the  differences  which  separate  him  from  its  leaders  and  their 
successors  of  the  present  day.  Indeed  he  is  so  averse  from  what  he 
calls  the  magicai  theory  of  religious  observances,  that  he  sometimes 
seems  to  curtail  unduly  the  proper  sphere  of  imagination  and  emotioa. 
But  if  he  sternly  rejects  much  that  seems  to  him  not  to  bear  the  test  o( 
reason  and  experience,  he  holds  with  no  uncertain  grasp  to  the  under- 
lying essentials,  and  vindicates  for  Religion,  for  the  Bible,  and  for  the 
Church,  an  authority  which  may  astonish  those  who  imagine  the 
purposes  of  the  Broad  Church  Party  to  be  chiefly  negative.    There  is 


CHRONICLE  473 

here  nothing  of  solvent  individualism,  nothing  of  cynical  confonnity : 
the  purpose  of  the  book  is  edification,  in  its  literal  sense,  by  means  of 
an  intelligent  treatment  of  the  iacts  of  history  and  human  nature 
illuminated  by  profound  piety. 

The  sermons  fall  into  three  divisions,  each  dealing  with  a  main 
subject  In  the  first  nine  chapters  taken  with  the  two  dealing  with 
Sunday,  and  the  two  on  the  relations  of  Church  and  Stat^  Dr  Rashdall 
makes  out  a  case  for  the  Church  with  its  Ministry,  Sacraments,  and 
Worship  which  goes  far  to  justify  in  a  way  intelligible  to  the  average 
thoughtful  man  the  dictum  extra  eccksiam  nulla  solus.  No  doubt  in 
some  points,  especially  in  his  treatment  of  the  priesthood,  he  will  fail 
to  satisfy  many  readers :  nevertheless  he  sets  before  us  an  ideal  which 
is  mediaeval  in  its  grandeur,  primitive  in  its  stem  righteousness.  His 
very  plain  dealing  with  the  doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession  and 
its  results  may  be  useful  alike  to  those  who  accept  it  and  to  those 
who  reject  it. 

With  r^ard  to  the  Bible  (xvii-xix)  Dr  Rashdall,  while  admitting  to 
the  full  the  critical  principle,  occupies  a  position  which  is  really  pro- 
foundly conservative,  and  gives  his  reasons  why  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  can  be  and  should  be  read  as  no  other  books  can  be :  and 
his  warning  is  needed,  in  view  of  the  popular  idea  that  the  Higher 
Criticism  has  demolished  the  Bible. 

The  section  on  Prayer,  Thanksgiving,  and  Penitence  (x-xiv)  is  the 
least  Ic^cal,  and  perhaps  the  most  satisfying  of  all.  Looking  upon 
the  deep  problem  of  Prayer  Dr  Rashdall  finds  the  *  dry  light '  of  reason 
fail  him,  and  yields  to  the  gentler  guidance  of  sympathy.  He  has 
demonstrated  that  it  is  wrong  to  pray  for  exceptions  to  the  general 
course  of  nature :  but  he  allows  us  to  pray  for  the  recovery  of  a  sick 
child,  though  he  will  not  let  us  pray  for  rain.  The  distinction  is 
obvious  enough  to  afiiection,  but  hardly  to  science.  The  sermon  on 
Penitence  is  a  clear  and  impartial  statement  of  the  theological  and  non- 
theological  aspects  of  sin,  and  shews  that  they  are  complementary, 
neither  of  them  adequate  without  the  other. 

Dr  Rashdall's  purpose  is  clearly  stated  in  his  preface,  and  that 
purpose,  of  explaining  and  reassuring,  his  book  seems  eminently  fitted 
to  cany  out.  This  is  just  the  type  of  sermon  which  innumerable 
educated  men  and  women  are  looking  for,  and  often  looking  for  in 
vain :  the  sermon  that  deals  faithfully  with  questions  of  faith  and 
practice  which  seem  pressing  enough  to  them,  but  are  too  often 
answered  by  obsolete  formulas  or  vague  generalities. 

J.  H.  F.  Peile. 


474         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Or  Mr  Hensley  Henson's  volume  of  sennons  ( 7X^  Kt/v^  sf  tk 
Bibie  and  other  Sermons.  Macraillan  &  Co.,  London,  1904)  it  is  not 
necessary  to  say  much,  so  hte  in  the  day.  It  is  doubtless  &lreadf 
well  known  to  all  readers  of  sermons.  A  frankly  pcrso<ial  ooie 
sounds  through  them.  They  are  a  vigorous  defence  of  *  liberalism '  in 
regard  to  the  Bihlc  and  the  Creeds,  of  literary  and  historical  critiasm, 
of  the  attempt  to  correlate  our  doctrine  of  inspiration  with  oui  philosophy 
of  religious  history  and  with  all  knowledge  from  whatever  sources  it 
may  be  derived,  and  in  general  of  'the  open  mind'— alike  for  clefgj' 
and  for  laity — in  a  time  of  transition  ;  but  they  are  also  the  eiprcssion 
of  deep  conviction  of  the  living  power  of  Christ  in  the  world  and  o(  the 
supremacy  of  the  Gospel  version  of  human  life  over  alt  other  tbeoriei; 
and  they  are  always  interesting. 

Christian  Life:  Suggestians  Jor  Thaight^  by  the  Rev.  G.  EgtttOO- 
Warburton  (Elliot  Stock,  London,  1904),  is  a  series  of  short  rcficxims 
on  simple  and  familiar  Christian  principles  of  thought  and  conduct 

In  The  Lord  of  Humanity  ;  or  the  testimony  of  human  c^nsdayaitttt 
and  f^om  our  dead  lehies  to  higher  things  (3rd  editions,  Elliot  Stodt, 
London,  1904),  Mr  F.  J.  Cant  brings  his  technical  knowledge  and 
experience  as  a  surgeon—  a  close  observer  of  men  and  women — to  bar 
on  the  relation  of  Christ  to  the  human  race,  the  investigation  of  man  m 
himself,  and  the  wimess  of  his  experiences  to  the  conceptions  of 
Christian  theology,  especially  those  of  regeneration  and  redemption. 

Through  forty  pages  with  the  somewhat  cryptic  title  Modem  PkHett- 
fhers  and  the  '  Per  Quern  '  (Elliot  Stock,  I.ondon,  1904)  Mr  G.  E.  TanW 
inveighs  against  the  materialistic  character  of  much  of  the  phttosophf 
and  science  of  the  day.  As  he  dismisses  the  '  higher  criticism '  with 
undiscriminaiing  conteinpt,  and  does  not  manifest  any  special  knowledge 
of  the  philosophy  and  science  of  the  day,  his  identification  of  aot 
Lord  with  Him  *  by  whom '  all  things  were  created  (this  is  the  meaning 
of  the  title  of  his  book),  and  his  reaifirmation  of  the  truth  of  the 
Resurrection,  will  not  be  of  much  service  to  the  good  cause  which  he 
has  at  heart 

The  Tme  Ground  of  Faithy  by  the  Rev.  R.  S.  Mylne,  with  a  preface 
by  Dr  Benham  (Elliot  Stock,  London,  1904),  is  a  little  volume  coe- 
taining  five  sermons  preached  in  Bangor  CatliedraL  In  The  Workef 
the  Ministry  (Elliot  Stock,  London.  1903),  the  Rev.  R.  G.  Hunt  publishes 
five  addresses  to  candidates  for  ordination,  which  othcTS  than  those  who 
heard  them  may  read  with  profit. 

There  is  much  that  is  excellent,  and  excellently  said,  in  the  sennoos 
that  make  up  The  Unity  of  the  Spirit:  its  seven  articles  (SkeffingtOD  &C 
Son,  London,  1904),  by  the  Rev.  H.  W.  Holden.  There  are,  howevec, 
phrases  and  sentences,  notably  in  the  sermon  on  'One  Body',  vhtch 


CHRONICLE  475 

are  to  be  r^etted.  It  is  surely  possible  to  expound  the  strong  Church- 
man's  conception  of  the  Church  and  the  Sacraments  without  classing 
ail  nonconformists  together  as  failing  to  realize  in  the  fointest  decree 
'  the  revelation  of  a  Second  Adam  :  that  we  stand  incorporate  in  Cbristf 
His  very  members — of  His  flesh  and  blood,  His  Body — whereof  He  is 
the  Head '  (pp.  45,  46).  The  sermons  would  be  stronger,  and  perhaps 
more  Christian,  if  such  references  were  omitted. 

An  Exposition  of  the  Church  Cateehismt  by  the  Rev.  R.  Cooper- 
Fugard  (St  Giles*  Printing  Co.,  Edinburgh,  1904),  might  be  useful  in  the 
preparation  of  candidates  for  confirmation,  but  only  as  notes  which 
would  require  a  good  deal  of  supplementing. 

J.  F.  BB. 


Lent  and  Holy   Weeh,  by  Herbert  Thurston,  S.J.     (Longman^ 
Green  &  Co.    London,  1904.) 

Makv  people  must  have  felt  the  need  of  a  book  which  should  supply 
in  a  concise  form,  and  in  not  too  severely  technical  a  manner,  infor- 
mation on  the  various  liturgical  services  of  the  Latin  Church  which 
are  peculiar  to  the  seasons  of  Lent  and  Easter.  Father  Thurston  has 
given  us  a  volume  which  in  many  ways  is  precisely  what  is  needed. 
In  so  small  a  compass  it  was  necessary  to  make  a  selection ;  and  in 
consequence  almost  all  observances  of  a  merely  local  character  have 
been  left  unnoticed ;  and  the  same  reason  has  prevented  any  serious 
examination  into  the  ceremonies  which  were  formerly  observed  in 
England,  or  by  various  Religious  Orders,  but  are  now  obsolete. 
The  book  is  a  commentary  on  existing  customs  of  the  Church, 
and  only  alludes  to  other  customs  by  way  of  illustration.  One  cannot 
help  regretting  this  reticence  in  a  great  many  instances,  but  at  the  same 
time  it  is  evident  that  it  would  have  been  quite  impossible  to  give 
adequate  treatment  to  the  larger  subject  without  greatly  enlarging  the 
size  and  cost  of  the  book.  The  subjects  dealt  with  include  the  cere- 
monies of  Ash  Wednesday,  the  Forty  Hours,  Palm  Sunday,  Tenebrae, 
and  the  special  services  of  Maundy  Thursday,  Good  Friday,  Holy 
Saturday,  and  Easter  Day.  They  are  all  treated  with  the  accuracy 
and  wide  learning  which  we  are  accustomed  to  associate  with  Father 
Thurston's  books,  while  at  the  same  time  the  book  is  written  in  a  style 
which  even  those  who  have  no  previous  knowledge  of  liturgical  matters 
will  find  interesting  and  attractive. 

A.  S.  Barnes. 


476  THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

Die  reU^OHigeuhichtlicke  Methcde  in  der  TTteoIogiey  by  Prof.  O-H 
Clemen  (J.  Kicker,  Oiessen,  1904),  is  an  inaugural  lecture  which  «it 
delivered  before  the  University  of  Bonn.  In  it  Professor  Qemea 
surveys  what  has  been  done,  especially  by  German  scholars  during 
recent  years,  in  applying  to  Christian  theology  the  method  of  com- 
parative rtligious  history.  He  points  out  briefly  what  difTerent  results 
have  been  looked  for  as  the  consequence  of  such  investigations.  To 
most  readers  the  second  portion  of  the  lecture  will  b«  the  vasxt 
interesting.  In  this  the  author  criticizes  the  attempts  made  of  lale  le 
derive  New  Testament  ideas  from  other  religions.  The  in&uence  (rf 
Babylon  he  thinks  is  to  be  traced  only  in  a  few  details  and  cxpressioitf 
of  the  Apocalypse  ;  and  he  rejects  the  opinion  of  Gunkel  that  St  PaoTi 
teaching  of  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Communion  is  drawn  from  this 
source.  He  also  rejects  tlte  opinion  that  it  is  derived  from  the  religion 
of  Mithras.  On  the  other  hand,  he  considers  it  very  possible  that  the 
so-called  Hermetic  literature  exercised  some  influence  on  the  Ne« 
Testament  writers,  especially  on  St  John.  Several  Johannine  ideas  occsf 
in  the  Poemandns^  e.  g.  the  striking  combination  of  the  terms  logo% 
light,  and  life  ;  the  designation  of  God  as  the  irXiipw/jia,  &c.  Yet  even 
here  the  author  considers  certainty  to  be  at  present  unattainable.  At 
the  most,  it  is  only  expressions  and  forms  which  arc  taken  from  foreigo 
sources;  into  these  Christianity  has  poured  its  own  original  contents. 
And  further,  the  essential  doctrine  of  Christianity,  the  love  of  God 
shewn  in  Christ  even  to  sinners,  cannot  be  derived  from  any  other 
religion.  The  treatment,  owing  to  the  limits  imposed  upon  a  lecture, 
is  very  brief.     There  is  room,  perhaps,  for  a  larger  work  on  the  subject. 

G.  A.  S.  SCUNBIDBK. 


477 


RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO 
THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

(i)  English. 

Church  Quarterfy  Review^  January  1905  (Vol.  lix,  No.  118  :  Spottis- 
woode  &  Co.).  The  Christian  Society :  11  The  Teaching  of  our  Lord- 
Missions  to  Hindoos :  IV  The  Methods  (concluded),  the  Results — The 
Ecclesiastical  Crisis  in  Scotland — Books  of  Devotion — A  new  way  in 
Apologetic — The  science  of  Pastoral  Theology — Mr  Stanley  Weyman's 
novels— The  Synoptic  Gospels :  IV  The  recent  literature — Eton  and 
Education — Short  Notices. 

Jlu  Bibbert /ournai^  January  1905  (Vol.  iii,  No.  a :  Williams  & 
Norgate).  A.  T.  Innes  The  Creed  crisis  in  Scotland — J.  Watson  The 
Church  crisis  in  Scotland — ^W.  A.  Pickard-Cambridge  The  Christ  of 
dogma  and  the  Christ  of  experience — G.  W.  Allen  A  plea  for  mysti- 
cism—N.  Howard  The  warp  of  the  world— C.  J.  Keysbr  The  universe 
and  beyond — Sir  Oliver  Lodge  '  Mind  and  Matter ' — K.  Lake  The 
new  Sayings  of  Jesus — C.  J.  Shebbeare  The  inner  meaning  of  liberal 
Theology — B.  W.  Bacon  The  Johannine  problem — Discussions — 
Keviews — Bibliography  of  recent  literature. 

7^  Jewish  Quartcriy  Review^  January  1905  (Vol.  xvii.  No.  66 :  Mac- 
znillan  &  Co.).  G.  Margououth  An  ancient  illuminated  Hebrew  MS 
at  the  British  Museum — H.  Hirschfeld  The  Arabic  portion  of  the 
Cairo  Genizah  at  Cambridge  (8th  art) — H.  S.  Q.  Henriques  The 
Jews  and  the  English  Law— C.  Taylor  The  alphabet  of  Ben  Sira — 
J.  Skinner  The  cosmopolitan  aspect  of  the  Hebrew  Wisdom — L.  Ginz- 
berg  Genizah  Studies :  IV — M.  N.  Adler  The  Itinerary  of  Benjamin 
of  Tudela — D.  Philipson  The  reform  movement  in  Judaism  (4th  art.) — 
M.  Steinschneider  Allgemeine  Einleitung  in  die  jiidische  Literatur 
des  Mittelahers — S.  Krauss  Die  jiidischen  Apostel — S.  Fraenrel 
Jiidisch-arabisches — S.  Pozna^ski  The  High  Priest's  procession — 
Notes — Review. 

The Expositor,l2miaiy  1905  (Sixth  Series,  No.  61:  Hodder  & Stough- 
ton).  G.  A  Smith  Sion :  the  city  of  David— W.  M.  Ramsay  The 
olive-tree  and  the  wild-olive— G.  Jackson  The  ethical  teaching  of 
St  Paul :  I  The  sources— G.  A.  Chadwick  The  Virgin  Birth — A.  Carr 
The  foreshadowing  of  the  Church — B.  Gray  The  *  Steppes  of  Moab' — 
J.  Moffat  Literary  illustrations  of  Ecclesiastes. 

February  1905  (Sixth  Series,  No.  63).    G.  A.  Smith  Jerusalem 


478         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


under  David  and  Solomon— J.  Denky  Harnacic  and  Loiqr  on  Ac 
essence  of  Christianity — J.  Watson  Isaac,  the  type  of  qoieiocss— 
W.  H.  Bknnett  The  Life  of  Christ  according  to  Si  Mark — G.  Jacksw 
Some  general  characteristics  of  the  ethical  teaching  of  St  Paul — W.  H. 
Rausav  The  olive-tree  and  the  wild-olive. 

March  1905  (Sixth  Series,  No.  63V  R  W.  Bacoh  Pipias  aori 
the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews — A.  R.  Gordok  WeJlliaosai^ 
G.  Jackson  Pagan  virtues  in  the  ethical  teaching  of  St  Faol — ^W.  IL 
Rausay  The  book  as  an  early  Christian  symbol— G.  A.  Sum  Jem- 
salem  from  Rehoboam  to  Hezekiah — J.  Moffat  Literary  iUus 
of  the  Book  of  Daniel 

(3)  American. 

TAe  Ameritan  Jtmmal  of  Theology^  January  1905  (Vol.  ix.  No.  i: 
Chicago  University  Press).  A.  H.  Savce  The  Babylonian  and  Biblkal 
accounts  of  the  Creation — J.  Wilson  The  Miracles  of  the  Gospcb— 
H.  A.  Redpath  Mythological  lenna  in  the  LXX— S.  F.  MacLenhah 
The  fundamental  problem  of  religious  belief  and  the  method  of  its 
solution — K.  BunnF.  On  the  relations  of  Old  Testament  science  to  the 
allied  departments  and  to  science  in  general — W.  Rauschesbi'SCH 
The  Ziirich  Anabaptists  and  Thomas  Miinzer— Recent  Tlieologicil 
Literature. 

The  Primtton  TUehgual  Review,  January  1905  (Vol  iii,  Na  i: 
Philadcljihia,  MacCalla  &  Co.).  R.  M.  McElrov  The  American  Resfr 
lution  from  the  standpoint  of  an  English  scholar — J.  Lindsay  Greek 
Philosophy  of  Religion — M.  C.  Williaais  The  multitude  of  Denomini- 
tions — J.  S.  Dennis  The  educational  campaign  of  Missions  in  India— 
R.  D.  Wilson  Royal  Titles  in  Antiquity:  an  essay  in  criticisin  (jrf 
art,  pt.  ii)— B.  J.  Warfield  Augustine  and  his  'Confessions' — Receit 
Literature. 

(3)  French  and  BeijQian. 

Hevue  BinidUtitif,  January  1905  (\'^oL  xxii,  No.  i :  Abbaye  de  Mared 
sous).  G.  MoRiN  Lc  catalogue  des  manuscrits  de  I'abbaye  de  Gone 
au  XI"  si^le— R.  Ancel  La  question  de  Sienne  et  la  politique  du  a^ 
dinal  Carlo  Caraia — J.  Chapman  Aristion,  author  of  the  epistle  to  ihe 
Hebrews— H.  Lbci-ercq  Melanges  d'^pigraphicchr^tienne — P.BASTtW 
Questions  dc  princtpes  conccmant  I'ex^^se  catholique  contemponjne— 
U.  Berli^re  Bulleitn  d'histoire  b^nedictine — Recensions. 

Revue  Bi'Mfue,  jinMOxy  1905  (Nouvelle  s^rie,  2*  annce,  No.  i :  Pari^ 
V.  Leco^re).  M.  K.  Cosquin  Fantaiiiics  biblico-mythologiques  d'un 
chef  d'^coLe — M.  J.  Lagrange  Le  Messianisme  dans  les  psaumes— 
Miilangcs:  Batiffol  L'Euchanstie  dans  U  Didach^;  A.  Grootaert 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES    479 

L'Ecclisiastique  est-il  ant^rieur  k  TEccl^iaste  ? ;  A.  Jaussen,  R.  Savi- 
GNAC,  H.  Vincent  'Abdeh  ;  P.  Chebli  Notes  d'arch^ologie  Itbanaise— 
Chronique :  R.  Savignac  Glanures  ^ptgraphiques ;  H.  Vincent  Mil- 
liaire  romain  k  Abou  Ghoch,  vaiia,  les  fouilles  anglatses  de  G^zer — 
Recensions — Bulletin. 

Hevue  d'Histoire  et  de  Utterature  Jieligieuses,  Januaiy-February  1905 
(Vol.  X,  No.  I :  Paris,  74,  Boulevard  Saint-Germain).  P.  de  Nolhac 
La  'Conversion'  de  Madame  de  Pompadour — A.  Loisy  Le  message  de 
Jean-Baptiste  —  J.  Turmel  La  controvei^e  pr^destinatienne  au  be* 
sifecle— M.  de  Wulf  Philosophie  mWi^vale:  III  Philosopfaie  arabe ; 
IV  La  philosophie  du  xiii*  sibcle :  i  Ouvrages  g^n^raiix ;  2  Renaissance 
philosophique  du  xiii^  sikJe;  3  L'ancienne  direction  scolastique  ou  la 
direction  augustinienne — -P.  Lejay  Ancienne  philologie  chr^tienne: 
Ouvrages  g^n^raux  et  ouvrages  d'ensemble  (1897-1904)  {suite). 

Revue  d'Histoire  Ecclisiastique,  January  1905  (Vol.  vi,  No.  i :  Louvain, 
40,  Rue  de  Namur).  F.  Cavallera  Le  De  Virginitate  de  Basile 
d'Ancyre — P.  de  Funiet  Les  trois  homilies  catdch^tiques  du  sacra- 
mentaire  g^lasien  pour  la  tradition  des  ^vangiles,  du  symbole  et  de 
I'oraison  dominicale  (i  suivre) — G.  Mollat  Jean  XXIX  (1316-1334) 
fut-il  un  avare?  (suite  etJin)—L.  Willaert  Negociations  politico-reli- 
gieuses  entre  I'Angleterre  et  les  Pays-Bas  catholiques  (1598-1635) 
d'apr^  les  papiers  d'£tat  et  de  I'audience  conserves  aux  archives  gin6- 
rales  du  royaume  de  Belgique  k  Bruxelles  {d  suivre) — Comptes  rendus— » 
Chronique — Bibliographie. 

Hevue  de  rOrient  ChriHen,  October  1904  (Vol.  ix,  Na  4 :  Paris, 
A.  Picard  et  fils).  H.  Gr^oire  Saints  jumeaux  et  dieux  cavaliers — 
S.  VAiLHi:  et  S.  Pi^RiDis  Saint  Jean  le  Paltolaurite,  pr6c^^  d'une 
notice  sur  la  vieille  Laure  {fin) — P.  de  Mekster  Le  dogme  de  I'imma- 
culee  conception  et  la  doctrine  de  I'figlise  grecque  {suite) — V.  Ermoni 
Kituel  copte  du  baptdme  et  du  manage :  Baptfime  isuiti)—F.  Tourhs- 
BI2E  Histoire  poUtique  et  religieuse  de  rArm^nie— L.  Clugnet  Vie  de 
sainte  Marine  {suite) — Bibliographie. 

(4)  German. 

Zdtschrift  Jur  7%eolope  und  Kirche,  November  1904  (VoL  xiv,  No.  6  : 
Tiibingen,  J.  C.  B.  Mohr).  £.  Fuchs  Christentum  und  Kampf  ums 
Dasein — P.  Lobstein  Wahrheit  und  Dichtung  in  unsrer  ReligioiL 

February  1905  (Vol.  xv,  No.  i).  Herrmann  Der  Glaube  an  Gott  and 
die  Wissenschaft  unserer  Zeit — Hoffmann  Zeitgemass  oder  Zeillos  ? — 
Traub  Die  Gegenwart  des  Gottesreichs  in  den  Parabeln  vom  Senfkom 
und  Sauerteig,  von  der  selbstwachsenden  Saat,  dem  Unkraut  und  dem 
Fischnetz — Wobbermin  Loisy  contra  Hamack  (Das  Wesen  des  Chris- 
tentums  in  Evangelischer  und  katholischer  Beleuchtung). 


480         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

March  1905  (Vol.  xv,  No.  2).  Kattenbusch  Die  Lage  da 
systeniatischen  Theologie  in  der  Gegcnwart — I/)nsTEiN  Zur  Feier  dcs 
2ooj3hrigen  Todestags  von  Philipp  Jacob  Spener — Sell  Luther  im 
hauslichen  Leben — Haring  Das  Vcrstandnis  der  Btbel  in  der  Entwick* 
lung  der  Menschheit. 

Zeiisckrift  fur  wisstRtihaftlUla  Theologte,  December  1904  (Vol,  xlnii. 
No.  I :  Leipzig,  O.  R.  ReisEand).  F.  LiPSius  Die  modeme  Welt-  and 
Lebensanschauung  und  das  Christen  turn— A.  Hiu;enfex.d  Die  Einld- 
tungsschriften  der  Pseudo-Clementinen— M.  Poitlekz  Philosophisdte 
Nachkliinge  in  altchrisllichen  Prediglen — F.  Gt^RRES  Charakter  und 
Religion  spa!  itik  des  vorletzten  spantschen  Westgotenk6ntgs  Witia— 
J.  Dkasekb  Zu  Basileios  von  Achrida — Anzeigen :  J.  Grill  Der  Pnmtt 
des  Petrus  (A  H.) ;  L.  Brehicr  Im.  quertUe  des  images  (J.  DraseU)* 
J.  Schnitzer  Savonarola  III  (J.  Draseke);  F.  Ltpsius  Kritik  der  thn- 
Utpschen  Erktnntnis  (G.  Gkaue). 

Zeitschrifi  fur  neutestamtntlicfu  Wissmschaft  und  die  Kunde  des  Vr^ 
christentums,  January  1905  (Vol.  vi,  No.  1  :   Giessen,  A.  Tftpelmana). 

E.  ScHiJRBR  Die  siebentagige  Woche  iin  Gebrauche  der  chrisilicheo 
Kirche  der  ersten  Jahrhunderte— A.  Harnack  Zum  Urspning  des  wa%. 
a.  Clemensbriefs— G.  KrUcer  Das  Taufbelcenntnis  der  r^mischen 
Gemeinde  als  NJederschlag  des  Kampfes  gegen  Marcion — G.  H.  Box 
The  Gospel  narratives  of  the  Nativity  and  the  alleged  influence  of 
heathen  ideas— O-  Holtzmank  Die  Jerusalemreisen  des  Paulus  und 
die  Kollekte — E.  Klostermann  Zu  den  Agrapha — ^J.  Leipoldt  Ein 
saidisches  Bruchstiick  des  Jakobus-Prolevangeliums — E.  Nestle  Zuoi 
Vaterunser. 

Theolo^che    Quariaisekri/i^    March     1 905    (Vol.    Ixxxrii,     NiV  ■  I 

Tiibingcn,  H.  Laupp).  Funk,  Didache  und  Bamabasbrief — BebseR 
Das  Pratorium  dcs  Pilatus— W.  Koch  Die  ncutestamentlichea  Abend- 
mahlsberichte— Kellker  Nochnials  das  wahre  Zeitalter  der  hi.  Cadlia 
— Funk  Ein  neues  Hetmasfragmcnt — Galt  Die  Mauer  des  Agrippi— 
Rezensionen. 

Theohgische  Studkn  und  /Cn'tiken,  January  1905(1905,  No.  a  :  Gotbi, 

F.  A.  Perthes).  Kirchner  Subjekt  und  Wesen  der  Siindenvergcbuii^ 
besonders  auf  der  friihesten  Keligionsstufe  Israels — Hcin'rici  Die 
neuen  Herrenspruche^REBHtG  Akten  zur  Reformationsgeschichte  in 
Coburg — Clf.men  Schleiermachers  Vorlesung  iiber  theologische  En- 
zyklopadie — Daxer  Wilbclni  Wundts  Philosophic  und  die  Religion— 
SoLTAU  Die  Einheitlichkeii  des  i.  Petrusbriefes — Rezension :  Andr^ 
Zes  Apoaypkes  de  Panden  testament  (G.  Ficker) — Prograram  dcT 
Haager  Gesellschaft  zur  Verteidigung  der  cbristltchen  Religion  fur  das 
Jahr  1904. 


•i 


The  Journal 

of 

Theological   Studies 

JJHiT,  10OS 

THE    LORD'S    COMMAND    TO    BAPTIZE 
(St  Matthew  xxviii  19). 

I  PROPOSE  in  this  article  with  necessary  brevity  to  consider 
three  points  relating  to  the  Lord's  command  to  baptize  as 
recorded  in  St  Matthew  xxviii  19.  These  three  points  are 
(i)  the  source  of  the  last  section  of  St  Matthew  (w.  16-30),  in 
which  this  command  occurs ;  {a)  the  integrity  of  the  text ;  (3}  the 
interpretation  of  the  command.    The  passage  runs  thus: 

Ilop(v$4vT€s  oSv  itadjjTfwraTt  •aairra  t^  ^Ov^lt  ^trrCCovrts  (v.  I. 
fiavrttrai/Tts)  aitrtnis  fls  rd  Spofia  rov  varpbs  ml  rw  vlou  Ka\  rou  iyiov 

(I)  The  source  of  the  last  section  of  St  Matthew  (xxviii  16-ao). 

One  result  of  the  study  of  the  Synoptic  problem,  which  during 
the  last  few  years  has  been  so  vigorously  pursued,  seems  now 
to  be  generally  acknowledged  and  to  be  placed  beyond  the  reach 
of  reasonable  doubt.  It  is  the  position  that  eidier  St  Mark's 
Gospel  itself  or  else  the  story  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  whether 
documentary  or  oral,  which  is  embodied  in  St  Mark,  was  used  by 
the  two  other  Synoptists.  St  Matthew  follows  very  closely  the 
account  found  in  St  Mark.  He  often  expands  the  historical 
matter  of  St  Mark,  but  very  seldom  does  he  omit  anything 
important  in  it. 

The  authentic  Gospel  according  to  St  Mark  ends  abruptly  in 
the  early  part  of  the  story  of  the  day  of  the  Resurrection,  viz.  at 
xvi  8.  We  may,  I  think,  reasonably  put  aside  as  improbable 
the   su£^stioo  that  some   sudden  emergency  compelled  the 

VOL.  VI.  I  i 


483         THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Evangelist  to  break  off  a  task  which  he  was  never  to  resume; 
and  wc  may  take  it  for  granted  that  St  Mark  wrote  a  condustofl 
to  his  Gospel  which  was  accidentally  torn  off  in  that  copy  of  the 
Gospel  from  which  all  later  copies  have  been  derived. 

St  Matthew,  I  believe,  gives  us  the  clue  as  to  what  wrere  the 
contents  of  the  lost  conclusion  of  St  Mark. 

On  the  night  of  the  betrayal,  just  after  the  Lord  and  His 
Apostles  had  left  the  upper  room,  St  Mark  records  our  Lord's 
words, '  Howbeit,  after  I  am  raised  up,  I  will  go  before  you  into 
Galilee '.  Again,  on  the  morning  of  the  Resurrection,  St  Mark 
represents  the  Angel  as  saying  to  the  women  who  visited  the 
tomb, '  Go,  tell  his  disciples  and  Peter,  He  gocth  before  you  into 
Galilee:  there  shall  yc  see  him,  as  he  said  unto  you'.  Thus 
St  Mark  in  two  places  records  a  promise  of  a  meeting  between 
the  risen  Lord  and  His  disciples  in  Galilee.  The  Gospel  which 
gives  such  prominence  to  the  promise  must  have  contained  aa 
account  of  its  fulfilment.  We  infer  then  with  confidence  that 
the  last  section  of  St  Mark  was  a  record  of  the  manifestation 
of  the  risen  Lord  to  His  disciples  in  Galilee. 

We  pass  on  to  compare  St  Matthew  and  St  Mark.  St  Matthew 
follows  St  Mark  in  recording  the  Lord's  promise  on  the  night 
of  the  betrayal,  and  (with  some  slight  ampliftcation  and  variation] 
the  words  of  the  Angel  at  the  tomb.  In  regard  then  to  the 
twice  repeated  promise  the  two  Evangelists  coincide.  Further, 
when  we  compare  the  account  of  the  visit  of  the  women  to  the 
tomb  given  by  St  Matthew  with  that  given  by  St  Mark,  we  find 
the  similarity  between  the  two  so  close  that  we  infer  that 
St  Matthew  in  this  portion  of  the  Gospel  has  for  his  source 
St  Mark  or  the  original  of  St  Mark.  When  therefore  we  note 
that  St  Matthew  in  the  closing  section  of  his  Gospel  records  that 
meeting  in  Galilee  whidi,  as  we  saw,  must  have  had  a  place 
in  St  Mark's  Gospel  as  originally  written,  we  cannot  but  conclude 
that  this  section  of  St  Matthew  bears  the  same  relation  to  the 
lost  section  of  St  Mark  which  generally  an  historical  sectioa 
of  the  former  Evai^eUst  bears  to  the  corresponding  section  of 
the  latter.  In  other  words,  we  may  affirm  with  a  high  degree 
of  probability  that  this  Matthacan  section  is  derived  from  the 
primitive  Petrine  Gospel. 

There  is  some  further  confirmatory  evidence  for  the  position 


THE   lord's   command  TO   BAPTIZE  483 

that  St  Matthew  has,  in  this  section,  reproduced  with  substantial 
accuracy  the  words  of  our  Lord  as  recorded  in  his  source. 

St  Mark  has  been  careful  in  his  Gospel  to  preserve  sayings 
which  may  well  be  thought  to  anticipate  and  to  prepare  the  way 
for  the  two  essential  elements  in  the  Lord's  final  commands. 
In  the  first  place  he  preserves  two  sayings  which  foretold  the 
catholic  destination  of  the  Gospel:  'The  gospel  must  first  be 
preached  unto  all  the  nations '  (xiii  10) ;  and  again, '  Wheresoever 
the  gospel  shall  be  preached  throughout  the  whole  world '  (xiv  9). 
In  the  second  place  the  first  section  of  St  Mark's  Gospel  gives 
an  account  of  John's  baptism,  and  includes  John's  prophecy  of 
Christ's  baptism  as  essentially  spiritual.  It  would  be  wholly 
congruous  that  the  last  section  of  the  Gospel  should  contain  the 
fulfilment  of  that  prophecy  in  Christ's  final  command  to  His 
disciples,  that  they  should  baptize  '  all  the  nations  *  and  bring 
them  into  a  vital  union  with  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  Such  a  relation  between  the  first  and  the  last  section 
would  bind  the  whole  Gospel  together,  and  would  constitute  that 
command  a  fitting  climax  and  close  of  the  Gospel  story. 

Again,  St  Matthew's  tendency  is  commonly  to  expand  his 
source.  The  closing  section  however  is  brief.  The  record  as 
contained  in  the  lost  section  of  St  Mark  can  hardly  have  been 
briefer.  One  point,  insignificant  in  itself,  is  of  some  interest. 
St  Mark,  in  regard  to  the  meeting  in  Galilee,  records  the  promise 
'There  shall  ye  see  him'  (xvi  7).  St  Matthew,  who  reproduces 
these  words  (xxviii  7),  and  puts  similar  words  into  the  mouth 
of  the  risen  Lord  Himself  (xxviii  10) — 'And  there  shall  they 
see  me' — tells  us  of  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise  (xxviii  17) — 
'  And  when  they  saw  him  (fJtfwey  <lvt6v\  they  worshipped  him.* 
This  i8o'rres  a^6v  we  should  expect  to  find  in  the  last  page  of 
St  Mark  were  it  ever  restored  to  us.  Beyond  this  we  cannot 
go  in  regard  to  the  question  of  verbal  identity  between  the  last 
section  of  St  Matthew  and  the  lost  last  section  of  St  Mark. 

(II)  The  integrity  of  the  text  in  Matt,  xxviii  19. 

The  integrity  of  the  text  in  Matt,  xxviii  1 9  has  lately  been 
called  in  question  by  Mr  F.  C.  Conybeare,  first  in  an  article 
published  in  the  Zeitschriftfur  die  neutestamentlUhe  WUsenschaftf 
1901,  pp.  375  AT,  and  afterwards  in  the  Hibbert   Journal  for 

li  % 


THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

October,  190a,  pp.  loa  fr.  Professor  Lake  in  his  Inaugura.1  Lecture 
at  the  University  of  Leiden  (Jan.  a?,  1904)  adopted  Mr  Conybeare's 
conclusions.  They  are  controverted  in  an  able  and  learned  article 
('  Der  Trinitarische  Taufbefehl')  by  Professor  Riggcnbach  of  Basel, 
published  in  the  Bcitriis;e  zur  Fdrderung  ckristHcher  Th^olo^, 
1903.    My  investigation  is  independent  of  Professor  Riggenbach's. 

It  is  almost  superfluous  by  way  of  preface  to  the  discussion  of 
this  question  to  say  that  the  matter  is  simply  and  solely  a  matter 
of  evidence,  and  of  the  conscientious  and  dispassionate  inter* 
pretation  of  evidence.  Every  scientific  critic,  whether  he  all 
himself  a  conservative  thcol<^ian  or  not,  is  bound  to  take  all 
possible  care  in  scrutinizing  the  facts  on  which  alone  he  bases  his 
conclusion  for  or  against  the  genuineness  of  any  passage  of  the 
New  Testament.  If  he  is  satisfied  that  a  real  case  has  been 
made  out  against  any  passage,  he  is  bound  to  abide  by  the 
verdict  of  criticism.  In  regard  to  this  particular  passage,  it 
should  further  be  remembered  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
does  not  depend  upon  any  one  'proof-text*.  No  doubt,  as 
purporting  to  be  the  words  of  Christ  Himself,  this  text  has 
played  an  important  part  in  the  history  of  the  doctrine.  But, 
if  we  put  aside  the  philosophical  aspects  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  Christian  people  hold  that  doctrine  because  they  believe 
that  it  is  implied  In  the  general  teaching  of  the  Gospels  and  of 
the  Apostolic  writings.  It  is  the  formal  statement  of  that  con- 
ception of  God  which  ihe  writers  of  the  New  Testament  express 
in  informal  and  undogmatic  language. 

The  position  then  of  Mr  Conybeare  is  this.  He  maintains 
that  the  clause  jianH^ovrt^  avroi/s  th  tA  ovofta  Toi)  •aarph^  tax  rorvlov 

Kol  Tov  hyiav  v^cvjuarot  was  in  early  times  (i.  e.  before  the  time  of 
Tertullian)  interpolated  for  dogmatic  reasons  in  some  copies 
of  St  Matthew,  and  that  its  place  in  the  text  was  not  fully  assured 
till  after  the  Council  of  Nicaca. 

Mr  Conybeare's  chief  argument  for  this  conclusion  lies  in  the 
fact  that  Eusebius,  who  was  Bishop  of  Cacsarea  313-339  A.IX, 
and  had  access  to  the  treasures  of  the  great  library  at  Caesaiea, 
when  he  quotes  or  refers  to  Matt,  xxviii  19  f,  habitually  omits, 
or  stops  short  of,  the  words  which  refer  to  Baptism.  The 
relevant  passages  of  Eusebius  fall  under  two  heads,  (i)  In  the 
Demonslratio  Evangtlka  Eusebius  cites  the  words  which  precede 


THE   lord's   command   TO   BAPTIZE  485 

and  the  words  which  follow  the  command  to  baptize,  but  does  not 
cite  the  command  itself.  In  i  3  he  writes, '  After  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  having  said  to  His  disciples.  Go  and  make  disciples 
of  all  the  nations.  He  adds,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  thirds 
whatsoever  I  commanded  you  \  In  i  4,  i  6,  iii  6,  he  quotes  the 
Lord's  words  thus,  Go  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations  (  +  «'« 
nty  name,  iii  6),  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever 
I  commanded  you.  (a)  In  some  seventeen  passages  (e.  g.  Hist. 
Eccles.  iii  5  %)  Eusebius  quotes  the  first  clause  of  v.  19  in  this 
form,  Ttoptv&ivTti  iia$i)T€^<raTt  •nivra  r^  Idifq  iv  r^  iv^fiarC  ftov  and 
(except  in  Dem.  Evan,  iii  6 ;  see  above)  does  not  quote  the 
subsequent  words.  In  one  of  these  passages  (Bern.  Evan,  iii  7), 
he  expressly  comments  on  the  words  iv  t^  iv^narC  fiov :  *  For  He 
did  not  simply  and  without  definition  bid  them  make  disciples  of 
all  the  nations,  but  with  the  necessary  addition  in  His  name. 
For  inasmuch  as  the  power  belonging  to  His  title  was  such  that 
the  Apostle  said  that  God  gave  to  Him  the  name  which  is  above 
every  name,  that  in  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow 
of  things  in  heaven  and  things  on  the  earth  and  things  uttder  the 
earth,  [the  Lord]  did  rightly  when  He  declared  the  virtue  which 
is  in  His  name  but  is  unknown  to  the  more  part  of  men,  and  said 
to  His  disciples.  Go  and  make  disciples  of  aU  the  nations  in  my 
name' 

Mr  Conybeare  thinks  that  the  evidence  of  these  passages  in 
Eusebius  points  to  the  conclusion  that  Eusebius  '  found  in  Uie 
codices  of  Caesarea  the  following  form  of  text :  itoptvBivTf^  iiaJBn' 
T<i}(raTc  v6vTa  r^  t6vii  iv  t^  iv6y,ari  /lov,  hib&trKOvrtt  aSirovs  rtiptlv 
TtiiVTa  5aa  iviTtt\dfir}v  ^ftiv '. 

The  two  groups  of  passiiges  in  which  Eusebius  quotes  from 
Matt,  xxviii  19  raise  somewhat  different  questions,  and  it  will  be 
convenient  to  discuss  them  separately. 

(i)  We  take  the  passages  from  the  Demonstratio  Evangelica, 
in  which  Eusebius  quotes  more  than  one  clause  of  St  Matthew. 
It  will  generally  be  allowed,  I  think,  that  theol<^ical  and  religious 
writers,  whether  ancient  or  modern,  when  they  adduce  a  pass^e 
of  Scripture,  are  in  the  habit  of  omitting  a  clause  which  is  not 
relevant  to  the  subject  of  which  they  are  treating.  They  are 
probably  all  the  more  likely  to  do  this  if  that  clause  is  itself 
important  and  would  serve  therefore  to  draw  away  the  attention 


486        THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

of  their  readers  from  the  matter  in  hand.  A  writer  of  our  owi 
day  would  probably  indicate  the  omission  by  mserting  dots  (•.•■) 
in  the  proper  place.  If  then  we  turn  to  the  passages  in  the 
First  Book  of  the  DfmotutraSw,  we  find  that  in  them  Eusebiua 
is  dealing  generally  with  the  Christian  rule  of  life.  In  chapter  iv, 
for  example,  he  says  that  wc  Christians  receive  the  Sacred  Books 
of  the  Hebrews,  and  that  they  contain  prophecies  about  *m 
Gentiles'.  He  then  cites  passages  from  the  Psalms,  amof^  tbcm 
those  passages  (Ps.  xcvi  i  ff,  xcviii  i  ff)  which  speak  of  the 
*Dew  song'  which  *all  the  earth'  should  sing.  This  '  new  song' 
Jeremiah  (xxxi  31  ff)  calls  a  'new  covenant'.  Again,  this  'new 
covenant '  Isaiah  calls  a  '  new  law ',  saying  (ii  3  Oi  *  ^^^  ^^  ^(^° 
Bhall  go  forth  the  law*.  *Now  this  law  which  has  gone  forth 
from  Zion  and  is  different  from  the  law  given  through  Moses 
on  Mount  Sinai,  what  can  it  be  save  the  Evangelical  word  whidi 
through  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  has  gone  forth  from  Zioa 
and  has  reached  all  the  nations?  For  it  is  manifest  that  from 
Jerusalem  and  from  Mount  Zion,  which  is  nigh  unto  Jenisakm. 
where  our  Saviour  gave  most  of  His  teachings,  the  law  of 
His  new  covenant  began,  and  that  from  thence  it  went  forth 
and  shined  forth  unto  all  men,  in  accordance  with  His  owo 
words  which  He  spake  to  His  disciples,  saying,  Co  and  mah 
discipUs  of  all  tlit  natimis,  teaching  tfunt  to  observe  all  tkii^ 
whats&evffr  f  ccmmatided you.  And  what  were  these  things  save 
the  lessons  and  the  instructions  of  the  new  covenant  (r^  r^ 

Somewhat  different  is  Huscbius's  purpose  when  he  quotes  cor 
Lord's  words  in  iii  6.  He  is  here  dealing  with  those  who  alleged 
that  Christ  was  a  magician  (yoTjy).  1  venture  somewhat  to 
abbreviate  the  passage.  'What  magician  ever  conceived  the 
idea  of  promulgating  and  making  eternally  victorious  laws  against 
idolatry,  contrary  to  the  edicts  of  kings  and  ancient  lawgivers? 
But  as  to  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  it  is  not  the  case  that  He 
conceived  the  purpose  and  then  did  not  dare  to  make  the 
attempt ;  nor  did  He  make  the  attempt  and  then  fail.  But 
He  spake  but  one  word  to  His  disciples,  Go  and  make  discifUt 
of  all  the  nations  in  my  name,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  tJirirngt 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you;  and  then  He  added  ihe 
deed  to  the  word ;  for  at  once,  in  a  short  time,  every  race  both 


THE  lord's   command  TO   BAPTIZE  487 

of  Greeks  and  barbarians  was  made  His  disciples  (ifui&T^TtvtTo) ; 
and  laws,  contrary  to  the  supei^tition  of  the  andents,  were  dis- 
seminated among  all  the  nations.' 

In  both  these  passages  then  it  is  clear  that  Eusebius  is  concerned 
from  somewhat  different  points  of  view  with  the  new  law  of  Christ 
and  its  dissemination  among  *  all  the  nations '.  In  both  he  quotes 
just  those  words  of  Christ  which  were  relevant  to  his  argument* 
In  both  it  was  absolutely  natural  that  he  should  refrain  from 
quoting  the  command  to  baptize  in  the  Threefold  Name  ;  for  it 
had  no  bearing  on  the  ailment.  The  case  is  precisely  the  same 
with  the  two  remaining  passages  in  the  Denumstratio  (i  3,  i  6). 
In  both  of  them  Eusebius  is  contrasting  the  new  law  of  Christ 
with  the  ancient  law  of  Moses ;  and  in  both  of  them  it  was  as 
absolutely  natural  as  in  the  passages  which  I  have  fully  con- 
sidered that  he  should  not  include  in  his  citation  the  words  as  to 
Baptism. 

But  facts  are  more  convincing  than  any  assertion  as  to  a  priori 
probabilities.  I  take  a  parallel  case.  No  one  can  doubt  that 
the  Antiochene  text  of  St  Matthew,  with  which  Chrysostom  was 
familiar,  contained  the  clause  ^miCovrts  airaiis  x-rA.  Chrysostom 
comments  on  the  clause  in  his  Homilies  on  St  Matthew  (see 
below)  and  he  adduces  the  words  in  his  exposition  of  Hebr.  ii  18 
(xii  54  B).  *  For  that  it  is  He  Himself  who  forgives  the  sins  of  all 
men  He  shewed  both  in  the  case  of  the  paralytic,  saying,  Tky 
sins  have  been  forgiven,  and  in  the  matter  of  Baptism,  for  He 
saith  unto  the  disciples,  Go  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations^ 
baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  But  when  Chrysostom  is  speaking  of 
conduct  and  of  Christ's  commands,  and  in  this  connexion  cites 
Matt,  xxviii  19,  his  quotation  no  more  includes  the  words  about 
Baptism  than  do  the  quotations  in  Eusebius's  Vemonstratio.  In 
his  exposition  of  Eph.  ii  10  Chrysostom  (xi  29  A)  insists  on  the 
need  of  *  good  works ' — *  As  we  have  five  senses  and  must  use 
them  all,  so  must  we  use  all  the  virtues.  .  .  .  For  one  virtue 
sufliceth  not  to  present  us  with  boldness  before  the  judgement- 
seat  of  Christ,  but  we  have  need  of  much  and  manifold  virtue, 
nay  of  all  virtue.  For  listen  to  Him  as  He  says  to  the  disciples. 
Go  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  commanded  you;  and  again.  Whosoever 


488         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

shall  Sreak  one  of  then  least  commandments  ^,  he  sMail  be  emSei 
least  in  t/te  kingdom  of  lieaven* 

The  fact  then  that  Eusebius  in  the  Demonstratw  four  times 
quotes  the  words  which  precede  and  the  words  which  follow  the 
command  to  baptize  in  Matt,  xxviii  19,  but  docs  not  quote  Ihe 
command  itself,  does  not  afford,  when  we  take  in  account  the 
context  in  each  case,  even  the  slightest  presumption  that  he  was 
^orant  of  that  command  or  that  he  did  not  regard  it  as  having 
an  assured  place  in  the  text  of  St  Matthew. 

(2)  \Vc  next  turn  to  the  consideration  of  the  reading  -aoprv^rrt^ 
fuidijTfv<ratf  vfirra  ra  fOin]  i»  ry  drofMiri  ^v.  Mr  ConybeaiC 
believes  that  this  was  the  original  form  of  Matt,  xxviii  19;  aikd 
he  finds  traces  of  it  in  two  early  documents,  in  a  passage  of  the 
Shepherd  of  Hcrmas  and  in  a  passage  of  Justin  Martyr.  To 
these  two  passages  I  shall  return  presently. 

Another  supposition  however  is  possible,  namely,  that  the  words 
h  Ty  AvifiarC  t^ov  are  an  addition  to  the  genuine  text  of  the 
clause.  On  this  hypothesis  it  is  not  difficult  to  account  for 
the  genesis  of  the  reading.  I  venture  to  call  attention  to  the 
following  considerations,  (i)  The  addition  is  in  itself  absolutely 
natural,  (a)  The  '  Western '  text  of  the  N.  T.  is,  I  believe,  aa 
artificial  text.  Wc  find  in  this  text  passages  in  which  a  refertnce 
to  the  name  of  Jesus  is  added.  Thus  in  Acts  vi  H,  to  the  words 
ii7oUt  Tfpara  nal  C7}tJ.(ia  ixrydXa  iv  ry  Xa^,  Cod.  K  adds  rv  Tf 
6v4tiaTi  Tov  Kvplov :  Cod.  D  {with  some  cursives)  appends  fiw  roti 
oiHjftaTo^  Kvplov  'Ijjo-ot;  \pi<rrov.  See  also  Tischcndorf's  apparatus 
criticus  in  Acts  xiv  10 ;  xviii  4,  8.  (3)  An  '  impulse  of  scribes', 
and  we  may  add  of  the  Fathers  also, '  abundantly  exemplified  in 
Western  readings,  is  the  fondness  for  assimilation'  (Dr  Hort 
Introduction  p.  124).  There  is  scarcely  a  page  of  Codex  Utizit 
in  the  Gospels  which  does  not  afibrd  instances  of  this  tendency. 
Now  there  are  three  passages  in  the  Gospels,  recording  words  of 
the  risen  Lord,  which  arc  closely  related  and  are  often  quoted 
together  by  the  Fathers  (see  e.g.  below  p.  494),  viz.  Matt,  xxviii 
18-20 ;  [Mark]  xvi  15-1S ;  Luke  xxiv  4(^-49.  It  is  sufficient  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  words  from  these  three  passages  are 
intertwined  in  laXx^^  Diatessaron  (see  Hamlyn  Hill  The  Earliest 

'  It  wl]]  b«  noted  thkt  tlie  words  ami  shall  tntk  mm  m  (Hatt  VI9)  ■»  sot 
relevant,  and  arc  tbcreTurc  umitlcd  In  Uk  qaotation. 


THE   lord's   command   TO   BAPTIZE  489 

Life  of  Christ  pp.  263  f,  376  f).  Rig^nbach  (p.  37)  su^^ests  that 
the  words  kv  ry  iv&^ri  ftov  in  the  Eusebian  form  of  Matt  xxviii 
19  are  probably  derived  from  Luke  xxiv  47  (itai  KTjpv)(B7ivat  ivl 
T^  6v6fuiTi  avToS  fierdvoiav  K.T.K.).  It  is  even  more  significant, 
I  venture  to  think,  that  the  words  h  ry  6v6iuitI  hov  occur  in  the 
other  parallel  passage  [Mark]  xvi  17  (mtfuia  Si  ro»  irtoTc^atru' 
iLKo\ov6J}(Tti  TavTo,  iv  rtp  dviitari  fum  bmn^via  JK/SaXowrtp).  Those 
who  have  worked  through  any  considerable  portion  of  the 
'  Western '  text  of  the  Gospels  and  have  seen  how  deep  and 
wide  is  the  effect  of  the  tendency  to  harmonize  will  allow, 
I  think,  that  this  explanation  of  the  Eusebian  reading  is  highly 
probable. 

On  this  theory  as  to  the  genesis  of  the  Eusebian  reading,  it  is 
open  to  us  to  choose  between  two  alternatives. 

(i)  On  the  one  hand  the  reading  may  be  a  '  Western '  reading 
which  Eusebius  foimd  in  some  codices  of  the  library  at  Caesarea. 
This  supposition  is  quite  in  accordance  with  facts.  *  The  same ' 
[i.e.  'Western*]  character  of  text  is  found  .  .  .  predominantly 
in  Eusebius'  (Dr  Hort  Introduction  p.  113).  Have  we  any 
evidence  of  this  reading  elsewhere?  Mr  Conybeare  adduces 
two  passages. 

The  first  is  from  Justin  Martyr,  Dialogue  with  Trypho  39, 
p.  35S  A :  hv  o2v  Tp6vov  hih  tow  kTrroKux^iKiaivt  iKtCvovs  TTfif  6pyi\v 
oitK  ini^tpt  rifrc  i>  $t6s,  rdv  avrbv  rpSvov  koX  vvv  oiiiivfo  r^v  Kpivip 
ivi^vtyKfv  rj  ivdyfi,  ytv^aKotv  Irt  ko^  ^fiipav  tiv^s  na6ijTtvofUvim 
fls  rd  Spofui  rou  Xpurrw  ovroi!  koI  ivoXdvovrat  rifv  68dv  ttjs  itXAvrfSt 
o%  Kal  XanPAvovirt  Softara  iKoaros  mi  &^toC  fltrt,  tpuriCofuvoi  Std  rem 
ivdimros  tov  Xpurrov  tovtov.  With  this  passage  Mr  Conybeare 
compares  a  later  passage  in  the  Dialogue  (53,  p.  373  C),  in  which 
he  thinks  that 'Justin  glances  at  Matt,  xxviii  19':  xal  r^  A«<rficwup 
. . .  [Gen.  xlix  11]  t&v  ivl  Tjjt  vp^Ti\s  a^ov  irapowCas  y€vofUvav  iv* 
a^ov  jtal  T&v  i0vw  6noCa>s  r&v  ixtX.K6vTetv  'Triareifcuf  airrif  vpoi-^\anrts 
^p.  ojtrot  yiip  its  ii&Kos  dtray^s  xal  (vyhp  ivl  av^'iva  /a^  ^x*'*'  ^^^  'avroi^ 
fUxfiif  i  Xpurrhs  oirror  i\6itv  hih  rav  /xadt^ruy  airrw  ir4ftyfras  ifuiO'^ewriV 
avraCi.  In  the  second  passage,  indeed,  there  is  nothing  directly 
bearing  on  the  question  of  the  reading  in  Matt,  xxviii  19 ;  but 
'the  very  occurrence  of  the  passage',  Mr  Conybeare  urges, 
*  strengthens  the  surmise  that  Justin  was  acquainted  with  Matt 
xxviii  19,  and  really  glanced  at  it  in  p.  358'.    The  evidence  of 


49©         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

the  former  passage  (p.  258  A)  seems  to  me,  I  confess,  very  sliighL 
The  word  fia&rjTtvfitr  {-t(r&<n)  occurs  in  several  contexts  in  Justin— 
Afi.  I  15  (62  B)  tit  cjc  itaQitov  lfta6iiTf^$itatui  iy  Xpurry,  Afi.  II  4 
(43  D)  naBirrevBTJvai  tU  to  Btla  it&iyfioTa,  Dud.  39  (25S  C)  al  h 
isotriji  r^s  &ki\$fiai  fx*fia&ijT(vfi4w>i '.  Thus  the  phrase  fuiffirrnoftcem 
tit  T&  Svofia  rem  Xptarov  avrov  IS  quite  in  Justin's  manner,  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  context  which  recalls  the  language  or  the 
thought  of  Matt,  xxviii  19  f. 

'The second  passage',toquotc  MrConybeare*s  wordsi^eiiMkrifi 
p.  283},  *  is  in  the  Pastor  Hermae  and  is  a  less  certain  refereoce'; 
Sim.  ix  17  4  -rdvra  t&  4$vrj  ra  uird  rdv  oi/pavcv  KoroiKOVifra  ixoitrem 
Kdl  vicTtvaavra  ^iri  r^  Svofiari  ix^'q^rai'  [tov  vlov]  Tov  0fov.  Aoydomt 
051-  TT)v  (TipfiayTha  filav  rfipavrjirtv  ttrj(ov  Kol  tva  pmv,  Koi  ftta  rAmi 
airruf  tyipertt  Koi  [f^Ui]  iytiiTTi.  There  is  some  doubt  as  to  the  reading 
iiil  T^ovofiari,  The  Aethiopjc version  apparentlyomitsthcwofds. 
Dr  Harmer  in  the  critical  note  in  Dr  Lightfoot's  edition  con- 
jectures ivi  dvofmrt — a  conjecture  which  certainly  fits  in  admirably 
with  the  context.  But  in  fact  the  passage  appears  to  me  to  havt 
no  point  of  contact  with  Matt,  xxviii  19  and  may  safely  be 
set  aside. 

Thus  the  evidence  outside  Eusebius  for  the  reading  fia0t}Tfv<rau 
v&tfTa  Tci  idvT}  iv  T^  6v6y.an  fi-ov  consists  of  a  single  passage  ia 
Justin;  and  the  reference  to  St  Matthew  in  this  passage  acenis 
to  me  exceedingly  doubtful",    Jf  the  reference  were  clear  aod 

>  It  it  4]ulte  natural  that,  wholly  apart  rron  any  remetnbmiee  of  tk«  laagaafc  of 
th«  N.T.,  the  word  ;iatfi}T4u«if  (-<«AaL)  should  have  a  conspicuous  place  ia  the 
vocabulary  of  ikc  early  Christians,  It  occun  e.  g,  in  Ignatiua  £/A.  Ui  {rir  yAfifjiff 
tx»>  TOV  iiafiijTtiiattu),  x  (IwtrpiiJMT*  ovf  airmi  K&r  f  c  rnrr  fpyar  Irfiof  ftattfrn^^m'h 
ftom,    iji    (A  jja^r*ioyT*r    trrtXXtaSi),    v    (If    It    t<hi    iiiK^fiaaiv    aOritf    paMm 

*  Mr  Conybcarc  further  appeals  to  th«  fonn  in  which  Aphraates  quotes  Katl 
xxviii  19  '  Go  Forth,  nuke  disciples  of  all  the  peoples,  and  they  shall  believe  la  me* 
(cd.  Wright,  p.  1 1),  Aphraates  '  composed  his  works,  as  he  himself  tells  as.  in  the 
years  ^37,  J44  and  3^5 '  (Wriphl  Syriae  LiUrahtrt  p.  53).  Mr  Conybcare  (//i*- 
btrt  Journal  p.  107)  says  that  >  the  )sst  words  [i  c.  and  iJtfy  shatt  Minv  m  «m] 
appear  to  be  a  gloss  on  the  Eusebian  reading  in  my  mam* '.  I  veitlure  to  point  oal 
that  the  meauing  of  I'w  my  namt  is  essentially  different  from  the  meaning  of  mad 
tkty  sAeill  Mftv4  in  ttu,  and  that  therefore  the  latter  words  are  not  a  natural  glen 
on  the  former.  U  appears  to  mc  that  and  thty  iJiail  MittM  in  mt  i*  an  additiea 
quite  independent  of  the  addition  it  my  natm,  but  generated  b  the  same  way,  Lc 
due  to  aasimltatiDn.  One  MS  of  Aphraates'  Homily  On  Faith  reads  'Go  Cdftlh 
priatk  to  ..  ,'.  The  word  'preach  to'  Is  the  common  Syriac  word  ottbiamtmaa^ 
tt  is  the  word  used  in  the  Syriac  Vulgate  (neither  the  Curetonian  nor  tbe  Skwtlll 


if 


THE   lord's   command   TO   BAPTIZE  491 

decisive,  I  should  point  out  (i)  that  Justin  preserves  very  early 
'  Western '  readings,  and  that  therefore  the  reference  would  not 
justify  any  conclusion  as  to  the  original  text  of  Matt,  xxviii  19  ; 

(2)  that  in  the  immediately  succeeding  context  we  have  an 
allusion  to  Baptism — (panContvoi  (c£  r^v  tnppayiia  in  Hermas) — 
and  that  therefore  the  passage  would  afford  an  indication  that 
Justin  found  in  the  text  of  St  Matthew  the  command  to  baptize. 
The  absence  of  evidence,  however,  for  the  currency  of  this  reading 
cannot  be  taken  as  a  proof  that  it  was  not  current.  It  has 
constantly  happened  in  the  past  that  a  fresh  investigaticm.  of 
Patristic  texts  or  the  discovery  of  a  new  document  has  brought 
to  light  independent  attestation  of  a  reading  what  had  before 
been  r^^arded  as  the  'singular'  reading  of  some  MS  or  of 
some  Father. 

(iii)  On  the  other  hand  the  addition  of  the  words  h  t^  ^viffiarf 
/Mw  may  be  an  eccentric  reading  peculiar  to,  and  due  to,  Eusebius 
himself.  That  such  readings  occur  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers 
and  that  such  readings  became  more  or  less  habitual  to  them  is 
certain.  It  must  suffice  to  refer  to  Dr  Westcott's  analysis  of  the 
quotations  from  the  N.T.  in  Chrysostom's  Treatise  on  the 
Priesthood  (Canon,  ed,  5,  p.  xxx).    That  Eusebius  comments 

is  extant  in  thia  verse)  In  the  parallel  passage  [Marie]  xvi  15.  I  believe  that  the 
addition  attd  Utty  ahaU  btHtvt  m  mt  is  drawn  from  [Hark]  zvi  15-17.  I  call  atten- 
tion to  four  points  :  (i)  In[lfark]  xvi  i5<beIier'follows'prauJiinc'.  Pnadttkt 
go^to  allcrtatioH.  Ht  that  btlitvtth,  .  . .  Hence  the  addition  of  oitd  tkty  skaU 
Mint  IK  tM«  is  a  most  natural  addition  in  the  parallel,  Uatt.  xxviii  19.  (>)  In 
[Hark]  xvi  15  f<  belief  is  the  link  between  the  'preaching'  and  the  'baptizing*. 
'  PrtackthtGoMptltotMertatioH.  Ht  that  bditvitk  and  iabaptimidaiMMbt  moid.  The 
well-lcnown  interpolation  in  Acta  viii  37  (see  belowp.  499)  is  an  indication  how  smch 
stress  was  rightly  laid  in  early  times  on  the  necessity  of  *belief '  in  this  connexion. 
CoDpare  the  following  passage  from  the  same  Homily  of  Aphraates  (p.  31),  'And 
yAxn  again  our  Lord  gave  the  mystery  of  Baptism  to  His  Apostles,  thns  He  said 
to  them  Ht  thai  btHevttfi  and  is  baptixtd  shall  l>v§  and  ht  that  bilitvtth  not  isju^gmi.* 
1  submit  therefore  that  Aphraates'  form  of  quotation  is  a  strong  argument  that  in  hia 
text  of  Hatthew  the  tuptiamal  command  followed  the  words  which  he  quotes. 

(3)  The  phrase  itself,  thty  shall  btlins  m  mm,  is,  I  believe,  an  echo  of  [Hark]  xvi  17, 
Thist  signs  shall  follow  thtm  that  btUtvt.  This  suggestion  is  strongly  confirmed  by 
the  fact  that  in  the  Curetonian  (the  Sinaitic  is  not  extant  here)  we  read  in  [Hark] 
xvi  17  that  btHnm  in  mt,  though  it  should  be  added  that  when  Aphraates  quotes  the 
vene  (p.  ai)  he  has  simply  thoss  that  bJint.  (4)  The  fragments  of  Tatian'a 
Diattssaron  preserved  in  Ephraem's  Commentaiy  shew  that  Matt,  xxviii  19  and 
[Hark]  xvi  15  were  intertwined  in  the  form  of  the  Gospel  chiefly  known  among 
Syriac  Christians.  The  words  are  these.  Go  y*  into  all  Iht  world . . .  and  bapHat 
thtm  m  Iht  namt.  (re.  (Hamlyn  Hill  Tht  Earlitst  Lifiof  Christ  p.  376). 


4^         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

on  the  words  ^p  r^  iJiuJ/xot^  ^ow  is  no  proof  that  they  were  not  aa 
addition  of  his  own.  To  take  one  example,  Chrysostom  (vu 
a75  C)  in  place  of  ip  vJurji  rp  b6(^  alrov  (Matt,  vi  ag)  has  a 
reading  which  has  no  other  support,  and  is,  I  think,  clearly  his 
own  invention — (v  vArrp  r^  ffofriKfU^  airrov.  But  he  expounds  it : 
•Solomon  was  proved  inferior  to  the  flowers  in  splendour,  not 
once  or  twice,  but  throughout  his  whole  reign.* 

Between  these  two  alternatives  which  we  have  just  considered  It 
is  not  necessary  to  endeavour  to  make  a  choice.  I  do  not  think 
that  the  evidence  at  our  disposal  justifies  an  absolute  decision.  The 
really  important  point  is  that  the  inclusion  of  the  words  iv  ry  ivSfiari 
fjiov  in  the  text  of  Matt,  xxviii  19  does  not  prove  the  absence  froa 
that  same  text  of  the  Lord's  command  to  baptize.  The  words 
T!optv0ivT(t  owe  nadijTcvtraTi  irdvra  to  idi'7}  arc  very  frequently 
quoted  as  a  proof-text  in  regard  to  the  extension  of  the  Church 
to  the  Gentiles  by  writers  who  certainly  looked  on  the  commaDd 
to  baptize  as  part  of  the  genuine  text  of  the  Gospel*;  and 
I  confess  that  it  appears  to  me  most  probable  that  they  wcrt 
appended  to  the  command  to  *make  disciples  of  all  the  nations' 
as  a  natural  complement,  in  the  light  of  the  parallel  passages 
[Mark]  xvi  17  and  Luke  xxiv  47,  when  that  command  wax 
quoted  by  itself  apart  from  its  context  But  there  Is  not  any- 
thing unnatural,  still  less  impossible,  in  the  combination — '  make 
disciples  of  all  nations  in  my  name,  baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost' 
It  \9  best,  however,  to  appeal  to  facts.  In  the  Theopkanias  I7i 
46,  49  (cd.  Lee  pp.  298,  333, 336)  Eusebius  quotes  and  emphasizes 
the  words  '  in  my  name '  as  part  of  the  Lord's  command  as  to  the 
Apostles'  mission  to  'all  the  nations',  while  in  an  earlier  pass^ 
of  the  same  treatise — iv  H  (ed.  Lee  p.  323  AT) — he  unmistakeably 
refers  to  the  command  to  baptize  (see  below  p.  494). 

We  are  thus  led  in  the  next  place  to  take  note  of  the  fact  that 
in  three  of  his  writings  Eusebius  either  explicitly  quotes  or  clearly 
alludes  to  the  words  ^aTni^oimt  avrovs  (is  rh  Jro^  ic.t.X. 

{a)  Eusebius's  Letter  to  his  Church  at  Cacsarca,  written  jost 
after  the  Council  of  Nicaca,  a.d.  325,  is  preserved  in  Socrates 
H.  E.  i  8.     The  Bishop's  object  is  to  justify  to  his  6ock  his 

1  Sec,  for  eumplCfChrysotom't  works,  eg,  MigncAC.  Ivi  30;  Iviu649;in  jfil^ 
434  (*^). 


THE   LORD'S   COMMAND  TO   BAPTIZE  493 

proceedings  at  the  great  Council,  and  to  defend  himself  against  the 
aspersions  made  on  him  by  representatives  of  both  sides.  He 
laid  before  the  Council,  he  tells  his  diocese,  a  document  which 
was  read  at  the  Council  and  approved.  It  runs  thus :  *  As  we 
received  from  those  who  were  Bishops  before  us  both  in  our 
catechumenate,  and  when  we  received  the  washing  [of  Baptism], 
and  as  we  have  learned  from  the  divine  Scriptures,  and  as  in  the 
presbyterate  and  in  the  episcopate  itself  we  have  believed  and 
taught,  so  now  believing,  we  do  lay  before  you  this  our  state- 
ment of  faith.'  The  Creed  of  Caesarea  follows.  Eusebius  then 
continues,  *  We  believe  that  each  of  these  Persons  is  and  subsists, 
the  Father  truly  Father,  and  the  Son  truly  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  truly  Holy  Ghost ;  as  also  our  Lord,  when  sending  His 
disciples  to  preach,  said  Go  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations^ 
baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father ^  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  touching  these  matters  we  affirm  that 
we  so  hold  and  so  think,  and  have  ever  so  held,  and  will  so 
bold  unto  death,  and  that  in  this  faith  we  are  steadfast.'  ^ 

{b)  In  the  Books  Against  Marcellus  and  in  the  continuation  of 

^  In  his  iTticIe  in  tbe  Zntschr^  Jkr  di«  ntnUsiamm&ciu  WtsMMadiaft,  1903, 
p.  333,  Hr  Conybeare  quotes  the  words  of  this  pssuge  ('  We  believe  that  each 
.  .  .  Holy  Ghost ").  He  then  adds,  '  The  above  pasaa^^  has  been  foisted  into  the 
text  from  the  iUi;  Mtoa  ■wimton  produced  at  the  council  of  Antioch  in  341,  in 
which  it  is  found  verbatim  (Socrates  II,  Ch.  10,  p.  87J  *.  The  passage  from  tbe 
dXAi;  Mtfftt  is  as  follows :  * . . .  and  [we  believe]  in  tbe  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  given 
to  those  who  believe  unto  comfort  and  sanctiScation  and  unto  perfection ;  aa  also 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  commanded  the  disciples,  saying  Go  and  mtdU  diadfiUs  ef  ail 
Iht  MttHotts,  bapHmig  Ihtm  into  tht  namt  oftlu  Fathtr  and  <^tlu  Son  and  t^ilu  Holy 
Ghost,  that  is  [into  the  name]  of  the  Father  truly  Father,  of  the  Son  truly  Son,  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  truly  Holy  Ghost ;  the  names  not  being  used  loosely  and  idly,  bat 
precisely  expressing  the  subsistence  and  order  and  glory  of  tbe  Persons  named.* 
Students  can  judge  whether  Hr  Conybeare  is  correct  in  saying  that  the  passage  in 
EuseUus's  Letter  is  found '  verbatim '  in  the  AXAi;  tiOtaa.  No  doubt  the  two  passages 
are  very  ^miiar  in  meaning.  Nothing  is  more  common  than  that  one  doctrinal 
document  should  contain  a  passage  very  similar  to  a  passage  in  another  doctrinal 
document  In  this  particular  case  the  similarity  may  be  explained  in  one  of  two 
ways,  (i)  Tbe  ^AAi;  l*0«r»  was  an  old  creed  reputed  to  be  that  of  the  mar^ 
Lucian  of  Antioch  (Gwatkin  Studits  0/ Arianiam  p.  116).  Nothing  could  possibly 
be  more  natural  than  that  Eusebius  should  echo  the  words  of  so  venerated  a  teacher, 
whose  pupils  were  numerous  among  those  who  more  or  leu  sympathized  with 
Arius.  (3)  If  it  is  contended  that  the  Lucianic  Creed  coincided  only  with  that 
portion  of  the  JXAi;  Mtatt  which  is  a  Creed  proper,  then  we  may  say  that  it  was 
completely  natural  that  the  Arianitcrs  at  the  Council  of  Antioch,  tudding  for  'con- 
servative '  support,  should  echo  the  doctrinal  statements  of  tbe  learned  EuseUus, 
who  had  died  only  a  few  years  previously. 


494         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

that  treatise,  viz.  the  treatise  On  tite  Tyologyofthe  Ckurck^ymXXza 
at  the  end  of  his  life,  Eusebius  quotes  or  refers  to  the  Lord's 
command  to  baptize,  in  two  passages — Contra  Marcelbem  11 
(Migne  P.  G.  xxiv  716  R),  De  Ecctes.  TfuoL  \\\  5  (Migne  P.  G. 
xxiv  1013  A).  I  have  considered  in  a  separate  note  at  the  end  of 
this  article  the  objections  which  Mr  Conybcare  has  urged  agalnit 
the  Eusebian  authorship  of  these  two  treatises. 

{c)  The  treatise  on  the  Incarnation,  called  @co^(u><(a,  is  preserved 
in  a  Syriac  version,  an  English  translation  of  which  was  published 
in  1S43  by  Professor  Samuel  Lee.  A  collection  of  Greek  frag- 
ments of  tliis  treatise  was  in  1847  published  by  Mai  in  hii 
Bibliotheca  ncma  Patrum  iv ;  these  fragments  are  reprinted  h 
Migne  P.  G.  xxiv  609-690.  The  Thcophania  was  perhaps  left 
unfinished  by  Eusebius  at  his  death ;  at  any  rate  it  appears  to 
have  been  his  last  literary  work  (Bp.  Lightfoot,  art.  Euscbttis 
of  Cacsarea,  in  the  Diet.  Chr.  Biography  ii  p.  333).  In  the 
Syriac  version  of  the  Tkeopfiattia  iv  8  (ed.  Lee  pp.  233  ff) 
Matt,  xxviii  18-20  ('all  power  .  .  .  the  end  of  the  world 'j  15 
quoted  in  full  and  an  explicit  reference  to  the  command  to  baptize 
occurs  in  the  subsequent  context.  The  passage  in  question  is 
found  among  the  Greek  fragments  (Migne  P.  G.  xxiv  629J.  Here 
the  command  to  baptize  is  not  quoted  but  clearly  implied.  I  pve 
the  substance  of  the  passage  and  the  important  words  in  full. 
Eusebius  adduces  the  words  of  Ps.  ii  8  ('  Ask  of  mc  and  I  will 
give  thee  the  nations  for  thine  inheritance ').  'Wherefore,  as  if 
the  prophetic  testimony  had  now  been  fulfilled  in  deed,  the  Lord 
saith  to  His  disciples — according  to  Matthew  iho^rx  ^oi  tbto 
i^Mtria  us  iv  oipai-^  Kal  iitl  yijs,  and  according  to  Luke  Sn  0a 
iirfpv)(^$i}ijai  ittl  Tw  (Ji^noTi  avrov  ^ifrdvoiav  Ka\  6.iptau)  a/iopTi&p  dt 
ttdvra  Ta  i6in}.  , . .  Not  on  any  former  occasion  but  only  nofw  at 
length  did  He  command  His  disciples  to  go  about  and  make 

disciples  of  all  the  nations.  ^ A.vayKaioi':  h^  ■apo(rr($i}at  rd  fivcmgpwr 
Tift  aTTOKaOipatuti'  ixP'l"  V^fi  ^*^^*"  ^f  iOv&i/  int,(rrpf^fin-as  vamt 
(loAvofioC  Koi  (iticrfiOTOS  iia  r^y  ovrou  5wr(iM<a'S  &i:0Ka&aifH<T6ai  «n  j^ 
imiiovLK^t  Kol  «lla>\o\dTpov  vK^pTis  .  .  .  TovTovs  a  Kol  2i2<Ltmip 
vapaipti  juiCTa  r^v  aTToniOapviv  r^r  8l^  riji  aitov  ixvariKijs  Si&aoKoXIcf 
oil  TO  'lovJa'tKa  wapayyA/^ara . . .  iWa  5<Ta  avrols  ivtT€l\aTo  ^thV^rrfir.'* 

■  Here  it  wlU  be  noted  (1)  that  Matt,  xxviij  18  and  Luk«  xxiv  47  «r6  quoted  sMe 
by  Bide;  (a)  that  ilitt.  xinui  18  u  welded  fogetlier  with  Mml  vi  10  (tbe  Lofd^ 


THE   LORD'S   COMMAND   TO   BAPTIZE  495 

In  this  passage  it  will  be  noticed  that  Eusebius  definitely  refers 
to  the  passage  as  from  St  Matthew's  Gospel.  I  believe  that 
I  am  correct  in  asserting  that  he  does  not  do  so  in  any  of  the 
passages  belonging  to  the  two  groups  considered  above  (p.  485). 
He  says  that  after  the  command  itaOriTtiHraTt  k.t.\.  our  Lord 
added  rh  fivtm/iptov  Trjs  diroicadttpo-ccof ,  and  that 'after  the  cleansii^* 
He  commanded  the  disciples  *  to  teach '  converts  from  heathenism. 
Thus '  the  cleansing '  has  the  same  place  in  the  series  of  commands 
here  which  the  Baptismal  command  has  in  St  Matthew.  'The 
cleansing'  is  defined  as  17  iia  ttjs  airrov  fivariKrjs  dtSao'icaA^if,  i.e. 
which  comes  to  us  through  the  Lord's  teaching  on  the  sacrament 
of  Baptism.  The  habitual  language  of  the  Fathers  leaves  no 
doubt  that  the  words  fivarr^ptov  and  ^vtrnxcff  refer  to  Baptism  (see 
Sophocles'  Lexicon  sit&  vocibus^). 

But  Mr  Conybeare  pleads  {Zeitschrift  p.  282)  that  these  three 
passages 'belong  to  the  last  period  of  [Eusebius's]  literary  activity 
which  fell  after  the  council  of  Nice  *.  Again, '  it  is  evident ',  he 
says  {Hibbert  yournal  p.  105),  *  that  this  [i.e.  /xodiyretw-arf  xtbra 
ra  iBvtf  iv  r^  dvSiJxa-l  fiov]  was  the  text  found  by  Eusebius  in  the 
very  ancient  codtces  collected  fifty  to  a  hundred  and  fifty  years 
before  his  birth  by  his  great  predecessors.  Of  any  other  form  of 
text  he  had  never  heard,  and  knew  nothing  until  he  had  visited 
Constantinople  and  attended  the  Council  of  Nice*.  On  this 
position,  over  and  above  what  has  been  already  said  as  to  the 
real  significance  of  the  words  iv  rif  ^vStiorC  fum  (p.  49a),  I  venture 
to  call  attention  to  two  considerations. 

(i)  In  the  first  place  we  turn  to  Eusebius's  letter  to  his  Church 
at  Caesarea, quoted  atx>ve  (p.  493).  '  Perhaps',  writes  Mr  Conybeare 
{Zeitschrift  fur  die  neutest.  Wissenschaft,  1903,  p.  334),  'the 
Epistle  is  after  all  wrongly  ascribed  by  Socrates  to  Eusebius 
Pamphili.'  Against  this  'perhaps'  must  be  set  evidence  both 
internal  and  external.  The  position  which  the  writer  of  the 
Letter  takes  up,  and  the  story  which  he  tells,  correspond  with 

Pnyer)  ;  (3)  that  Luke  xxiv  47  is  welded  together  with  verae  44 ;  (4)  ^v>Jvm» 
takes  the  place  of  njpfM'.  These  points  are  of  importance  in  considering  how  far 
Eusetnus  is  in  the  habit  of  quoting  the  N.  T.  accurately. 

'  Comp.  Eus.  Viia  CoMstant,  iv  71  fwaruc^s  Xurovpytas  dfio^fuiroy.  Riggenbacb 
(p.  ao)  refers  to  Demons.  Evan,  i  10  (Migne  P.  G.  xzii  88  C)  oS  iii  Tqt  Mim/  «al 
liiwrut^r  HiiaoMaXiat  v4rT«  iftut  ol  i£  Mviw  r^f  i^aw  rm  wpariptiv  iiMpnjfiirM' 


4g6  THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

what  we  know  of  the  position  of  Euscbius  of  Cacsarea  and  of  his 
relation  to  the  various  parties  at  the  Council  of  Nicaea.  Again, 
the  Letter  is  not  given  by  Socrates  alone.  It  is  alluded  to  hy 
Athanasius  in  the  tract  de  Decret.  Nic.  Syn,  (Mignc  P.  G.  xxv 
438) ;  it  is  given  in  full  as  an  appendix  to  that  tract,  and  by 
Theodoret  H.  E.\  11  and  Gclasius  Hist.  Cone.  Nu.  ii  34  (Macsi 
CoHc.  Nov.  Coll,  ii  913).  Nor  is  there  the  smallest  ground  for 
thinking  that  Matt,  xxviii  19  is  an  interpolation  in  the  text  of  the 
Letter ;  for  that  text  is  given  by  all  the  authorities  for  the  Letter, 
and  the  words  'as  we  have  learned  from  the  divtnc  Scriptures' 
prepared  the  way  for  this  testimonium.  Eusebius  expressly  asserts 
that  what  he  insists  on  in  his  Letter  he  had  learned  in  bis  earliest 
days.  To  suppose  that  in  the  midst  of  protestations  so  public  and 
so  solemn,  Eusebius  appealed  to  a  passage  of  St  Matthew  whicb 
he  knew  to  be  no  part  of  the  genuine  text  is  entirely  to  misunder- 
stand his  character.  He  was  an  honest  as  well  as  a  learned  nun. 
In  emphatic  language  he  bears  his  witness  that  'nearly  all  the 
copies  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark '  break  off  at  xvi  8  (see 
Dr  Hort  Notts  on  Select  Readings  p.  31). 

(2}  The  real  question  seems  to  me  to  be  not  the  date  but  the 
character  of  the  Eusebian  writings  in  which  our  Lord's  coraaiasd 
to  baptize  is  adduced.  The  Letter  to  the  Church  of  Caesarea  is 
intended  only  for  'the  faithful '.  The  THeopkania  and  the  treatises 
against  Marccllus  arc  distinctly  theol<^ical  treatises,  R^rgenbach 
(p,  29)  finds  an  explanation  of  the  silence  of  Eusebius  elsewhere 
as  to  the  Baptismal  command  in  the  disciplina  areaniy 
Professor  Lake,  in  his  Inaugural  Lecture  (p.  to),  dismisses  the 
suggestion  ina  somewhat  contemptuous  footnote:  'The  suggestion 
that  it  is  due  to  the  Disciplina  Arcani  seems  a  counsel  of  despair.' 
I  cannot  agree  with  him.  What  arc  the  facts  ?  Cyril  of  Jertisaleni 
{Catedu  vi  29,  Migne  P.  G.  xxxiii  589)  says,  *To  a  heathen 
(ftfntf)  we  do  not  expound  the  mysteries  concerning  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  nor  do  wc  speak  plainly  of  the  things 
touching  the  mysteries  in  the  presence  of  catechumens ;  but 
we  often  say  many  things  in  a  hidden  fashion,  in  order  that  the 
faithful  who  know  may  understand,  and  that  those  who  koov 

'  RisXcntMch  (p.  30)  rcTcrs  to  the  very  remarkable  way  in  which  the  Eudurittic 
words  Arc  rcrcrred  to  by  Epiphanius  {^Atv.  ^7)  d»-49r^  \¥  tf  ^ivr^  «al  t)^a^  rsSt  at 
liiXofiiaHiaas  itwt,  iavT6  fwv  leri  r^S<. 


THE   LORD'S   COMMAND  TO  BAPTIZE  497 

not  may  not  suffer  harm.*  Chrysostom  (x  379  A)  will  not,  in 
explainii^  the  words  ol  paitTi(6nfvoi  vnip  t&p  vtKp&v  (i  Cor.  xv  39), 
refer  explicitly  to  the  baptismal  rite — oii  roVfi  8(^  rmn  iiiv^ovs. 
This  is  only  one  out  of  many  similar  passages  io  bis  Homilies. 
No  doubt  this  rule  of  silence  was  not  consistently  observed. 
That  probably  would  have  been  impossible.  But  at  any  rate,  in 
treatises  which  were  apologetic,  or  which  were  Hkely  to  come  into 
the  hands  of  other  than  '  the  faithful ',  a  Christian  teacher  would 
refrain  from  bringing  into  prominence  Scriptural  passages  dealing 
with  Baptism  or  with  the  Trinity.  The  baptismal  command  in 
Matt,  xxviii  19  deals  with  both.  None  of  the  Fathers  quotes 
Scripture  more  incessantly  than  Chrysostom.  But  I  can  find 
no  reference  to  the  baptismal  command  in  the  Homilies  on 
St  Matthew's  Gospel  (except  of  course  the  comment  on  xxviii  19), 
nor  in  the  Homilfes  on  St  John's  Gospel.  Twice  only  does  he 
quote  the  words  in  the  Homilies  on  St  Paul's  Epistles,  viz.  in  his 
comments  on  3  Thess.  iii  17  f,  and  on  Heb.  ii  18  (see  above 
p.  487).  Even  more  significant  than  these  facts  is  the  brevity  and 
restraint  of  Chrysostom's  comment  on  the  text  itself  when  he 
comes  to  it  in  his  exposition  of  St  Matthew.  After  quoting  the 
words  {voptvBivrts  ....  iverttk^riv  i^ui')  he  proceeds  thus :  •  He 
gives  them  orders  partly  about  doctrines  and  partly  about  com- 
mandments. And  of  the  Jews  He  says  not  a  word,  nor  does  He 
make  mention  of  the  things  which  had  happened,  nor  does 
He  upbraid  Peter  with  his  denial  nor  any  of  the  others  with  their 
flight ;  but  He  commands  them  to  spread  themselves  over  the 
whole  world,  entrusting  them  with  a  brief  teaching,  even  that 
teachii^  which  is  by  Baptism  (tn/vro/tov  bi^turKoXiav  iyxtipCirait 
T^v  dia  ToS  ^airrCirnaTos).  Then,  when  He  had  laid  great  com- 
mands upon  them,  raising  their  thoughts,  He  saith,  Lo  /  am  with 
you  all  the  days  unto  the  Consummation  of  the  age*  I  submit  then 
that,  when  we  take  facts  into  account,  we  find  in  the  dtsciplina 
arcani  an  amply  sufficient  explanation  of  Eusebius's  general 
reticence  as  to  the  baptismal  command  of  Christ 

Lastly,  we  must  review  the  textual  evidence.  Mr  Conybeare 
{Zeitschrift  p.  388)  writes  thus:  'Did  it  [le.  Matt,  xxviii  19] 
not  arise,  like  the  text  of  the  three  witnesses,  in  the  African  old 
Latin  texts  first  of  all,  then  creep  into  the  Greek  texts  at  Rome, 
and  finally  establish  itself  in  the  East  during  the  Nicene  epoch, 

VOL.  VI.  K  k 


4^         THE   JOURHAL  OF  THEOLOCICAI.  STUDfES 

m  time  to  6gnrc  in  all  surviving  Grcdc  codices  ? '  He  cxpmses 
{ffib&ert  Journal  p.  ic^f)  the  belief  tlot  he  has  *  been  able  to 
substantiate  these  doubts  of  the  anthentidty  of  the  text.  Matt 
xxviii  19,  by  adducing  patristic  evidence  agxtnit  it  so  weighty 
that  in  future  the  most  consenrative  of  divines  will  sferiak 
from  resting  on  it  any  dogmatic  fabric  at  all.  while  the  noR 
enlightened  will  discard  it  as  cocnpletely  as  they  have  dooe  its 
fellow  text  of  the  three  witnesses'.  I  have  endeavoured  abcM 
to  test  the  weight  of  the  patristic  evidence  which  Mr  Conyfaeue 
adduces.  Scholars  will  judge  whether  it  is  stxh  as  to  'si^ 
stantiatc  these  doubts  of  the  authenticity  of  the  text  *  in  qoestioa 
Tn  regard  to  the  comparison  between  Matt.  xxviS  19  and  Uk 
interpolation  of  the  words  about  the  Three  Witnesses  in  1  Joha 
V  7  I  refrain  from  making  any  comment  save  an  appeal  te 
(acts.  The  text  as  to  the  Three  Witnesses  is  found  in  ceitaia 
Latin  authorities,  viz.  the  Speculum  (m).  in  one  old  Latin  MS  (r^ 
in  most  of  the  MSS  of  the  t^atin  Vulgate  (bat  not  in  the  best« 
such  as  am.  fuld.),  tn  some  African  Latin  Fathers  of  the  fifth 
and  sixth  centuries  (Vigilius  of  Thapsus,  Fulgcntius  of  Rn^e^ 
Victor  Vitensis)  and  in  the  Spanish  writer  Priscillian  (died  585)1 
The  only  authorities  for  the  Greek  text  arc  two  cursive  MSS, 
Codd.  163,  54,  belonging  respectively  to  the  6flecnth  and 
sixteenth  centuries.  On  the  other  hand,  the  command  to  baptize 
in  Matt,  xxviii  19  Is  found  in  every  known  MS  (uncial  and 
cursive)  in  which  this  fwrtion  of  St  Matthew  is  extant,  and  in 
every  known  Version  in  which  this  portion  of  St  Matthew  is 
extant.  The  Curetonian  Old  S)mac  breaks  off  in  St  Mattbev 
at  xxiii  15.  and  the  Sinaitic  at  xxvii  7 ;  but  it  should  be 
observed  that  the  text  in  question  is  contained  in  Tatian's 
Diatessaron  (Hamlyn  Hill  The  Earlitst  Life  of  Christ  pp.  »6j, 
376).  Again,  Codex  Bobiensis  {k\  the  oldest  representatiTC 
among  MSS  of  the  African  text,  has  nothing  in  St  Matthew 
after  xv  3(5.  But  Ccxlcx  Bobiensis  has  some  clear  affinity  with 
Codex  Palatinus  (r)  and  a  still  greater  affinity  with  the  text  used 
by  Cyprian.  *The  text  which  the  two  MSS  present  is  really 
Cyprianic*  (Dr  Sanday  in  Old  Latin  BibOcal  Trxts  11  p. 
btxviJ).  The  Baptismal  command  is  found  in  e  and  in  many 
passages  of  Cyprian  (e.g.  Epp.  xxvii,  Ixxiii  ^\  Passing  00  from 
the  consideration  of  MSS  and  Versions,  we  note  that  Matt. 


THE   LORD  S   COMMAND  TO   BAPTIZE  499 

xxviii  19  is  quoted  by  writers  so  early  as  Irenaeus  iii  171  (Lat. 
version),  by  Hippolytus  Contra  Noetum  14,  and  by  Tertullian  (see 
below  p.  50a).  The  reference  in  the  Didachi  (sec  below  p.  506) 
may  reasonably  be  r^arded  as  a  quotation.  Thus  the  attestation 
of  Matt,  xxviii  1 9  can  only  be  described  as  overwhelmii^. 

But  in  spite  of  this  attestation  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  it 
arose, '  like  the  text  of  the  three  witnesses,  in  the  African  old 
I-atin  texts  first  of  all,  then  [crept]  into  the  Greek  texts  at  Rome, 
and  finally  [established]  itself  in  the  East  during  the  Nicene 
epoch,  in  time  to  figure  in  all  surviving  Greek  codices '  ?  The 
answer,  I  believe,  is  simple  and  decisive.  All  the  'surviving 
Greek  codices'  were  not  produced  by  a  band  of  conspirators. 
They  grew  up  naturally  in  different  portions  of  the  Greek- 
speakfng  Church.  An  interpolation  could  not  be  thus  foisted 
into  the  text  of  the  Gospels,  and  all  evidence  of  its  true  character 
be  obliterated.  We  appeal  to  facts.  The  comparison  between 
Matt,  xxviii  19  and  'the  text  of  the  three  witnesses'  is,  I  venture 
to  think,  singularly  unfortunate.  That  text  does  not '  figure  in  all 
surviving  Greek  codices '.  Or  take  the  twelve  verses  which  form  an 
Appendix  to  St  Mark's  Gospel.  They  are  attested  by  Irenaeus, 
Tatian  {Diatessaron)^  perhaps  by  Justin  Martyr.  The  evidence  for 
their  inclusion  in  the  Gospel  goes  back  to  the  second  century. 
But  in  MSS  and  in  statements  of  certain  Fathers  we  have 
evidence,  manifold  and  clear,  that  they  are  an  unauthentic  addition. 
Or  again,  take  the  passage — Acts  viii  37 — in  which  a  question  and 
answer  such  as  became  usual  in  the  Baptismal  rite  of  later  times 
are  inserted  in  the  story  of  the  Baptism  of  the  Eunuch.  Here 
is  an  interpolation  which  goes  back  to  the  time  of  Irenaeus.  But 
a  glance  at  an  apparatus  crstuus  shews  how  slight  is  the  support 
which  it  has  in  MSS  and  Versions.  I  believe  that  it  is  only 
when  we  shut  our  eyes  to  facts  that  we  can  persuade  ourselves, 
or  allow  ourselves  to  be  persuaded,  that  it  was  possible  for  words 
to  have  been  interpolated  in  the  text  of  the  Gospels  without 
a  trace  of  their  true  character  surviving  in  MSS,  Versions,  and 
in  statements  of  the  Fathers. 

The  whole  evidence — such  I  believe  must  be  the  verdict  of 
scientific  criticism — establishes  without  a  shadow  of  doubt  or 
uncertainty  the  genuineness  of  Matt  xxviii  19. 

Kks 


goo         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGiaVL   STUDIES 

(III)  We  now  pass  on  to  consider  the  interpretation  of  the 
words  which  form  part  of  the  great  commission — ^irrlCorrtt 
avToiit  <U  Td  SvoyM  tqv  irarpos  nal  rou  vlov  kqX  tov  hylov  in>n^n)t. 
What  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  ^airrfC*"'  c's-  rh  SvoftAl  The 
A.  v.,  following  the  earlier  English  versions,  renders  'baptizii^ 
them  in  the  name'.  The  R.V.  has  'baptizing  them  i>/(»  the 
name ',  Some  may  remember  how  Bishop  Westcott  used  to 
say  in  r^ard  to  this  passage  that  he  would  gladly  have  given 
ten  years  of  his  life  to  the  work  of  the  revision  had  it  resulted 
in  no  other  change  save  this  one.  '  How  few  readers  of  iht 
Authorized  Version ',  he  writes  in  his  book  on  Seme 
Lessotis  of  tfie  Revised  Versicn  of  the  New  Testatnnt 
(p.  62)^ '  could  enter  into  the  meaning  of  the  baptismal  fommlip 
the  charter  of  our  life;  but  now  when  we  reflect  on  the  u-ords, 
nmke  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptising  them  into  (not  w)  tie 
name  of  ifie  Fat  fur  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ckost,  we 
come  to  know  what  is  the  mystery  of  our  incorporation  into  the 
body  of  Christ.*  This  position,  which  probably  a  few  yean 
ago  was  almost  universally  accepted,  has  lately  been  challenged 
by  one  who  would  eagerly  acknowledge  his  debt  to  the  Cam- 
bridge scholars  who  took  a  foremost  part  in  the  Revisioa  The 
Dean  of  Westminster,  in  his  article  on  Baptism  in  the  EncycUfaedie 
Bihlica  (i  473),  upholds  the  familiar  rendering  of  the  A.  V.  '/• 
iht  Natne,  not  "  into  the  name  ".  Although  tU  is  the  prepositioa 
most  frequently  used,  we  find  iv  in  Acts  ii  38,  x  48 ;  and  the 
interchangcability  of  the  two  prepositions  in  late  Greek  maybe 
plentifully  illustrated  from  theN.T.  Moreover  the  exprc&stcn 
is  a  Hebraism  ;  cp.  iv  iva^ari  mpCov  Matt,  xxi  9  (  =  Ps.  cxviii  1$ 
D?'?) ;  so  in  the  baptismal  formula  of  Matt,  xxviii  19  the  S>t. 
version  has  fu^  (Lat.  in  nomine).'  I  must  say  at  once  that 
I  believe  that  the  R.V.  represents  the  meaning  of  the  wotd» 
far  better  than  the  A.V. ;  for  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  Gredt 
phrase  connotes  the  idea  of  incorporation.  But  I  venture  to 
question  whether  all  the  conditions  of  the  problem  have  been 
fully  taken  into  account. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  N.  T.  supplies  instances  of  the 
preposition  *iv  being  thinned  down  in  meaning  and  differing 
little  from  iu.  But  to  speak  of  the  inlcrchangcability  of  the  two 
prepositions  is  surely  to  overstate  the  casa    The  passages  from 


THE   LORDS   COMMAND   TO   BAPTIZE  50I 

Inscriptions  and  Papyri  collected  by  Deissmann  {BibU  Studies, 
Eng.  Trans.,  pp,  146  ff,  196  ff;  Theol.  Literaturzeitung,  1900, 
p.  73  f)  suggest  caution.  We  have  the  formula  ri  ht&pxovra  tls 
t6  ovofti  Ttvos,  meaning  'the  property  belonging  to  a  person'. 
Again,  a  Greek  inscription,  apparently  of  the  early  imperial 
period,  contains  the  following  words:  yfvonivrjs  ii  Ttjs  ivTJs  tSv 
vpoyiypaiJLfiivMv  toU  KnjftoTi&vais  tli  rb  tov  6tov  Svofia  (*  when  the 
sale  of  the  aforementioned  articles  had  been  effected  to  the 
purchasers  into  the  name  of  the  god  *,  i.  e.  so  that  they  became 
the  property  of  the  god).  If  then  we  went  no  further,  we  should 
be  justified  in  the  conclusion  that  St  Matthew's  phrase  means 
*  baptizing  them  into  the  possession  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost*.  It  is  worth  while  to  note  in  passing  that 
the  same  signification  attaches  to  the  formula  Iv  6v6iJLaT6s  twos 
(Deissmann,  id.  p.  197).  Hence  we  get  light  on  the  paraphrase 
by  which  Justin  Martyr,  using  common  current  terms,  tries  to 
explain  Christian  Baptism  to  those  outside  the  Church — iv* 
ipofuiTos  yiip  TOV  itarp&s  . .  .  xal  rov  aarripos  . ,  i  xol  we&pLaTos  iylou 
rd  iv  T(p  Sian  Tore  Xovrpliv  iroiovvTai  (Ap.  i  61), 

But  whatever  interest  may  belong  to  illustrations  from  Inscrip- 
tions and  Papyri,  it  is  far  more  important  for  us  to  enquire  what 
interpretation  of  the  phrase  fiamC^ttv  €ls  rd  Svofia  was  current 
in  the  Apostolic  Church.  The  Epistles  of  St  Paul  are  our 
earliest  evidence.  In  them  we  find  the  phrase  ^aTrrCCttv  cIs 
rd  opofia  (1  Cor.  i  13,  15).  But  in  two  pass^es,  in  complete 
accordance  with  the  Hebrew  mode  of  speech  whereby  *the 
Name '  was  used  as  a  reverential  synon3an  for  God  Himself, 
for  the  expression  '  into  (in)  the  name  of '  the  Apostle  substitutes 
the  quite  unambiguous  expression  '  into  the  Person  Himself — 
Gal.  iii  27  Saoi  yap  fit  Xpiarbv  ifiaTn-CaOiiTt,  Rom.  vi  3  Stroi  i^avrC' 
adrifttv  €ts  Xpiarbv  ['lijirovi'] :  comp.  I  Cor.  x  2  irdmes  fU  t6» 
Mutvaijv  i^a-nrltravTo  {v.  I.  i^awrla67]<Tav).  Now  it  may  be  plausibly 
argued  that  fiatrrCCfiv  tls  t6  8vop.a  Xpurrmi  means  *to  baptize  in 
the  name,  i.e.  by  the  authority,  of  Christ  *.  But  such  an  inter- 
pretation is  out  of  the  question  with  the  phrase  ^airrCCtw  eh 
Xpiin6v.  The  latter  necessarily  expresses  the  ideas  of  incorpora- 
tion and  union.  There  can  be  no  doubt  then  that  to  St  FauFs 
mind  fU  rd  Svofta  in  connexion  with  Baptism  signified  not '  in  the 
joame  of  (i.  e.  by  the  authority  of)  but '  into  the  name  of. 


502         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

In  this  connexion  it  is  of  special  interest  to  notice  that  Tertol- 
lian,  the  earliest  I^tin  writer  of  Christendom,  in  referring  to  the 
words  of  St  Matthew  gives  to  thtm  this  strictly  personal  fonn. 
When  he  quotes  the  passage  itself  {<ie  Bapt.  J3)  he  has  'he. 
docete  nationes,  tingentes  eas  in  nomen  Patris  et  Fitii  ct  Spiritus 
Sancti*.  But  his  paraphrase  of  it  tn  another  treatise  {ai^. 
Prax.  afi;  comp.  de  Praescr.  20)  runs  thus,  'Novissime  TPa"^an< 
ut  tliigercnt  in  Palrem  et  Filium  et  Spiritum  Sanctum'.  Compare 
Jerome  Dial.  c.  Lttcifer.  6  (Migne  P.  L.  xxiii  161)  ■  Cum  in  Palre 
et  Filio  et  Sptritu  Sancto  baptjzatus  homotemplum  Domini  6at'. 

But  a  secure  interpretation  of  St  Matthew's  words  must  be 
based  on  the  consideration  not  of  the  preposition  *i%  only,  but 
of  the  whole  phrase— the  preposition  and  the  verb  itself. 

The  Greek  verb  j3ajtT(f«(f,  found  in  Greek  literature  from  Plato 
onward,  need  not  detain  us  long.  It  means  '  to  plunge  in  or 
into'.  *to  immerse'.  The  historian  Folybius  uses  It  sevcsil 
times  of  men  or  boats  being  submerged  and  of  men  sinking  fa 
bogs;  e.g.  iii  1%-  4  fco'\(r  lur  ruv  fMurrwir  ol  "nk^tA  /3aim{*^«nt 
liu^aipov:  V  47.  2  aiiTol  b'  im*  avTuv  ^aim(6^tvai  Kal  Kart^inrcprtt 
i  V  TOLf  T<  Afwio-i.  So  Plutarch  de  Supers.  3  (1 66  a)  ^Avrurov  atatri* 
tls  QaKaaaav.  The  word  occurs  several  limes  io  the  LXX  and 
in  other  Greek  translations  of  the  O.  T.  Thus  in  Isaiah  xxi  4 
the  LXX  (going  wide  of  the  Hebrew)  has  ^  6.vo}tCa  fit  ^avriifu 
'My  iniquity  overwhelms  mc'.  Aquila  in  Job  ix  31  ('Yet 
wilt  thou  plunge  mc  in  the  ditch ')  translates  thus,  rare  h 
iia4>0op^  ffaitrlvui  n*:  and  Symmachus  in  Jercm.  xxxviii  ii 
('thy  feet  have  sunk  in  the  mire')  i^dvTHTaif  <ls  rikfia  rois 
Tofloff  ffov.  The  prepositions  (tit,  iv)  following  the  verb  will  be 
noticed. 

But  we  cannot  doubt  that  our  Lord  conversed  with  His 
disciples  in  Aramaic,  The  command  to  baptize,  if  uttered  by 
our  Lord,  must  have  been  clothed  in  an  Aramaic  dress.  Prot 
Dalman  {  Words  of  Jesus,  Eng.  Trans.,  p.  141)  shews  that  the 
Aramaic  word  meaning  *  to  baptize'  is  the  causative  of  the  verb 
bat:,  which  exactly  answers  to  the  Greek  ^asH^tw.  Thus  the 
word  is  used  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  e.g.  a  Kings  v  14  'Then 
went  he  down  and  dipped  himself  (LXX  ^;3a7riVaro)  seven  times 
in  Jordan ' ;  2  Kings  viii  15  '  He  took  the  coverlet  and  dipped  it 
(LXX  i^aftp)  in  water  and  spread  it  on  his  face*.    The  corre- 


THE   lord's   command   TO   BAPTIZE  503 

Spending  substantive  ni^an  was  used  in  a  quasi-technical  sense  of 
the  Baptism  of  Proselytes. 

Thus  the  meaning  and  the  associations  of  the  Aramaic  and  of 
the  Greek  word,  as  they  entered  into  the  Christian  vocabulary, 
were  clear  and  well  defined. 

Now  the  point  to  which  I  desire  to  call  attention  is  this.  In 
English  we  transliterate  the  Greek  word  fiamCCttif.  When  we 
use  the  word  *  baptize*  we  think  at  once  and  we  think  only  of  the 
religious  rite.  Apart  from  that  rite  the  word  has  no  meaning 
for  us.  It  is  simply  and  solely  a  religious  technical  term.  But 
the  Aramaic  Christian  when  he  used  the  Aramaic  word,  and  the 
Greek  Christian  when  he  used  the  Greek  word,  would  never  in 
this  particular  application  of  the  term  lose  sight  of  its  primary 
and  proper  signification  *  to  immerse ',  *  to  plunge  in  or  into  *.  An 
illustration  will  make  my  meaning  plain.  The  words  '  Com- 
munion '  and  *  Confirmation ',  when  used  in  certain  contexts,  have 
the  force  of  quasi-technical  religious  terms.  But  in  that  applica- 
tion  they  yet  retain  for  us  their  proper  meaning.  The  former 
necessarily  suggests  the  ideas  of  union  and  participation;  the 
latter  the  idea  of  strengthening. 

In  their  versions  of  the  New  Testament  the  Syriac  and  the 
Egyptian  Christians  translated  the  word  pa-m-CCiuf.  Latin-speak- 
ing  Christians,  though  like  oiu'selves  they  commonly  transliterated 
it  {baptizare\  yet  sometimes,  as  in  the  passages  quoted  above  from 
Tertullian  \  used  as  its  equivalent  the  Latin  verb  tingere.  What 
if  we  dare  to  follow  their  example  and,  instead  of  transliterating 
it,  venture  to  translate  it — ^Q.-arifyvrii  avTaii%  lU  rh  Svofia,  'im- 
mersing them  into  the  Name'?  So  surely  a  Greek-speaking 
Christian  would  understand  the  words.  He  would  regard  the 
divine  Name  as  the  element,  so  to  speak,  into  which  the  baptized 
is  plunged.  Thus  the  outward  rite  is  seen  to  be  an  immediate 
parable  of  a  great  spiritual  reality.  As  in  the  Eucharist  the 
Bread  and  Wine  arc  effectual  symbols  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  so  in  Baptism  the  water  which  cleanses  the  body  is  a  type 
of  nothing  less  than  God  Himself,  as  the  one  true  and  perfect 
power  of  cleansing.  The  natural  man  being  brought  into  union 
with  God,  being  made  incorporate  with  God,  is  purified.     He 

*  So  Cyprian  e.  g.  Ep.  xxvii  3  '  Cum  Dominua  dixerit  ia  oomine  patris  et  filii  et 
spiribu  Mncd  geates  tingi '. 


504         THE    JOURNAi:    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

rises  from  the  ^vatcr ;  spiritually  he  is  born  of  God  ;  he  becomes 
'  a  new  creation '. 

Does  this  interpretation  of  the  familiar  words  seem  stiained 
and  over-bold  ?  It  can,  I  think,  be  justified  by  other  pass^es 
of  the  New  Testament. 

Consider  first  Mk,  i  8  iyia  i^A-sTtfra  iftas  CSan,  avrhs  W  ffawrurii 
vfias  -nititiiaTt  &yuf  (camp.  Mall,  iii  i )  ;  Lk.  ill  16).  Water  and 
Spirit  are  here  strictly  correlative.  The  itmv^oti  hyuf  stands  in 
exactly  the  same  relation  to  ^airrttnt  in  regard  to  Christ's  work 
as  the  Shan  stands  to  «^iiijrTi.CTa  in  reference  to  John's  work.  The 
forerunner  'immerses  in  water',  the  Lord  Himself  *  immerses  in 
the  Holy  Ghost'. 

Again,  we  turn  to  the  words  of  the  great  interpretatiii-e  dis- 
course in  St  John  *,  iaif  fn^  tk  y(vvn9ji  ^  H&aTos  koi  wdfj^aros,  oi 

*  I  quote  thit  pusnge  without  doiibl  or  hesitation.  I  am.  however,  iwart  tint 
Prof  Lake  in  his  Inaugiirat  Lecture  at  Leiden  (pp.  I4  (T)  has  questioned  the  Invegritf 
a(  the  text.  Hi&  contention  is  that  the  words  SSaroi  mi  are  a  later  lOterpolabM. 
Hisehief  aiYumcnt^  are  ns  fallows :  (1)  He  maintains  (p.  16)  that  'the  panage  wooU 
be  easier  and  would  yield  a  more  cionBistent  sense  iflhe  words  0/ toaUr  anJ  muUie 
omitted  from  v.  $'.  Surety  in  this  criticism  Prof  Lake  forgets  the  Baptism  of  Jobs 
and  the  Jewiih  cuttom  of  the  Baptiim  of  Prosclytci  (»ce  SchQrer  GtMdk,  ^Jti. 
Voibfs  iii  pp.  1 39  if,  EdcrBlieim  L'/t  and  Times  of  JtsHs  tfu  iVfrsmtA  iU  pp.  74}  ff^. 
The  proselyte  after  his  baptism  was  regarded,  in  the  language  of  tlie  Rabbist  is 
'  a  littli^  child  just  born  *^  as  '  a  child  of  one  day  ',  It  is  tn>e  that  these  expresMOM 
are  found  in  Jewish  literature  of  a  date  far  later  than  our  Lord's  life  on  earth.  Btt 
it  is  wholly  improbable  that  the  Jews  borrowed  3U<:h  language  froin  the  hmd 
Christians.  It  seems  to  point  back  lo  a  mode  of  speech  current  amMig  ibc  Jews  of 
which  the  Christian  phraaeoEogy  is  an  adaptation.  At  any  rate  the  Baptisn  of 
Proselytes  would  render  the  mention  of  ttiaier  in  such  a  context  intelligible  and  not 
unnatural  to  Jc-wieh  reader?  of  the  Gospel.  (>)  Prof  Lake  appeals  to  JusUa  Af. 
i  61,  'l*hen  arc  they  brought  by  us  to  a  place  where  there  is  water,  and  by  tkal 
mode  of  regeneration  {ivayirrfiatttrt)  whereby  wa  ounelves  were  regeneralt^ 
<dv*7«»^^j*#»'),  so  are  they  rcgcnKrnted  (iraynvSnToi'),  For  in  the  name  {h' 
ififurroi)  of  Cod,  Father  of  all  things  and  Lord,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Cluin. 
and  of  line  Holy  Spirit,  tlicy  then  perform  the  waslling  in  the  water.  T<X 
indeed  Christ  said,  "  Unless  ye  be  regenerated  (Ar  fiij  it-a'^yirj^^rt)  ye  ahall  ia 
no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ".'  The  reference  in  the  last  words  a 
to  John  iii  J.  Prof  Lake  i.p.  lo)  argues  thus, '  If  he  [Justin]  had  known  »,  ^  to  ibe 
traditional  form  it  would  have  been  exactly  what  he  needed  to  prove  the  coanciMl 
of  baptism  with  regeneration  ;  whereas  if  he  knew  it  only  in  a  form  which  eiaitted 
the  reference  to  baptism,  It  added  nothing  to  v.  3,  of  which  it  ia  in  the  Coapd  the 
explanntiun.'  I  answer  that  Justin  quotes  tr.  3  rather  than  v.  5.  for  the  !umpte 
reason  that  v,  3  ju-st^'fics  his  insistence  on  '  regeneration*--' by  that  mode  of 
rtgtHfratioH  whereby  we  oiirseU'es  were  rtgttitmltd,  so  are  they  ngtttrrattJ'  But 
I  go  further.  I  find  in  Justio's  use  of  r.  3  a  strong  rcaaon  for  believing  that  lie  read 
V.  5  as  wc  read  it  now,  'bom  of  water  and  of  the  spirit '.    For  if  he  did  not  know 


THE   lord's   command   TO   BAPTIZE  505 

Sijvarat  «liTtX.dfiv  fls  t^v  jSoo-iAcCoj'  rod  dcoS  (iii  5).  Here  clearly 
the  thoi^ht  is  of  the  man  being  plunged  into  the  water  and  rising 
out  of  the  water  born  into  a  new  and  divine  life.  But  no  less 
clearly  is  the  water  r^arded  as  symbolizing  spirit,  into  which 
the  man  is  immersed,  and  assimilated  to  which  he  rises  a  spiritual 
being.  '  The  image  suggested ',  writes  Bishop  Westcott  on  this 
passage, '  is  that  of  rising,  reborn,  out  of  the  water  and  out  of 
that  spiritual  element,  so  to  speak,  to  which  the  water  outwardly 
corresponds.' 

From  the  Gospels  we  turn  to  passages  from  St  Paul's  Epistles. 

J  Cor.  X  2  vAvTfS  tls  rbv  Mwtrijv  ifia-iTTCtTavTo  (v.  I.  ifiaitTl<r6r)<rav) 
iv  Tji  iv^Ajr  KoL  h  Tp  BdK&jaii.  If  we  recall  the  use  of  the  word 
0ainCCt<rdat  in  Polybius,  it  becomes  at  once  clear,  I  think,  that  we 
lose  the  full  force  of  the  Apostle's  bold  metaphor  if  we  do  not 
translate  rather  than  transliterate.  '  Our  fathers  were  all  under 
the  cloud  and  did  all  pass  through  the  sea,  and  did  all  immerse 
themselves  (v.  /.  were  all  immersed)  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  sea.'  Instead  of  being  immersed  in  the  waters  and  dying, 
the  sons  of  Israel  were  brought  into  a  close  and  livii^  union  with 
the  messenger  of  God. 

Gal.  iii  37.  Again  we  translate:  'All  ye  who  were  immersed 
into  Christ  (Jlo-ot . . .  kls  Xpioroi'  i^airrlffBifrf)  did  put  on  Christ.' 
The  former  metaphor,  which  is  lost  if  we  transliterate  '  baptized 
into  Christ ',  prepares  the  way  for  the  latter.  As  the  neophyte 
is  immersed  into  the  water,  so  is  he  immersed  into  Christ.  As 
the  water  wraps  him  round,  so  Christ  wraps  htm  round.  Hence- 
forth he  is  *  in  Christ '. 

Rom.  vi  3  '  Are  ye  ignorant  that  all  we  who  were  immersed 
into  Christ  Jesus  (^o-ot  ifiainCa-dijutv  ds  Xpi<rrhv  'IijiroGv)  were 
immersed  into  his  death,  We  were  buried  therefore  with  Him 
by  means  of  that  immersion  into  death.*  Here  again  there  are  two 
metaphors  which  strictly  correspond  to  each  other.    The  thought 

of  any  neation  of  water  in  v.  5,  bow  should  he  connect  the  term  '  re^nerated  ' 
'  bora  again '  in  v.  3  with  baptism  in  water  I  In  other  words  the  citation  of  v.  3  io 
this  context  implies  a  knowUdge  on  the  part  of  the  writer  of  (be  words  '  born  ol 
crater  and  of  the  spirit '  in  v.  5. 

It  appears  to  me  then  that  the  slight  evidence  which  Prof  Lake  produces  in 
support  of  the  theory  that  the  words  Ciaros  xat  are  cot  part  of  the  true  text  of 
John  iii  5  does  not  bear  examination.  I  am  constrained  to  add  that  in  my  judgement 
it  is  a  theory  which  a  sdentiSc  critic  ought  never  to  have  put  forward. 


5d6        the  journal   of   THEOLOGlCAt.  STUDIES 

of  mimer^on  into  Cfanst  leads  oo  to  die  tboK^t  oTbisnU  viA 
Christ.    Compare  the  doady  panllel  passage,  CoL  it  ii. 

RevcTtiag  now  to  the  words  of  the  great  commissioo,  I  sabimt 
that  (i)  the  passages  of  the  New  Testament  justify  the  poaitiaa 
that  the  word  fiarriCarrtt  should  be  tzanslated  fa,ther  than  trua- 
literatcd  ;  (2)  that  the  »-hoIc  phrase  ^axTiC<tmt  ovrovr  <lc  rd  dtapc, 

*  unmcrsing  them  into  the  Name ',  necenarily  implies  the  idea  of 
incorporation  into  the  divine  Name.  So  regarded  Bipriwi  ii 
seen  to  be  ytpinj$jjvat  it  toS  BtoS^  yup^B^rmi  iw^uBcv. 

An  important  resatt  in  exegesis  follows.  If  we^  are  r^lit  ii 
translating  St  Matthew's  words  *  Immersing  them  into  the  sane 
of  the  Father  and  of  the  Stm  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ',  the  riicd 
Lord  is  plainly  revealing  the  spintual  meaning  o£  the  outward 
and  visible  rite,  which  was  already  in  use  among  His  disctpla 
(John  iv  I  f ').  He  is  not  prescribing  the  use  of  a  formula.  TV 
words  might  i%htly,as  time  went  on,  suggest  tlie  use  of  a  fommk. 
So  only  perhaps  could  the  Church  emphaslce  their  applkatioa  to 
each  person  baptized.  Themselves  they  belong  to  a  far  b^cr 
sphere  of  spiritual  and  eternal  truth. 

!  venture  to  suggest,  though  to  some  the  su^cstioa  WMf 
appear  fanciful,  that  the  very  formula  itself  used  in  the  Gicdc 
Church  preserves  the  latter  and  more  living  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  the  Gospel.    The  formula  used  in  the  Western  Church— 

*  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  * — lays  stress  on  the  act  of  the  minister  and  oo 
the  authority  by  which  he  acts.  In  contrast  to  this  Wi 
formula  is  that  of  the  Greek  Church— ^airT/^Krat  o  doiU»f 
rlr  TO  iSvofta  roii  saTp^s  koI  tov  vlov  koI  tov  &yCov  tVfVfiaTot  *.  Hot. 
as  it  seems  to  me,  is  an  announcement  of  the  spiritual  fact  im*olved 
in  the  act  of  baptism.  The  new  relation  of  the  baptixcd  to  God 
is  proclaimed.  Traces  of  this  view  in  the  early  church  are 
further,  I  believe,  to  be  found  (1)  in  the  very  ancient  custom  of 
trine  immersion  or  affusion  (sec  e.g.  the  DidacfU  vii) ;  (3)  ia 
the  <T(»tAij<r(y,  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  water 
of  Baptism  (c.  g.  Tert.  de  Bapt.  4),  parallel  to  the  invocation  of 


*  Note  the  words  >w07rdt  mux  mal  BaMtl(ti  as  •  comnient  oo 
Borri(etrrtt  (Uitl.  xxviii  19). 

*  Tbe  farincr  fonnuU  wu  also  used  in  the  Eeyptiaii  Chorch,  the  Utter  alw  is  tfe 
Syrian  (ZWrf.  Chr.  jtHliy.,  art.  Baptiam,  i  pp.  161  f  >. 


THE   LORD  S   COMMAND   TO   BAPTIZE  507 

:  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  Eucharistic  elements  (cf.  Cyril  Catech, 
^-  xxi  3,  Migne  P.  G.  xxxiii  1089). 

5  There  are  several  important  questions  to  which  our  tnterprcta- 
^  tion  of  the  words  of  St  Matthew,  if  it  is  correct,  supplies  an 
^  answer. 

^  I.  There  is  a  question  of  phraseology.  What  is  the  relation 
..  of  the  two  phrases,  ^aTrriCnv  clr  rd  SvofM  and  fiairriCtuf  h  ry 
;  Mlian  ?  Now  in  regard  to  the  physical  act  we  have  two 
constructions  of  fiavrlCiw  (cf.  above  pp.  500  fT.).  In  Mark  i  5  we 
read  i^avrlCovro  iv'  airtm  ht  r$  ^lophdvji  voroft^,  'they  were 
immersed  by  him  in  the  river  Jordan '.  The  idea  is  of  the 
stream  encompassing  those  who  submitted  to  the  rite.  Four 
verses  lower  down  St  Mark  describes  our  Lord's  baptism  thus: 

ifiawrCaOri  els  tov  *\op66injv  vnd  'liaSvov'  rat  *v6hs  hva^aiv<av  ^x  rov 

t^Tos  K.T.K  Here  the  thought  is  of  the  Lord's  entrance  into 
the  submerging  water,  followed  by  emergence.  So  in  the 
Dtdach^  (ch.  vii)  we  have  iv  ia^an  C«vrt  followed  immediately  by 
€li  &AAo  Zhtop  and  that  again  by  iv  ^XPV>  ^^  Otpfi^.  Exactly 
corresponding  to  these  two  constructions  of  ^emrCCftv  in  reference 
to  the  physical  act  we  have  two  corresponding  constructions  in 
reference  to  the  spiritual  reality — ^avrCCttv  *ts  rd  Svoita  ('to 
immerse  into  the  Name '),  pavrC^tiv  h  r^  3v<(fian  ('  to  immerse  in 
the  Name').  The  two  phrases  are  synonymous.  They  both 
represent  the  divine  name  as  the  element  into  which  or  in  which 
the  person  baptized  is  plunged.  At  the  same  time,  of  course, 
it  is  always  possible  to  interpret  the  phrase  PavrlCtiv  iv  r^  dv6fiaTt 
as  pointing  to  the  divine  authority  in  which  the  act  of  Baptism 
is  done.  Thus  whether  c!r  or  h  is  the  preposition  used  the  idea 
of  incorporation  is  equally  implied.  It  is  involved  in  the  whole 
phrase  ^aitrl^ew  tU  to  5voyM  and  ^mrHCfip  iv  t^  dtxf/iart  and  does 
not  depend,  as  Bishop  Westcott  used  to  urge,  on  the  use  of  the 
preposition  tU  only. 

In  this  connexion  it  is  worth  while  to  point  out  that  the  Syriac 
Vulgate  translates  Rom.  vi  3  thus:  'Those  of  us  who  were 
baptized  (immersed)  in  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  (immersed)  in 
bis  death ' ;  so  Gal.  iii  27,  In  these  passages  the  notion  of  in- 
corporation is  necessarily  involved.  Thus  the  argument  of  the 
Dean  of  Westminster  drawn  from  the  Syriac  '  in  the  name '  of 
(Matt,  xxviii  19)  is  robbed  of  all  its  force. 


5o8        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


3.  Apain,  it  is  often  ut^d  that,  whereas  St  Matthe\v  represents 
our  Lord  as  commanding  His  disciples  to  baptize  in  the  name  of 
the  Three  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  the  evidence  of  the  Acts  and 
of  the  Pauline  Epistles  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  as  a 
matter  of  fact  they  baptized  their  converts  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  So  long  as  we  regard  the  words  of  St  Matthew  as  laying 
down  the  express  terms  of  a  baptismal  formula,  the  difTereiKe 
between  the  alleged  command  of  Christ  and  the  practice  of 
His  first  followers  must  give  rise  to  serious  difficulties.  But 
when  we  consider  the  words  of  Christ  recorded  by  St  Matthew 
as  revealing  a  spiritual  fact  about  Baptism,  then  the  questioa 
ceases  to  be  one  of  rival  formulas  and  becomes  one  of  Cfaristiao 
theology.  The  writer  of  the  Vidach^  ^-vgs  the  explicit  directioD 
(ch.  vii):  jSairrfcfaT*  tU  rd  dt-o^a  toO  saTpos  (toi  tqv  vXov  koI  mr 
hyiov  TTi't^y-aroi.  But  when  later  on  (ch.  ix)  he  refers  to  the 
baptized  he  uses  the  phrase  o\  ^aitnadivres  th  Spofut  Kvpiat, 
St  Paul  is  not  inconsistent  when  he  ends  one  Epistle  with  the 
words  *The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  your  spirit' 
(Gal.  vi  iS  ;  cf.  Phil,  iv  33),  and  in  another  Epistle  expands  the 
benediction  into  'The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
love  of  God  and  the  fellowship  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  with  yw 
all '  (2  Cor.  xiii  14). 

3.  Again,  there  is  the  question,  Have  we  here  a  true  sapng 
of  Jesus  Christ  ?  The  Dean  of  Westminster  {Encychpa^dia  Biblua 
i  474)  suggests,  as  a  possible  explanation  of  the  divci^noe 
between  the  Lord's  alleged  command  and  the  practice  of  the 
Apostolic  Church,  thai  'Mattliew  does  not  here  report  the 
ipsissima  verba  of  Jesus,  but  transfers  to  Him  the  familiar  lan- 
guage of  the  Church  of  the  evangelist's  own  time  and  locality  \ 
He  adds  that  'in  favour  of  this  suggestion  'it  may  be  stated 
that  the  language  of  the  First  Gosjwlj  where  it  docs  not  repro- 
duce an  earlier  document,  shews  traces  of  modification  of  a  Uter 
kind'.  It  is  indeed  true — and  it  is  well  that  wo  should  remind 
ourselves  of  the  fact— that  our  Lord's  words  have  come  down 
to  us  through  the  media  of  human  memories,  human  translators, 
human  editors.  It  is  very  seldom  that  we  can  say  with  con- 
fidence, 'This  is  a  precise  representation  ofihe  words  which  Jesus 
spoke'.  Now  if  the  words  which  St  Matthew  puts  into  our 
Lord's  mouth  are  regarded  as  laying  down  'a  baptismal  formula '1 


THE  LORDS  COMMAND  TO   BAPTIZE  509 

then  everything  depends  on  their  being  the  ipsissima  verba  of 
the  Lord.  But  if  on  the  other  hand  the  words  are  intended  to 
describe  what  Baptism  essentially  is,  then  we  may  be  entirely 
satisfied  if  we  have  reasonable  grounds  for  thinking  that  they 
give  us  the  substance,  possibly  in  a  condensed  form,  of  what 
the  Lord  actually  said.  We  have  already  seen  that  we  may 
with  considerable  confidence  conclude  that  St  Matthew  is  here 
depending  on  St  Mark  or  on  St  Mark's  original  The  degree  of 
closeness  with  which  St  Matthew,  in  recording  solemn  words  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  would  be  likely  to  follow  his  source  will  be  best 
estimated  by  any  one  who  will  compare  the  record  in  the  two 
Evangelists  of  the  words  spoken  by  our  Lord  at  the  Institution 
of  the  Eucharist. 

I  proceed  now  to  consider  the  question  whether  there  are  any 
indications  in  the  New  Testament  that  St  Matthew  records  our 
Lord's  words  about  Baptism  with  substantial  accuracy. 

(d)  We  find  in  St  Luke  (xxiv  43-49)  an  account  of  another 
discourse  of  the  risen  Lord  which  has  points  of  contact  with  that 
contained  in  the  last  section  of  St  Matthew.  As  in  St  Matthew 
so  in  St  Luke  *  all  the  nations '  {vivra.  rd  iBvn)  are  spoken  of  as 
the  appointed  sphere  of  the  Church's  work.  Ag^in,  In  St  Luke 
the  Gospel  preached  by  the  Apostles  is  to  deal  with  *  repentance* 
and  *  remission  of  sins '.  But  we  have  only  to  turn  to  the  same 
writer's  account  of  St  Peter  preaching  on  the  day  of  Pentecost — 
*  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  .  .  .  unto  remission 
of  your  sins'  (Acts  ii  38) — to  see  how  closely  'repentance'  and 
'  remission  of  sins '  are  related  to  Baptism,  In  &ct  in  St  Luke's 
record  of  the  risen  Lord's  words  the  term  'Baptism'  or  'baptize' 
seems  to  be  implied  but  for  some  reason  withheld.  Once  more, 
the  reference  to  a  proclamation  of  *  repentance '  and  *  remission  of 
sins '  to  *  all  the  nations '  is  immediately  followed  by  an  allusion 
to  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  Father,  the  Holy  Spirit :  '  And  behol^ 
I,  even  I,  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  you '.  Thus  amid 
all  differences  in  regard  both  to  phraseology  and  to  the  pre- 
sentation of  ideas  there  is  a  substantial  resemblance  between 
the  post- Resurrection  discourse  recorded  by  St  Matthew  and  the 
post-Resurrection  discourse  recorded  by  St  Luke. 

{b)  There  is  a  series  of  passages  in  the  Apostolic  writings  which 
contain  a  devotional  reference  to  the  Three  Persons  of  the  Trinity: 


not 


510        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

(1)  Pauline,  2  Thess.  ii  13  ff;  i  Cor.  xii  4  A";  «  Cor.  xui  14; 
Eph.  ii  18;  iii  14  ff;  iv  3  f;  qj.  Acts  xx  28;  (2)  Pctrinc; 
I  Pet.  is;  (3)  Johannine,  Apoc.  i  4  ;  I  John  iii  33  f;  iv  1; 
(4)  other  writings,  Hcbr.  vl  4  fT;  Judc  20  f.  The  writers  speak 
without  hesitation  or  misgiving.  They  assume  that  their  friends 
to  whom  they  write  will  at  once  understand  their  words  about 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Yet  on  the  other 
hand  to  a  Jew  such  language  must  have  seemed  rcvolutioiury. 
How  then  should  such  an  idea  on  the  most  awful  of  all  subjecu 
have  arisen  in  the  mind  of  a  Jewish  Apostle,  much  more  in  the 
minds  of  a  group  of  Jewish  Apostles  ?  Such  unanimity  seems  to 
postulate  a  word,  or  words,  of  Christ  sanctioning  the  belief-  A 
word  of  Christ,  connected  with  a  rite  universally  practised  !a 
the  Church,  at  once  explains  a  phenomenon  for  which  it  is  not 
easy  otherwise  to  account  (see  Dr  Hort  on  the  First  Hpistl 
St  Peter  pp.  17  f). 

(<:)  Lastly,  have  we  in  the  New  Testament  traces  of 
doctrine  of  Baptism  which  is  expressed  in  St  Matthew's  report 
of  our  Lord's  words  ?  Such  apostolic  language  as  that  of  St  Paol 
in  Eph.  ii  18— 'Through  him  [i.e.  Christ]  we  both  [i.e.  Jcwsaod 
Gentiles]  have  our  access  in  one  Spirit  unto  the  Father* — sets 
forth  that  conception  of  the  Christian's  relation  to  God,  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  which,  in  reference  to 
the  initiation  of  the  Christian  life,  is  contained  in  Matt,  xxviii  19 
No  student  of  apostolic  thought  will  feel  any  difficulty  as  to  the 
doctrine  that  incorporation  into  Jesus  Christ  necessarily  implies 
incorporation  into  the  Father  (cp.  e.g.  Mark  ix  37 ;  Rona.  v  :f; 
1  Pet.  iii  18  ;  Hcb.  x  19  ff).  It  is  of  the  essence  of  the  work  of 
the  Mediator  to  '  bring '  those  who  believe  in  Him  to  the  Father 
Himself.  But,  though  it  may  be  said  generally  that  there  canoot 
be  union  with  Christ  without  union  with  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
(Rom.  viii  9),  some  hesitation  may  be  felt  by  some  in  regard  to 
the  doctrine  that  in  Baptism  the  believer  is  united  to  the  Spirit 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  is  united  to  the  Father.  In  two 
passages,  however,  of  the  New  Testament  this  thought  is  explicitly 
recognized.  Consider  in  the  first  place  the  dialogue  between 
St  Paul  and  the  disciples  whom  he  found  at  Ephcsus  as  reported 
in  the  Acts  (xix  2  (T).  In  answer  to  the  Apostle's  enquiry 
whether  they  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost  when  they  became 


THE  lord's   command   TO   BAPTIZE  511 

believers  they  replied, '  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether 
there  be  a  Holy  Ghost*.     His  answer  is  the  further  question* 

*  Into  what  then  were  ye  baptized  (immersed)  ? '  (th  tC  o5i>  i^awrC- 
(rft/Tc ;)  St  Paul's  question  appears  to  be  wholly  irrelevant  except 
on  the  assumption  that  he  believed  that  those  who  were  baptized 
were  baptized  (immersed)  into  the  Spirit.  In  other  words  the 
dialc^e  seems  to  imply  a  knowledge  of  that  conception  of 
Baptism  which  is  contained  in  Matt.  xxvUi  19.  If  we  put  aside 
the  thought  of  a  baptismal  formula,  no  adverse  inference  can  be 
drawn  from  the  historical  notice  which  follows,  'They  were 
baptized  (immersed)  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus '.  In  the 
second  place  there  are  the  words  of  St  Paul  in  i  Cor.  xii  13, 

*  For  indeed  in  one  Spirit  we  were  all  immersed  so  as  to  form 
one  body  {iv  ivl  we^iiaTi  fifitis  irdvrti  tls  iv  avfia  i^airrla-drifttv) . . . 
and  were  all  made  to  drink  of  one  Spirit '.  Here  too  Baptism 
and  incorporation  into  the  Spirit  are  connected  tc^ether.  The 
metaphor  of  '  immersion  in  the  Spirit '  prepares  the  way  for 
the  second  metaphor  of  Christian  men  drinking  of  one  Spirit 

It  is  not,  then,  too  much  to  say  that  the  teaching  contained  in 
our  Lord's  words  in  Matt  xxviii  19  is  presupposed  in  the  thought 
and  language  of  the  Apostolic  age.  It  is  a  fountain  from  which 
many  streams  flowed. 

We  have  now  reviewed  the  evidence  on  which  an  answer  can  be 
based  as  to  the  historical  genuineness  of  the  Baptismal  Command 
which  St  Matthew  records  as  the  command  of  Christ.  While  we 
have  no  r^ht  to  assume  that  in  Matt,  xxviii  19  we  have  the 
ipsissima  verba  of  the  Lord,  we  have,  as  I  believe,  no  reason  for 
thinking  that  the  Evai^elist  is  simply  putting  into  our  Lord's 
mouth  a  Church  formula  current  when  the  Gospel  was  composed. 
When  we  compare  the  record  of  our  Lord's  sayings  in  St  Matthew 
with  the  record  of  our  Lord's  sayings  in  St  Mark,  in  my  judge- 
ment we  are  justified  in  the  belief  that  St  Matthew  records  the 
command  of  Christ  substantially  in  the  form  in  which  He 
uttered  it 

It  may  be  convenient  that,  in  closing  this  article,  I  should 
recapitulate  the  main  conclusions  at  which  I  have  arrived  and 
which  I  desire  to  commend  to  the  consideration  of  students. 
They  are  these : 


5Ifl         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


(f)  There  are  grounds  for  tliinking  that  the  lost  last  section 
of  St  Mark,  or  its  original  (whether  documentary  or  oral)  was 
the  source  of  the  last  section  of  St  Matthew. 

(2)  There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for  questioning  the 
integrity  of  the  text  in  Matt,  xxvjii  19. 

{3)  We  should  translate  rather  than  transliterate  the  word 
fioTTTlCtiv.  The  phrase  'to  immerse  into,  ar  in  the  Name' 
necessarily  connotes  incorporation. 

(4)  Our  Lord's  words  in  Matt,  xxviii  19  do  not  prescnbe  the 
use  of  a  baptismal  formula.  They  unfold  the  spiritual  ineamog 
of  the  rite.    Baptism  is  the  sacrament  of  incorporation. 

(5)  There  ts  no  reason  to  question  that  in  Matt,  xxviii  19  we 
have  the  substance  of  words  actually  spoken  by  the  risen  Lord. 

F.  H.  Ch.\se. 


MOTE  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  CONTRA   MARCEXJ.VM 
AND  THE  DE  ECCIESIASTICA    THEOLOGJA. 

Mr  Convbf-arf.  has  contributed  an  article  to  the  ZeiHckrift  Jar  Ot 
neutestamentlUhe  Whstmehnfi,  iv  4,  1903,  pp.  330  ff,  in  which  he 
maintainji  that  the  two  books  of  tbe  contra  Mara/ium  and  the  three  books 
of  thet/f  EccJesiastka  Theoh^a  are  the  vrorknot  of  Eusebius  of  Caeaiei 
but  of  Euscbtus  of  Kraesa.  His  arguments  are  briefly  as  foUovs: 
(i)  The  writer  of  the  amtra  Marcelium  (il  4,  Migne  P.  G.  nit 
753)  quotes  a  Letter  of  Marccllus.  Epiphanius  also,  Ifaer.  bud!  2  (ed. 
Oehlcr  ii  pp.  50  f),  quotes  a  Letter  of  Marcellus  addressed  to  Julius 
Bishop  of  Rome.  When  we  compare  the  account  of  the  ooe  Letter 
with  the  account  of  the  other  Letter,  we  discover  thai  they  are  not  t»o 
Letters  but  one  and  the  same.  (2)  At  the  beginning  of  the  second 
book  the  writer  of  the  ft/a/ra  MarceUum  says  that  'the  times  nowol 
htm  to  lay  bare  the  impiety  which  for  a  long  time  had  lurked  in  the 
man  [i.  e.  Marcellus]  and  to  strip  it  of  the  disguise  of  the  Letter '.  *  We 
know  from  other  sources',  Mr  Conybcare  argues  (p.  331),  'that  Juliia 
was  imposed  upon  by  this  Epistle  in  which  Marcellus  paraded  the 
Roman  Symbol  as  his  own  in  order  to  obtain  from  the  Pope  a  tet^mtr 
of  orthodoxy.'  (3)  *In  Rome',  he  adds,  'they  thought  that  Marcdhts 
had  been  unjustly  condemned  in  the  Arian  Synod'of  Antiocb,  and  10 
this  feeling  reference  is  made  in  the  second  book  of  the  cXry;^  p.  560 

[=sMigne  P.  G.  X%\v  S24]  :    hih   nn>c  ifhiicrftrBtu.  thv  cCvSpo  wvtyuronc' 

(4)  Lastly  (p.  33a},  the  author  of  the  contra  Marcelium  •  repeatedly  refca 


A 


THE   LORD'S   COMMAND   TO   BAPTIZE  513 

to  Eus.  F.  in  the  third  person,  and  in  the  same  context  to  himself  in  the 
first'.' 

Now  the  date  of  the  Epistle  to  Julius  is  340.  A  knowledge  of  this 
Letter,  it  is  said,  and  of  the  results  of  this  Letter  is  implied  in  the 
contra  Marcetlum.  Hence,  Mr  Conybeare  concludes,  the  eimira  Mar- 
uHum  and  the  treatise  which  followed  it,  tiie  de  EccksitisHca  T^eologiOy 
cannot  be  the  works  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea ;  for  he  died  *  at  the  very 
end  of  338  or  in  the  early  days  of  339  *.  Moreover,  '  the  dedication  of 
the  three  last  books  to  Flakillus  indicates  Eusebius  of  Emesa  as  their 
author' (p.  332). 

I  will  consider  these  arguments  in  order.  I  desire  to  add  that  the 
object  of  this  Note  is  not  to  endeavour  to  collect  and  review  all 
the  evidence  in  support  of  the  common  view  as  to  the  authorship 
of  the  two  treatises  in  question,  but  simply  to  justify,  in  view  of 
Mr  Conybeare's  ai|[uments,  my  reference  in  the  body  of  the  article  to 
the  treatises  against  Marcellus  as  the  work  of  Eusebius  of  CaesarsL 

(i)  Are  we  justified  in  identifying  the  Letter  of  Marcellus  mentioned 
in  the  contra  MaruUum  with  the  Letter  of  Marcellus  to  Julius  given  in 
fiill  by  Epiphanius  ?  It  is  true  that  in  bodi  Letters  Marcellus  protests 
that '  he  had  learned  his  faith  out  of  the  Divine  Scriptures '.  But  such 
an  assertion  is  the  merest  commonplace,  and  its  presence  in  two 
documents  is  not  the  slightest  proof  that  they  are  in  truth  one  and  the 
same  document  Further,  the  Creed  given  in  the  letter  to  Julius  is,  as 
is  well  known,  our  form  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  save  for  some  omissions 
and  some  slight  variations.  The  only  words  which  it  is  necessary  to 
quote  from  the  Creed  in  the  Letter  to  Julius  are  these :  irurrcvu  tU  0€ay 
vayrtMcpdropOt  xot  tk  Xpuniv  *lrjtrmy  rhv  viov  airtw  rov  fioyoytv^,  rov  xvptcv 
•^li&y.  The  Creed  quoted  as  from  Marcellus's  Letter  in  the  contra 
Marallum  (Migne  P.  G.  xxiv  75a)  is  as  follows :  y^paifM  vurnvto'  tk 

*  Mr  Conybeare  would,  I  believe,  consider  these  the  chief  argfutnents  in  finrour 
of  his  position.  But  be  adduces  other  arguments  also,  (i)  'The  s^le  of  the 
Elenchi  [i.  e.  the  amira  Martttluiti]  is  in  every  way  different  from  that  of  Eusebius 
Pamphili.'  My  impression  Is  different  from  that  of  Mr  Conybeare.  The  laudatory 
passage  from  the  mnttv  Man^lum  which  I  have  quoted  (p.  514),  for  example,  seems 
to  me  exactly  in  the  style  of  Eusebius.  There  is  naturally  a  certain  difference 
between  a  writer's  style  in  a  treatise  of  controversial  theology  and  the  same 
writer's  s^le  in  a  histoiy  or  a  laudatory  biography,  (j)  Mr  Conybeare  thinks 
that  the  doctrinal  position  of  the  contra  Marullum  is  different  from  that  of 
Eusebius.  '  Eusebius  belongs  dogmatically  to  the  pre-Trinitarian  age,'  he  sa3rs. 
I  will  only  say  that  (i)  I  think  that  Mr  Conybeare  exaggerates  the  import- 
ance of  the  Nicene  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  (a)  I  am 
quite  ready  to  admit  that  there  is  a  developement,  under  the  stress  of  controversy, 
in  the  doctrinal  language  of  Eusebius  and  in  the  proportion  of  his  dogmatic  state- 
ments. On  the  theological  opinions  of  Eusebius  see  Bishop  Ligbtfoot's  article  on 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea  in  the  Dktionary  of  Christian  Biography  ii  p.  347. 
VOL.  VI.  L  1 


^514         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


ite 


wmrifin  •wr  wmTOKpirofa,  ml  0*5  w  »»ir  airsv  Tor  /tora7«X7  0hv,  lir  oi^ 
i^yifir  liprovv  Xpurrif,  am  ctf  to  snw^  to  oytor.  ^\Ticn  we  compart  Um 
Creed  with  the  Creed  presented  to  Jolius  we  notice  (0  thaJ  m 
Oeed  waripa  is  Insetted ;  (3)  that  the  titles  of  the  Son  in  this 
are  different,  and  are  given  in  a  different  order,  from  the  titlea 
Son  in  the  Creed  presented  to  ]  alios.  The  «e  tw  »*&»  ovroS  branding 
corresponds  to  the  rartfta  of  the  first  clause.  At>ove  all,  there  is 
notable  phrase  roc  fumrfoi^  Btar.  That  is  a  distinctive  [duase  and 
seems  at  once  to  negative  the  poasible  suggestioD  that  in  the  lanM 
Marcellum  we  hare  an  abbiemted  and  inacmrate  rcrsion  of  the  Cmd 
presented  to  Julius.  The  case  therefore  for  the  idcntiBcation  of  Ifae 
Letter  referred  to  in  the  tontra  Marcellum  with  the  Letter  to  Jote 
preserved  by  Epiphanius  breaks  down  on  cxamioattoo.  I  nrast 
further  and  say  that  the  e\'ideDce  shews  that  the  two  Letters  are 
and  independent  documents.  No  reasonable  being  will  Ced 
diiBculty  in  thinking  that  Marcdlus  wrote  two  Letters  at  two  di&rott 
times  in  both  of  which  he  (1)  afirmcd  that  he  'had  learned  his  faitfa 
out  of  the  Divine  Scriptures ',  and  ( 3)  quoted  a  Creed,  the  Creed  ia  tbe 
one  case  being  different  from  the  Creed  in  the  other  case. 

There  is  therefore  no  chronological  reason  for  refusing  to  accept  tbe 
assertion  of  Socrates  {It.  £.  i  36)  and  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  dik 
of  the  Treatise  itself  that  Eusebios  of  Caesarea  wrote  the  three  books 
of  the  de  Ecclaiastua  Thtologia  and  consequently  (since  the  openiig 
words  of  this  treatise  refer  to  the  earlier  treatise)  the  amira  MarttiiMm 
also. 

It  is  now  needless  to  examine  at  lei^th  those  arguments  iriucfa 
I  have  denoted  as  {2)  (3).  It  must  be  lemerobeied  lliat  from  the  tine 
of  the  Council  of  Ntcaea  till  his  death  Marcellus  was  in  the  thick  of  the 
Arian  controversy.  It  is  not  likely  that  Julius  was  the  only  person 
whom  his  enemies  aUeged  that  he  had  deceived.  As  we  shall  wt 
presently,  he  was  not  condemned  for  the  first  time  at  the  Arian  Synod 
of  Antioch.  And  whcnex'cr  he  was  condemned  by  a  Synod,  he  and  bii 
friends  would  inevitably  maintain  that  he  had  been  condemned  unjosii]!^ 
The  argument  (4)  derived  from  the  £ict  that  the  writer  of  tfaetfuAv 
Marcellum,  speaking  in  the  first  person,  alludes  to  Eusebius  by  nanie  is 
of  some  interest  Mr  Conybcare  gives  the  key-words  of  one  typial 
passage  {contra  Marcellum  1  4 ;  Migne  P.  G.  xxiv  749  f).  I  qucK 
it  in  a  slightly  abbreviated  form.  *  I  will  set  down  {9^w)  first  of  aU  the 
words  in  which  he  essays  to  controvert  that  which  has  been  wrilleo  to 
accordance  with  the  Church's  faith,  slandering  the  writers.  For  now  be 
controverts  Asterius.  Now  he  turns  against  the  great  Eusebius,  aod 
next  against  that  man  of  God,  truly  thrice  happy,  Paulinus,  a  man  vlio 
was  honoured  by  the  presidency  of  the  Church  of  the  Antiochenes  aod 


THE   lord's   command  TO   BAPTIZE  515 

magnificently  ruled  'the  Church  of  the  Tynans  as  Bishop,  and  who 
was  so  illustrious  in  his  episcopate  that  the  Church  of  the  Antiochenes 
claimed  him  as  a  blessii^  essentially  their  own.  And  yet  at  Paulinus, 
who  so  happily  lived  and  so  happily  went  to  his  rest,  who  long  since 
[voXtu — in  A.D.  329]  fell  asleep,  who  never  did  him  any  harm — even  at 
him  this  wonderful  author  jeers.  Passing  from  Paulinus  he  makes  war 
on  Origen,  who  likewise  long  ago  went  to  his  rest.  Next  he  assaults  Nar- 
cissus ;  and  he  persecutes  the  other  Eusebius  (tof  h-€poy  Eva-ifitov  S«u(cei)j 
and  in  a  word  he  does  despite  to  all  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  and  is 
pleased  only  with  himself.'  In  regard  to  this  passage  I  would  call  atten- 
tion to  three  points,  (i)  If  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  wrote  the  con/ra  Afar- 
cellum,  the  elaborate  panegyric  of  Paulinus  is  quite  natural.  Eusebius 
{H.  JE.  X  i)  dedicated  his  EaksiasHcal  History  to  Paulinus ;  and  the  very 
rhetorical  sermon  on  the  occasion  of  the  dedication  of  the  great  church 
at  Tyre,  which  Eusebius  has  preserved  [H.  E,  x  4),  and  of  which  it 
seems  certain  that  he  was  the  author^  contains  a  passage  of  enthusiastic 
eul<^y  addressed  to  Paulinus.  (ii)  The  author  of  the  contra  Mar- 
eellum  calls  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  *  the  great  Eusebius '.  He  praises 
the  memory  of  Paulinus.  If  Eusebius  of  Emesa,  a  pupil  of  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea,  wrote  the  treatise  within  two  or  three  years  of  the  death  of 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  he  would  surely  have  added  some  words  of  lauda- 
tion in  the  case  of  the  dead  Eusebius,  the  most  distinguished  eccle- 
siastic of  his  time,  the  favourite  of  the  great  Emperor,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  dead  Paulinus.  (iii)  'It  is  a  literary  impossibility ',  writes  Mr  Cony- 
*>**"  (P-  333)1  't^at  the  htpos  EiaifiuK  should  be  the  Eusebius  who 
wrote  these  EleruAt.'  I  venture  to  appeal  to  facts.  The  history  of 
Thucydides  opens  thus :  QovKvSiSifv  'AOr/vauK  (w^paxfrt  to»  irSXtftov  rtSv 
Htkommnja-uiiv  koI  'AOrpnuav.  Lower  down  in  the  same  short  chapter 
we  find  the  words  /k  Si  TtK/iT^ptmv  &v,iiri  fLOKpararov  trKOVovvri  /Aot 
Tumwrtu  ^fifiaivei,  ofi   firy^Xa  vo/t^^to   yivt<r6ai.      So  V  26   (the  third 

person  gives  place  to  the  first  person).  Thucydides  writes  of  himself 
in  the  first  person  in  ii  48 ;  he  writes  of  himself  as  Thucydides  in  iv 
104-107.  Xenophon  in  the  Anabasis  (iii  i  4  and  onwards)  habitually 
refers  to  himself  as  Xenophon.  The  fact  then  that  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  is  spoken  of  in  the  Treatise  as  6  Utpo^  EwtfiuK  or  as  6  Efxri- 
fiuK,  in  a  context  where  the  first  person  is  used,  is  no  proof  at  all  that 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea  was  not  the  author  of  the  Treatise.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  he  adopts  the  phrase  used  in  each  case  by  Mar- 
cellus  -y  a  modem  writer  would  have  used  inverted  commas. 

1  Eusebius  iotroduces  the  sermoa  thus,  koI  ri>  Ir  fUo^  waptXBinf  rSur  fxtrpioM  lm«- 
M&y,  K6yov  airra^ar  vtwoajfiipos  .  . .  Tot6vSt  waptcx*  f^iyov.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Eusebius  means  himselC  His  method  of  introducing:  himself  as  the  preacher 
is  icstnictive. 

Lla 


5l6         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

So  far  I  hare  considered  the  arguntent  wfaich  Mr  Cooybeife  iirgB 
against  the  tnditioiul  view  (wbtcb  is  in  agreemeot  widi,  aiul  is  pcrittp 
bued  upon,  the  positive  assertion  of  Socrates  as  to  the  J!r  £aistias/ica 
77uoi^a\  that  Eusetnus  of  Caesan*  is  the  author  of  the  two  iNBtiM 
against  Mucellus.  These  aigumcnts  seem  to  me  to  melt  a«^  ooda 
examination. 

I  now  proceed  to  discu&s  a  positive  argument  in  &voDr  of  (he  tradi- 
tional vicv.  It  is  remarkable  that  Mr  Conybeare  omits  to  notice 
a  passage  near  the  end  of  the  second  book  of  the  fVHtmt  Mamlbm 
(Migne  P.  G.  xxiv  8a  i  ff),  which  gives  an  account  of  the  occasion  d 
the  composition  of  the  treatise.  I  give  the  passage  at  length.  '  Ii  wis 
but  reasonable  then  that  these  doctrines  shouJd  move  the  truljr  reUpooi 
and  thrice  happy  Emperor  against  the  man,  though  he  had  flattered  In 
in  countless  ways  and  in  his  treatise  had  expatiated  on  the  pnuses  of  the 
Emperor,  lliese  doctrines  also  even  against  its  wilt  forced  the  botf 
Synod  which  met  in  the  Imperial  City  and  was  gathered  from  diven 
Provinces,  from  Pontus  and  Cappadocia,  from  Asia  and  Phrygia,a(id 
from  Bithynia  and  Thrace  and  from  the  regions  beyond,  in  a  docomecl 
condemnatory  of  tlie  man,  publicly  to  brand  him.  These  dodnos 
compelled  ourselves  also  to  embark  on  the  present  disquisitioo,  that  oo 
the  one  hand  wc  might  thereby  uphold  the  decision  of  the  aacred  Sjnod, 
and  might  on  the  other  hand  obey  the  injunctions  of  our  fellow  bcsbofis 
that  wc  should  do  this  thing.  And  I  think  it  especially  needfol  Uol 
this  document  should  be  published  for  the  sake  of  those  wlio  faovc 
imagined  that  the  man  has  been  unjustly  treated.  For  we  must  needi 
soothe  the  suspicions  of  our  brethren  by  proclaiming  the  man's  impiefy 
against  the  Son  of  God,  which  has  long  skulked  in  secret  but  has  no* 
been  proved  by  means  of  his  own  tract,  which  of  his  own  accord  be 
presented  to  the  Emperor,  requesting  him  to  peruse  the  contenB 
thereof,  hoping  that  he  would  himself  obtain  the  Emperor's  protedioo, 
and  that  the  Bishops  whom  he  traduced  would  be  punished.  But  he 
did  not  attain  what  he  hoped  for.  Pluming  himself  on  his  treatise, 
he  approached  the  Emperor.  But  the  Emperor  entrusted  the  dedstoo 
as  to  the  contents  thereof  to  the  Synod.  And  the  holy  Synod  of  God 
condemned  the  treatise.' 

The  origin  of  the  am/ra  MarttHum  is  thus  made  clear.  The 
author  was  asked  to  undertake  the  work  by  the  members  of  a  Synod 
which  met  in  '  the  Imperial  City '  and  which  condemned  Marcdlus'i 
tractate.  'The  Imperial  City'  where  the  Council  met  is  clearly  0»- 
stintinople.  I'he  Council  of  Constantinople  in  question  must  be  that 
one  which  was  held  there  in  Kcbnuiry  336.  Proceedings  against  Jto- 
ccUus  had  already  commenced  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  wheace 
the  Bishops  were  summoned  by  the  Emperor  to  appear  before  him 


I 


y  '^ 


THE   lord's   command  TO   BAPTIZE  517 

Constantinople  (Gwatkin  Studies  of  Ariamsm  p.  87),  It  is  very  natural 
that  ETisebius  should  dedicate  a  treatise  i^ainst  Marcellus  (the  de 
EccUs.  Theoi.)  to  Flacillus,  Bishop  of  Antioch.  For  it  appears  probable 
that  Flacillus  presided  over  the  Council  of  Tyre  held  in  August  335 
(Athan.  ApoL  c.  Art.  81 ;  comp.  Gwatkin  Studies-^.  86 n.),  and  possibly 
also  at  the  subsequent  Council  of  Jerusalem. 

The  account  given  in  the  contra  Marallum  has  independent  support. 
We  learn  from  Socrates  H.E,\^^  (comp.  Sozom.  ii  33)  that  Marcellus 
and  his  book  were  condemned  at  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  and 
from  Athanasius  {^Apol.  c.  Art.  87)  that  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  (Zrc/wc 
EwcyStoc)  was  present  at  that  Council. 

The  treatise  against  Marcellus,  which  the  Bishops  assembled  at 
Constantinople  requested  Eusebius  to  compose,  was  doubtless  taken  in 
hand  at  once — i.  e.  shortly  after  February  336.  There  was  abundant 
time  for  so  practised  a  writer  as  Eusebius  to  finish  this  treatise,  and 
the  treatise  on  the  same  subject  which  followed  i^  before  his  death  at 
the  end  of  338  or  eariy  in  339.  F  H  C 

[Dr  Chase's  ai^ument  seems  to  me  to  be  complete  and  unanswerable 
from  the  standpoint  which  he  has  taken, — viz.  meeting  Mr  Conybeare 
on  his  own  ground,  and  accepting  for  the  moment,  without  discussion, 
Mr  Conybeare's  assumption  that  the  letter  referred  to  in  the  contra 
Maretllnm  19^  is  at  all  events  a  letter  of  Marcellus.  Granting  that  it 
is  a  letter  of  Marcellus,  it  seems  quite  certain  that  it  is  not  the  letter  to 
Julius. 

Also,  it  must,  no  doubt,  be  admitted  that  Eusebius  might  withhold 
his  approval  from  Marcellus  when  he  said  that  'the  Father  was  Father', 
and  *  the  Son  Son ',  on  account  of  the  special  use  which  Marcellus  may 
have  made  (rf  the  phrases,  although  Eusebius  himself  and  those  who 
thought  with  him  adopted  the  same  form  of  words  in  order  to  safeguard 
the  distinction  of  Persons  (and  perhaps  to  cover  at  least  a  modified 
subordinationism).  Marcellus  might  well  have  insisted  on  the  phrase 
*  the  Son  Son  *  in  connexion  with  the  theory  attributed  to  him  that  the 
Lc^os  was  the  title  that  corresponded  to  the  eternal  relation  within  the 
Godhead,  whereas  the  Son  (the  historic  person  Jesus  Christ)  had  only 
a  limited  and  '  oeconomic  *  part  to  play  (cf.  de  Eceles.  Theol.  i  5  p-  63  i). 

But  the  passage  does  not  read  easily ;  and  since  Dr  Chase's  note  was 
in  type,  further  consideration  has  convinced  me  that  the  words  which 
seem  strange  from  the  pen  of  Eusebius  are  not  his  words  at  all  They 
are  just  the  words  which  we  should  expect  from  Marcellus  himself 
about  the  opinions  of  Eusebius  or  of  one  of  his  school  of  thought 
I  was  coming  to  this  conclusion  when  I  turned  to  Rettberg's  MarcelHana, 
That  admirable  edition  of  the  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Marcellus, 


5i8         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


published  at  Gbttingen  in  1794.  which  Zahn  commended  to  18S7 
{MarrtZ/us  von  Aneyra  p.  5)  while  he  lamented  Ihat  laier  nrriten  on  the 
subject  made  so  little  use  of  it,  seems  still  to  be  neglected.  Wc 
naturally  lead  the  contra  Marcellum  in  the  excellent  print  of  the  OifonJ 
Press  (ed.  Gaisford  i^%i);  and  as  a  different  type  is  used  fat  the 
passages  quoted  from  Marcellus,  we  can  easily  read  there  MarceUnloo 
by  himself.  But  of  course  wc  are  at  the  mercy  of  the  Editor,  or  eito 
the  compositor;  and  though  Gaisford  placed  ia  the  margin  refereocei 
to  Kettberg's  collection  of  the  fragments,  in  this  case  either  be  did  not 
read  him  correctly,  or  he  deliberately  {though  without  noting  the  £ia} 
departed  from  his  arrangement. 

Rt:ttherg  prints  the  whole  of  the  passage  in  question,  'Apjo^uu  mn 
a.v  airtTfi  . . .  xax  n  ayiav  wcS/ui  waaumis,  as  a  quotation  from  liCarcellai 
Reference  to  the  context  shews  that  be  is  right.     Euscbius  saji  of 

Marcclius  ypa^u  S*  otv  uKT/uurrt  xaMwic  ftnj/toMvwf  liiroKnif  tovnt  rir 

Tparav.  Then  follows  the  passage,  rotrrov  rov  Tputraf  introduaog  die 
words  which  are  cited  (the  same  form  of  citation  occurs  just  afta^ 
Then,  at  the  end  of  the  |>assage,  come  the  words  of  Eusebius  hiinsdf: 
ravra  <^  Ma^MMAAof  ir^s  '\<rr*f>ioy,  ovx  opttrKOfttvos  r<p  iw  warif»  ^ 
a\7}B5tK  irarcpu  uftoXoytuf,  kul  rov  vutv  oXi/dws  vtov,  tutX  to  ayvaw  ra^ 
inraiTiot.  It  is  not  Kuseblus  who  finds  fault  with  such  cxpressioiii :  it 
is  Marcellus  whom  they  do  not  please. 

Euscbius  has  said  just  before  that  Marcellus  set  himself  up  as  tfae 
single  champion  of  the  truth  against  the  world  and  maligned  byaane 
a  number  of  writers  who  lud  expressed  themselves  correctly  and  to 
accordance  with  the  teaching  of  the  Church.    Then  he  gives  a  list  of 
thera  (they  are  all  men  of  the  '  Arianizing '  school).     The  first  name  in 
the  list  is  tJiat  of  Asterius,  and — if  I  may  bonow  the  method  of  pothirt 
assertion — the  first  quotation  from  Marcclius  (the  passage  under  do- 
cussioQ)  deals  with  Asterius,  ending  with  the  words  riwrn  o  MapaXJm 
xpot  'Airripiov.    Then  Eusebius  goes  on  to  cite  and  refute  the  attack  gf 
Marcclius  on  the  Others,  in  the  order  in  which  he  has  named  4^^fl 
References  to  Ongen  come  in  incidentally,  and  a  good  deal  of  spnl 
is  devoted  to  the  justification  of  Origen's  expressions.     (This  is  just 
what  we  should  expect  from  Eusebius  of  Caesarca,  and  is  xn  incidoual 
confirmatton  of  his  authorship.)    But  the  order  of  names  is  preserred 
all  thrcjLigh,  though  there  are  repeated  back-shots  at  those  who  have 
been  already  dealt  with.     (Marcellus  was  primarily  concerned  with  tbe 
living— the  insidious  subverters  of  the  Nicene  faith,  who  had  dared 
to  pass  through,  as  he  says,  his  own  diocese  preaching  heretical  strtDfat 
But  they  appealed  10  the  authority  of  Origen ;  and  so  Origen  comes  io 
for  his  share  of  attention  by  the  way,  as  tbe/oru  tt  origt>  of  the  vbcde 
mischief,  just  as  Paulinus  is  anackcd  as  '  tlie  father '  of  ^\sterius.) 


I 


THE   LORDS   COMMAND   TO   BAPTIZE  519 

We  see,  then,  that  the  wordt  with  which  Marcellus  fiods  fault  are  the 
words  of  Asterius ;  words  which  Eusebius  himself  had  used  in  bis  letter 
to  his  diocese,  as  he  uses  them  earlier  in  this  treatise  (p.  4  r) ;  words 
which  were  afterwards  adopted  in  the  Creed  of  the  Dedication.  This 
Creed,  if  not  actually  the  Creed  of  Lucian,  no  doubt  has  a  creed  (^ 
Ludan  as  its  basis  (for  summary  of  the  discussion  see  Hahn  SymboU  ' 
p.  184  note  60,  and  p.  187  note  90),  and  it  is  probable  that  these 
phrases  were  among  the  catchwords  (^  the  Lucianic  School  to  which 
Asterius  and  so  many  of  the  Arianizing  party  belonged,  and  as  such 
were  adopted  by  Eusebius  in  his  letter. 

The  Creed,  too,  which  is  quoted  with  approval,  is  not  the  Creed  of 
Marcellus  approved  by  Eusebius,  but  the  Creed  of  Asterios,  approved— 
so  &r  as  it  goes— by  Marcellus.  (So  it  is  probably  the  Creed  of  Lucian, 
and  the  passage  furnishes  incidental  confirmation  of  the  traditional 
view,  based  on  Sozomen  H.  E.  iii  5,  that  the  Creed  of  the  Dedication 
was  actually  Ludan's  Creed  Other  phrases,  some  of  them  gcnng  back 
to  Origen,  which  were  attacked  by  Marcellus  and  are  defended  in  the 
amtra  Marcel&tm^  are  characteristic  phrases  of  this  Creed.  Probably 
all  the  Lucianic  writers  who  are  attacked  derived  them  from  it) 

To  sum  up :  the  whole  passage  belongs  to  Marcellus  ;  the  letter  is 
the  letter  of  Asterius ;  the  creed  is  the  creed  of  Asterius  (r^.  si  ns 
Lucian) ;  the  phrases  criticized  are  those  of  the  writers  maligned  by 
Blarceilus,  and  ^proved  by  the  author. 

I  do  not  think  there  is  much  left — if  I  may  say  so  with  all  respect— 
of  Mr  Conybeare's  argument  Among  the  rest  the  craitrast  nky  htpov 
Bvaifiiov  ...  iyitSi  . . .  disappears.  The  passage  in  Athanasius  Apoi. 
€.  At.  87,  referred  to  by  Dr  Chase,  may  indicate  that  h  It^ms  Eucr^tot 
was  a  common  way  of  designating  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  He  and 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  were,  of  course,  two  of  the  leading  figures  in  the 
Arian  controversy ;  but  though  to  us  the  heir  of  the  library  of  Pamphilus 
is  so  immeasurably  the  more  important  of  the  two,  he  was  not  so  in  the 
eyes  of  his  contemporaries.  The  designation  o  ^0.%  Eim^ios  in  the 
contra  MarceUum  is,  I  beUeve,  the  phrase  of  Marcellus  himself,  but 
anyhow  it  reflects  contemporary  opinion.  In  the  writings  of  Athanasius 
o  EJKTi/Stoc  is  always  the  Bishop  of  Nicomedia,  the  recognized  head  of 
the  party  with  which  the  real  battle  for  the  Nicene  faith  was  fought 
(o!  npt  Eua-c/SuH'  is  Athanasius's  r^ular  phrase) :  whereas  the  Bishop  of 
Caesarea  is  always  distinguished  as  such,  or  in  the  one  passage  cited  as 
"knpoi  Ma-i^uK.  This  latter  Eusebius,  writing  against  Marcellus  in  the 
third  person,  might  well  adopt  both  the  current  designati<ms ;  more 
particularly  as  his  tract  was  intended  to  express  the  collective  sentiments 
of  the  synod  of  Constantinople,  and  so  he  would  naturally  assume  as 
impersonal  a  tone  as  he  could— even  to  the  extent  of  appealing,  in  his 


520         THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

ovm  defence,  to  the  evidence  of  his  other  writings,  and  describing  then 
as  'circulated  koto,  irdvra  tobw'  {p.  291/),  and  so  implying  that  there 
was  no  excuse  for  ignorance  of  his  real  opinions.  (In  the  .^/h>J.  c.  Ar, 
Athanastus,  though  usually'  writing  in  the  first  person,  twice  U  least 
alludes  to  himself  as  '  Athanasius ',  §§  36,  87,  where  he  is  referring  no 
doubt  to  what  was  said  about  himself,  but  is  not  giving  an  acttal 
quotation.) 

I  would  only  add: — (i )  This  tract  was  originally  written  anonymoufy, 
as  we  have  seen ;  apparently  as  an  amplification  of  the  letter  fJi  mf 
avTcv  ypncfr*}  p-  55^)  which  was  sent  at  once  by  the  synod  to  the 
districts  in  which  the  writing  of  Marcellus  might  be  expected  to  be  bl^H 
known,  with  the  description  of  which  letter  given  by  Sozomen  it  doao^ 
corresponds  (see  Sozomen  If.  E.  ii  33).  It  would  thus  be  asstrriatfj 
rather  with  the  synod  than  with  Eusebius  himself,  and  may  hare  bid 
only  a  limited  circulation  for  a  long  time  as  an  anonymous  tract.  And 
so  the  silence  of  Socrates  about  it,  while  he  quotes  from  our  dt  Eakt. 
TTuoK  as  a  work  of  Eusebius  in  three  books  '  against  Marcellus '  (Soa 
H.  .£.  i  36 ;  ii  so,  31),  would  be  explained.  The  contra  Afartetlmm 
was  a  fugitive  tract,  written  currenU  caJamo,  to  serve  the  purpose  of  the 
moment.  The  de  Eccksiastica  TTteologia  is  a  more  solid  work,  composed 
at  leisure,  to  supplement  an  earlier  one  in  which  the  author  thought,  be 
says,  he  had  already  done  enough  for  the  refutation  of  Marcellus  by 
simply  quoting  his  own  expressions  (i^^r/«.  Theol.  preface),  Thebter 
and  calmer  statement  of  the  case  superseded  the  earlier  and  more 
personal  diatribe  and  defence.  (No  one,  I  suppose,  who  has  read  them, 
doubts  that  the  five  books  are  by  the  same  hand,  and  that  the  tfmfM 
Marceilum  is  the  work  alluded  to  in  the  dedication  and  the  preface  to 
the  dtEaUs.  Theol.  For  the  reference  to  ij  jrpo  tovtov  >pa«^i/,  imbedded 
in  the  text  of  the  de  Eccki,  Theol.  p.  176  a,  see  the  contra  ManeUwm 
pp.  6^,f;  7r,</;  24-25;  izc\  35^;  36fr;  43  ff.)  (2)  There  is  no 
doubt,  as  Mr  Conybeare  says,  that  the  author  of  the  contra  MaraJUm 
declares  that  Marcellus  had  written  only  one  writing.  But  there  is  alio 
no  doubt  that  this  writing  had  been  composed,  in  opposition  to  a 
writing  of  Asterius,  before  the  synod  of  Jcnisalem,  and  that  it  was 
made  the  reason  for  his  deposition  at  Constantinople.  It  was  after 
this  that  Marcellus  went  to  Rome.  Clearly,  therefore,  this  writing  of 
Marcellus  was  not  the  tetter  to  Julius.  The  fact  is  that  Eusebius  in 
this  treatise  calls  the  book  of  Marcellus  a  ypa^ij,  a  oifyy/M^^io,  and 
an  ^KFToXij.  Just  as  the  writing  of  j\sterius  (and  probably  othen 
of  the  writings  which  were  criticized  by  Marcellus)  was  in  the  fonn 
of  a  letter,  so  the  writing  of  Marcellus  himself  may  well  liavc  been  in 
the  form  of  a  letter,  perhaps  a  pastoral  addressed  to  his  own  diocese, 
where  the  synod  that  condemned  him  ordered  search  to  be  made  for 


THE   LORDS   COMMAND   TO   BAPTIZE  531 

copies  of  it,  that  the;  might  be  destroyed  (Soz.  ioc.  at.).  And  if  it  was 
a  letter,  Eusebius's  rather  peevish  complaint  of  its  length  would  be 
explained.  Marcellus's  writing  would  thus  be  an  Epistle  to  the  Galattans, 
and  the  references  in  it  to  St  Paul's  Epistle  have  special  point. 
Eusebius's  reply,  like  the  synod's  letter,  was  intended  to  serve  as  yet 
another  Epistle  to  the  Gatatians*  to  convince  the  men  who  thought  that 
their  distinguished  bishop  had  been  wronged.  Jerome  {de  Vir.  Hi.  86) 
says  Marcellus  wrote  '  many  volumes ',  chiefly  against  the  Arians,  He 
was  not  the  man  to  keep  silence  when  attacked,  and  we  may  be  sure 
that  he  would  lose  no  time  in  replying  to  the  synod's  letter.  Eusebius's 
amplification  of  it  must,  therefore,  have  been  written  before  he  had  had 
time  to  compose  a  reply.  (3)  The  curious  and  very  unusual  order  of 
the  words  in  the  first  article  of  the  Creed  irumv*ty  c!c  raripa  Btiv^  of 
which  I  know  no  other  instance,  was  probably  Lucian's  own  order.  It 
certainly  could  be  used  to  support  a  strongly  subordinationist  doctrine, 
and  one  that  made  the  three  distinct  Persons  its  starting-point;  and 
it  may  well  have  been  altered  in  the  Creed  accepted  at  Andoch  in 
341  as  being  strange  and  perhaps  suspicious.  (At  the  same  time  the 
more  usual  order  Kvptor  Irjamhr  .  .  .  vlov  was  adopted  in  the  second 
article.)  (4)  On  the  passage  before  us  Gaisford  prints  the  note  of 
Montacutius,  who  took  it  correctly  as  a  quotation  from  Marcellus. 
I  am  sure,  from  my  cursory  reading,  that  a  close  examination  of 
Gaisford's  edition  would  expose  other  passages  in  which  the  type  ought 
to  be  rearranged.  (I  have  noted  pp.  21  d-22  d^  p.  25  d,  p.  39  b — Gaisford 
pp.  44-46,  53,  60-61 ;  and  the  type  used  for  quotations  fiom  Scripture 
is  in  the  earlier  part  of  tract  the  same  as  that  used  for  quotations  from 
Marcellus,  whereas  in  the  latter  part  it  is  the  type  of  the  rest  of  the  text, 
inverted  commas  being  used  to  mark  the  quotation.)  (5)  Reference  to 
Professor  Gwatkin's  Studies  in  Ariamsm  (see  2nd  edition  pp,  42  n.  4, 
44  n.  2,  130  n.  6,  173  n.  3)  will  shew  that,  before  the  question  of  the 
authorship  of  the  contra  Marceilum  was  raised,  he  took  substantially 
the  view  of  the  passage  under  discussion  which  I  have  expressed,  as 
regards  its  relation  to  the  Creeds  and  the  Lucianic  school.  Mr  Gwatkin 
had  read  Marcellus  in  Rettberg's  edition.— J.  F.  B-B.] 


It  seems  to  be  pretty  generally  agreed  that  Aphraatcs^  wm 
acquainted  with  monasticisoi,  in  fact  that  there  were  monks  of 
some  sort  In  that  part  of  the  Syriac-spcaking  Church  with  wbidi 
he  had  to  deal.  As  far  as  I  know  also  this  opinion  is  usually 
based  on  the  language  used  by  Aphraates  of  a  class  of  peraoos 
whom  he  styles  B'nai  Q'y^md,  wluch  term  has  been  translated 
'  Sons  of  the  Covenant '. 

A  few  years  ago  a  new  theory  was  started  by  Mr  F.  C.  BuHdlt*. 
and  the  same  has  recently  been  maintained  by  him  in  his  charming 
volume  of  lectures  on  Early  EasUrn  Christianity^. 

Mr  Burkitt  seems  still  to  assume  the  existence  of  monks  in  the 
Church  of  Aphraates,  in  fact  he  refers  to  the  Persian  Sage  hiauelf 
as  '  a  monk  and  a  bishop '.  What  is  new  in  his  theory  is  that  the 
B'nai  Q'ydmd  were  not  the  monks,  but  *  simply  the  baptized  laity 
of  the  early  Syriac -speaking  Church,  and  that  in  the  earlitf 
stages  of  that  Church's  developement  no  layman  was  accept^ 
for  baptism  unless  he  was  prepared  to  lead  a  life  of  strto 
continence  and  freedom  from  worldly  cares'*.  This  theory 
forms  an  integral  part  of  Mr  Burkitt's  view  as  to  the  constitution 
of  the  early  Syriac  Church.     He  writes*:  *  He  [Aphraates]  ooly 

'  Aptimati^s  HuurisheJ  urkhtn  the  Pcniao  Es^iirc  ia  the  first  luUr  or  tbt  Coutb 
century,  and  was  {irobably  a  bishuji.  He  wrute  in  Syriac  tweoty-(wo  Discouna> 
or  '  Demonstrations',  in  the  form  of  leltere  to  a  frientl,  each  beginatng  with  Mf 
corrcftpcnding  letter  of  the  Semitic  alphabet.  The  first  ten  were  written  in  ti« 
year  337,  the  rest  in  3^  k,v.  In  345  he  added  another  On  AW  Ch**ttr.  We 
writings  were  S.nt  edited  in  1IJ69  \»y  WrighL  In  I'A^^  aootbcr  cdttMn,  hy 
UoRi  Pariaot,  appeared  in  CrafBn's  Pairologia  Syriacttf  accompanied  by  a  fattwr 
unrdiable  Latin  trannlation.  Dr  Gwynnr  in  vol.  xiii  of  Niante  and  Poat-NmM 
Fat/itrs,  has  translated  eight  of  the  Discoiines  into  Engtish,  via.  I,  v,  vi,  vui,  x,  nil, 
xzi  and  xxii. 

'  Karfy  ChrisHaHtty  ouhidt  Iht  Roman  Emf-tn.  Two  Lectures  <kl)f«f«d  ll 
Trinity  College,  Dublin,  by  F.  Crawford  Burlcitt,  M. A.,  Trinity  CoUcKC,  CaaibnAgft 
Cambridge  Univcnriiy  Press,  i8y<). 

*  Fariy  EasUm  Christianity.  St.  Margaret's  Lecttires,  1904,  by  F.  Crawibcd 
Burkitt,  Lecturer  \a  PaUeography  in  the  University  of  Cambridge.  London  1  Joto 
Mitrray. 

*  ibid.  p.  13;^  *  Ibid.  p.  137. 


APHRAATES  AND   HONASTICISH  523 

recognizes  two  grades  in  the  Christian  ranks,  the  baptized  celibate 
(from  whose  ranks  also  the  clergy  are  drawn)  and  the  unbaptized 
penitent.'  Again  ^ :  '  The  Christian  Community  is  divided  by 
Aphraates  for  practical  purposes  into  two  parts,  the  Bnai  Qydmd 
and  the  Penitents.' 

Mr  Burldtt  ts  here  referring  to  the  sixth  and  seventh  Discourses 
of  Aphraates,  which  treat  respectively  of  the  Bnai  Q'ydmd  and 
the  Tayyd^S  or  Penitents.  His  view  then  is  that  these  two 
Discourses  deal,  the  one  with  the  baptized  laity,  the  other  with 
the  Catechumens,  and  that  the  conditions  for  admission  to  baptism 
were  continence  and  renunciation  of  all  worldly  encumbrances 
(in  accordance  with  Aphr.  vi). 

I  venture  to  think,  however,  that  this  explanation  of  the 
constitution  of  Aphraates'  Church,  attractive  as  it  is  at  first 
sight,  will  not  bear  examination;  for  the  TayyA^i  of  Dis- 
course vii  cannot  possibly,  I  think,  have  been  Catechumens; 
while  there  are  strong  reasons  to  think  that  there  was  a  class 
of  baptized  lay  Christians  distinct  from  the  Enai  Q'ydmd, 

It  is  the  case  of  the  latter  that  I  wish  especially  to  reconsider 
in  the  following  pages,  but  it  will  be  more  satisfactory  to  examine 
first  the  significance  of  the  term  Tayyd^/. 

I  must  premise  that  Aphraates'  seventh  Discourse  deals,  to  all 
appearance,  with  two  different  classes  of  people :  at  least  the 
distinction  must  be  observed  if  the  penitents  spoken  of  in  §§  i-i5 
are  Catechumens,  for  from  the  beginning  of  $  1 8  and  onward  he  is 
certainly  speaking  of  the  B'nai  Q'ydmd.  I  am  inclined  to  think 
that  the  transition  b^ins  with  §17. 

In  order  to  find  out  who  and  what  the  Tc^d^iviat  who  form 
the  subject  of  §§  1-16  it  is  necessary  first  to  discover  the  meaning 
of  the  corresponding  term  tydp^thd,  which  we  may  represent  for 
the  present  by  the  colourless  word  '  repentance  *. 

Now  if  we  assume  that  Tayyd^i^  'Penitents',  bears  a  technical 
meaning,  as  denoting  the  members  of  a  recognized  grade  in  the 
Christian  Society,  viz.  the  Catechumens,  we  shall  naturally  expect 
that  'repentance'  will  signify  the  corresponding  Catechumen  state. 
But  it  is  abundantly  evident  that  the  word  in  this  Discourse  denotes 
not  merely  a  state  in  which  the  members  of  a  whole  grade  find 
themselves  by  virtue  of  their  standing  in  the  Society,  but  some 

*  Op.  at  p.  133. 


524         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAI.   STUDIES 

definite  act,  or  course  of  action,  m  which  individuals  who  ban 
been  guilty  of  actual  sin  arc  exhorted  to  participate  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  forgiveness  of  their  sins.  I  believe  this  will 
be  sufficiently  proved  by  the  passages  which  shall  presently  be 
cited. 

What  then  could  this  act  be  by  which  the  Penitents  (In  the 
sense  of  Catechumens)  were  to  obtain  forgiveness  of  ihetr  sins? 
It  could  only  be  one  thing — baptism ;  for  this  was  the  only 
(sacramental)  means  available  for  Catechumens, 

It  remains  to  examine  whether  tlic  meaning  'baptbrn'  fw 
fy&^iUhd  will  satisfy  the  requirements  of  Aphraates'  languagt 
This  can  only  be  done  by  quoting  at  length  from  Discourse  vo'. 

\  1.  Aphraates  begins  by  saying  that  'of  all  those  who  hiw 
been  bom  and  clothed  in  a  body  one  alone  is  innocent,  even  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ'.  Then,  after  quoting  Scripture  to  prove  this, 
he  continues: 

Again,  there  is  none  other  of  the  sons  of  Adam  that  goetfa  down  to 
the  contest  and  is  not  wounded  and  buffeted ;  for  since  Adam  trans- 
gressed the  commandment  sin  Imih  reigned.  And  by  many  it  hatb 
been  bun'eted,  and  many  it  hath  wounded  and  killed ;  but  it  no  nun  of 
the  many  ever  killed  until  out  Saviour  came  and  took  it  and  oadelit 
to  His  cross.  And  though  it  be  n:iiled  to  the  cross,  yet  its  sting 
remaincth  and  pricketh  many,  until  an  end  be  made  and  its  stiog  be 
broken. 

§  2.  There  is  a  drug  for  every  disease,  and  when  a  skilful  physician  holli 
found  it  it  (the  disease)  is  cured.  And  for  those  that  are  wounded  in 
our  contest  there  is  the  drug  of  repentance,  which  they  may  pot  opM 
their  sores  and  be  healed.  O  ye  physicians,  disciples  of  our  irise 
Physician,  take  you  this  drug,  and  with  it  yo  shall  heal  the  plagues  of 
them  that  are  sick.  They  that  do  l>attle  and  are  stricken  by  the  hand 
of  him  that  fightcth  against  them,  when  they  have  found  them  a  «ue 
physician  he  tmth  a  care  for  their  curing,  that  he  may  heal  them  that 
are  wounded.  And  when  the  physician  hath  healed  him  thai  ns 
stricken  in  the  battle,  he  receiveth  gifts  and  honour  of  the  king. 
Kven  so,  beloved,  he  that  toileth  in  our  contest,  and  his  enemy  cometb 
upon  him  and  woundeth  him,— it  behoveth  to  give  him  repentance  u 
a  drug  when  the  wounded  roan's  soul  is  exceeding  penitent  For  God 
rejecteth  not  penitents,  for  Ezechiel  the  prophet  saith,  '  I  will  not  tbc 
death  of  the  dead  sinner,  but  that  he  turn  from  his  evil  way  and  live'. 

%  3.  He  that  is  smitten  in  battle  is  not  ashamed  to  place  himself  in 

*  Tbe  ucUons  arc  numbered  as  in  Pariiot's  cdiUoiL 


APHRAATES   AND   UONASTICISH  535 

the  hands  of  a  wise  physician  because  the  battle  hath  gone  against  him 
and  he  is  stricken ;  and  when  he  is  cured  the  king  rejecteth  him  not, 
but  counteth  him  with  his  anny.  So  should  not  a  man  whom  Satan 
bath  wounded  blush  to  confess  his  sin  and  turn  away  from  it  and  ask 
for  the  physic  of  repentance.  For  whosoever  is  ashamed  to  shew  his 
sore  is  taken  with  the  gangrene,  and  the  infection  reacheth  to  the  whole 
body ;  but  he  that  is  not  ashamed,  his  sore  is  healed,  and  he  returneth 
and  again  goeth  down  to  the  contest  But  he  that  hath  developed 
the  gai^rene  can  no  more  be  cured,  nor  put  on  again  the  armour  which 
he  hath  laid  aside.  So  also  whosoever  is  overcome  in  our  contest,  this 
way  is  open  to  him  to  be  cured,  that  he  say  '  I  have  sinned ',  and  seek 
repentance.  But  he  that  is  ashamed  cannot  be  healed,  because  he  will 
not  make  known  his  sore  to  the  physician  who  received  two  dinars  for 
which  he  will  cure  all  them  that  are  wounded  \ 

§  4.  It  is  your  duty,  O  ye  physicians,  disciples  of  our  glorious 
Physician,  not  to  withhold  healing  from  him  that  hath  need  to  be 
healed.  Whosoever  dieweth  you  his  wound,  give  him  the  physic  of 
repentance.  And  if  any  one  is  ashamed  to  shew  his  disease,  counsel 
him  that  he  bide  it  not  from  you.  And  when  he  bath  revealed  it  to 
you,  publish  it  not,  lest  on  his  account  even  the  innocent  be  deemed 
guilty  by  (our)  enemies,  &c. 

§  6.  But  if  those  that  have  been  smitten  will  not  make  known  their 
sores,  then  do  the  physicians  incur  no  blame  that  they  have  not  healed 
them  that  are  sick  of  their  wounds.  And  if  they  that  are  wounded  wiU 
bide  their  diseases  they  cannot  again  put  on  armour,  because  they  have 
fostered  the  gangrene  in  their  bodies,  &c. 

§  6.  But  he  also  that  hath  shewn  his  sore  and  hath  been  cured,  let 
him  have  a  care  of  that  place  that  was  healed,  that  he  be  not  smitten 
thereon  a  second  time ;  for  when  one  is  smitten  a  second  time  his  cure 
is  hard,  even  to  a  skilful  physician ;  for  a  wound  received  upon  an  (old) 
scar  is  not  to  be  healed;  and  even  though  it  should  be  healed  he 
cannot  ag^n  put  on  armour ;  or,  should  he  even  dare  to  put  on  armour, 
he  will  usually  suffer  defeat 

§  8.  You  again  that  are  wounded  I  counsel  that  ye  be  not  ashamed 
to  say,  *  We  have  been  worsted  in  the  contest '.  Receive  for  nought  the 
drug,  and  be  converted  and  live  or  eVer  ye  be  killed  outright  You 
^ain  I  would  put  in  mind,  ye  physicians,  that  it  is  written  in  the  books 
of  our  wise  Physician  that  He  did  not  withhold  repentance,  &c. 

§  II.  Hear,  ye  also  who  hold  the  keys  of  the  gates  of  heaven,  and 
open  ye  the  gates  to  penitents,  &c.  [The  sinner  is  not  to  be  despised, 
but  to  be  admonished  as  a  brother.] 

§  12.  To  you  penitents  I  say  that  ye  reject  not  this  way  that  is  given 
*  U  this  a  reference  to  Luke  z  35 1 


536         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


you  to  be  healed  ;  for  He  saith  in  the  Scripture*,  '  He  that  confesseth 
his  sin  and  leaveth  it,  God  baib  mercy  on  him  ',  &c 

{  13.  ...  The  shepherd  is  concerned  for  the  oae  sheep  that  ii  lost 
out  of  the  whole  flock  more  than  for  those  that  went  not  astray.  Ac 

$  15.  O  ye  that  ask  for  repentance,  ye  are  like  to  Aaron,  the  chief  of 
priests  .  .  .  David  also,  the  chief  of  the  kings  of  Ismd,  confessed  bi$ 
iniquity  and  was  forgiven.  Simon  too,  the  chief  of  the  disciples,  wbco 
he  denied  that  he  had  ever  seen  Christ,  and  cursed  and  swore, '  1  koiw 
not  the  man', — yet  when  be  repented  in  his  heart,  and  multiplied  the 
tears  of  his  weeping,  our  Lord  received  him,  and  made  him  the  fouufa- 
tion,  and  called  him  Cephas,  the  Building  of  the  Church  \ 

These  lengthy  extracts  contain  practically  all  Aphraatcs  has  id 
tell  us  about  penitents  and  '  reiwntaace  *  in  55  t-16.  I  do  net 
think  there  is  anything  in  what  I  have  left  out  that  would  teod 
to  modify  the  meaning  of  the  passages  quoted. 

I  hope  that  what  I  said  above— that  ^yA^^tkA,  or  '  repentance^' 
cannot  denote  the  Catechumen  state — may  now  appear  stiffidend/ 
proved,  without  the  need  of  further  discus^on. 

To  my  mind  it  Hcs  equally  on  the  surface  ofAphraates'languagc 
that  the  word  cannot  stand  for  the  reception  of  baptism : 

I.  In  the  passages  quoted  Aphraates  describes  '  repentance'  a) 
a  'physic'  or  'drug^  by  which  sinners  are  restored  in  some 
measure  to  their  former  state  of  spiritual  health,  and  are  enabled 
to  carry  on  the  same  spiritual  contest  in  which  they  were  befoic 
engaged.  There  is  not  the  smallest  indication  that  *  repentance' 
is  regarded  as  the  door  to  a  higher  grade  of  Christian  life  than 
that  which  was  before. 

a.  Aphraates  contemplates  the  possibility  of  a  repetition  of 
'repentance',  though  he  implies  that  this  is  unusual. 

3.  So  far  I  have  been  arguing  only  from  the  language  of 
^  1-16,  because,  as  I  have  already  hinted,  there  is  reason  to 
think  that  in  the  remaining  sections  of  this  Discourse  Aphraata 
has  in  mind  a  difTerent  class  of  persons  from  those  treated  of  in  tut 
first  part.  Whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the  language  used  in  \  17 
of  repentance'  is  quite  incompatible  with  the  explanation  of  that 
term  as  meaning  cither  the  Catechumen  state  or  the  remission  of 
sins  through  baptism.   The  section  takes  the  form  of  a  direct  and 

*  According  to  Aphraates*  view  Simon  was  alrcadjr  baplixcd.  for  be  heUI  thai 
Christ  baptixcd  the  Apostles  when  He  washed  their  feet  before  the  Eucbuisti 


AFHRAATES   AND   HONASTICISH  537 

personal  appeal  on  the  pait  of  Aphraates  to  his  friend ;  and  we 
cannot  help  being  struck  by  the  complete  change  of  tone  which 
marks  it  off  from  those  preceding  it.  Havii^  hitherto  used  all 
his  powers  of  persuasion  in  exhorting  certain  persons  to  make  use 
of  *  repentance  \  he  now  takes  up  an  entirely  new  attitude,  and 
treats  the  possibility  of  his  friend  ever  coming  to  need '  repentance' 
as  a  serious  calamity.  Having  emphasized  the  &ct  of  God's  mercy, 
and  the  efficacy,  nay  necessity,  of '  repentance '  with  confession  of 
sin,  he  now  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme  in  warning  his  friend : 

I  beseech  thee,  beloved,  he  writes,  by  the  mercies  of  God,  slacken 
nothing  of  thy  diligence  on  account  of  what  I  have  written  to  thee,  that 
God  rejects  not  penitents. 

He  seems  to  say  that  'repentance*  is  to  some  extent  in- 
congruous with  the  state  of  life  of  such  a  one  as  his  friend : 

Do  not  thou  come  to  need  repentance  .  ■ .  This  hand  is  reached  out 
to  sinners,  but  the  righteous  require  it  not. 

Could  such  lai^age  possibly  be  used  of  baptism  ?  He  goes 
on  to  say  that  'repentance'  is  an  extreme  remedy;  the  patient 
will  never  be  quite  the  same  man  after  it : 

Lose  not  that  which  thou  hast,  lest  thou  weary  thyself  to  seek  it, 
(and  know  not  then)  whether  thou  hast  found  it  or  no.  And  even  if 
diou  find  it,  it  is  not  like  (that  which  was)  thine ;  for  he  that  hath  sinned 
and  repented  resembles  not  him  that  was  far  from  sin.  Love  the  more 
excellent  {or  higher)  part,  and  separate  thyself  from  all  that  foUeth  short 
(thereof).  Strive  manfully  in  thine  annour,  that  thou  be  not  stricken  in 
the  battle.  Have  no  need  to  ask  for  physic,  or  to  weary  thyself  to  go 
to  a  physician.  Even  when  thou  art  healed  thy  scars  will  not  remain 
unknown.  Be  not  confident  that,  lo  I  there  is  repentance,  and  so  bring 
down  thy  good  namej  but  be  superior  to  repentance.  He  whose 
garment  is  torn  must  needs  have  it  patched,  yet  even  when  it  is  sewn 
there  is  none  that  doth  not  detect  it,  &c. 

Here  *  repentance '  is  spoken  of  as  a  particular  course  of  action 
to  be  adopted  by  those  who  have  committed  actual  sin :  it  is 
possible,  and  far  preferable,  never  to  require  it :  it  puts  a  slur 
upon  a  man's  character  which  can  never  be  quite  removed.  It  is 
out  of  the  question  to  apply  such  language  to  baptism.  What 
then  does  fyd&^Uhd  mean  ?  As  used  in  this  Discourse  the  word 
clearly  refers  to  that  discipline  which  we  know  to  have  existed 


528  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

in  other  parts  of  the  Christian  Church  much  eaHier  than  the 
time  of  Aphraates,  and  which  we  have  no  a  priori  grounds  fcr 
banishing  from  the  early  Syriac  Church :  I  mean  the  discipline 
of  Penance,  by  which  those  guilty  of  scandalous  sins  obtaiDed 
ease  in  their  consciences  before  God,  and  outwardly  were  restored 
to  fellowship  in  the  Christian  community. 

A  comparison  of  Aphraates'  penitential  system  with  that  of 
other  churches  is  no  part  of  xs\y  present  subject ;  but  one  or  t»'0 
points  may  be  noted : 

1.  Publicity  is  to  some  extent  avoided  (^4);  and  in  accordance 
with  this  wc  have  the  emphasis  laid  quite  as  strongly  on  the  ida 
of  forgiveness  of  sins  as  on  the  readmission  to  Church  rights. 

%.  A  prominent  part  is  assigned  to  the  ministers  of  penance: 
they  are  the  physicians  :  they  hold  the  keys  of  the  gates  of 
heaven:  they  have  power  to  refuse  (rightly  or  wrongly)  to  admit 
a  sinner  to  penance. 

Now  if  tyA^&tltd  means  penance,  there  is  no  further  justificatioo 
for  making  the  Tayyd^i  Catechumens,  especially  when  a  little 
further  on  we  find  Aphraates  exhorting^  persons  who  arc '  solitan'es 
and  B'nai  Qy&md  and  holy '  to  submit  to  penance  (^  25), 

It  appears  then  that  the  Seventh  Discourse  has  for  its  subject 
Penitents  and  Penance,  and  not  Catechumens  and  Baptism.  The 
penitents  are  not  a  groiU,  but  only  an  '  accidentally '  constituted 
class,  who  may  belong  to  any  grade  within  the  baptiicd 
community. 

Wc  now  come  to  the  B'nai  Q'ydmd ;  and  the  qucjrtioo  as  to 
their  identity  is  more  difficult  to  answer.  Mr  Burkitt's  view- 
that  they  were  simply  the  baptized  laity  of  the  early  Syriic 
Church,  and  that  continence  and  renunciation  of  worldly  posse»> 
sions  were  required  of  all  baptized  Christians — is  based  maialy 
upon  the  language  used  by  Aphraates  in  §  20  of  this  Discourse. 

I  give  the  passage  in  his  translation. 

§  3D.  Whereforethusshouldtbetniiiipeters,theheraldsof  theChuidv 
cry  and  warn  all  the  Society  of  God  before  the  Baptism — them,  I  say. 
tliat  have  offered  themselves  for  virginity  and  for  holiness,  youths  and 
maidens  holy— tlietn shall  the  heralds  warn.  And  they  shall  say;  'H« 
whose  heart  is  set  to  the  state  of  matrimony,  let  him  many  befote 
baptism,  lest  he  fall  in  the  spiritual  contest  and  be  killed.  And  he  iliat 
feareth  this  part  of  the  struggle,  let  him  turn  back,  lest  he  break  his 


APHRAATES  AND   MONASTICISH  529 

brother's  heart  like  his  own.  He  also  that  loveth  his  possessitnis,  let 
him  turn  back  ^m  the  army,  lest  when  the  battle  shall  wax  too  fierce 
for  him  he  remember  his  property  and  turn  back,  and  he  that  tumeth 
back  then  [lit,  from  the  contest]  is  covered  with  disgrace.  He  that 
hath  not  oflfered  himself  and  hath  not  yet  put  on  his  armour,  if  he  turn 
back  he  is  not  blamed ;  but  every  one  that  ofTereth  himself  and  putteth 
on  his  armour,  if  he  turn  back  ftom  the  contest  becometh  a  laughing- 
stock*.' 

The  section  concludes :  '  He  that  strippeth  himself  is  meet  for 
the  fight,  for  he  remembereth  not  au^t  that  is  behind  him  to 
turn  back  to  it/ 

The  passage,  as  it  stands,  does  favour  the  view  Mr  Burkitt  has 
adopted,  in  so  far  that  the  conditions  laid  down  seem  to  be  those 
for  baptism.  But  Mr  Burkitt  himself  says  this  view  is  ^amazing' ; 
and  indeed  it  seems  almost  incredible  that  such  an  idea  of 
baptism  could  have  been  held  by  a  writer  or  in  a  church  that 
accepted  the  Acts  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  as  canonical  Scripture. 
It  will  be  worth  while,  therefore,  to  examine  carefully  the  above 
passage  in  its  context,  and  see  whether  some  other  more  likely 
interpretation  cannot  be  put  upon  it.  I  cannot  help  feeling  that 
the  piece  is  shewn  in  a  different  light  when  restored  to  its  con- 
text, and  that  the  warnings,  which  at  first  sight  seem .  to  apply 
directly  to  candidates  for  baptism,  are  in  reality  meant  for 
persons  aspiring  to  enter  a  grade  which  lies  beyond  that  of  the 
ordinary  baptized  Christian. 

Let  us  set  forth  the  context  at  length. 

{18.  O  ye  that  have  been  summoned  to  the  contest,  hear  the  sound 
of  the  trumpet  and  take  courage.  To  you  also  I  speak  who  hold  the 
trumpets,  priests  and  scribes  and  sages  :  call,  and  say  to  all  the  people : 
*  He  that  is  afraid,  let  him  turn  back  from  the  contest,  lest  he  break  his 
brother's  heart  as  his  own  heart.  And  he  that  planteth  a  vineyard,  let 
him  retum  and  tend  it,  test  he  think  of  it  and  be  defeated  in  the  battle. 
And  he  that  hath  betrothed  a  wife  and  wisheth  to  take  her,  let  him 
retum  and  rejoice  with  his  wife.  And  he  that  buildeth  a  house,  let  him 
retum  to  it,  lest  he  remember  his  house  and  fight  not  with  all  his  might '. 
For  solitaries  *  is  the  contest  fitting,  because  their  faces  are  set  toward 
that  which  is  before  them,  and  they  remember  not  aught  that  is  behind 

*  Eariy Eaattm  Christianity  f.  ii^t. 
>  From  Deut  zx  5  ff.  '  J^yi, 

VOL.  VI.  Mm 


530         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


^M  them ;   for  their  treasure  Is  before  tbem,  and  what   spoil  they  take 

^H  Cometh  stl  to  themselves,  and  they  receive  an  overflowing  abundance.' 

^1  To  you  (again)  I  speak  who  blow  upon  the  tnimpeto.     When  ye  hm 

^M  completed  yuur  exhortation  mark  them  that  go  baclc,  and  them  tbftt 

^M  are  left  review,  and  bring  them  to  the  waters  of  probation,  even  tbco 

^M  that  have  olTcred  themselves  for  the  battle:   the  waters  will  prove  every 

^M  one  that  js  strenuous,  and  from  there  will  they  that  are  slothful  be 

^H  separated. 

^M  §  19.  Hear  now,  beloved,  this  mystery,  the  likeness  of  which  Gideoo 

^V  foTCshewed.     When  he  had  gathered  the  people  for  vt^t  the  scribe 

warned  (them  with)  the  words  of  the  Law  and  the  passages  whicli  I  bMn 
quoted  for  thee  above.  Then  much  people  went  back  from  the  amy. 
And  when  there  were  left  those  that  were  chosen  for  the  battle,  the  lad 
said  to  Gideon  :  '  Bring  them  down  to  the  water  and  prove  them  these 
He  tliat  lappeth  the  water  with  his  tongue  is  impatient  and  eager  to  go  to 
I  the  battle ;  but  be  that  lieth  on  his  belly  to  drink  the  water  is  too  sbd 

and  feeble  for  ihc  battle.'  Great  is  this  mystery,  beloved,  which  GideoB 
wrought  long  ago, shewing  a  t>'pe  of  Baptism,  and  a  mystery  of  the  Cooiei^ 
and  an  cxainjjlc  of  the  Solitaries  ;  for  he  first  of  alt  warned  the  peofde 
by  the  trial  of  the  water ;  again,  when  he  had  proved  Ihenj  by  the  mVUr, 
from  ten  thousand  there  were  chosen  but  three  hundred  men  to  under- 
take the  contest.  Now  this  agrees  with  the  word  which  our  Lonlspok^ 
that  the  called  are  many  and  the  chosen  few. 
J  20.  [See  above.] 

§  21.  And  when  they  have  preached  to  and  instructed  and  warned 
all  the  Society  of  God,  let  them  bring  to  the  waters  of  baptism  than 
that  have  been  chosen  for  the  contest,  and  prove  them.  And  after  the 
baptism  Let  them  observe  those  that  are  strenuous  and  those  that  are 
feebte  :  the  strenuous  they  must  encourage,  and  those  that  are  slack  lod 
feeble  let  them  send  back  again  from  the  contest  openly,  lest  when  mr 
is  come  upon  them  they  steal  away  their  armour  and  flee  arul  be 
defeated.  For  He  said  to  Gideon :  '  Bring  down  to  tlic  water  riiem 
that  have  offered  themselves.'  And  when  the  people  was  come  down 
to  the  water,  the  Lord  said  to  Gideon  :  'All  they  that  lap  the  water  a 
a  dog  lappeth  with  his  tongue,  these  shall  go  with  thee  to  the  bank, 
and  all  they  that  lie  down  to  drink  the  water,  they  shall  not  go  with 
thee  to  the  battle,'  &c.  [Aphraates  proceeds  to  shew  that  tboae 
ultimately  chosen  were  6ttingly  compared  to  dogs:  for  the  dog  is  the 
most  faithful  of  all  animals,  keeping  watch  for  its  master  day  and  nigbt 
'  So  are  those  »tremious  ones  who  art  separated  at  the  water ' :  they  are 
ready  to  die  for  their  Master  :  keep  watch  for  Him  day  and  night,  and 
bark  when  they  meditate  in  His  law.] 
$  22.  Again  the  Lord  said  to  Gideon :   ■  They  tliat  lie  down  to  drink 


4 


APHRAATES   AND   MONASTICISM  531 

the  watCT  shall  not  go  with  thee  to  the  battle,  lest  they  be  defeated  and 
fall  in  the  battle ' ;  for  they  had  already  by  a  mystery  foreshewed  (their) 
fall,  in  that  they  drank  the  water  slothfuUy.  Wherefore,  beloved,  they 
that  go  down  to  the  contest  ought  not  to  be  like  those  slothful  ones, 
lest  they  turn  back  from  the  fight  and  become  a  disgrace  to  their 
companions. 

§  25.  All  these  things  I  have  written  to  thee,  beloved,  because  there 
are  in  our  generation  some  who  offer  themselves  to  be  solitaries  and 
Jff'nai  Qydmd  and  holy ;  and  we  are  carrying  on  a  contest  against  our 
enemy,  and  our  enemy  is  fighting  against  us  to  turn  us  back  to  the 
state  from  which  we  have  freely  separated  ourselves.  And  some  of  us 
are  defeated  and  stricken,  and  whereas  they  are  guilty  they  justify  them- 
selves ;  and  although  we  know  their  sin  they  persevere  in  this  mind 
and  will  not  draw  neat  to  repentance  2;c. 

On  reading  these  passages  the  impression  we  get  at  the  outset 
is  that  Aphraates  is  wishing  to  enforce  strict  discipline  on  a  point 
in  which  practice  has  grown  lax.  This  impression  is  certainly- 
correct  :  in  the  ranks  of  a  certain  grade  of  the  Society  scandals 
had  occurred  (see  §  25)  which  plainly  shewed  the  necessity  for 
greater  care  in  the  selection  of  its  members.  And  so  in  §  18  the 
priests  and  others  responsible  are  told  to  warn  '  all  the  people ', 
with  words  taken  from  Deut.  xx  5  fT,  to  the  effect  that  any  one 
who  is  afraid,  or  has  his  heart  set  upon  worldly  possessions,  or 
has  betrothed  a  wife  must  turn  back,  for '  for  solitaries  (only)  is 
the  contest  fitting'.  We  notice  here  that  the  state  of  life 
undertaken  by  the  grade  in  question  is  referred  to  as  the '  contest ', 
and  the  persons  who  undertake  the '  contest '  are  called '  solitaries* 
(thtbdyi).  To  this  terminology  Aphraates  carefully  adheres  in 
what  follows.  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  he  will  afford  any 
information  which  may  help  us  to  discover  what  grade  in  the 
community  it  was  to  which  these  '  solitaries  *  belonged. 

Aphraates  closes  §  18  by  saying  that  they  (the  priests,  &c.)  are 
to  observe  those  that  depart  after  the  warning,  and  to  review 
those  that  remain,  and  'bring  them  down  to  the  waters  of 
probation ',  for  *  the  waters  will  prove  every  one  that  is  strenuous, 
and  those  that  are  slothful  will  from  there  be  separated'. 

What  he  means  by  this  appears  immediately. 

He  opens  §  19  by  saying  that  Gideon  of  old  enacted  a  scene 
which  was  symbolical  of  the  present  situation.  He  then  recites 
from  Judges  vii  5  ff  the  story  of  how  Gideon  selected  an  army 

M  m  2 


532         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

for  a  particular  battle.  In  quoting  the  instructions  given  by  God 
to  Gideon  he  sharply  distinguishes  three  classes  of  penoiff: 
(i)  those  who  depart  after  the  warning' :  (2)  and  (3)  those  who 
are  rejected  and  those  who  are  chosen  after  the  trial  by  water'. 

Then  he  tells  us  what  all  this  signifies:  'Great  is  this  in>'steTy. 
beloved,  which  Gideon  did  long  ago,  shewing  a  type  of  Baptian, 
and  a  mystery  of  the  Contest,  and  a  likeness  of  the  SoUtanes.' 
Evidently  baptism  is  the  water  test,  the  'contest '  15  the  battle, 
and  tlie  'solitaries'  are  the  men  chosen  for  the  battle.  Thea 
Gideon  carries  out  his  instructions:  'for  he  first  of  all  wanted 
the  people  by  the  trial  of  the  water  '  ;  again,  when  he  had  prowd 
them  by  the  water,  from  ten  thousand  there  were  chosen  bol 
three  hundred  men  to  undertake  the  contest.'  Here  it  cu 
scarcely  be  questioned  that  Aphraates  regards  the  disttnctka 
into  two  classes  afur  the  trial  by  water  as  a  vital  point  tn  lu 
illustration. 

Having  thoroughly  propounded  his  parable  he  proceeds,  ta 
W  20-23,  to  apply  it  in  detail  to  the  case  in  hand.  WTiat  sbooli) 
be  carefully  noted  is  that  in  §  ao  (which  contains  the  reference 
to  marriage  'before  baptism*)  he  gets  no  farther  in  the  explana- 
tion of  his  parable  than  the  warning  before  the  trial  by  water 
(cOTTCsponding  to  the  admonition  before  baptism).  Now  if 
baptism  were  the  ultimate  goal  to  be  reached  b/  Aphraates' 
people,  it  is  evident  that  when  the  warning  had  been  delivered 
and  a  number  had  departed  no  further  division  of  the  people 
would  remain  to  be  made ;  for  baptism  would  merely  put  the 
seal  upon  that  already  effected,  and  the  people  would  remain 
distinguished  into  only  two  classes^  Aphraates  would  con«- 
qucntly  be  obliged  to  cut  short  at  this  point  the  application  <rf 
his  story,  and  the  remaining  points  which  he  had  been  at  sodi 
pains  to  emphasize — that  the  water  Itself  was  merely  a  tot, 
albeit  the  chief  test,  and  that  the  final  selection  for  the  battk 
came  after  the  trial  of  the  water — these  prominent  points  vfoald 
be  simply  wasted,  the  story  itself  would  be  rendered  absolutely 
pointless,  and  wc  should  be  left  to  wonder  at  the  extraordinary 

'  Kc  makcx  Gideon  vtam  the  people  in  the  langua^  of  DeuL  xx  5  ff. 

*  Aplirajttcs  huslready  told  us  bj  anticipation  ($  18)  that  there  ve  three  doKS 
in  the  Clirigiian  Society  corresponding  to  these. 

'  This  aecms  to  be  a  condensed  way  ofuyiitg  'he  first  warned  the  people «a4 
then  tried  them  by  Lbe  water '. 


APHRAATES  AND   MONASTICISM  533 

irrelevanqr  of  the  supposed  parable.  But  no  sudi  bewildering 
situation  confronts  us ;  for  Aphraates  goes  straight  on  in  {§  si-as 
to  work  out  the  full  application  of  bis  parable,  juat  as  we  should 
have  expected  of  him.  He  says  that,aiter  the  exhortation,  those 
vho  have  been  (so  far)  approved  'for  the  contest'  are  to  be 
brought  *  to  the  waters  of  baptism ' — which  can  only  mean  that 
they  are  to  be  baptized ;  and  *  after  the  baptism '  they  (i.  e.  the 
priests,  &c,  see  §  18)  are  to  observe  those  that  are  strenuous  and 
those  that  are  feeble:  the  strenuous  they  must  encourage,  and 
those  that  are  slack  and  feeble  they  are  to  '  send  back  from  the 
contest  openly '. 

Here  we  find  definitely  stated,  what  we  have  already  been 
given  to  understand  plainly  enough  in  §§  18  and  19,  that  the 
final  selection  for  the  *  contest '  is  made  after  baptism.  This 
selection  of  members  for  a  particular  grade  in  the  Community  is 
the  leading  idea  of  the  context  as  a  whole  (§§  18-22),  and  the 
conditions  laid  down  in  §§  18  and  20  are  primarily  conditions  for 
membership  of  this  grade.  It  is  the  one  sentence  in  §  20,  to  the 
effect  that  those  bent  on  matrimony  should  (or,  might)  marry 
before  baptism,  that  has  lent  colour  to  the  view  that  the  call 
spoken  of  is  a  call  to  baptism ;  but  this  view  stultifies  the  plain 
language  of  the  surrounding  context.  Read  in  its  context  the 
sentence  about  marriage  need  mean  no  more  than  that  those  who 
have  already  set  their  heart  on  matrimony  are,  by  that  very 
fact,  disqualified  for  membership  of  the  higher  grade  of  baptized 
Christians,  and  are  free  to  marry  at  once  without  the  necessity  of 
proceeding  to  the  real  test  (baptism) '.  It  is  as  though  Gideon 
had  been  instructed  to  say :  *  Let  him  that  hath  betrothed  a  wife 

*  It  is  »  misconceptioii  to  suppose  such  language  implies  any  disparagement  of 
marriage,  or  tbat  there  is  anything  new  (or  rather,  characteristically  old)  in  such 
recognition  of  the  marriage  of  Catechumens  as  on  hoaoun^le  and  binding  con- 
tract, in  fact  as  real  marriage  (see  St  Augustine's  Confts^ms,  bk.  ii  cb.  $,  where 
he  blames  his  mother  for  not  wishing  to  have  him  honcstiy  married  long  t>efore  his 
conversion).  In  xviii  (  8  Aphraates  speaks  of  matrimony  as  a  thing  in  itself  good  : 
'  Upon  matrimony,  which  was  given  to  the  world  by  God,  we  cost  no  slur,  God 
forbid  I '  In  xviii  {  1 3  he  says  of  virginity :  '  A  great  reward  is  in  store  for  this 
state,  because  we  observe  it  of  our  free  will,  and  not  through  aubjecdon  to  the 
restraint  of  a  commandment,  and  we  are  bound  therein  under  no  law.'  In  ziv 
{  4S  he  enumerates  the  evil  effects  of  jealousy  :  amongst  other  things  'jealousy 
has  separated  wives  from  their  husbands>  and  by  it  children  rise  up  against  their 
parents* 


534        THE  J&URNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

return  and  rejoice  with  his  wife  before  the  trial  of  the  water' 
This  of  course  would  only  mean  that  it  was  needless  for  such 
a  one  to  take  any  further  step  with  a  view  to  being  included  in 
the  army :  it  would  have  no  bearing  one  way  or  the  other  oa  the 
question  as  to  whether  he  might  or  might  not  go  down  to  dridt 
the  water  for  other  reasons. 

It  is  probable,  however,  that  we  have  here  an  rnddenta] 
reference  to  a  particular  discipline  connected  with  baptism,  and 
that  persons  who  had  already  decided  upon  matrimony  may  have 
been  required  to  marry  before  baptism  '.  Considering  the  corrupt 
influence  of  Persian  morals  to  which  the  Christians  of  that  region 
must  have  been  exposed,  the  existence  of  such  a  practice  would 
cause  us  no  surprise.  But  in  any  case  the  reference  to  it  is  merely 
incidental ;  and  moreover  the  language  docs  not  seem  to  imply 
that  people  living  the  married  life  were  disqualified  for  baptisait 
rather  the  contrary :  '  let  them  marry  before  baptism  *. 

The  rest  of  ^  ai  is  taken  up  with  sheiA-ing  how  appositely  the 
Solitaries  are  compared  to  dogs.  Having  enumerated  some  of 
the  good  qualities  of  the  dog,  Aphraates  notes  that  those  who 
are  'separated  at  the  water'  resemble  the  dog  in  this,  amongst 
other  things,  that  they  keep  watch  for  their  Master  day  and  nigb^ 
and  'bark  when  they  meditate  in  His  Law'. 

In  ^  22  he  has  just  a  word  on  those  who  were  rejected  from 
the  'contest'  after  baptism.  He  speaks  of  them  in  terms  of  the 
story,  for  the  application  is  so  obvious  that  there  is  no  need  to 
point  it :  *  they  [i.c.  the  majority  of  Gideon's  ten  thousand]  bad*. 
he  says,  'already  by  a  mystery  foreshewcd  their  fall  [i.e.  that 
they  would  have  fallen  had  they  gone  on  to  the  battle]  in  that 
they  drank  the  water  slothfully.' 

I  think  the  evidence  so  far  fairly  warrants  the  following 
summary  of  Aphraates'  argument. 

I.  Persons  wishing  to  undertake  that  state  of  life  which  he  calls 
figuratively  '  the  contest ',  wishing,  that  is,  to  become  '  solitaries', 
were  to  be  carefully  warned  of  their  obligations  beforehand.  This 
applied  especially  to  those  who  were  young  and  not  >'et  baptized, 
*  youths  and  maidens  holy'. 

'  An  analogy  iniiy  be  found  inlbc  present  practice  of  some  portions  oT  ihe  _ 
Church,  which,  though  ii  forbids  priests  to  many,  does  not  deny  tbcm  the 
marriage  contracted  before  ordination. 


APHRAATES   AND   MONASTICISM  535 

2.  These  last,  if  they  persevered  after  the  warning,  were  then  to 
be  baptized. 

3.  After  baptism  they  were  to  be  kept  under  observation  for 
a  time,  in  other  words  to  be  subjected  to  a  sort  of  novitiate. 
Finally,  some  would  be  dismissed  openly,  and  apparently  with- 
out censure,  and  would  remain  simply  baptized  lay  Christians ' ; 
others  would  be  chosen  to  become  'solitaries'.  Now  these 
'solitaries'  are  none  other  than  the  B'nai  Qydmd.  This  is 
qtiite  certain:  in  the  Discourse  go.  the  Bnai  Q'ydmd  (vi)  the 
two  terms  are  synonymous  (see  vi  §  8 ;  cf.  §  4) ;  in  viii  §  23 
Aphraates  actually  refers  to  the  Discourse  on  the  B'nai  Q'ydmd 
as  that  on  the  '  solitaries '.  That  the  identiBcation  holds  good  in 
the  Discourse  under  consideration  (vii)  we  see  from  §  aj,  where 
Aphraates  tells  us  that  his  reason  for  writing  as  he  has  done  is 
that  some  who  have  undertaken  the  '  contest ',  offering  themselves 
to  be  '  solitaries  and  Bnai  Q'ydmd  and  holy ',  have  fallen  from 
their  high  ideal. 

All  then  that  has  been  said  about  the  Solitaries  applies  to 
the  ffnai  Qydmd^  and  they  formed  therefore  in  the  Church  of 
Aphraates  a  class  apart  from  the  ordinary  baptized  laity. 
I  admit  that  when  all  has  been  said  some  things  remain 
obscure.  Although  it  is  clear  that  the  ultimate  choice  of 
members  for  the  ascetical  state  is  made  after  baptism,  still  words 
in  §§  18,  19  and  21  do  seem  to  imply  that  all  who  approach 
baptism  are  in  reality  aspirants  to  that  state.  But  on  the 
other  hand  the  alternative  contemplated  in  \  %o  appears  to  be 
either  a  provisional  promise  of  celibacy  or  marriage  before 
baptism,  and  not  the  denial  of  baptism  to  married  people. 
My  own  solution  of  the  difficulty  lies  in  the  twofold  considera- 
tion that,  (i)  Aphraates,  in  Discourse  vii,  is  directly  dealing  not 
with  baptism  but  penance,  and,  in  the  latter  part,  with  the 
recruiting  of  memtiers  for  the  Bntn  Qydmd  or  higher  grade 
of  the  baptized,  and  (s)  his  exposition  is  cloaked  in  an  all^orical 
exegesis  of  Scripture,  and  so  it  is  unsafe  to  draw  strict  con- 
clusions in  matters  of  practice  from  what  may  be  mere 
rhetorical  allusion. 

*  Aphnutes'  title  for  the  baptized  laitj  seems  to  have  been  simply 'the  Fftithfur; 
cf.  Aac.  X  (fin.),  '  read  and  learn,  thou  and  the  bretbren,  the  Btm  ffy&md,  and  the 
fftiai  HmmdnQthan '  (i.  e. '  Sons  of  our  Faith  *). 


536         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

If  my  contention  holds  good  I  can  see  no  furtber  objectioa  to 
calling  the  B'ntzi  Q'ydmd  '  monks ',  for : 

I .  Their  manner  of  I  ife  was  characteristically  monastic,  reqairii^ 
celibacy,  poverty,  constant  vigils  and  fasting,  and  the  dwdltag 
apart  of  the  sexes. 

3.  These  arc  the  only  sort  of  mooks  wtth  whom  Aphraatei 
shews  any  acquaintance.  Dom  Pari:>ot,  in  the  Intrcxluctkn  to 
his  edition  of  Aphraates'  Mamilus,  considers  that  the  tcnn  Bn*i 
QyAmd  is  used  by  him  to  denote  monks  in  general,  e^xcially 
coenobites ;  so  too  M.  Labourt '.  Wright-  thought  that  Aphnutes 
was  himself 'probably  a  bishop  of  the  convent  of  MAr  Matthew 
near  Mosul '. 

But  was  the  monastery  at  Mosul  in  existence  at  this  time  ?  Or 
is  there  any  evidence  that  coenobite  monasticism  had  yet  travelled 
so  far  East?  The  first  monastery  in  Mesopotamia  is  said  to  hivt 
been  founded  at  Nisibis  by  an  Egyptian,  M&r  Awgin  by  namc^ 
circa  315  A.D.^i  but  according  to  the  same  authority  there  was 
no  widespread  propagation  of  coenobite  monasticistn  within  the 
Persian  Empire  until  after  363  a.d.,  when  Nisibis  was  occupio] 
by  Sapor  11.  That  monarch  is  said  to  have  then  permitted  the 
monks  to  build  churches  and  monasteries  within  his  domiiuon&, 
Again,  the  words  '  coenobite '  and  '  monastery  *  do  not  occur  ia 
Aphraates'  writings ;  but,  considering  his  insistence  on  the 
characterislically  monastic  virtues,  it  would  be  a  marvel  indeed 
that  he,  a  monk  and  bishop,  and  writing  to  one  who  was  evidently 
of  the  same  class  as  himself,  should  speak  of  those  virtues  as  the 
distinguishing  mark  of  a  different  class  of  people,  whilst  passtag 
over  his  own  monks  without  a  single  word. 

3.  The  title  Bnai  Q'ydmd  itself  was  in  use  not  so  very  long 
after  Aphraates'  lime  as  a  well-established  technical  term  to 
denote  a  class  of  persons  who  lived  under  rule  and  were  distinct 
from  the  ordinary  laity.     Moreover  other  words  which  are  found 


'  J.  Labourt  L4  Ckristianitm*  data  FEmfirt  Ptm  com  la  Dynauit 
Paris,  190+,  p.  >9. 

'  Syriac  Liuratun  p.  33. 

■  Sc«  Dr  Budge*!)  Inlroduction  to  Tht  Book  of  Govtntan  p.  cxzv  ff,  wtten  he 
give*  an  abstract  of  the  Life  at  Htt  Awgin ;  for  the  Life  xc  Bedjan  Atim  Mtwfymm 
H  SoMicTHm  vol.  ii)  p.  JJiSff.  Labourt,  op.  at.  pp.  301  ff,  shews  tfa«t  UtCb 
rcUattcc  aw  be  placed  on  tbe  Life  cf  Aw^  u  rcprcaenting  a  ^ouute  tradibca; 
any  kcmel  of  fact  which  it  conCaiat  bdoags  to  •  nuch  later  date. 


APHRAATES  AND   MONASTiaSU  537 

in  use  later  as  technical  terms  in  connexion  with  monasticism  are 
freely  applied  to  the  ffnai  Q'ydmA.  Such  are  'solitary',  'the 
solitary  state'  (pCifticunA-M^),  and  'holy'  or  'chaste'  (f<x«aa). 
One  or  two  more  also  are,  I  have  no  doubt,  used  by  Aphraates 
with  reference  to  the  ffnai  Qy&mA^  since  these  are  tiie  only 
persons  mentioned  by  him  to  whom  they  could  well  be  applied, 
and  the  words  themselves  have  not  a  more  distinctively  monastic 
application  than  those  certainly  used  of  this  class.  Such  words 
are f^^alAsrc" sadness'  or  'asceticism'';  the  verb  Aart'iiiK" to 
practise  asceticism ' ' ;  and  the  verb  ita^r^  '  to  be  as  a  Nazirite ', 
*  to  vow  abstinence  (from) '  *.  Evidently  the  word  thStdyd^  'solitary  *, 
had  not  in  Aphraates'  time  acquired  the  special  sense  of  *  hermit  *, 
but  simply  described  the  Bnai  QydmA  as  men  living  a  life  of 
celibacy  and  renunciation  of  worldly  possessions.  The  other 
words  just  mentioned  seem  never  to  have  been  used  of  one 
class  of  monks  more  than  another,  and  they  cannot  be  taken, 
in  the  absence  of  positive  evidence,  as  indications  that  Aphraates 
had  dealings  with  any  monks  other  than  the  Bnai  Q'ydmd.  The 
nucleus  of  the  technical  monastic  vocabulary  in  Syriac  seems 
to  have  been  formed  in  connexion  with  them.  They  were,  I 
believe,  the  first  ascetics  of  the  Syriac-speaking  Church.  *  The 
earliest  practice  of  asceticism  in  the  Christian  Church',  says 
Dom  Butler,  speaking  of  early  Christian  asceticism  generally, 
'  did  not  lead  its  votaries  to  withdraw  from  the  world ;  they  carried 
on  the  ascetical  life  in  the  midst  of  their  families,  keeping  fasts, 
abstaining  from  marriage,  and  devoting  themselves  to  prayer  and 
good  works.'  * 

The  Bnai  Q'ydmd  answer  almost  exactly  to  this  description ; 
consequently  they  should  not  be  treated  as  though  they  were 
practically  identical  with  the  coenobites,  or  monks  proper.  Rab- 
bOla',  writing  a  couple  of  generations  after  Aphraates,  clearly 
distinguishes  the  two  classes.  Coenobitism  almost  certainly 
came  to  Mesopotamia  from  Egypt  or  Syria,  though  it  is  more 
than  doubtful  whether  there  were  any  monasteries  within  the 

^  Aphraates  i  4.  *  Ibid.  iU  i.  *  Ihid.  iii  i. 

*  Th4  Lauaiae  Hiatory  vol.  i  p.  230. 

*  Bishop  of  Edcssa  from  41 1  till  435  A.  D.  See  Overbeck  S.  Epkratmi  Syri  Alio- 
rttnifnt  Optm  StUeia  pp.  aio-aao.  RabbOla  «a  dearly  distiaguiahes  the  S.  Q.  from 
theUity. 


538         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Persian  Empire  in  the  fourth  century ;  the  ffnai  Q'ydmA  on  the 
other  hand  probably  represent  a  native  growth  of  ascetidsm. 

If  they  cannot  quite  strictly  be  styled  '  monks '  it  will  be 
a  difficult  task  to  prove  that  there  were  yet  ajiy  monks  at  ail 
in  that  part  of  the  Syriac-spcaking  Church  for  which  Aphraates 
wrote. 

R.  H.  Connolly. 

Since  the  above  has  been  in  type  I  have  noticed  the  foUowiof 
interesting  paraUel  to  Aphraates*  treatment  of  the  passage  in  Judges. 
Origan's  ffom.  ix  in  Jud.  (extant  only  in  Rufinus's  translation)  detk 
with  the  same  story  of  Gideon.  Origen  also  understood  the  trial  by 
water  of  baptism :  he  interprets  the  twenty-two  thousand  who  depvt 
after  Gideon's  admonition  as  those  catechumens  who  refused  lo 
apiiroach  baptism  through  pusillanimtty;  the  remaining  ten  thousand 
'ad  aquam  veniunt  ut  ibi  probentur'.  Tht;' proof  consists  in  tha: 
*  quia  it  qui  descendunt  ad  aquam,  id  est,  qui  ad  baptismi  giatiani 
veniunt,  non  debent  procidere  in  terram,  ncc  flcctcrc  genua  sua,  et 
cedere  tentationibus  Venturis,  sed  stare  firraiter  et  constanter,  skat 
Ct  Propheta  dicebat :  Demisms  mantts,  ei  diswhiia  genua  erigite\  et, 
gressum  rectum  faciU  scmitis  ves/rt's'.  Venisti  ad  aquam  baptismi,  iatod 
est  certaminis  et  pugnae  spiritalis  tnitium,  hinc  tibi  adversura  Zabuhua 
nascitur  pugnae  principium.  Si  remissior  fueris,  si  Recti  facile  potueria; 
quomodo  pugnabia?  Quomodo  stabis  adversus  astutias  Zabult?  Pnh 
ptcrea  ci  Apostolus  clamat ;  S/a/e  ergo :  et  noUfe  tierum  iuga  servitntu 
hatrert*.  Et  iterum  dicit;  State  in  Domino*,  Et  tertio  didt :  Q0- 
niam  tunc  vivimus,  si  jftrs  siaiis  in  Domino '.  Ille  igitur  probabiUs,  iOc 
electus  est,  qui  postcaquam  ad  aquas  baptismi  ventum  est,  fiecti  ad 
necessitates  tcrrcnas  et  corporeas  nescit,  qui  vitiis  non  indulget,  Deque 
ob  peccati  sitim  sternitur  pronus.  Sed  et  quod  dicit  eos  maou,  vd 
lingua  aquam  lambere,  non  ab5(]ue  sacramenti  quadam  significantia  hoc 
mihi  videtur  scriptum,  scihcet  quod  et  manu  et  Ungua  operari  debent 
railites  Christi,  hoc  est,  opere  et  vcrbo :  quia  qui  docei  et  faeit,  ik 
magnus  vocabitvr  in  regno  eaeiorum*.  Quod  autem  etiam  similittidiiM^^| 
canis  lambenLis  scriptura  posuit;  videtur  mthi  istud  animal  hoc  in  IdiV 
propterea  nominatum,  quod  super  omnia  caetera  animalia  amartn 
dicitur  proprii  domini  servare,  nee  tempore  nee  tnturiis  oblitetari  in 
eo  fcrtur  affcctus.  Trecenti  ergo  soli,  qui  sacramenti  huius  tm^oem 
praefomiabant,  isti  electi,  isti  probati,  isti  ad  victoriam  consectati,  qtn 
ex  ipso  Qumeri  sacramento  oUincre  adversarios  possunt     Treccot) 

'  Im.  XXXV  3.  1  Ueb.  xil  13.  '  G*l.  v  t. 

*  PbU.  iv  I.  *  1  Thess.  iii  8.  ■  ICatth.  *  19. 


APHRAATES  AND  MONASTiaSM  539 

etenim  sunt,  qui  tertio  centena  multiplicant,  et  perfectae  trinitatis 
numenim  ferunt,  sub  quo  numero  omnis  Christi  censetur  exercitus. 
In  quo  optamus  ut  etiam  nos  mereamur  adscribi.' 

Thus  Origen's  exegesis  is  as  follows : 

I.  The  twenty-two  thousand  are  those  who  remain  catechumens. 

3.  The  ten  thousand  are  the  baptized. 

3.  Of  these  only  three  hundred  are  elecH,  probaii,  ad  vicUriam  con- 
xcrati — '  among  whom  may  we  (who  are  of  the  baptized)  be  worthy 
to  be  numbered'. 

It  seems  that  Origen's  exegesis  runs  parallel  with  that  of  Aphraates, 
except  that  the  latter  interprets  the  three  hundred  of  the  ffnai  QyAmA^ 
Origen  of  zealous  whole-hearted  Christians. 

The  language  in  which  Aphraates  introduces  his  remarks  on  the  dog 
almost  suggests  dependence  on  Origen.  He  writes :  '  Great  is  this 
mystery,  beloved,  the  sign  of  which  (God)  shewed  beforetime  to  Gideon 
.  . .  for  of  all  the  animals  which  were  created  with  man  there  is  none 
that  loveth  its  master  like  the  dog,  and  keepeth  his  watch  day  and 
night ;  and  even  when  his  master  beateth  him  he  leaveth  him  not' 

If  a  dependence  could  be  established  it  would  throw  an  interesting 
light  on  the  question  as  to  the  extent  of  Aphraates'  isolation  from  the 
influences  of  Greek  thought.  Mr  Burkitt  has  already  thrown  out  a  hint 
that  the  Sage  may  have  been  acquainted  with  the  Epistle  of  Clement 
of  Rome  (see  his  review  of  Dr  Barnes's  Syriac  Fsaiter  in  this  Journal, 
Jan.  1905). 

R.  H.  C. 


ADAM   STOREY  FARRAR. 

The  death  on  Whit-Sunday  of  Dr  A.  S.  Farrar  is  an  event  of 
marked  concern  for  theological  studies  in  England.  For  fulljr 
forty  years  of  active  life  and  work  he  had  held  the  post  of 
Professor  of  Divinity  and  Church  History  in  the  University 
of  Durham;  and  although  the  numbers  of  the  University  hart 
not  been  large,  its  contribution  to  the  ranks  of  the  clcr^  bu 
been  more  than  in  proportion  to  them.  Tlie  bent  of  Durham, 
as  distinct  from  the  College  of  Science  at  Newcastle,  has  beeo 
distinctly  theological;  and  on  personal  grounds  as  well  as  on  thoac 
of  position  the  thcolt^cal  teaching  naturally  centred  in  the 
Professor.  Other  teachers  came  and  went,  but  he  renuuned. 
Other  teachers  pave  of  their  best— and  the  University  has  huS 
some  excellent  teachers  on  the  theological  side;  but  there  caa 
hardly  have  been  one  in  the  whole  period  who  filled  an  equal 
place  in  the  eyes  of  the  students,  or  one  who  did  more  to  make 
Durliam  as  a  school  of  theological  training  what  it  was- 

It  is  true  that  a  teacher  who  does  not  write  is  apt  to  drop 
out  of  the  public  view.  Much  to  the  regret  of  his  friends  and 
colleagues,  Dr  Farrar  ceased  to  write  from  the  time  that  be 
entered  upon  his  olTicc ;  but  in  the  University  at  least  his  Itgfat 
could  not  be  hid,  and  wherever  the  aJumni  of  the  University  wait 
bis  influence  could  not  but  be  felt, 

Adam  Storey  Farrar  was  a  bom  professor ;  and  he  wi»  a 
professor  by  experience  and  training  as  well  as  by  natural  gift- 
His  career  was  of  the  simplest,  and  it  was  entirely  academical. 
Born  in  London  on  April  so,  i8ifi,  and  educated  at  the  Liverpool 
Institute  and  at  St  Mary  Hall,  Oxford,  he  graduated  in  1850  with 
first-class  honours  in  classics  and  second-class  in  mathematics. 
Soon  afterwards  he  was  elected  to  a  Michel  Fellowship  at  Queen's 
College ;  and  after  ser\'ing  for  nine  years  as  Tutor  at  Wadham,  he 
left  for  Durham  in  1^64. 


ADAM   STOREY   FARRAR  541 

The  time  when  Fairar  took  his  d^ree — in  the  same  year,  as  it 
happened,  with  his  future  Dean,  Dr  Kitchin,  who  like  him  took 
double  honours,  and  was  a  class  higher  in  mathematics — was  no 
bad  period  in  the  history  of  the  University.  Freeman  the  historian, 
whose  date  was  five  years  earlier,  used  stoutly  to  maintain  that  the 
all-round  training  then  given  was  as  good  as  it  well  could  be,  and 
better  than  the  greater  specialization  of  the  latter  part  of  the 
century.  When  we  remember  that  between  his  date  and  Farrar'a 
there  fell  Bright  the  late  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  (1846) 
and  Stubbs  the  late  Bishop  of  Oxford  (1848),  it  is  evident  that  at 
least  the  6rst  part  of  his  opinion  had  much  to  be  said  for  it.  Not 
content  with  the  beaten  track  of  work  for  the  degree,  Farrar  was 
an  eager  student  of  Natural  Science,  and  took  every  opportunity 
of  attending  the  lectures  of  the  professors  in  that  faculty,  especially 
those  of  Dr  R.  Walker,  Professor  of  Experimental  Philosophy,  and 
John  Phillips,  Professor  of  Geolc^jy.  He  often  used  to  speak  of 
the  benefit  that  he  gained  from  these. 

Before  he  went  to  Durham,  Farrar  had  already  published  the 
two  books  that  bear  his  name,  a  volume  of  sermons  entitled 
Science  in  Thtohgy  in  1859,  and  the  Bampton  Lectures,  A  Critical 
History  of  Free  Thought  in  reference  to  the  Christian  ReUgi<m^  in 
1 863.  After  that  date  he  published  nothing  beyond  (it  is  believed) 
one  or  two  occasional  sermons.  The  two  volumes  do  not  seem  to 
have  attracted  the  attention  or  obtained  the  praise  which  they 
really  deserved.  It  would  seem  as  though  the  writer,  just  as  his 
enei^es  were  beginning  to  expand,  felt  the  chill  of  discouragement 
and  drew  back  into  his  shell.  He  was  cast  in  a  sensitive  mould ; 
and,  although  always  eager,  was  apt  to  be  apprehensive,  and  did 
not  care  to  incur  the  ordeal  of  hostile  criticism '.  Such  at  least 
was  the  impression  conveyed  to  those  who  would  fain  have  seen 
more  permanent  fruit  of  his  really  exceptional  powers  and  attain- 

'  One  who  knew  him  very  intimately  writes  :  '  He  resisted  the  appeab  of  his 
friends  to  publish  some  of  the  fruits  of  his  studies,  and  has  left  instructions  that 
nothing  of  the  sort  should  be  published.  Like  other  teachers,  he  had  an  exag- 
gerated view  of  the  responsibility  incurred  in  publication,  and  a  veiy  high  standard 
of  ^lat  publication  involved  to  the  author'  {Guardian,  June  ai,  1905,  p.  1030). 
This  is  doubtless  very  true  ;  and  yet  when  once  obstacles  of  this  kind  had  bees 
overcome  so  brilliantly  as  they  were  in  the  Bampton  Ltcturta,  it  is  natural  to  ask 
why  the  impulse  did  not  carry  him  further.  I  suspect  that  the  reason  lay  in  the 
constitutional  diffidence  which  asserted  itself  after  these  early  publications,  and 
'was  never  again  sufficiently  mastered. 


542         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

ments.  It  is  a  warning  as  to  the  responsibility  which  an  ddcr 
generation  has  towards  its  juniors.  To  Farrar's  generous  nature 
no  such  stimulus  was  needed  ;  he  used  to  expend  upon  the  efibrts 
of  his  younger  friends  the  enthusiasm  which  they  would  hare 
gladly  seen  devoted  to  published  work  of  His  own. 

I  will  come  back  to  the  books :  but,  before  doing  so.  it  is  r^t 
that  I  should  say  more  of  that  which  proved  to  be  the  main 
activity  of  his  life,  his  work  as  professor.  I  have  said  that  Farrai 
was  a  bom  professor ;  and  I  am  not  sure  that  this  was  not  true  of 
him  in  an  even  more  eminent  degree  than  of  any  of  the  other 
distinguished  theologians  of  the  last  century.  As  I  look  bade, 
I  cannot  think  of  one  who  had  at  once  the  same  coramandiaf 
survey  of  his  subject  and  an  equal  power  of  impressing  the 
spoken  word  upon  his  hearers. 

Lightfoot  had  no  physical  gifts  at  all,  except  a  voice  of 
sufficient  strength  to  make  itself  heard.  He  had  the  sound  bass 
of  scholarship  common  to  all  the  Cambridge  school,  great  capacity 
for  learning,  a  clear  style  and  lucid  arrangement  of  the  scholarlf 
kind,  along  with  admirable  common  sense  in  judgement ;  but  be 
had  no  taste  for  philosophy,  or  for  philosophical  constnicd'oa. 
Hort  was  born  for  research  rather  than  for  lecturing.  His  keeo 
analysis  and  minute  exactness  of  statement  went  beyond  what 
could  be  appreciated  in  a  lecture ;  while  his  scrupulous  attcntioa 
to  qualifying  and  restricting  facts  stood  in  the  way  of  broad 
and  luminous  generalization.  Wcstcott  had  fervour  and  visioii. 
a  wide  range  of  elevated  thought,  but  he  was  too  subtle  for  the 
ordinary  man  ;  and  the  subtlety  was  something  rather  difTcTeiit 
from  tlie  fine  edge  of  scientific  discrimination ;  it  was  apt  to  leave 
an  impression  that  was  vague  and  elusive. 

Bright  also  had  fervour,  and  the  hearer  felt  that  the  awe  of  the 
other  world  was  upon  him.  He  had  a  real  gift  of  spontaneous 
eloquence  and  im^ination,  that  rose  with  his  subject ;  but  just  at 
the  moments  when  he  was  most  inspired  his  utterance  too  often 
became  hurried  and  inaudible.  He  could  paint  a  picture  with 
the  best,  but  he  was  somewhat  deficient  in  the  power  of  shapti^ 
and  arranging. 

This  Farrar  possessed  to  an  extraordinary  dCQtcc  His  know- 
ledge was  encyclopaedic ;  and  his  method  was  also  that  of  the 
encyclopaedia.    He  was  never  more  at  home  than  in  classifying, 


ADAM  STOREY  FARRAR  543 

dividing  and  sub-dividing.  Dates  and  periods  were  at  his  fingers* 
ends.  His  experience  in  the  study  of  Natural  Science  dominated 
his  treatment  of  literature  and  the  history  of  thot^ht ;  methods 
learnt  in  the  one  field,  it  was  natural  to  him  to  apply  in  the  other. 
He  used  to  place  in  the  hands  of  his  pupils  a  pamphlet,  covering 
seventy-seven  pages  for  the  most  part  of  small  print,  with  the 
prefatory  note  which  follows : 

•  When  I  used  to  attend  in  Oxford  the  lectures  of  the  Rev  R. 
Walker,  Professor  of  Experimental  Philosophy,  I  found  so  much 
help  from  the  brief  analysis  of  each  course  of  lectures,  which  he 
was  wont  to  distribute  to  his  hearers,  that,  when  I  came  to  Durham 
in  1864,  I  determined  to  follow  a  similar  plan  in  reference  to  my 
Theological  Lectures.  Accordingly  I  drew  up  from  time  to  time 
Synopses  of  my  various  courses  of  Lectures,  which  when  com- 
pleted and  combined,  formed  this  pamphlet.  It  will  be  obvious 
to  any  one  who  glances  through  this  Synopsis  that  much  more  is 
here  comprised  than  can  be  compressed  into  the  short  space  of 
a  student's  life  in  Durham.  I  prefer,  however,  to  present  an  out- 
line of  all  the  various  branches  of  Theolc^ical  knowledge  (though 
my  Lectures  are  generally  restricted  to  a  selected  portion  of  them), 
in  order  that  those  pupils,  who  may  wish  hereafter  to  continue 
their  studies,  may  have  the  outline  for  their  guidance. 

The  parts  of  die  Synopsis  which  I  deem  to  be  the  most  novel 
are  Part  4  (pp.  17-30),  on  Biblical  Interpretation,  and  Part  8 
(pp.  41-48),  on  the  History  of  the  English  Church.  The  former 
of  these  gives  a  more  systematic  analysis  of  the  subject  than  is 
to  be  found  elsewhere.  The  latter  is  the  Table  of  Contents  of 
a  work  on  English  Church  History  on  which  I  have  at  different 
times  bestowed  much  labour,  but  the  execution  of  which  will 
probably  have  to  be  left  to  younger  writers.* 

The  Synopsis  is  of  course  only  a  skeleton ;  but  I  am  sorry  to 
gather  from  the  Guardian  article  referred  to  above  that  there 
is  no  chance  of  its  being  published.  Somethii^  of  the  same  kind 
has  been  done,  or  attempted,  by  others ;  but  I  have  come  across 
nothing  so  complete  and  comprehensive,  or  so  well  articulated,  as 
Dr  Farrar's.  The  first  impression  was  given  out  in  1 869 ;  there 
was  a  revised  issue  in  1880,  and  possibly  others  later.  It  is 
interesting  to  see  in  what  directions  the  author  believed  his  own 
work  to  be  most  original. 

What  has  been  said  may  give  some  idea  of  the  underlying 
method  of  the  lectures.  From  this  point  of  view  they  would 
have  been  excellent  for  any  students,  and  they  were  peculiarly 


544         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

excellent  for  the  students  at  Darham,  who  have  to  cover  a  laigt 
extent  of  ground  in  a  limited  time.  For  them  it  is  difficuh 
to  think  of  a  professor  who  -would  come  nearer  to  the  idaL 
And  everything  else — style,  manner  and  delivery — correspooded. 
I  shall  have  to  speak  presently  of  another  gift  which  the  pro- 
fessor possessed,  the  gift  of  pictorial  presentation  and  vivid  [duase. 
This  too  was  without  the  redundance  which  is  in  danger  of 
becoming  a  drawback  to  those  similarly  endowed.  Farr^r  wu 
saved  from  this  by  his  natural  sense  of  proportion  and  rapidity 
of  movement.  He  was  rapid,  but  he  understood  lecturing  too 
well  to  be  too  rapid.  And  his  physical  presence  heightened  the 
effect  of  what  he  said. 

His  figure  was  tall  and  erect;  his  hair  touched  with  grc>*  and 
rather  long,  bet  not  unbecomingly  long;  his  voice  had  just 
enough  nasality  about  it  to  make  it  tellingly  clear  and  incisivt 
The  wearing  of  the  black  gown  seemed  to  come  natural  to  hiia, 
for  his  ancestry  was  Puritan. 

The  writer  of  this  well  remembers  a  description  once  giixo  by 
one  of  his  pupils.  'As  he  stands  there,  with  the  (lointer  in  his 
hand  [it  may  be  guessed  that  a  lecturer  of  this  type  would  be 
fond  of  using  maps  and  diagrams],  I  could  believe  that  t  had 
before  me  one  of  the  old  Hebrew  prophets.'  I  have  spdcen 
of  our  own  Christ  Church  professor  as  having  had  visibly  'the 
awe  of  the  other  world  upon  him '.  Farrar's  piety  was  veiy 
genuine,  but  (as  might  be  supposed)  it  was  of  a  different  asd 
more  Puritanic  type.  It  came  out  in  expression,  though  it 
had  not  so  subduing  a  power  over  the  expression.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  effort  to  give  concrete  reality  to  what  he  was 
saying  was  very  strong.  Farrar  was  always  in  touch  with  his 
audience,  especially  an  undergraduate  audience.  Among  boys, 
he  was  a  boy.  A  figure  like  his  could  not  lose  its  dignity;  bat 
still  he  did  join  in  the  laugh  with  his  audience,  and  applauae  it 
Divinity  Lectures  was  not  unknown,  or  perhaps— from  sheer  test 
and  naturalness — altogether  unwelcome- 

If  I  have  at  all  succeeded  in  conveying  the  impression  that 
I  wish  to  convey,  I  may  well  pau.<^  at  this  point  and  invite  the 
reader  to  compare  notes  with  me  from  his  own  experience,  and 
ask  whether  he  has  ever  known  a  theolc^ical  tutor  or  professor 
who  was  likely  to  be  more  striking  or  more  effective.    Our 


ADAM   STOREY   FARRAR  545 

thoughts  turn  to  a  certain  Canon  of  St  Paul's ;  hut  he  has  not 
filled  exactly  the  same  offices,  and,  if  he  had  done,  it  would  have 
been  in  a  somewhat  different  spirit,  corresponding  to  a  different 
school. 

The  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Durham  has  duties  of  various 
Icinds.  He  holds  a  canonry  in  the  Cathedral  attached  to  the 
chair.  Farrar  did  not  enter  upon  his  until  fourteen  years  after  he 
iirst  came  to  Durham  as  Professor,  to  take  the  place  of  the  aged 
Canon  Jenkyns,  also  a  man  of  real  mark  in  his  day.  The  sermons 
that  be  preached  as  Canon  were  real  University  Sermons,  of 
ample  length  and  full  of  instruction.  He  knew  every  stone 
of  the  Cathedral,  and — it  need  not  be  said — was  an  admirable 
exponent  of  its  history.  Anywhere  else  than  in  Durham  such 
knowledge  and  such  a  gift  would  have  been  exceptional;  but 
at  Durham  they  were  shared  with  not  a  few  who  have  the 
privilege  of  living  beneath  the  shadow  of  that  glorious  pile. 

On  another  side  of  his  functions  it  was  perhaps  the  case  that 
what  was  part  of  his  special  excellence  as  Professor  had  its 
drawbacks.  He  knew  the  students  individually,  and  took  a  deep 
interest  in  them,  especially  in  the  poorer  men,  whopi  he  helped 
generously.  But  his  readiness  of  sympathy  made  him  easily 
worked  upon ;  and  he  was  inclined  to  be  indulgent,  and  perhaps 
partial,  as  an  examiner.  The  same  quickness  of  sympathy  and 
readiness  to  receive  impressions  and  influences  made  him  a  rather 
incalculable  quantity  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Senate  and 
Chapter.  Generosity  was  one  of  his  leading  traits ;  but  generosity 
may  at  times  be  too  impulsive,  These  were  failings  which 
'  leaned  to  virtue's  ude '.  Farrar  was  not  always  judicious ;  and 
in  public  matters  errors  of  judgement  make  themselves  felt ;  but 
the  warmth  of  heart  which  led  to  them  won  from  friend  and 
pupil  alike  affection  and  gratitude. 

In  the  interesting  notice  to  which  reference  has  been  made, 
stress  was  very  rightly  laid  on  the  extent  to  which  Farrar  utilized 
foreign  travel.  Vacation  afler  vacation  he  went  abroad  with 
a  select  party  of  friends,  who  had  quaint  stories  to  tell  of  his 
little  idiosyncrasies,  while  they  all  profited  by  his  keenness  of 
interest  and  knowledge.  In  this  way  he  had  visited  most  of  the 
historic  sites  of  European  and  Christian  history.  His  lectures 
and  his  books  derived  vividness  and  reality  from  this  source : 

VOL.  VL  N  n 


546         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

and  one  of  the  great  misfortunes  of  his  ceasing  to  publish  vrss 
that  the  results  of  so  much  first-hand  investigation  and  study 
should  have  had  none  but  a  fugitive  record.  Like  not  a  lew 
other  English  scholars,  Farrar  had  taken  exceptional  pains  to 
train  himself  to  make  history  live.  It  did  Uvc  in  his  active  and 
teeming  brain ;  and  now  that  is  still. 

English  Theology  is  poorer — irreparably  and  sadly  poorer— 
for  the  fact  that  Farrar's  books  are  only  twa  If  he  had  written 
as  much  as  his  peers — and  they  are  the  great  names  of  the  last 
century — he  would  have  taken  his  place  with  them.  He  had  an 
individual  contribution  to  make  to  the  literature  of  his  lime, 
which  none  but  he  could  have  made  so  well.  None  could  ha« 
ranged  over  the  centuries  with  a  touch  at  once  so  firm  and  » 
incisive,  grouping,  classifying,  correlating,  distinguishing ;  equally 
at  home  in  the  history  of  action  and  of  thought,  tracing  up  effects 
to  their  causes,  bringing  light  into  obscurity  and  order  out  of 
confusion,  stimulated  by  every  great  idea,  and  passing  on  the 
stimulus  to  others. 

His  books  shew  what  he  was  and  what  he  could  have  done. 
A  characteristic  example  of  the  method  of  treatment  natural  to 
him  is  a  sermon  on  the  Atonement  in  the  volume  Sdcnct  w 
Tfuoiogy.  The  text  is  a  verse  introducing  the  narrative  of  the 
Transfiguration ;  and  the  sermon  begins  with  a  really  fine  de- 
scription of  Mount  Tabor,  as  it  is  seen  by  the  pilgrim  traveller, 
followed  by  the  comment  that  *the  rigour  of  geographical  criti- 
cism compels  us  to  doubt  whether  that  spot  can  be  the  real 
scene  of  the  event '.  The  circumstances  of  the  narrative  arc 
explained,  leading  up  to  the  prediction  of  approaching  suffericg 
and  death.  So  the  sermon  passes  to  the  subject  of  the  Alooe- 
mcnt,  the  doctrine  of  which  is  sketched  in  the  different  periods 
of  its  history.  The  various  theories  put  for\vard  arc  weighed 
and  criticized ;  and  at  the  end  the  doctrine  is  restated,  »Tth 
a  re-aflirmation  of  the  view  that  it  implies  in  some  mystcriotts 
way  a  reconciling  of  God  to  man  as  well  as  of  man  to  God. 
The  sermon  ends  as  it  began  with  a  picture— this  time  not  taken 
from  nature  but  from  art,  the  famous  representation  of  the 
Transfiguration  by  Raphael 

Tlie  Critical  History  of  Fret  Thought^  Bampton  Lectures 
preached  in  i86a,  is  a  really  astonishing  work.     It   is  by  it 


ADAM   STOREY   FARRAR  547 

that  the  name  of  Adam  Storey  Farrar  will  h've  in  the  future, 
and  that  his  place  in  the  roll  of  English  theolc^ians  will  be 
vindicated.  Tke  Guardian  speaks  of  it  as  'still  probably  the 
most  learned  of  a  series  which  now  includes  more  than  a  hundred 
sets  of  lectures ' ;  and  this  opinion  may  well  be  endorsed.  Few 
indeed  are  the  volumes  of  English  literature  which  contain 
accurate  digests  of  the  contents  of  so  many  books,  or  accurate 
surveys  of  the  processes  of  thought  in  so  many  centuries.  It 
is  a  special  danger  and  a  special  failing  of  the  Bampton  Lectures 
to  cover  too  much  ground,  and  to  cover  it  with  vague  imperfectly 
formulated  generalizations,  that  are  at  best  but  half  or  a  quarter 
of  the  truth,  and  do  not  bear  to  be  too  r^orously  confronted 
with  the  facts.  Farrar's  lectures  are  free  from  this  fault.  They 
are  worthy  to  stand  by  the  side  of  the  best  literature  of  the  kind 
in  other  languages  than  our  own.  The  multitude  of  books 
referred  to  had  been  really  read,  and  their  contents  and  character 
are  at  once  concisely  and  carefully  described.  Farrar  was 
a  philosopher  as  well  as  a  historian ;  and  he  handles  the  great 
German  philosophies  with  as  much  ease  and  decision  as  the 
products  of  English  common  sense.  His  accuracy  is  Indeed 
not  quite  of  the  kind  which  will  not  displace  an  accent,  but 
it  is  remarkable  considering  the  nature  of  the  subject-matter 
and  the  number  of  particulars  involved.  The  utmost  that  I  think 
could  be  said  in  the  way  of  criticism  is  that  the  work  is  evidently 
throughout  rapid  work;  it  is  a  succession  of  coups  Sail  by 
a  mind  of  ready  grasp  and  keen  intelligence;  but  it  might 
perhaps  have  gained  in  real  profundity  if  the  mind  could  have 
dwelt  longer  on  the  objects  passed  in  review  before  it,  and 
steeped  itself  more  entirely  in  the  spirit  as  well  as  in  the  bare 
analysis  of  the  different  systems.  In  other  words  it  might  be 
said,  that  the  penetration— clear-cut  and  scientific  as  it  is — is  y^ 
after  all  somewhat  external ;  it  reminds  us  more  of  the  methods 
of  natural  science  than  of  those  of  the  deeper  philosophy. 

Such  a  criticism  might  perhaps  be  made,  but  it  would  be 
unfair.  At  least,  if  we  allow  ourselves  to  make  it,  we  should 
do  so  with  the  distinct  understanding  that,  in  making  it,  we  are 
applying  the  highest  standard  within  our  reach.  It  is  always 
possible  to  criticize  a  type  of  mind  by  saying  that  it  has  some- 
thing of  the  defects  of  its  qualities ;  that,  if  it  had  the  excellences 

Nna 


548         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOU)GICAL   STUDIES 


i 


of  another  type  besides  Us  own,  it  would  be  still  more  perfect 
than  it  is.  But  the  world  we  live  in  is  not  Utopia;  and,  in  the 
case  of  the  subject  of  this  notice  as  welt  as  in  others,  we  shall  do  I 
well  to  accept  with  thankfulness  the  remarkable  combination  of 
excellences  that  wc  tind,  instead  of  complaining  that  even  these 
come  short  of  an  absolute  ideaL 

Farrar's  Bampton  Lectures  are  to  this  day  full  of  informalioa 
and  instruction.  At  the  time  when  they  were  written  they  wen 
abreast  of  the  best  knowledge  of  the  time.  The  unresting  intd- 
lectual  enthusiasm  of  the  author  put  him  upon  the  track  of 
a  host  of  questions  (especially  historical  questions)  which  he  did 
his  best  to  solve.  His  book  is  therefore  a  labour-saving  machine, 
to  which  any  of  us  may  be  glad  to  refer,  in  place  of  workii^  oct 
the  same  results  for  himself.  Other  literatures  usually  have  thdr 
own  books  of  this  kind ;  but  even  the  foreign  student  may  have 
commended  to  him  this  book  of  Dr  Farrar's,  if  he  desires  to 
trace  tlie  history  of  English  thought,  and  still  more  if  he  dcsrcs 
to  form  an  estimate  of  one  of  the  leading  English  teachers  of 
the  last  century.  It  may  help  him  by  the  way  to  appreciate  the 
fact,  which  is  probably  more  true  of  England  than  of  any  other 
European  nation,  that  the  actual  sum  of  attainment,  and  to 
particular  of  teaching  power  and  equipment,  in  a  nation,  is  not 
always  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  its  published  writings;. 

This  is  what  we  may  say  to  the  stranger :  but  there  are  naay 
among  us  who  will  wish  besides  to  pay  such  tribute  as  they  can 
to  an  invariably  kind  and  invariably  generous  friend. 

W.  Sant)at 


549 


DOCUMENTS 


THE  ACTS  OF  TITUS  AND  THE  ACTS  OF  PAUL. 

Im  my  first  series  of  Apocrypha  Anecdota  (1893,  p.  55)  I  drew 
attention  to  a  possible  source  of  information  with  rq|ard  to  the  Acta  PauH, 
namely  the  Acts  of  Titos  ascribed  to  Zenas  '  the  lawyer '.  What  I  wrote 
then  may  as  well  be  quoted  by  way  of  preface  to  the  present  article. 

'  The  fullest  form  of  tiiis  book  known  to  me  is  an  epitome  contained 
in  Cod.  Par.  Gr.  548,  f.  193-196,  which  I  read,  but  did  not  copy,  in 
1 89a  The  Menaea  give  a  much  shorter  analysis,  and  this  latter  was 
the  only  material  accessible  to  Lipsius  (iii  401).  Amoi%  the  &cts  not 
given  in  the  Menaea  are  these :  that  Paul  when  preaching  at  Damascus 
cast  a  devil  out  of  Aphphia,  the  wife  of  the  goremor  *  (another  noble 
matron,  be  it  noted) ;  that  Titus  accompanied  Paul  on  the  first 
missionary  journey,  and  that  at  Ephesus  Paul  fought  {k^pu>iti.xv^ 
with  a  lion.  In  this  last  clause  undoubted  use  of  the  Acts  of  Paul  is 
made ;  and  tt  is  surely  a  most  probable  conjecture-^if  not  something 
more—that  the  Cure  of  Aphphia  (who  has  no  connexion  with  Titus) 
was  described  in  the  lost  book  as  well.  After  this  incident  at  Ephesus^ 
the  story  takes  us  to  Crete,  and  from  that  point  is  either  pure  fiction  or 
(founded  on)  local  legend.' 

Within  the  last  few  weeks  I  have  had  an  <^portunity  (kindly  pro- 
cured for  me  by  M.  Omont)  of  examining  the  Paris  MS  above  mentioned^ 
and  of  copying  out  the  portion  of  the  text  which  precedes  the  Cietati 
matter.  This  text  I  now  present  for  the  edification  of  students  of  the 
Ada  PauS.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  in  part  drawn  fiY)m  that 
work  and  that  it  throws  some  fragmentary  light  upon  the  earlier  episodes. 
It  has  also,  as  I  think,  the  most  destrucdve  effect  upon  the  conjectures 
which  I  advanced  in  a  late  number  of  the  Journal  *. 

The  manuscript,  I  will  just  note,  is  of  the  eleventh  century  and  is 
written  in  a  fine  sloping  minuscule  with  semi-uncial  headings. 

Mip/l  ty  air^  It*  rem  6ytov  iwoarSXav  Tirov  hrurKirav  yovfUiw  Kpr^nit 
itikuot  Vopr6njit  fioBffmv  ro5  iylav  i.inirr6Xov  Ila^Xov. 

*  As  will  be  teen,  those  words  'the  governor'  mre  not  wamnted  by  the 
Greek  texL 
■  y.  T.S.  Januuy  1905,  p.  344. 


^O        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Ztjvac  &  vo/UKot  otrtvcK  fUfwrjTtu  i  ayuK  A«wrToX<K  IlaCXiK  ottvc  ow- 
yfiai^tv  Tov  ^/ov  airroi  rifv  inroOtvaf  i^rrtK  ovrvt.  Tm>c  o  JYUdtttm  u 
Mtvwoc'  7W  j9<MriX<'iu«  Kpi/rtj<  (tar^yo-  to  yifotr  »oftSi'  8)  to  tov  'O/t^pov  oil 
Tuir'  Xonniii'  ifn/l^^/XfXToif^wv  voi^fiard  r<  kcu  S/M^uim  *  cuvoinwrfi 
yeynvit^  Akowi  t^tavrj^  Xryou'in^  oimnv'  Trre,  ^FTtuficw  ((7»  £<()  txiiiii^ami 
Kol  rijv  ^'vjf^  <rov  uoliTat,  oii  y«p  (^^X^n  *  (tc  7  vyuS«t'a  avnj.  "En  f« 
^ovXo/Mi'm  T^  avr^  oxovtriu  ^i<^  pSft  yap  rat  t«m'  «j  dyaA>tar«r  && 
^wi^;  SiSo^i^c  irAai*a;;,  JiruT^uv  Irt*  irvurrij  XP^tttv,  St  itpOftanK  rpocrr 
TOj(^  Tiji"  riJv  'Y^PpauAV  fii^Kav  dvayvwvaC  o«  jcku  Xa^itv  xipr  "HffwioB 
^i^Xov  tvptv   ovT<us   Ttfiiixov<ray     *E,y>iaiviC€aBt   wpii   fut    y^M  wviJiai 

*0  otv  Ay&vwarm  K/titttv  ^  x(u  6tZm  tov  iyiov  Ttrov  Jjufvirac  t^  nS 
£<(nrt>rov  XpurroS  {rttn-^piof  yrvrrfviv  re  vai  ^duTuriv  mx!  rac  tfav//araiy)A» 
Ss  ^K  *I(p<>tro\i;/ioi;  KoX  iripoi-i  ti^ttok  cWXci,  a-VfifiovXiQV  irm^oiK  /UT«  TW 
t/j*Atcuv  Kpjrr^c,  aTTfo-retXo'TiTo*  fitff  hiptuv  nySw  Iv'ltpotToXufioi^  «»c  JLoyor 
l)(0VTa  oLKouiraC  rt  Kat  X.<iXrjtrcn  fcat  JiS<ffcu  ra  cEvcp  /ncAAci  ^tocnur^ 
'OoTtS  3rti^yevof«»T>?  «ut  f^iucru^tvoi  koI  irpocmvijcrac  roi'  S<u  ■  t^  ijr  Xpurnr 
-B-aVTn  Ta  davfiAtrta  airrav  iBiaerara'  <TS^  tc  icat  r&  o-wnj/ua  tx>v  £«rron« 
Toft),  T^v  ra^Tjv  Kol  T^v  dviturRKTO-  koI  rijv  $*ia»  ivdXTjtffw  ttai  rip'  tov  nMt)MV 
TTVcv^Toc  *Ec  rouv  $tiow  iwoOToXov^  iiriSiffuaf  kcu  ca-toTcwrcr  ku  mv^ 
pi$li-ij6i}  Tot?  JKaruf  cufocri  xat  rots  TpMrpjtXtoi^  Tols  irurTCv/lQ3  ^/trmnr  ri 
xvpUif  Sea  T-^s  rov  tropv^otov  Ilcrpov  Si&uricaXuic,  xa^c  Kal  y4yparTti  «n 
'Kjpi^r*?  »(al  "ApajSc? '"  vpo&vfliW  rt  vrnjpx^  '"'*  {<**•'  'Y  "TW^ioTi  i«fc  /rtT« 
Si  Irtj  rpia  npoaniBrjaair  rjj  -irlarti  ay&pt^  irtvraKurjfpMM.'  K€u  ftxvk  Jrf 
hva  Toti  j(iii\o\) '  ^c^ircvfriTOS  iiro  IIcTpov  irai  ^Mcmnov  &w«i»ttu  oi  pH^ 

OToAot   kqI    ir«fXl-jry<'X^a(TeU  TO    ft-ij  )tJlt\M  iv\    Ty  OtfifUXTl    TOV  KV/MOV  llJCW? 

KOI  povXafUvuiv  Tuiv  !cf3«uv  dntMTfu-iu  avrovc  TofuiXtijX.  o  vo/LoStSoiraXas 
£ltic(ih\t'o-n'  avTwv  TrfV  f3<nj\7]if.  'Rwratrovi  Si  ytyofifrof  \p6fmj  Srt^oMC 
tAi,()atrfiij'  o^O'  Tci  xara  tok  ayiov  FlalXov  TcXovvTa*  «!<  Aafuurno*,  TyovT  ^ 
Tv<^Xu<ris  K(u  17  ui'iiy^Xf^ts*  xal  Ki)pu'rT<t  irpwrof  riy  X^yo**  tov  XpwnM  h 
Aa^affKw,  Kai  A^^iar  yvraixa  X^uatmrou  &aipoiwrar  A  nauXos  Uaato'  sh 
j}(<uv  KT](rTCLar  <irr&  i^^epuv  rA  tlSwXov  t«u  'Aii^XXwrot  KaT^poXcf  ^*  «{ra  ^ 
'I(|iKH7uXv/ui,  Trapayt'ifrai  Kai  aZ$i^  tti  Kaurapttay  Ktu  x'^P*'^^'*'*''^^^  Tim  i 
dyiof  trapa.  ruiv  ijrotjroXiav  xcu  dirtxrrtXXcTcu  ^urd  IlavAov  £i&umtf  att 
;{CtpoTOv<ri'  o&c  ilw  IlauAoc  Sotcipur^'  KaToXapi&KTtt  SJ  'Amij^ciai'  cfljpir 
Bofvd^ai'  tAv  utik  Rayx'H*^  S**  ^Y**'P**'  ^  naSXoc.  'O  H  'Hpwdip  6  T«* 
TpapxTj'i  &,vuXtv  loKui^ov  TOV  d$fA<^av  'luawov  fui)(aip^  pxra  Tovro  ^ijfami 
(i<  2<X«v'kcui:v  xat  Krirpov  Kai  %aXafuvifv  ntu  llaiftoi''  itAmtBrv  <ir  tUpyif 
TJjs  Hap^vXia^^  KoX  vaXw  «(S  *Av/i94/tio;i(»«i>'  t^  IlurtStat  *,  «ftl  t£| 
'Ixjrioi'  fit  TJv  otKor-  'Ovj\ci^pov  yrii't  irpociwtir  A  TiTOf  Td  kutI  rdi'  HmW. 


fl^nPOfa 


'   TOl'. 


*   QfM^fMITa. 


'Of. 


DOCUMENTS  551 

Awrrpar  koa  i^ipfitp'.     0&to«  t«  6  ^fnTriVio*  TtVos  iv  iiciwjTj;  irdA<t'  trw 

Ty    oy^    rtavAlf)    JxiJpvrTtl'    TW    XoryOV    TOW    tfcov,    Vir«)uwV    T«     Scofy/AOW    Ko2 

cnj/uia  «al  ripara  xa^dis  t^iptrtu  airavra  6'  tois  irpofecrii  twv  iTo/TToAw*'. 
'El"  <friA/nrotc  oiroi  tou  ayc'ow  llavAov  "at  ^pavpovfUvov,  trttapav  ytvoyivQV 
iv  TtMK  JyyucrrpoLC  '  tov  Sta^uirnjpiDV  UTro^j^uKrvs  dirfAi;^. 

Ort  rifit  piv  ypdtfttrvrrtv  Titow  'Iouctow  oXAot  SJ  T*tov  iruTTov. 
l?ovcrTiXkcv  rot'joiy  tov  «r'  nStXi^j}  yafiffpov  inrap^vroi  TiVoi-  ScvrcpOf 
&a)'WU»TOt  ;|^K»'  (IS  TTic  T^?  KjO'TTijf  iirap^liii'  iraptyivtTo  ty  avTjj  IlavXoc 
Kol  TtTOT,  oiTiina  BtairiiTuiV  TCtov  JS*uv  *  i  ^[p^cm'  Trramtvufi^iw^  Saxpiitsv 
^dyita^tv  fUviiy  triiv  avrui'  &  Si  omot  TiVof  o£k  iiTtC<T&i)  avrto.  iTw^- 
ficvX<vtv  &i  aiiTtf  TowTiXAot  /i.i}  XaXtiv  waro  rStir  $twv  rluv  "EAAiJwuv' 
ynvi  &  Jyu)f  Titos  i^iOtro  rit  tiiayyiXi.ov  rav  Xpitrrov,  tliriiv  Srt  KJ  jnto-^v 
/u>[  Sofao-^^iJoTj  cwt  yqt  «at  /v  t^  ttoAcj  'Pafijj.  Mtr  dXiyov  &i  tov  vIou 
avTOv  rc^KijKoroc  i^yayo'  ofrroi'  vurros  vpoi  tov  Ilav^ov  xai  n-idfuvov 
■ifftiprv  avrcv.  tpcp.'qvoMv  oZv  j^vav  iKft  hi/l^^dfarpuf/avrts  {sic),  toXAo. 
Tift)j<rat  avrow^  &  'Poi'tmAAo?  iiri'iTT-etA^v  *"  kox  naraXa^^v  rr^v  Piafiijv 
■Jfa-oTot  avrjryop€v6yf'  o6iy  o\  Ik  vtpiro}/.^  Kcyojjbay^Cfui  «a(  jtavov  i)(p<uVTo''  fiyj 
rokfintym  tnpov  n  Spatrai  »p«  rove  KamyyiXXovrav  Toy  Xoyor  toE  6iov  Sti 
TO  (TvyytvTJ  itfvtt  TiVdf  toS  'PrnwrAAou. 

"E^tAOiopTft  5f  <*(  TTj?  Kpjjnjs  ^X^oi/  tU  rijv  'Ao-t'av  koI  if  'E^4(n»  %i%d- 
VKOfTot  TOV  dy^Cow  riauXov  iiriftvicay  j^i.'Kt.d&^i  ^MSdca*  Jr  ^  Kal  j9)]pi»^4ix^(rci' 
A  &iTiioToXo$  X^om  pXT)&Clf. 

T^  o^  &€VTipav  ivumX^v  KopivStiav  TJros  'nu  TiyiotftoT  fal  'E^xurros 
jnKo^urai'. 

Titos"  xal  Tt^dios  kbI  Aouitas  crujiTcapaficii'akTts  llaAif  Tu  dnoor^Xw 
J^'XP'  ""i*  ^^  Nifpfcifos  TcXtuS<rtw;  oArou  ovrws  vtritrrpv^av  iv  'EXAn&*  khu. 
avw<mjtru»To  J<t<i  rov  K<n>Ka,v'  Tiroi  Si  Kac  TtftaOtot  ds^XCov  iv  KoAaiTtTaw, 
<cai  av$ii  Tifi6$to^  airffts.  tK  "Ei^nrov  ttai  TtTot  r^v  KpiJnTf  xariXafitv. 

We  need  not  dwell  much  upon  the  course  of  events  recorded  in  these 
Acts  before  the  moment  of  Paul's  conversion.  Titus,  like  Euiropius  of 
Sintes,  Martial  of  Limoges,  Ursinus  of  Bourges,  and  others,  is  represented 
as  having  witnessed  the  events  of  our  Ix)rd's  ministry  and  passion : 
probably  he  was  thought  of  as  one  of  the  Greeks  who  desired  to  see 
Jesus  ijohfi.  xii).  The  events  of  the  early  chapters  of  the  canonical  Acts 
are  briefly  narrated,  with  a  chronology  whose  source  I  do  not  know. 
Between  Pentecost  and  the  conversion  of  the  5,000,  three  years  are  said 
to  have  elapsed,  and  then  (as  it  seems)  two  more  before  the  healing 
of  the  lame  man  and  the  persecution  of  the  Apostles,  which  is  entirely 
out  of  harmony  with  the  canonical  narrative.     After  seven  years  (more  ?) 

*  hmeruwi^Mi.  *  i^^m^o'.  *  lyljifffjJMC,  *  •JSwr.  '  fsov. 

*  iwiortXtr.  '  ix^p^fo  '  Ttrst  (fiajsim). 


552         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

comes  the  stoning  of  Stephen,  and  then  the  cooTeision  of  PmoL  Wt 
now  aj^roach  the  more  interesting  port  of  our  text :  a  nev  Kxncc 
begins  to  be  Dsed.  Paul  *  preacbed  the  wqtx)  of  Christ  fint  is 
Damascus  and  healed  Aphphta  the  wife  of  ChtTsippos,  who  was  poooied 
of  a  devil :  and,  fasting  for  seven  days,  he  cast  down  the  idol  of  Apolo'. 
Then  he  went  to  Jerusalem,  and  thence  to  Caesarea  (Acts  ix  x6,  30). 
Titus  was  ordained  bjr  the  Apostles  and  commissioned  to  teach  aod  ordaia 
with  Paul.  '  They  went  to  Antioch  and  there  found  Bamafaas  the  ton 
of  Ponclmres,  whom  Paul  raised.'  Herod  killed  James  the  brothet  of 
John  with  the  sword.  Then  follows  the  firet  Mtssioiiaiy  Jowxney. 
They  went  to  Scleucia.  Cyprus,  Perga,  Antioch  of  Pisidia.  'aad  w 
Iconiura  to  the  house  of  Onesiphorus  whom  Titus  informed  beronfaml 
concerning  Paul,  since  he  (Titus)  was  Paul's  precursor  in  every  city*. 
Thence  to  Lystra  and  Derbe.  Here  a  sentence  of  general  import  t9 
the  effect  that  Titus  was  Paul's  partner  in  preaching  and  suffering,  tod 
that  both  enlightened  the  unbelievers  t^  signs  and  wonders  u  ii 
recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  At  this  point  we  see  enAot 
signs  that  our  text  is  an  epitome  of  a  larger  one.  Two  detached  seoleecBi 
occur,  one — somewhat  corrupt — mentions  Paul's  deliverance  at  Philippf 
by  the  ea.rthquakes.  The  other  refers  to  the  reading  Ttriov  or  Tavr 
lowTov  in  Acts  xviii  7.  '  Some  write  Ti'tou  'Iowttw,  others  Tinv  wt^rm 
This  latter  reading  (irun-ou)  does  not  seem  to  be  found  in  any  other 
authority. 

The  collocation  of  the  two  sentences  seems  to  shew  that  the  ori^nil 
text  contained  some  survey  of  the  events  of  Acts  xvi-xviiL 

We  now  revert  to  the  Cretan  legend.  Paul  and  Titus  come  to  Ottt 
and  are  well  received  by  the  governor  Rustillus  (Rutilius  ?)  '  who  i&  the 
uncle  or  Titu&'.  Paul  raises  his  son.  After  three  months  be  sends  tbm 
away  and  himself  goes  to  Rome,  where,  in  accordance  with  a  prediction 
of  Titus,  he  attains  honour,  and  is  made  consul.  The  Jew*,  it  ii 
obscurely  said,  are  unable  to  do  more  than  dispute  verbally  with  the 
Apostles.  They  are  afraid  of  attempting  violent  measures  because  of 
Titus's  connexion  with  Rustillus.  On  their  departure  from  Crete  the 
two  Apostles  went  to  Asia,  and  to  Ephesus.  The  visit  to  Crete  most 
therefore  be  placed  either  at  Acts  xviii  as,  23,  or  at  xix  i.  At  Epliesoi 
twelve  thousand  people  were  converted  by  Paul's  teaching  ;  and  he  wai 
exposed  to  a  lion  in  the  amphitheatre. 

After  this  the  epitomizer's  hand  reappears.  In  two  short  pangT^)ttt 
we  are  told  that  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (^the  Corinthians, 
says  the  text,  but  the  meaning  seems  to  roe  evident)  was  brought  by 
Titus,  Timothy,  and  Erastua  ;  then  that  Titus,  Timothy,  and  Luke 
remained  with  Paul  until  his  martyrdom  under  Nero ;  that  they  the) 
leturncd  to  Greece  where  Luke  was  established,  and  that  Timothy 


]X)CUMENTS  553 

departed  to  Ephesus,  and  Titus  to  Crete.  The  portion  of  the  Acts 
which  I  have  not  transcribed  tells  of  the  welcome  accorded  to  him 
there,  of  the  destruction  of  idols  and  erection  of  Christian  churches^ 
and  of  the  long  episcopate  and  peaceful  death  of  the  hero  at  an  adranced 
age.  Some  details  in  it  majr  very  probably  be  of  interest  to  investigators 
of  the  Christian  antiquities  of  Crete,  but  I  satisfied  myself  that  for 
die  elucidation  of  the  Acts  of  Paul  nothing  fnrther  could  be  gained 
from  it 

It  is  undeniable,  however,  that  the  text  here  printed  has  several 
points  of  contact  with  these  Acts.  Let  us  take  in  their  order  the  state- 
ments concerning  Paul  which  may,  broadly  speakii^,  be  termed 
apocryphal. 

I.  '  Paul  preached  the  word  of  Christ  first  in  Damascus,  and  healed 
Aphphia,  the  wife  of  Chrysippus,  who  was  vexed  with  a  demon,  and, 
keeping  a  fost  for  seven  days,  he  cast  down  the  idol  of  Apollo.' 

In  the  Acts  of  Paul  (Schmidt,  p.  62)  there  is  a  fragmentary  episode, 
headed  '  When  he  was  gone  out  of  Sidon  and  would  go  to  Tyrus ' : 
which  relates  a  cure  of  a  demoniac  The  names  of  the  people  concerned 
are  Chiysippua  and  Afu^tam,  This  is  evidently  the  original  of  our 
sentence.    The  Coptic  translator  has  corrupted  the  name  of  'A^ux. 

Similarly  in  the  pages  immediately  preceding  (Schmidt,  5^-62)  there 
is  the  story  of  an  occurrence  at  Sidon  where  Paul  and  others  are  shut 
up  in  the  temple  of  Apollo.  Paul  fasts  for  tAne  days  and  eventually 
the  image  of  the  god  and  part  of  the  temple  fiUL 

a.  '  Then  he  goes  to  Jerusalem  and  then  to  Caesarea  and  the  holy 
Titus  is  ordained  by  the  Apostles  and  sent  forth  with  Paul  to  teach  and 
ordain  whomsoever  Paul  should  approve^  and  arriving  at  Antioch  they 
found  Barnabas  the  son  of  Fanchares  whom  Paul  raised' 

The  first  extant  episode  in  the  Acts  of  Paul  (p.  34  &c.)  tells  of  the 
raising  of  the  (nameless)  son  of  Anchares  and  Phila  at  Antioch.  The 
Coptic  translator  has,  I  suppose,  mistaken  the  initial  n  of  Uoyxdptii  for 
the  Coptic  article.  In  the  name  Barnabas,  given  to  the  son,  I  scent 
a  confusion.  In  Acts  zi  35  Barnabas  the  Levite  went  out  to  Tatsus  to 
seek  Saul  mu  tipHiv  ifyaytv  cts  'AiTu{x<tav.  Does  it  not  seem  probable 
that  the  epitomizer  of  the  Acts  of  Titus  had  before  him  a  mention  of 
the  arrival  of  Barnabas  to  join  the  party  and  that  the  son  of  Panchares 
was  nameless,  as  he  is  in  the  Acts  of  Paul  i 

3.  *  (They  came)  to  Iconium  to  the  house  of  Onesiphorus  whom  Titus 
informed  beforehand  of  what  concerned  Paul  since  he  (Titus)  was 
the  one  who  preceded  Paul  in  every  city.' 

This  is  clearly  dependent  on  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  (Schmidt, 
p.  s8 :  Lipsius  {  2,  p.  337)  hujy^mro  yip  a&r^  Tlroi  mmxxoc  hmv  rg 
«tMp  i  HoSAos.    liie  other  clause  sayii^  that  Titus  was  Paul's  bar* 


554         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

btnger  is  either  from  another  part  or  the  Acts  of  Paul  or  is  the  tutfaorS 
own  invention. 

4.  *  And  having  gone  forth  from  Crete  they  came  into  Asia,  and  ia 
Ephesus  at  the  teaching  of  the  holy  Paul  twelve  thousand  beliered 
here  also  the  Apostle  fought  with  beasts,  being  cast  to  a  lion.* 

There  is  a  reference  to  the  episode  preserved  by  Nicepboros  CalUsti 
and  alluded  to  hy  Hippolytus  (see  Schmidt,  p.  1 1 1).  The  statement  that 
twelve  thousand  believed  i&  new.     It  may  have  been  suggested  by  the 

words  of  Acts  xix  7  ^<ray  Si  ol  iravTtt  ay&p€i  cImtci  SuSexo. 

5.  'Titus  and  Timothy  and  Luke  remained  with  Paul  the  Apostle 
until  his  consummation  under  Nero.' 

In  the  Martyrium  Pauli  (the  last  section  of  the  Acts)  Tittis  and  Luke 
are  mentioned  as  awaiting  Paul  in  Rome,  and  as  praying  at  his  toob 
after  his  martjTdom  (Lipsius,  pp.  104,  117  :  Schmidt,  p.  S8). 

These  are  the  passages  in  which  it  is  possible  to  trace  a  direct  ooi- 
nexion  between  the  Acts  of  Titus  and  those  of  Paul.  Tbey  at  lent 
centre  on  the  proper  form  of  two  names  'A^^ia  and  Xiayji^ptff^  Do 
they  give  us  any  further  help? 

In  the  first  place  it  is  very  plain  that  the  order  of  events  in  the  tvs 
texts  is  discrepanL  The  succession  of  episodes  in  the  Coptic  Acts  of 
Paul  is  as  follows : 

I  Antioch.     Son  of  Anchares. 
s  Iconium.     Thecla. 

3  Myra.     Hermocrates. 

4  Sidoa    Temple  of  ApoUo. 

5  Tyre.    Chrysippus. 

In  the  Acts  of  Titus  : 

I  Damascus  (?}.    Chrysippus  and  Aphphva. 
»  (?).    Idol  of  Apollo. 

3  Antioch.     Son  of  Panchares. 

4  Iconium  (Crete). 

5  Ephesus.     Fight  with  lioiu 

The  main  difierence  is  that  the  events  which  the  old  Acts  place  it 
Sidon  and  Tyre  after  the  visits  to  Iconium  and  Myra  are  placed  bf 
the  Acts  of  Titus  before  the  present  opening  of  the  old  Acts,  and  are 
located  apparently  at  Damascus. 

With  regard  to  the  diversity  of  plaet^  we  must  remember  that  we  ut 
dealing  with  the  work  of  an  epitoraizer  and  that  he  may  very  easily  hare 
omitted  the  names  Sidon  and  Tyre :  with  regard  to  the  difference  of 
order  in  time,  there  seems  to  be  no  ground  whatever  for  preferring  the 
order  of  the  later  document^  and  we  must  allow,  I  think,  that  Pseudo- 
Zenas  has  in  these  respects  disligured  and  corrupted  his  original  source. 


DOCUMENTS  555 

I  am  inclined,  however,  to  believe  that  he  must  have  found  pretty 
frequent  mention  of  Titus  in  the  Acts  of  Paul :  othenrise  I  see  no  good 
reason  why  he  should  have  consulted  that  vKxk  at  all  in  writing  the  life 
of  Titus.  It  may  very  well  even  have  been  the  case  that  there  was 
some  mention  in  the  Acts  of  Paul,  of  the  visit  to  Crete^  and  of  the 
governor  Rustillus,  and  of  the  raising  of  his  son.  I  would  note  that  there 
is  something  of  a  coincidence  between  the  two  writers  in  this  portion. 
Rustillus  counselled  Titus  not  to  speak  against  the  gods  of  the  Greeks. 
At  Ephesus,  the  governor  Hieronymus  said  that  Paul's  words  were 
good  but  that  the  present  was  not  the  right  time  for  them  (Schmidt, 
p.  III). 

Whatever  else  the  Acts  of  Titus  may  be  made  to  contribute  to  the 
elucidation  of  the  Acts  of  Paul,  one  thing  is  quite  clear — that  they  exclude 
the  possibility  of  such  a  theory  as  that  which  I  put  forward  (with  all 
reservation)  in  a  recent  number  of  the  Journal.  The  Acts  of  Paul 
were  w/  a  sequel  to  the  canonical  Acts,  but  a  supplementary  narrative 
running  parallel  thereto.  From  this  conclusion  I  do  not  see  any  way 
of  escape.  It  is  not  to  me  conceivable  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  of 
Titus,  using,  as  we  see  he  does,  the  Acts  of  Paul,  should  have  taken 
passages  from  them  and  intercalated  them  into  the  narrative  of  the 
canonical  Acts.  That  he  or  his  epitomizer  might  disturb  their  order 
I  can  understand :  that  he  should  transplant  a//  his  known  episodes  to 
such  an  extent  as  my  former  hypothesis  required  is  more  than  I  can 
believe. 

Nevertheless  I  am  not  sorry  that  I  went  so  far  as  I  did  in  formulating 
the  theory.  Possibilities  of  this  kind  are  worth  considering,  if  only 
because  they  lead  to  closer  study  of  the  documents  concerned,  and  to 
the  searching  out  of  fresh  evidence. 

It  is  at  least  interesting  to  find  a  fejrly  late  Coolie  writer  (for  I  sup- 
pose we  must  think  of  Pseudo-Zenas  as  belonging  to  the  age  of  Pseudo- 
Paulines  and  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  Barnabas)  using  the  text  of  the 
Acts  of  Paul.  The  discovery  tends  to  confirm  me  in  my  belief  that 
the  Acts  of  Xanthippe  and  Polyxena  contain  some  touches  drawn  from 
those  Acts — and  not  only  from  the  Thecla-episode. 

Cannot  some  one  find  for  us  a  complete  text  of  the  Acts  of  Titus  ? 
At  present  the  Paris  copy  is  the  only  one  that  I  have  encountered.  In 
most  of  the  collections  of  Lives  of  Saints  for  August  the  encomium  of 
Andrew  of  Crete  (who  uses  Pseudo-Zenas  to  a  slight  extent)  has  re- 
placed the  older  text.  This  encomium  immediately  follows  the  Acts  in 
the  Paris  MS. 

In  hia  interesting  supplement  to  the  first  edition  of  the  Acts  (pp. 
xxi-xxv)  Dr  Schmidt  reprints  an  English  version  by  E  J.  Goodspeed 
of  the  Etfaiopic  Epistie  of  Pehgia  k  propos  of  the  '  &bula  baptizati 


556         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

leonis  *.    It  migtit,  I  think,  be  worth  the  while  of  readers  who  are  looking 
into  this  problem  to  consult  the  Life  of  Paul  in  Tile  Con^nditigs  cftht 
Apostles  translated  firom  the  Ethiopic  by  Dr  £.  A.  WaUis  Budge.    Ihef 
will  find  matter  of  the  same  kind  in  great  plenty ;  and  the  document— 
which  I  renewed  in  this  Jouknal  on  its  publication' — deserves  atteodoo 
from  its  possible  connexion  in  parts  with  the  oldn  Acts.    The  tiro 
volumes — text  and  translation — were  puUished  in   1899  and  1901 
respectively  by  Henry  Ftowde.    I  r^eat  these  particulars  here,  beauoe 
so  far  I  have  not  noticed  that  foreign  scholars  have  made  use  of  tbe 
booL 

M.  R.  Jahes. 

»/.  rS.  vol.  iup.  a86. 


557 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES 


THE  TEN  WORDS  OF  EXODUS  XXXIV. 

The  tide  *  The  Ten  Commandments '  is  at  least  as  old  in  the  West 
as  the  time  of  St  Augustine,  who  speaks  of  the  decern  praecepta  iegis  in 
Quaest.  de  Exodo  hcd.  In  the  East  it  goes  back  to  Aphraates  (ed.  Wright, 
page  14) '.  But  this  title  {paa  the  Authorized  Version)  is  not  Biblical 
la  the  three  places  in  which  it  stands  in  the  English  Bible,  i  e.  in 
Exod.  xxxiv  38;  Deut  iv  13;  x  4,  the  Revised  Version  gives  in  the 
maigin  the  more  correct  translation,  'The  Ten  Words'.  The  LXX 
gives  T^  hiKa  frqiuLxa  or  rovs  Scica  X^yovr,  the  Old  Latin  (ed.  U.  Robert) 
decern  uerba,  the  Peshitta,  esrd  pethgdmin^  in  each  case  'Words*  not 
*  Commandments '.  The  Hebrew  word  used  is  the  common  expression 
for  '  word '.    The  Biblical  title  is  therefore  '  The  Ten  Words '. 

This  titl^  7^  Tin  Comnumdments  (or  Words),  is  usually  assigned  to 
the  Divine  utterances  recorded  in  Exod.  xx  2-17.  It  is,  however, 
noteworthy  that  in  the  Bible  itself  this  name  is  given  not  to  Exod.  xx 
3-17,  but  only  to  the  parallel  passage,  Deut.  v  6-ai.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  Exod.  xxxiv  37,  28  this  very  name.  The  Ten  Words,  is  given  to 
the  Divine  utterances  recorded  in  verses  6-26  of  the  same  chapter, 
utterances  which  differ  in  so  many  respects  from  the  Ten  Command- 
ments  of  Exod.  xx  that  they  cannot  be  reckoned  (like  those  of  Deut  v) 
a  variant  text  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  but  must  be  pronounced  to 
rest  upon  a  different  tradition  regarding  the  substance  of  the  Deca](^e. 

These  fiurts  have  been  known  to  scholars  since  1773,  when  Goethe 
called  attention  to  them  in  his  tractate  entitled  Zwet  wichtige  bisher 
unerorterU  biblische  Frapn  sum  erstentnal  grundiich  deantwortet(Wexke, 
Bd.  37,  Weimar,  1896).  Scholars  have  not,  however,  agreed  as  to  the 
identification  of  the  Ten  Words  of  Exod.  xxxiv.  The  schemes  of 
Goethe  himself  {/oc.  dt),  of  Wellhausen  {Composition  des  Hext^uchs 
FP-  333i  334)  ^^^  of  O.  Harford  (Carpenter  and  Harford,  Composition 

*  <g^.  Qem.  Alex,  (page  809),  4  ¥^  *pim\  t^  JtaitaX^TOtf  \rt6Ki^  wa^an^a  ...  J. 
Ztivtpat  S)  \fifnm  X^Tot  rrA.  But  Qement  seeki  oaly  to  avoid  the  cacopbooy  of 
SfmA^TOv  A^Yof.  Irenacna  {<:onira  Hotrun  ii  zzxtI  3,  Harvey  ;  page  167,  Grabe) 
has  prampta  in  the  Latin  text,  but  the  Greek  is  miisiDg.  The  Lawa.  of  the  Second 
Table  are  called  \mlk^  in  St  Karii  x  19, 


558         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

of  the  Hcxateueh,  1902,  p.  471)  although  in  general  agreement,  differ 
from  one  another  in  some  particulars.  Wcllhauscn  Indeed  writes 
(p.  333),  *  Es  I6scn  sich  aus  Exod.  xxxiv  14-36  zunachst  sehr  einfach 
.  . .  n»ft/"Wortc  aus ',  but  he  reduces  the  number  to  ten  by  the  sugges- 
tion thftt  two  are  due  to  textual  corruption. 

The  scholars  who  have  hitherto  discussed  this  subject  hxTe  (im- 
consciously,  perhaps)  accepted  three  principles,  which  seem  to  me 
to  have  hampered  them  in  their  investigations.  They  have  assumed 
(i)  that  the  Words  must  be  Commands,  (2)  that  they  must  be  just  tot 
in  number,  (3)  that  they  must  be  concise  enough  to  be  exprosed  tn 
a  brief  sentence  each.  Thus,  according  to  Goethe  {Joe.  at.),  the  tec 
Words  of  Exod.  xxxiv  run  as  follows  : 

I.  Thou  shah  worship  no  other  god. 
n.  The  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  thou  shalt  keep. 
IIL  AU  that  openeth  the  womb  is  mine,  even  whatsoever  shall  be 

male  among  thy  cattle,  be  it  ox  or  sheep. 
IV.  Six  days  shalt  thou  labour,  on  the  seventh  day  thou  shah  keep 

holiday  both  in  ploughing-time  and  harvest. 
V.  The  feast  of  Weeks  shalt  thou  keep  with  the  firstfhiits  of  ibe 
wheat  har^-est,  and  the  feast  of  Ingathering,  when  the  Yen 
is  over. 
VI.  Three  times  in  the  year  shall  all  males  appear  before  the  Lord 
VII.  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice  with  leavened 
bread. 
VIII.  The  sacrifice  of  the  Passover  shall  not  remain  over  night. 
IX.  The  6rstfruits  of  thy  field  shalt  thou  bring  into  the  house  of  tbe 

Lord. 
X.  Thou  shalt  not  seethe  the  kid,  if  it  be  still  at  its  mother's  milt 

There  is  much  to  be  said  for  this  enumeration  of  the  Ten  Words  uid 
for  the  recent  modifications  of  it  offered  by  Dr  Wcllhauscn  and  Mr  Hir- 
ford.  Still  it  is  open  to  question  whether  the  title  TAe  Ten  IVords  resllj 
demands  such  a  reconstruction  and  no  other.  In  the  first  place  itnn? 
be  doubted  whether  the  'Words'  are  to  be  reckoned  in  every  case^i 
commatids.  The  Hebrew  ddvdr  '  word ',  which  sometimes  conww* 
'commandment',  connotes  at  other  times  'announcement"  or  'protnise' 
or  'answer'.  The  context  alone  can  decide  which  of  these  is  to  be 
understood. 

Now  according  to  the  'traditional'  Hebrew  division  of  the  TW 
Words  of  Exod.  xx  {Pesiqla  R.  p.  io6b;  also  ©«»"»*)  the  Fii* 
Word  consists  of  ver.  2  only,  '  I  am  Jehovah  thy  God  which  bfou^ 
thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  servants'.  Tti* 
First  Word  thus  reckoned  Is  not  a  commandment,  but  a  declaiatioo ; 


^ 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  559 

moreover  this  recLoiiing  is  ancient,  almost  certatnlj  pre-Christian. 
Further,  even  if  other  divisions  of  the  '  Words '  be  followed,  ver.  a  does 
not  cease  to  belong  to  the  '  Words ' ;  it  only  becomes  the  first  part  of 
the  First  Word,  so  that  the  First  Word  is  not  in  any  case  to  be  reckoned 
a  mere  commandment^. 

Since  therefore  the  Hebrew  ddvar  does  not  necessarily  mean  a  com- 
mandment, and  since  the  First  Word  of  Exod.  xx  3-17  appears  to  be 
(at  least  in  part)  a  declaration,  it  seems  not  unreasonable,  in  attempting 
ai  reconstruction  of  the  Ten  Words  of  Exod.  xxxiv,  to  refuse  to  limit  our 
choice  to  Words  which  have  the  nature  of  Commandments. 

A  second  principle  on  which  critics  seem  to  have  worked  hitherto  is 
tiiat  the  Ten  Words  must  be  brief  Words,  not  longer  indeed  than  a  single 
sentence.  But  to  this  it  may  be  objected  that  the  Ten  Words  of 
Deut.  V  6-31  (=£xod.  xx  2-17)  are  not,  as  they  stand,  of  such  brevity. 
In  dealing  with  Exod.  xxxiv  it  seems  most  reasonable  to  follow  the 
analogy  thus  su^ested,  and  not  to  introduce  the  question  of  length 
into  a  fitst  discussion  of  the  passage.  Whether  a  shorter  form  of  the 
Ten  Words  underlies  the  longer  fonn  presented  bdow  is  a  question 
which  need  not  be  discussed  in  the  present  paper. 

There  remains  for  discussion  the  third  principle,  that  in  the  name,  2^ 
Ten  Wards,  the  number  ttn  must  be  taken  in  its  rigid  sense,  ten^  neither 
less  nor  more.  Ten  is  however  certainly  used  in  Hebrew  to  denote 
a  round  number,  as  in  Gen.  xxiv  55,  Let  the  damsel  abide  with  us  ten 
days ;  xxxi.  7,  Your  father  hath  changed  my  wages  ten  times ;  a  Kxa^ 
xiii  7,  He  left  not  toJehoaha%  .  . .  save  ,  . .  ten  chariots  and  ten  thousand 
horsemen.  The  titie  under  consideration  may  therefore  mean  7^  few 
chief  Words;  and  if,  as  Dr  Wellbausen  says,  the  Words  of  Exod.  xxxiv 
divide  themselves  most  simply  into  twelve^  that  fact  does  not  forbid  us 
to  give  the  name,  7^  Ten  Words,  to  the  passage.  I  have  myself 
preferred  a  division  into  ten,  but  in  this  scheme  (see  below)  the  Fifth 
Word  might  be  divided  into  two,  one  consisting  of  ver.  18,  the  other  of 
verses  19,  30;  and  similarly  the  Seventh  Word  might  be  resolved  into 
two  by  separating  ver.  22  from  verses  23,  34.  We  should  thus  have 
a  division  into  twelve  Words,  but  since  the  nearest  round  number  in 
Hebrew  is  ten,  the  title  The  Ten  Words  ts  still  appropriate'. 

The  existence  of  these  two  forms  of  the  Ten  Words  points  back,  as 
we  said  above,  to  an  early  variation  of  tradition. 

The  historical  setting  of  the  two  confirms  this  hypothesis.    The 

*  An  exception  to  this  statement  ia  foond  in  tlie  enumentioa  of  the  Syro- 
HcMpUr,  ud  also  in  that  of  the  Church  Catechism. 

■  Similarly  the  mAv/  'OaBr,  '  psaltery  of  fm  strings '  must  not  be  strictly  limited 
in  the  number  of  its  strings  ;  from  thrm  to  tUMlvt  strings  were  in  use ;  the  'SaBr  was 
therefore  an  instrument  of  the  larger  kind.    Cf,  also  Lev.  xxvi  36  ;  i  Sam.  i  8. 


560         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

account  of  the  delivery  of  the  Ten  Words  and  of  the  making  of  the 
Covenant  in  Exod.  xxxiv  is  parallel  with  the  account  given  in  chapters 
xix  and  xxiv.  Apart  from  the  editorial  additions  to  verses  i  and  a 
(enclosed  in  square  brackets  betow)  there  are  no  allusions  to  in 
cajlier  delivery  of  Ten  Words  or  to  an  earlier  granting  of  a  CoventnL 
But  the  addition  to  ver.  1  ('  I  will  write')  does  not  agree  with  fcr.  27 
('  Write  thou ')  and  is  to  be  reckoned  a  gloss,  while  the  addition  to  rer.  4 
proves  itself  to  be  such  by  the  fact  that  it  does  not  fit  in  with  the  rest 
of  the  verse  ('  And  he '  should  follow,  not  precede  '  .\nd  Moses ').  U 
Exod.  xxxiv  did  indeed  narrate  a  renewal  oi  a  broken  covenant,  vet.  27 
would  almost  certainly  run,  '  I  have  renewed  my  covenant '  or  '  I  roike 
a  new  covenant ',  not  '  I  have  made  a  covenant '.  It  seems  clear  that  we 
possess  in  Exod.  xix-xxiv  on  the  one  hand,  and  in  Exod.  xxxiv  on  the 
other,  two  distinct  traditions  as  to  the  making  of  the  Covenant  and  as  to 
the  substance  of  the  Ten  Words  according  to  the  terms  of  which  tto_ 
Covenant  was  made. 


In  the  following  attempted  arrangement  of  the  Ten  Words  of  Exoi 
xxxiv  I  have  added  references  intended  to  point  out  the  chief  puaUeb 
between  these  Words  and  their  historical  setting  on  the  one  side  aad_ 
Exod.  xix-xxiv  on  the  other. 

1  ^nd  the  Lord  said  unto  Afoses,  Hew  thet  two  tables  of  stdm 
unto  the  first :  and  I  will  write  upon  the  tables  the  words  thai 
the  first  tables,  which  thou  braiest].  3  And  he  ready  fy  the  mondwg, 
and  come  up  in  the  morning  unto  mount  Sinai,  and  present  tl^stlf  thrt 
to  me  on  the  tap  of  the  mount.  3  And  no  man  shall  come  up  xvith  tkei, 
neither  let  any  man  be  seen  throughout  all  the  mount ;  neither  Ut  tir 
floeks  nor  herds  feed  be/ore  that  mount.  C£  Exod.  xix  1 2,  13.  4  [Afd 
he  hewed  two  tables  of  stone  like  unto  the  first ;]  etnd  Moses  rose  up  earfy 
in  the  morning,  and  went  up  unto  mount  Sinai,  as  the  Lord  kad  tarn- 
manded  him,  and  tmtk  in  his  hand  two  tables  of  stone.  6  And  the  Laito 
descended  in  the  cloud,  and  stood  with  him  there,  and  proclaimed  the  namt 
of  Jehovah.    Cf.  ibid.  18. 

6  And  the  Lost}  passed  by  before  him,  and  proclaimed^ 

First  Word. 

Jehovah,  Jehovah,  a  God  full  of  compassion  and  gracious,  sbv  to 
anger,andplenteousinmercy  and  truth  ;  7  keeping  mercy  for  thousand^ 
forgiving  iniquity  and  transgression  and  sin  :  and  that  will  by  no  mens 
clear  [the  guilty]  ;  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  childrea 
and  upon  the  children's  children^  upon  the  third  and  upon  the  ftwitb 
generation.     C^  xx  2,  5,  6. 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES  561 

8  And  Moses  made  haste,  arid  bowed  his  head  toward  the  earth,  and 
worshipped.     8  And  he  said.  If  now  I  have  found  grace  in  thy  sight, 

0  Lard,  let  the  Lord,  I  pray  thee,  go  in  the  midst  of  us  ;  for  it  is  a  stiff- 
neched  people ;  and  pardon  our  iniquity  and  our  sin,  and  take  us  fw 
thine  inheritance.     Cf.  xix  19. 

10  And  he  said. 

Second  Word. 

Behold,  I  make  a  covenant :  before  all  thy  people  I  will  do  marvels, 
such  as  have  not  been  wrought  in  all  the  earth,  nor  in  any  nation  :  and 
all  the  people  among  which  thou  art  shall  see  the  work  of  the  Ix)RD, 
for  it  is  a  terrible  thing  that  I  do  with  thee.     Cf.  xxiii  27. 

Third  Word. 

11  Observe  thou  that  which   I  command  thee  this  day :   behold, 

1  drive  out  before  thee  the  Amorite,  and  the  Canaanite,  and  the  Hittite, 
and  the  Perizzite,  and  the  Hivite,  and  the  Jebusite.  12  Take  Heed  to 
thyself,  lest  thou  make  a  covenant  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  land 
whither  thou  goest,  lest  It  be  for  a  snare  in  the  midst  of  thee :  18  but 
ye  shall  break  down  their  altars,  and  dash  in  pieces  their  pillars,  and  ye 
sbaU  cut  down  their  Asherim  :  14  for  thou  shalt  worship  no  other  god : 
for  Jehovah,  whose  name  is  Jealous,  is  a  jealous  God :  IB  lest  thou 
make  a  covenant  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  land,  and  they  go  a  whoring 
after  their  gods,  and  do  sacrifice  unto  their  gods,  and  one  call  thee  and 
thou  eat  of  his  sacrifice;  16  and  thou  take  of  their  daughters  unto  thy 
sons,  and  their  daughters  go  a  whoring  after  their  gods,  and  make  thy 
sons  go  a  whoring  after  their  gods.     Cf.  xxiii  23,  24  and  xx  3,  5. 

Fourth  Word. 

17  Thou  shalt  make  thee  no  molten  gods.    Cf.  xx  4. 

Fifth  Word. 

18  The  feast  of  unleavened  bread  shalt  thou  keep.  Seven  days  thou 
shalt  eat  unleavened  bread,  as  I  commanded  thee,  at  the  time  appointed 
in  the  month  Abib :  for  in  the  month  Abib  thou  earnest  out  from 
^Syp*-  18  ^  ^^3^  openeth  the  womb  is  mine  ;  and  all  thy  cattle  that 
is  male,  the  firstlings  of  ox  and  sheep.  20  And  the  firstling  of  an  ass 
thou  shalt  redeem  with  a  lamb :  and  if  thou  wilt  not  redeem  it,  then 
thou  shalt  break  its  neck.  All  the  firstborn  of  thy  sons  thou  shalt 
redeem.    And  none  shall  appear  before  me  empty.    Cf  xxiii  r5. 

Sixth  Word. 

21  Six  days  thou  shalt  work,  but  on  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt  rest : 
in  plowing  time  and  in  harvest  thou  shalt  rest.     Cf.  xx  9,  10. 
VOL.  VI.  O  O 


562         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Seventh  Woro. 

sa  And  thou  shall  observe  the  feast  of  weeks,  even  of  the  firstftuiu 
of  wheat  harvest,  and  the  feast  of  ingathering  at  the  years  end.  W 
Three  times  in  the  year  shall  all  thy  males  appear  before  the  Lord 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel.  24  For  I  will  cast  out  nations  before 
thee,  and  enlarge  thy  borders  :  neither  shall  any  man  desire  thy  Ufld, 
when  thou  goest  u{)  to  appear  before  Jehovah  thy  God  three  time*  in 
the  year.     C/.  xxiii  16,  17. 

Eighth  Word. 

25  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifioe  with  leavenol 
bread  ;  neither  shall  the  sacrtflce  of  the  feast  of  the  passovcr  be  ^ 
unto  the  morning.     Cf.  xxiii  18. 

Ninth  Word. 

26  The  first  of  the  (irstfruits  of  thy  ground  thou  shalt  bring  unto  '^ 
house  of  Jehovah  ihy  God.     Cf.  xxiii  19a. 

Tenth  Word. 
lliou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk  *.     Cf.  xxiii  19A 

27  And  the  LoRP  said  unto  Mosts,  Write  thou  these  words  :  for  (^ 
the  temr  of  these  words  J  have  made  a  lavenant  with  thee  and  vaith  Jtred- 
28  And  he  xvas  there  with  the  Lou  d  forty  days  and  forty  nights;  ^^ 
neither  eat  ^read,  nor  dn'nh  water.  And  he  wrote  upon  the  taMtS  ^ 
ittards  of  the  covenant,  the  tea  ivords.     Cf-  xxiv  3-8, 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  pointed  out  that  the  inclusion  of  versa  6<  7t 
and  10  in  the  Ten  Words  gives  an  aspect  of  completeness,  which  «• 
lacking  in  reconstructions  of  the  Words  which  exclude  these  voscs- 
The  First  Word  (verses  6,  7)  reveals  the  Name  and  the  characicr  d 
Ilim  who  is  about  to  grant  Israel  a  covenant ;  it  correspoods  »oJ 
closely  with  Exod.  xx  2-^5,  which  according  to  the  Massoretes  fa* 
a  paragraph  {S^thumah)  by  itself,  and  is  therefore  to  be  rediooc^ 
the  First  Word  of  Exod.  xx.  The  Second  Word  (ver.  10)  promise  the 
covenant ;  it  stales  explicitly  that  which  is  implied  in  Exod.  xx  3  ia  Ibe 
expression  'thy  God'. 

The  Third  Word  (verses  1 1-16)  forbids  Israel  to  enter  into  any  ri** 
covenant ;  it  corresponds  to  Exod.  xx  3.  The  Fourth  Word  (ver-  *?) 
forbids  a  practice  which  might  be  expected  to  lead  quickly,  in  aniti* 
surrounded  by  heathen,  to  polytheism;  it  is  parallel  with  Exod.  D  4' 
Thus  the  first  four  Words  of  Exod.  xxxiv  correspond  to  the  conlenBt^ 
Fjcod.  XX  2-6,  but  present  what  is  on  the  whole  a  more  orderly  seqiKiK* 
of  thought. 

'  b6  rpoffpfatif  i^n  V  ■fi^xutTt  foirpii  ovr*?,  LXX  B. 


I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  563 

The  last  six  Words,  the  Fifth  to  the  Tenth,  prescribe  definitely  the 
manner  in  which  the  covenant-God  of  Israel  is  to  be  worshipped. 

The  question  of  the  relative  date  of  the  two  Decalogues  is  too  la^e 
a  subject  to  be  discussed  in  this  place.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  general 
analogy  of  the  history  of  religion  in  Israel  fevours  the  view  held  by  many 
scholars  that  the  earlier  of  the  two  Decalogues  is  that  given  in  Exod. 
xxxiv.  The  teaching  that  Jehovah  is  Israel's  God  preceded  the 
teaching  that  the  Israelite  must  do  no  ill  to  his  neighbour.  Theoli^ 
was  the  foundation,  Morality  the  superstructure. 

W.  Emerv  Barnes. 


ST  IRENAEUS  ON  THE  DATES  OF  THE  GOSPELS, 

It  is  commonly  supposed  that  in  a  well-known  passage  of  the  third 
book  against  heresies  we  have  received  valuable  information  from 
St  Irenaeus  as  to  the  dates  at  which  the  Sjmoptic  Gospels  were  com- 
posed. He  is  understood  to  say  that  St  Matthew  wrote  among  the 
Hebrews  at  the  time  when  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  at  Rome, 
and  that  St  Mark  wrote  after  the  death  of  those  Apostles.  The  following 
note  is  intended  to  shew  that  the  Bishop  of  Lyons  did  not  purpose  to 
supply  his  readers  with  either  of  these  pieces  of  information. 

There  are  a  priori  reasons  in  favour  of  this  thesis.  In  the  first  place 
these  supposed  statements  of  St  Irenaeus  have  not  been  echoed  by  any 
ancient  writer  whatever. 

In  the  second  place,  the  synchronism  of  Matthew's  writing  with  Peter 
and  Paul's  preaching  is  apparently  without  motive,  for  there  is  no  con- 
nexion between  the  two  facts.  Further,  the  simultaneous  preaching  of 
Peter  and  Paul  in  Rome  is  not  a  very  probable  supposition,  and  might 
well  throw  doubt  on  the  value  of  St  Irenaeus's  sources. 

In  the  third  place,  the  statement  about  Mark  would  be  in  flat  contra- 
diction with  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  who  all 
assure  us  that  Mark  wrote  in  the  lifetime  of  Peter.  The  words  of 
Papias  about  Mark  are  most  naturally  interpreted  in  the  same  sensed 
and  St  Irenaeus  certainly  will  have  attributed  great  importance  to  them. 

These  considerations  have  induced  a  good  many  modem  writers  to 
attempt  rather  violent  expUmations  of  St  Irenaeus's  words,  in  order 

>  The  words  Sltrpov  ipitijvtvrijt  y»v6iin'ot  may  mean  either  '  having  become  the 
Henneneutes  of  Peter'  or  'who  was  the  Hermeneutes  of  Peter'.  In  the  latter 
case  the  possUiility  is  not  excluded  that  Peter  was  dead  when  Hark  wrote. 
Hamack  {Chronol,  i  p.  653)  has  strangely  followed  Link  in  rendering  ftr6ii*rot  as 
if  it  were  ftytVTjfUi'ot,    I  am  dealing  with  this  more  fully  in  Rmtt  Bined.  July. 

O  03 


564         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

to  obviate  this  difficult)-.     For  example,  Patrizi  many  years  ago  pro 
posed  a  new  and  impossible  punctuation,  v-hich  only  deserves  mention 
as  an  indication  of  the  straits  tu  which  coiiserv-ative  scholars  were  driven 
Others  (amongst  thuni  Gralie,  Harvey,  and,  more  lately,  Comdy)  totft 
insisted  thai  lioSo^  must  mean  either  the  departure  of  the  Apostles  &on 
Jerusalem,  or,  more  probably,  from  Rome,  and  not  their  death.    Boi 
to  what  well-known  departure  could  t^oSot  with  the  definite  article,  ind 
with  no  further  explanation,  be  imdcrslood  to  refer  ?    And  is  not  i^olm 
precisely  the  word  used  in  2   I'eter  i  15  to  signify  the  death  of  thit 
Apostle?    Dr  Biass'  has  in  consequence  explained  the  statement  as 
an  error,  resting  on  a  mistaken  interpretation  of  that  verj*  text — »  8(»»^ 
what  unlikely  hypolhcsis,  sinctr  St  Irenaeus  was  apparently  altogether 
unacquainted  with  the  second  epistle  of  Peter. 

Other  writers  have  been  content  with  the  authority  of  the  Bishops 
Lyons  against  the  rest  of  antiquity.  Quite  recently  Dr  Stanton  wiiia 
in  Hastings's  Dictionary  ii  p.  248 :  '  It  would  seem,  according  to  the 
oldest  form  of  the  tradition,  to  have  been  after  St  Peter's  death  ;!»' 
Mark  wrote';  and  Dr  Zahn,  though  constitutionally  inclined  to  ^ 
back  dates  as  far  as  he  can,  has  felt  himself  bound  to  place  notoiij 
Mark,  but  Luke  and  Acts,  after  the  death  of  Paul  and  Peter,  in  dcfcnK* 
to  the  tradition  attested  by  St  Irenaeus. 

If,  however,  wc  look  at  the  context  of  tins  short  passage,  we  shall  K* 
that  the  idea  of  dating  the  Gospels  is  quite  foreign  to  St  Irenaeiti* 
argument.  We  shall  see  besides  that  the  statement  that  St  MarkwioK 
only  after  St  Peter's  death  would  be  a  weakening  of  that  argument,  JW 
that  St  Irenaeus  would  naturally  have  avoided  drawing  attention  to  tl^! 
fact,  even  if  he  knew  it,  in  such  a  connexion.  We  shall  see  that  the 
context  makes  the  real  grammatical  meaning  of  the  passage  as  dearV 
day,  and  that  in  this  light  all  doting  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  disappe»'*> 

The  context  shews  that  St  Irenaeus  is  not  giving  a  history  of  4* 
origin  of  the  four  Gospels^  as  is  commonly  thought  by  those  who  «« 
only  the  short  Greek  extract  preserved  by  Eusebitis.  He  is  amply 
exfjlaining  that  the  tetuhin^  of  /ovr  sf  the  prtruipal  Apoittti  has  9^  '** 
iost^  but  has  bten  handed  dmvn  to  vs  in  writing.  Tie  is  not  in  the  I*" 
concerned  to  defend  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels,  still  less  to  p^ 
their  dates.  The  Valcntinians  accepted  them  all,  and  St  Irtna«i»  * 
merely  urging  upon  them  the  fact  that  each  Gospel  is  the  wriacn  ««*' 
of  Ihc  mailer  preached  by  an  Apostle. 

It  is  necessary  to  read  the  passage  in  full.  The  Greek  of  tbc  P"^ 
ceding  paragraph  has  not  been  preserved.     I  subjoin  the  Latin: 

iii  I.  I  '  Non  enim  per  alios  dispositionem  sahitis  nostnie  cognovil"'* 
quam  per  cos  perquos  Evangclium  per^■enit  ad  nos;  quod  quKieW"*^ 
*  Attn  AfvftolerMm,  Ed.  fiAAtit^gka  1S95  p.  >. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  565 

praeconavenint,  postea  vero  per  Dei  voluntatem  in  Scripturis  nobis  tra- 
diderunt,  fundainentum  et  columnam  fidei  nostrae  futunim.' 

Those  who  preached  the  Gospel  in  the  banning,  says  St  Irenaeus, 
afterwards  committed  it  to  writing,  and  thus  it  has  come  down  to  us, 
Pervcnit  ad  nos.  .  This  is  the  thesis  which  he  proceeds  to  develope : 

'  Nee  enim  fas  est  dicere  quoniam  ante  praedicaverunt  quam  per- 
fectam  haberent  agnitionem  \  sicut  quidam  audent  dicere,  gloriantes 
emendatores  se  esse  Apostolorum.  Postea  enim  quam  surrexit  Dominus 
noster  a  mortuis,  et  induti  sunt  supervenientis  Spiritus  sancti  virtutem 
ex  alto,  de  omnibus  adimpleti  sunt,  et  babuerunt  perfectam  agnitionem ; 
exierunt  in  fines  terrae,  ea  quae  a  Deo  nobis  bona  sunt  evangelizantes, 
et  caelestem  pacem  bominibus  annuntiantes,  qui  quidem  et  omnes 
pariter  et  singuli  eorum  habentes  Evangehum  Dei.' 

This  is  the  developement  of  the  first  part  of  the  thesis ;  the  apostles 
af^er  the  resurrection  were  filled  with  knowledge  of  the  Gospel,  and  they 
went  forth  and  preached  the  same  Gospel  in  all  lands  \ 

The  explanation  of  the  second  part  of  the  thesis  has  fortunately  been 
preserved  in  Greek  for  us  by  Eusebius.  It  answers  the  question  '  How 
has  this  preaching  come  down  to  us  in  writing  ? '  The  reply  is  that  two 
of  the  apostles  wrote  down  their  own  teaching,  while  two  others  were 
reported  by  a  follower : 

'O  /Mv  S^  MardauK  ht  rot?  *£j3pauHs  r^  I3t^  StaXctTy  auruf  ical  ypo^Tf 
i^^vevKtv  dayytXiov,  roS  Hirpov  xat  rov  IlavXov  i»  'Pu/tg  cda'yycXt^^o/icvui' 
KoI  6«/ukiovvTii>v  r^  iKKX.rj<riav.  Mtra  Sc  r^  rovruv  2^ooov,  Mapxoc 
&  /laOfirt}^  KoX  ipfiT}V€vnp  Utrpov,  xai  avroi  to.  wo  Ilcrpov  Ktjfnxraofisva 
iyypdxftbK  ^fuv  irapaScSoiKc.  Kcu  Aovxa$  8c',  6  &KoXav0oi  IlavAov,  to  vw 
ixtivov  KqfnxTVOftxvov  evayyiXtov  iv  ^t^Xu^  Ka.re$tTO.  *B7reiTa  *I<i>ayvi^ 
&  ftaBrfryfi  rov  K.vpiov,  6  xal  iwi  to  crr^6w  avrou  Avavto'^v,  xat  avros  J^Suxc 
TO  eiayytXiov,  iv  'EijUm^  t^S  'Ao-uk  tutrpi^tttv. 

The  emphasis  throughout  is  upon  the  writing  down  of  what  was 
preached :  Ktu  ypa^ijv,  jyypa^tus,  iv  ptfiXim,  jfcSutxc)'.  The  meanmg 
is  surely  not  obscure.     I  translate  literally,  word  by  word  : 

'Matthew  among  the  Hebrews  in  their  own  language  published 
a  writing  also  of  the  Gospel  [besides  preaching  iV], 

'  Peter  and  Paul  preaching  the  Gospel  [not  to  Jews  but]  at  Rome 
[withmtt  writing  it  down\  and  founding  the  Church  there  [whase  testi- 
mony I  shaii  give  presentiyy  viz.  iii  3]. 

'  But  [although  they  died  without  having  written  a  Gospe(\  after  their 
death  [their  preacMng  has  not  been  lost  to  us,/or'\  Mark,  the  disciple  and 
interpreter  of  Peter,  has  banded  down  to  us,  he  also  in  writing  [She 
Matthew,']  the  things  which  were  preached  by  Peter, 

'  The  impossible  conatniction  '  qui  quidtm  .  .  .  habetttts '  in  the  last  clause  will 
represent  in  Greek  »f  A)  . .  .  fx"*^***  which  the  translator  has  rendered  as  if  it 
had  been  ot . . .  ^x''''^*^- 


566        THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

'  And  Luke  besides,  the  companion  of  [t/u  a/Jier,]  Paul,  set  dawn  in 
a  book  the  Gospel  preached  by  that  apostle. 

■  Finally,  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  he  also  published  a  Gospel. 
while  he  was  living  in  Ephesus  of  Asia.' ' 

'Vhe  point  which  St  Irenaeus  has  made  against  the  Valentinians  n 
this :  '  We  know  wliat  the  Apostles  preached  in  various  lands,  for  we 
possess  written  records  of  what  was  preached  in  Palestine,  in  Rook,  md 
in  Asia  by  four  Apostles.  Two  of  these  wrote  down  their  own  preaching 
That  of  the  other  two  has  been  preserved  in  writing  by  their  disciiilei.' 

(i)  A  careful  study  of  the  passage  will  certainly  convince  the  reader 
tliat  the  genitive  absolute  <w«yy<Ai{o^<Wi'  cannot  possibly  be  pressed  to 
mean  '  during  the  lime  that  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching '.  The  nouoo 
of  contemporaneousness  is  almost  as  Oaint  in  (he  phrase  as  in  the  Eti^tih 
'While  Peter  and  Paul  preached  at  Rome'.  The  chief  point  ia  ilie 
clause  is  the  contraposition  of  'at  Rome*  to  'among  the  Hebrcm*. 
The  only  simultaneity  implied  is  that  both  events  occurred  during  tke 
snme  period — the  a[>ostolic  age — and  presumably  the  earlier  part  of  it. 
But  Irenaeus  has  no  intention  of  asserting  that  the  three  events— the 
writing  of  the  Gospel,  the  preaching  of  Peter  at  Rome,  and  of  Paul  ia 
the  same  city  -occurred  in  some  given  year.  This  would  merely  b»« 
confused  the  one  point  he  wished  to  emphasize.  The  general  period 
when  all  three  events  occurred  was  tAf  time  subsequent  to  the  going ffrtk 
of  fht  ApostUi  to  preach,  of  which  mention  was  made  in  the  precedinc 
sentence :  '  Tliey  went  forth  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  .  . .  preaching  the 
(.ospel.  . .  .  Matthew  preached  it  (and  also  wrote  it)  among  the  HcUews, 
Peter  and  Paul  doing  the  same  at  Rome,  but  not  writing.' 

If  this  be  so — and  I  do  not  sec  how  it  can  reasonably  be  supposed 
that  Irenaeus  meant  anything  more  definite  than  this — it  is  interestiD^ 
to  find  that  nothing  whatever  is  added  tt)  the  famous  words  of  Papias ' 
MuT^uroc  /xif   otv    a^paiSi   StaXtitrw  ru  \6yta  (rwcra^oro.      The  if  TM 

'Rfipawf!  15  merely  an  inference  made  by  Irenaeus,  for  he  w&nted 
a  parallel  to  iv  'Pwffi}  and  to  'Kaia.  That  he  is  actually  using  Paptu 
is  shewn  by  the  close  parallel  of  iv  tmc  'E^paiott  rg  iSia  StaXcjcry  a.vrw 

*  It  thonld  be  noticed  that  Tei-tullJftn  hu  understood  Irenaeus  nc)^< 
r.  Mart.  W  5:  '£aclt:m  auctoriUs  ecclcsioniai  aposlalicaruin  caeteria  qaoqve 
patrocinabitur  ev-anecliis,  quae  proinde  per  Ulas  et  aemndum  tlla<  habevus, 
loannis  dico  rl  Hatthaei,  licet  et  Marcus  (juod  edidit,  Petri  affirmclur,  RUu 
intcrprcs  Mamts  ;  nAin  et  Lucae  dinestum  Pauto  adscribere  solent.  Caput  nap- 
strorum  vtderi,  quae  diicipuli  promulgarint.'  Here  Teitullian  liaa  caught  the  ida 
of  Irenaeut  that  tJic  four  Uospcls  represent  four  Apostles  and  various  cburcliek-' 
Rorae,  Pateatinc,  Eptiesus,  and  St  Patul's  foiindaiinns.  But  the  rest  ef  llic 
argument  makes  it  clear  (hat  Tcrtullian  did  not  understand  any  dates  to  l>e  gwo, 
for  he  goes  on  to  say  that  Luke  was  not  protwbly  the  oldest,  as  Marcioo  tlioughi, 
but  rather  likely  10  be  later  than  the  others,  as  not  written  by  an  Apostle. 


NOTES   AND  STUDIES  567 

-with  *E;3pat&  SmXcKTtt).  The  necessity  of  emphasizing  the  writing  down 
caused  the  change  from  trwrrdiaTo  (so  Schwartz  for  the  common  reading 
mvtypdilfaTo  in  Euseb.  If.£.  lii  39)  to  ypa4^  ti^rfxn'.  The  latter  word 
insinuates  that  the  publication  was  authoritative,  by  the  Apostle  himself. 

(2)  With  regard  to  St  Mark  the  case  is  clearer  still.  The  two  Apostles 
preached  at  Rome  and  did  not  write.  How  then  do  we  know  what  they 
preached  ?  A  little  further  on  St  Irenaeus  will  assure  us  that  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  Roman  Church  witnesses  to  their  teaching.  But  here  he 
gives  a  different  answer.  Afler  their  death  their  actual  words  would 
have  been  lost,  had  not  Mark  and  Luke  (already)  written  them  down. 
This  is  the  force  of  the  perfect  mtpoSc'Sutcc,  '  Mark  has  handed  down  to 
us  after  their  death  what  Peter  used  to  preach,  for  he  wrote  it  down '. 
It  is  obvious  that '  afler  their  death '  has  no  connexion  with  *  in  writing ', 
but  that  it  goes  with  '  has  handed  down '.  It  is  evidently  implied  that 
the  preaching  of  Peter  has  been  preserved  to  us  after  his  death  by  being 
written  down  before  his  death.  '  And  Luke  also,  the  follower  of  Paul, 
set  down  in  a  book  the  Gospel  which  that  Apostle  used  to  preach.' 
Here  again  St  Irenaeus  seems  to  have  presumed  that  it  was  while  Paul 
was  still  preaching  that  Luke  wrote.  When  once  we  follow  the  argument 
of  Irenaeus>  his  meaning  is  perfectly  unmistakeable  \  nor  in  reality  will 
the  Greek  bear  any  other  meaning  ^. 

It  follows  that  these  two  clauses  about  Matthew  and  Mark  should  not 
have  been  quoted  by  Hamack  {jChronol.  i  165)  as  examples  of  dating 
events  by  contemporary  Apostles  and  bishops,  for  there  is  no  attempt  to 
give  any  dates  at  all  The  utmost  that  we  can  gather  is  that  all  three 
Synoptists  were  thought  by  Irenaeus  to  have  written  before  the  death  of 
St  Peter  and  St  Paul. 

We  have  seen  that  the  words  about  Matthew  are  simply  Papias 
re-written.  The  same  is  quite  evident  with  regard  to  the  words  about 
Mark.  The  expression  jp/ii/i'cvr^  Hir/xn;  is  borrowed  directly  from 
Papias.  The  addition  /la^ip^  represents  the  statement  of  Papias  that 
Mark  followed  not  Christ,  but  Peter.  Again  Papias  tells  us  that  Peter 
had  no  intention  of  composing  a  regular  Gospel  in  order  (ovk  wnrcf} 
avyra^iy  tw  Kvpuueiav  wotovftevoi  Xoywv).  Accordingly  Irenaeus  talks 
of  the  G&s^e/  of  Matthew,  of  Luke-Paul,  and  of  John ;  but  with  rq;ard 
to  Peter  he  only  has  ra  lojpiNro-dficva,  for  Papias  tells  us  that  Peter 
merely  vp6v  ras  ;(pcuic  ^iroutTo  rag  St&urKoXuic. 

*  If  Irenaeus  had  wished  to  lay  stress  on  the  (act  that  the  two  Apostles  were 
already  dead  when  Hark  wrote,  he  would  not  only  have  been  giving  away  his 
case  to  the  Valcntinians,  but  he  would  have  been  obliged  to  use  the  aorist  instead 
of  tbe  perfect,  and  some  other  word  for  ^apcJUtvfu,  for  instance  nil  Inti  Uirpov 
tnjpwaiiufa  tipaf-iw,  and  the  meaning  would  have  been  clear  ;  and  if  he  had  said 
KtK^pvyiUva  it  would  have  been  clearer  still. 


568         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

It  follows  that  the  information  given  to  us  by  Ircnacus  about 
Matthew  and  Mark  has  no  independent  ralue  of  its  own  ;  it  is  simp^ 
Papias  written  out,  with  a  purpose. 

What  be  says  about  Luke  is  also  of  no  importance.  In  chapter  xir 
of  this  book  he  remarks  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  shew  Luke  to 
have  been  inseparable  from  PauL  Luke  therefore  was  to  Paul  wfut 
Mark  was  to  Peter, — so  he  argues, — consequently,  as  Mark  wrote  down 
what  Paul  preached,  so  Luke  may  be  considered  to  have  recorded  the 
preaching  of  Paul  I  do  not  believe  St  Irenaeus  had  any  authority  lor 
this  statement  beyond  this  misleading  parallel. 

The  sentence  about  St  John  may  be  from  Papias,  as  it  tallia 
perfectly  with  the  fragment  in  the  I^tin  prologue:  *Evange!tuiD 
lohannis  manifestatum  et  datum  est  ecclesiis  ab  lobanne  adbuc  ia 
corporc  constituto,  sicut  Papias  nomine,  Hierapolitanus,  disdpulos 
lohannis  carus  in  exotericis  id  est  in  extremis  quinque  libris  retnliL'* 
St  Irenaeus  says  'published  while  living  in  Kphcsus  of  Asia';  Papias 
is  represented  as  saying  'published  and  gave  to  the  churches  [of /^] 
while  yet  in  the  body*. 

The  remark  of  Papias  is  so  very  obvious  that  there  is  nothing  to 
surprise  us  tn  the  fact  that  Eusebius  did  not  think  it  worth  qaotiii& 
if  it  is  genuine. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  clear  why  in  early  writers  no  echo  is  fonnd 
of  the  supposed  dates  given  by  St  Irenaeus  for  Matthew  and  Mark. 
They  had  the  continuous  Greek  before  them,  and  they  understood 
bim  rightly. 

He  does,  howe%'er,  dale  John  after  the  rest,  for  hnira  i&  clearly  to  be 
taken  of  time.  I  shewed  in  the  /fevui  BMdictiae  for  Octobor  1904 
that  this  is  what  Clement  of  Alexandria  meant  when  he  said  that  (be 
Gospels  containing  the  genealogies  were  the  first  to  be  written  (Euseb. 
JI.  E.  vi  14):  the  carnal  genealogies  of  Matthew  and  Luke  vac 
written  before  the  spiritual  genealogy  given  by  St  John  in  his  prolc^u; 
the  mention  of  Mark  is  an  importation  by  Eusebius  from  the  Adt/mhoA 
on  I  Peter.  I  am  sorry  I  published  the  proof  of  this  so  hastily,  foe 
I  have  since  found  further  evidence  that  it  is  correct. 

The  result  is  that  no  date  is  given  by  the  ancients  for  the  Cospctof 
St  Mark,  except  that  it  was  written  while  Peter  was  at  Rome.  For 
St  Luke  there  is  no  date  given  at  all.  For  St  Matthew  we  hart 
Eusebius's  statetnent  (//.  E.  iii  24)  that  it  was  written  when  he  was 
about  to  leave  the  Hebrews  in  order  to  go  elsewhere.  This  would 
perhaps  imply  the  'dispersion  of  the  Apostles'  as  the  date  in  the  nund 

1  So  the  Cod.  Reg,  published  by  the  Blessed  Thomasius.  The  Cod.  T<deL  maj 
be  rtglit  in  adding  in  Asia  kfter  ttcimis.  (Text  in  Wordsworth's  Viil(Ue  Gapeb 
pp.  ^90- 1.) 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  569 

of  Eusebius ;  but  it  may  be  only  an  amplification  by  the  historian  of 
what  he  read  in  Irenaeus  ^  There  is  also  Origen's  statement  (Euseb. 
JI^.  m  25)  that  Matthew  was  the  first  to  write;  he  has  been  copied 
by  Epipbanius  and  Jerome.  But  it  is  doubtful  if  much  credit  is  due 
to  this  statement.  I  believe  Papias  mentioned  Matthew  before  Mark ; 
so  did  Irenaeus,  and  Origen  found  this  order  in  his  Bible.  But  the 
fact  that  Matthew  was  an  Apostle  accounts  for  this. 

For  St  John  there  is  universal  consent  that  he  wrote  last. 

John  Chapman. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  ST  JUDE  AND  THE 
MARCOSIAN   HERESY. 

Having  been  for  some  years  engaged  on  an  edition  of  the  Epistle  of 
St  Jude  and  the  Second  Epistle  of  St  Peter,  I  was  interested  to  see  that 
an  attempt  had  been  made,  in  the  April  number  of  this  Journal,  to 
bring  forward  some  new  evidence  bearing  on  the  date  and  authenticity 
of  the  former  Epistle.  I  am  not,  however,  convinced  by  Mr  Bams's 
paper,  and  am  grateful  to  the  Editors  for  allowing  me  to  state  here  the 
reasons  which  lead  me  to  an  opposite  conclusion.  I  agree  with 
Mr  Sams  in  holding,  in  opposition  to  Spitta,  Zahn,  and  Dr  Bigg,  that 
Jude's  is  the  earlier  of  the  two  Epistles,  but  I  cannot  see  any  plausibility 
in  the  suggestion  that  2  Peter  was  written  by  a  Montanist  bishop 
between  the  years  185  and  195  (p.  392),  and  cannot  therefore  attach  any 
weight  to  the  inference  that  Jude  must  have  been  written  between  12a 
and  185.  I  proceed  to  examine  the  more  substantial  arguments  put 
forward  by  Mr  Barns  and  others  against  the  traditional  view  that  Jude 
was  written  by  the  Brother  of  the  Lord. 

'  There  are ',  says  Mr  Bams,  '  two  passages  in  the  Epistle  which  point 
to  its  post-apostolic  origin.  The  writer  is  moved  to  action  by  the 
danger  which  threatens  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints  {v.  3). 
It  is  clear  that  the  faith  was  already  recognized  as  a  fixed  tradition, 
treastu-ed  by  the  Church  as  the  safeguard  of  the  common  salvation. 
The  writer  also  bids  them  remember  ih£  words  which  had  been  spoken 
before  by  the  Apostles  {v.  17),  which  implies  that  the  apostolic  writings 
already  enjoyed  some  kind  of  canonical  authority  in  the  Church.' 
Again  '  the  salutation  (2\cof  v/ttv  koa  tlfy^vr}  koX  aydinj  vXijQwBtCri)  is  unique 

*  St  Irenuus  8ays  the  Apostles  went  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  He  then  adds 
that  Matthew  wrote  '  among  the  Hebrews '.  Eusebius  may  well  have  supposed 
that  Matthew  wrote  at  Jerusalem  before  starting  for  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  at 
the  request  of  those  whom  he  was  leaving. 


570         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

among  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament.  The  Epiitle  of 
Polycarp  . . .  cannot  be  placed  later  than  1 35 ' .  .  .  Its  '  saJutalton  is  Omof 

vftXr  fu!  tiprfVT}   Trapa  &<qv   mtrroKpaTopvi  Kal  '\ijtrov  \piaTOv   toS  own^pot 

ilfi^v  irXijOvvOtiif.     Uishop  IJghtfoot  in  his  comment  on  the  fonn  x«v« 
iffxiv,   (\<os,  tifr^vTj,  virofiQvrj   &A  jravros  of  Ign.    Smjfrn.    xii    say^  :     TV 
additional  words  cXiu?,  tTrr»;io»T7,  point  to  a  time  of  growing  triai  ojid 
persecution.     Ignatius  still  opens  his  s&lut-ition   with    the    word  "jpptt, 
which  may  be  regarded  as  the  apostolic  formula.     Polycarp,  writing  tf 
the  very  close  of  the  apostolic  age,  leaves  out  the  x^^  ^'^^  <is^  <"ily 
Aeoc  Koi  ti'pi^io;.     The  letter  of  the  Smymaeans  on  the  Martyrdom  of 
Polycarp,  written  ...  in  155  or  156,  marks  a  further  step  in  advance. 
It  opens  with  a  somewhat  fuller  form  :    <A«>;  mi.  *lp^t^  koI  araxi;  ^or 
waTpot  Kol  mpiov  ^fiwf  If/o-ov  XpurroO  wKij0vy0fii].      It  is  a   fuller  fonn 
than  ihal  of  Jude,  but  the  same  words  (Xcov.  t'tfitpnj,  ^y««-»j.  are  med, 
and  used  in  the  same  order.'     Hence  he  infers  that  *  Jude  '  was  writtai 
'  within  the  range  of  the  traditional  use  of  Smyrna,  and  about  the  ame 
period  as  the  Epistle  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna '. 

We  will  take  these  arguments  backwards.  Those  who  hold  that  the 
Epistle  was  written  by  its  professed  author  may,  I  think,  justly  take 
exception  to  the  last  inference,  that  because  the  salutation  in  the 
Smyrnaean  letter  resembles  that  in  Jude,  therefore  it  is  antecedent  lo  ■!■ 
Precisely  on  the  same  grounds  it  has  been  argued  by  some  that  Henau 
wrote  before  St  James.  While  far  from  agreeing  with  the  late  Canoci 
Cook  in  his  article  on  Peter  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  AiMr  or 
Bishop  Christopher  Wordsworth  in  his  commentary  on  the  New 
Testament  in  their  vehement  protests  against  any  questioning  of 
canonical  tradition,  I  think  it  is  only  a  matter  of  common  sense  to 
regard  such  tradition  as  having  a  prima  facie  presumption  in  its  lavonr, 
though  a  presumption  which  is  of  course  liable  to  be  set  aside  if  opposed 
by  real  evidence.  What  then  is  the  real  evidence  against  the  salutation 
in  Jude  having  been  written,  say,  before  80  a.d.?  The  form,  we  ate 
told,  !£  unique  in  the  New  Testament.  I!ut  there  is  great  \-ariety  in 
these  salutations.  On  the  one  hand  we  have  the  simple  ^^aifKif  uf  Jaiaes 
and  (I^rt/vij  of  3  John  15  ;  on  the  other  hand,  every  part  of  the  sahiti- 
tion  of  Jude  is  found  elsewhere  in  the  canonical  writings.    Thus  £Uk 

and  ctpi/io;  occur  in  Gal.  vi  16  r^njvi;  hv  aiToif  icat  (Xcoc  mu  Jrt  nv 
'Icr/)a^A  ToC  fl<oF,  and  with  x'V"?  [irefixcd  in  the  two  Epistles  to  TimoUif 
and  2  John  3:    xxpqvy]  is  joined  with  lyi.Trq  in  Eph.  ri  ij  ^^9VH  "« 

^ScXi^oif  Kul  ^yaTTij  /ura  iriirrtiui  &wi  9tOv  warpov  «ii  tn-piov  lij<row  TipUTtti 
and  2  Cor.  xiii    t  J   u   9to<!  r^;  iyamft  tai  tipTjyij^  i/rrai  fuff   v/mm'  \  vhBc 

ayawTi  IS  found  joined  with  x"'P*^  ^^^  KuiMutrla.  in  another  salutation 
(a  Cor.  xiii  13).  Lastly  ■irXj}6vi-6*ij)  occurs  in  the  two  Epistles  of  Ptto 
and  in  Dan.  vi  25  (cl/n^  ii^v  wXtiOvvOtiif).  I  see  therefore  nothing  H 
wonder  at  tn  Jude's  form  of  salutation  or  in  its  being  imitated  Bnt  by 
Folycarp  and  afterwards  by  the  Church  of  Smyrna.    But  is  not  j^iftt 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  571 

an  essential  part  of  the  apostolic  formula?  We  have  seen  that  it  is 
wanting  in  James  and  3  John,  and  there  does  not  seem  to  be  anything 
remarkable  in  its  being  replaced  by  its  equivalent  2Xcoc  in  our  Epistle. 
After  all,  is  there  any  reason  why  people  should  be  bound  down  to 
a  single  form  of  salutation  any  more  than  they  are  to  a  single  form  of 
doxology  ?  Whoever  the  writer  of  this  Epistle  may  have  been,  he  was 
certainly  no  mere  machine  for  the  repetition  of  ecclesiastical  formulas, 
but  a  very  vigorous  personality,  quite  as  capable  of  devising  new  ways 
of  expressing  himself  as  the  gentle  and  lovable  Polycarp.  Mr  Bams 
makes  one  other  point  with  regard  to  the  salutation.  He  quotes  Bishop 
Ughtfoot's  comment  on  Ign.  Smym.  xii  to  the  effect  that  '  the  words 
VuKK,  inroiunn^,  point  to  a  time  of  growing  trial  and  persecution '.  This 
is  true,  no  doubt,  as  r^ards  iwoftoviQ ;  but  the  force  of  IXcoc  by  itself 
needs  no  outward  persecution  to  justify  it,  and  the  internal  dangers 
against  which  Jude's  warning  is  directed  are  quite  sufficient  to  account 
for  it. 

I  turn  now  to  the  argument  based  on  v.  17  /a^vOvfrt  ruv  pnjfta.Tm'  rwv 

irpotiptjfirvoiy  {nro  rwv  airoaroXtity  tow  Kvpiov  ^fJav  'irjtrov  Xpurrov,  to  which 

I  take  leave  to  add  the  following  words  Sn  iKtyov  ifjuv.  These  last 
explain  that  'the  words  spoken  by  the  apostles'  were  not  written  epistles, 
but  words  uttered  on  more  than  one  occasion  to  those  who  are  here 
addressed.  I  do  not  think  this  language  justifies  the  inference  that  *  the 
apostolic  writings  already  enjoyed  some  kind  of  canonical  authority  in 
the  Church '.  But,  as  r^ards  the  date  implied  by  the  recognition  of  an 
established  tradition  and  of  apostolic  authority,  I  will  quote  a  writer  who 
certainly  cannot  be  charged  with  an  over-regard  for  tradition.  Prof.  Paul 
Wemlein  his  treatise  on  Tie  Beginnings  0/ Christianity  {Eng.  tr.p.  iso) 
says :  'From  the  very  first  the  Apostles  were  to  be  the  incarnation  of  the 
idea  of  tradition.  However  much  they  might  differ  externally  from  the 
rabbis,  they  were  to  ^ee  with  them  in  the  value  they  attached  to  the 
careful  handing  down  of  the  sacred  tradition,  in  the  one  case  the  oral 
law,  in  the  other  the  words  of  Jesus.'  Though,  however,  I  see  no 
reference  to  apostolic  writings  in  Jude  1 7,  I  fully  agree  that  it  implies 
a  very  real  authority  attaching  to  the  living  Apostles.  As  Professor 
Wemle  says  (p.  119),  'The  Apostles  were  animated  by  a  lofty  self- 
consciousness.  They  felt  themselves  to  be  the  representatives  of  Jesus 
. .  .  The  self-consciousness  of  the  Apostles  and  the  veneration  of  the 
disciples  helped  to  complete  each  other  almost  from  the  first.'  How 
could  it  possibly  be  otherwise  ?  Bearing,  as  they  did,  the  commission  of 
the  Lord ;  chosen  witnesses  of  His  three  years'  ministry,  of  His  death 
and  Resurrection  j  organs  of  the  Holy  Spirit  j  founders  and  rulers  of  the 
Church,  die  promised  kingdom  for  which  the  Old  Dispensation  was 
merely  the  preparatory  discipline — how  could  they  but  feel  that  they 


572         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

hid  a  higher  inspiration  liun  that  which  spoke  to  Israel  of  old  through 
tht  I_aw  and  the  Prophets,  and  how  could  those  who  liad  received  from 
them  the  gift  of  ihc  Holy  Spirit  fail  lo  acknowledge  the  work  and  the 
teaching  of  Christ  in  the  work  and  teaching  of  His  Apostles?   We  nay 
go  beyond  this.     The  writieti  words  of  the  Apostles,  like  the  spoken 
words  of  their  Master,  carried  a  higher  authority  than  any  written  wonb 
of  the  Old  Testament.    As  Christ  had  set  aside  the  teaching  of 
Moses,  as  He  had  said  of  John  the  Bapttiit  that,  though  there  was  no 
greater  prophet  than  he,  still  he  was  less  than  the  least  in  the  kingdoo 
of  heaven,  so  St  Paul  and  St  John  fed  thenxsclves  to  be  uttering  tnillis 
of  a  value  incomparably  greater  than  those  which  were  known  bc*Drt 
the  coming  of  ChrisL     Hence  they  had  no  hesitation  in  ordering  thai 
their  Epistles  should  be  read  in  the  Churches.     As  an  evidence  of  lis 
lofty  tone,  it  is  sufficient  to  quote  one  sentence  from  Eph.  iri  3-5  ■"*• 
a7rox(i>.tJ^4i*  iyvntpiaOi]  futt.  to  fi.txrr^ptor,  Ka(fii^  vpotypai^'a  iv  oXiy^  ▼>« 
u   &vvtuT0t    AvayiviMtKoym  fcr^mu   T17V    trwttrty  fiov   hf  Ty  fixan^if  nr 
X/jnTTov,   o   frcjOtKC  ytwrtt?   avx  tyvmplaBt)  .   .    .   it%  vw  oirrKaAv^^  *•* 

ayi'oic  dir<wT<!Xo«  ixvToxf  Koi  vprt^yfTaiK  iv  wtvfuxrt :  OF,  if  earlier  eridenccB 
required,  take  the  summary  decision  in  t  Cor.  xi  16,  *we  have  no  such 
custom,  nor  the  churches  of  God.' 

Lastly,  I  lake  the  argument  founded  on  the  words  <ireywrtjnrflai  ij 

uirof   jrapu&i^<('<rjj    Ttpi!    ayi'oK    wiWd.      Others    bcsidcS    Mr   Bams    MTtf 

taken  objection  10  the  phrase  iwcrrtc,  used  for  the  object  of  &itK  ^ 
alien  to  the  apostolic  period.  It  is,  however,  found  in  Gal-  i  JJ  • 
hibiKtav  ^fiat  TTori  vuv  tvayytXiitrai  r^v  iricmv  i/v  irort  irup8€t,  ie.  IJl  *3 
irpo  Tov  5J  i}i.9%ti>  Ttjr  jri'uTii'  itv   fofiov   iiftpovfiOvfttda,   Phil.   1   a?  '"*'* 

^Aoi-iTfs  T^  vCtTT€i  Tou  tvayytXt'ov  (whcrc  see  Lighifoot)  and  Acts  vi ; 
7raAi>v  o;(A(«  twv  Upituv  inr^novoc  rp  witrrfi.  Nor  is  there  any  reisoD  wlf 
we  shotdd  object  lo  such  a  use  of  ffums,  any  more  than  to  the  cent- 
sponding  use  of  AttiV,  which  we  find  in  Col.  i  5  Sti  tt;v  iXsn'Sa  r^w  Am* 
fUvtjv  w//tv,  and  I  Tim.  l  1  'lijarm  XptcTToZ  TT?  eATiZcn  rffxStv.  Of  COOtSt,  u 
people  choose  to  translate  rifv  Trirmv  by  '  the  Creed '  they  are  gui'ty  " 
an  anachronism.  The  more  correct  equivalent  would  be  'the  tnith'i* 
'the  Gospel*.  'Contending  for  the  faith'  here  is  pretty  much  tltf 
same  as  '  holding  the  traditions '  in  2  Thess.  ii  1 5  and  i  Cor.  xi  J  ;  the 
weightiest  of  all  traditions  being  that  singled  out  as  the  essence  of  the 
Christian  religion  both  by  St  John  (1  John  iv  2)  and  by  St  ft"' 
(Rom.  X  8,  I  Cor.  xii  3),  viz.  «vpjos  'Irjanv^. 

Having  satisfied  himself  that  the  Epistle  is  post-apostolic,  Mr  Eanii 
naturally  finds  that  the  words  ti5«X^os  Si  'Ituau^ov  must  be  an  interpo^' 
lion  intended  to  give  apostolic  authority  to  the  letter.  He  meets  tW 
objection  that  '  a  forger  would  hardly  have  attributed  his  compositio'' 
to  a  man  otherwise  so  entirely  unknown  as  Jude'  by  suggestitig  lh»' 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  573 

the  character  assumed  by  the  writer  is  not  the  obscure  brother  of 
James,  but  Judas  the  prophet,  who  was  commissioned  together  with 
Barnabas  and  Paul  to  carry  the  decisions  of  the  Council  at  Jerusalem  to 
the  Churches  of  Antioch,  Syria  and  Cilicia.  This  protest  of  his  against 
fornication  and  the  eating  of  ttSakoBimM.  was  remembered  in  after  times, 
and  he  is  thus  mentioned,  with  Agabus  and  Silas  and  the  daughters 
of  Philip,  by  an  anti-Montanist  writer  in  192  as  one  of  the  prophets 
of  the  Christian  Church.  Mr  Barns  takes  some  pains  to  prove  that 
our  Epistle  has  a  prophetic  character,  which  I  have  no  wish  to  deny, 
holding,  as  I  do,  that  both  Jude  and  his  brother  James  are  rightly 
regarded  as  prophets.  He  considers  that  the  Muratorian  Canon  agrees 
in  his  conclusion  that  the  Epistle  was  written  about  160  a.d.,  because 
*  it  recognizes  Jude  as  the  first  among  the  Epistles  which  are  accepted 
tn  Catholica '.    I  am  entirety  at  a  loss  to  understand  this  argument. 

I  now  go  on  to  the  second,  and  more  original  part  of  Mr  Bams's 
article,  in  which  he  endeavours  to  prove  that  the  heretics  referred  to  in 
Jude  are  the  Marcosians.  He  seems  to  have  been  first  attracted  to  this 
view  by  finding  (i )  that  the  latter  heresy  arose  about  the  year  160,  corre- 
sponding to  the  date  '  assigned  on  independent  grounds  to  the  com- 
position of  the  Epistle  of  Jude ',  and  (2)  that  the  scene  of  the  activity  of 
the  heresiarch  Marcus  is  said  to  have  been  Asia,  which  agrees  with 
the  inference  previously  drawn  from  the  resemblance  between  the 
forms  of  salutation  used  in  Jude  and  in'  the  Epistle  and  Martyrdom  of 
Polycarp.  I  have  endeavoured  to  shew  that  probability  is  against  both 
of  these  assumptions  ;  but  one  can  imagine  such  a  close  resemblance 
in  the  characteristics  of  the  two  heresies  as  to  upset  any  a  priori  im- 
probability on  the  other  side.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe  that  it  can  be 
shown  {a)  that  the  resemblances  are  to  be  found  in  other  parts  of  the 
New  Testament  as  much  as,  or  more  than  in  Jude ;  {b)  that  they  are  to 
be  found  in  other  Gnostic  heresies  as  much  as,  or  more  than  in  the 
Marcosians ;  {c)  that  the  most  striking  features  of  the  Marcosian  heresy 
are  absent  from  Jude. 

I  will  take  the  last  point  first,  though  it  will  be  hardly  possible  to 
keep  it  quite  distinct  from  the  others.  Marcus  was  famed  as  a  magician, 
as  is  shewn  in  the  iambic  verses  quoted  on  p.  400 '.  Irenaeus,  who 
gives  the  quotation  in  I  xv6,  dwells  much  on  the  juggling  performances 
of  Marcus  in  I  xiii  i,  saying  that  he  borrowed  them  from  Anaxilaus, 
'Anaxilai  enim  ludicra  cum  nequitia  eorum  qui  dicuntur  magi  com- 

^  I  do  not  undei3tand  why  Mr.  Bams  prints  the  corrupt  &  0^  xofnf^tU  in  wnrijp 
SaTora,  «I  h'  iyyt>Mt^t  8wa/Mwt  'Afa^^A  mttr,  instead  of  the  generally  accepted 
amendment  of  ScaliKcr  i  aot  x^PTf*'  "'^  war^p  Xard*>  dil  jt.t.A.  L  e.  *  the  works 
which  your  father  Satan  always  enables  you  to  perform  through  the  angelic  power, 
AzazeL' 


574      "t""^  journal  of  theological  studies 

miscens,  per  haec  vitlutes  perficere  putaiur  apud  cos  qui  sensam 
non  habent  et  a  merle  sua  exccsscrunL'  The  original  Greek  has 
been  preserved  by  Epiphanius  {xxxiv  t)  with  occasional  variations  and 
additions,     in  this  passage  it  seems  to  be  faithful  enough:   n  yi^ 

'AvaitXaov  muyyia  r^  ruiv  krfOfUkvP  ftarfotv  irayovpyuf.  irvfijiA^av,  Si  mirim 
^ifTO^iuy  T«  not  fjuaynjM/y  tli  <»nrXijfii'  row  opuivrat  rt  Mai  ir*i$ofiiym%  oEnf 
wtpttfiaXtv  .  .  .  o[  Si  ra  liiro  wtpufr/ia^  opwvrt^  Sokowti  BvvafUfK  rtpos  ir 
j(tp<Tlv  avrcv  hrtTiXfifTdtu  .  .  .  fi.i]  ■yiywo-Kovrre  SoKifiAtrai  on  dn  ftaytin  f 
ffiVraiTts  Tvv  ifap  at-ro5  irtuyviov  JirtTtXttrat.  ofiro*  yap  i/t^popTrpxH  woxri- 

voLcnv  ytyovaaLv.  Somc  particulars  of  the  methods  of  AnaxJUas  uc 
mentioned  by  Pliny  {//.M  xxxv  15  175),  Musit  et  AnaidUus  co  (sul- 
phure)^  candens  in  calice  novo  (a/,  addtins  in  calicem  vini)  pranaqH 
subdita  circumferens,  cxardescentis  repercussu  pallorem  dirum,  fdnt 
defimctorum,  oflfundentc  convivJis*.  From  these  different  autfaoriiics 
Mr  Barns  exlucis  the  following  result,  '  By  means  of  these  fumes  be 
not  only  frightened  his  followers  by  the  death-like  pallor,  but  induced 
a  state  of  drowsiness  which  became  the  occasion  for  dreams  and  obscene 
practices '.  He  then  adds  that  '  Epiphanius  alludes  to  these  dreams  in 
his  chapter  on  the  Gnostic  heresies  (xxvi  13),  and  quotes  Judc  S  :  Ttoi 
/«  M«>  dreanu'ngs  defile  the  flesh '.  I  shall  presently  say  something  as  to 
this  last  sentence,  but  will  meanwhile  point  out  that  neither  Irouem 
nor  Pliny  \t  responsible  for  the  statement  that  Marcus  or  Ananlauib; 
the  use  of  sulphur  '  induced  a  state  of  drowsiness  which  became  the 
occasion  for  dreams  and  obscene  practices '.  Pliny  says  nothing  bcyood 
what  has  been  quoted,  and  Irenacus  suggests  no  connexion  between 
these  juggling  tricks  and  the  immoralities  of  which  Marcus  and  hit 
followers  were  guilty.  Mr  Barns  may  have  been  misled  by  the  wofd 
jtequiliaj  which  occurs  in  the  old  Latin  version,  but  the  Greek  is 
TTawu/Tyta,  morc  corrcctly  rendered  by  versutia  in  the  later  version.  AD 
that  is  implied  ih  that  Marcus  joined  to  his  dealings  with  evil  spirits  tbc 
ordinary  tricks  of  the  conjuror,  and  thus  caused  a  Wlief  in  his  miraculous- 
powers  (SwKojttfts,  wVA(/w)on  the  part  of  his  infatuated  foUowcrs,  who 
could  no  longer  trust  their  senses  (ait  lKT\r^i%v  icipufiaXn,  /u;  yuw- 
a-tavTtt  &oKi/iaiTai.,  ifi.^putn]Tat\  Irenaeufi  goes  on  to  mention  some  of 
these  magic  tricks,  such  as  causing  white  wine  to  assume  the  colour  of 
blood,  over-filling  a  large  chalice  with  the  contents  of  a  smaller  one. 

1  turn  now  to  the  book  of  Epiphanius  in  which,  treating  of  the 
twenty-sixth  heresy,  he  quotes  Jude  &.  But  this  book  is  headed  ni4 
Twr  \tyofi<n,}v  rywrrtifCtv,  and  I  do  not  think  it  contains  a  singis 
mention  of  the  Marcosians,  who  rank  as  the  thirty-fourth  heresy.  Iti« 
of  course  possihic  that  the  evil  practices  ascribed  to  one  heresy  msr 
have  prevailed  also  in  another,  but  when  an  attempt  is  made  to  shew 
that  the  Marcosian  heresy  is  particularly  referred  to  in  St  Jude,  ii  n 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  575 

surely  incumbent  on  a  writer,  vho  is  looking  for  resemblances,  to 
use  the  utmost  care  to  confine  himself  to  what  is  undoubtedly  Mar- 
cosian.  The  charges  made  by  Epiphanius  against  the  Gnostics, 
srhether  true  or  false,  are  such  as  St  Paul  would  have  considered  it 
a  shame  to  speak  of.  It  seems  that  they  actually  defended  themselves 
by  appealing  to  Jude  8.     Epiphanius  replies  that  they  misinterpret  the 

verse,  oi  wtpl  t^s  hnmvtda€o>s  Acy«t  row  vjmov,  iXXa.  irtfi  t^  fivBaSout 
dvrui'  rpaytfSiajt   koX  AijpoXoyiat,    uf    &ia,    vavov    Xxyo/uvrf^    koI  ovk    dxo 

ippafUir^  Stavoiat.  As  bearing  on  Mr  Bams's  contention,  the  fact  that 
they  tried  to  claim  the  authority  of  Jude  on  their  side,  is  not  without 
importance. 

But  though  St  Jude  says  nothing  about  the  practice  of  magic  by  false 
teachers,  Epiphanius,  in  the  same  passage  in  which  he  speaks  of 
Anaxilaus,  seems  to  refer  to  another  writing  of  the  New  Testament 
as  giving  a  warning  against  its  use  by  Marcus.  His  words  are ;  ywata 
yap  Ktu  Svhpa^  vJT  aivav  veirXavrjfUva  tc  k<u  TrwjrXaVTjfUvavi  tmjyayrro  ,  .  . 
/jMyix^  -Ovapyfotv  KV^cm  ^/tTciporaroc,  liirar^fraf  re  rove  irpMifrri/JthnnK 
voin^c  irpovij(tw  avT^  £>v  yvtaOTiKionnf  koX  Svva/uv  {utyurr^  i.irh  ruy 
&opa.T<a»  .  .  .  Tmnav  jf^f"^^-  Again  (in  xxxiv  32)  he  says  ovk  Ak  iwrjOtiri 
KvyScvrunJ  tk  iTrivota.  &vrur)(€iv  irpoc  ttjv  Aicriva  rrji  iXi}$€iaf.      Both  these 

passages  are  quoted  by  Dr  Armitage  Robinson  in  illustration  of  Eph.  iv 

14  ^a  fajKtTL  ZtfLtv  v^iai,  KXvSuvt^d/xcvot  KOi  trtpu^tpofifvot  tovtI  AvifUf 
T^  hJbtUTKaXiat  iv  t§  Kvfiitf  tuv  iv6p(Mrmy  hr  namvpyu^  vpov  "npf  ittSoSuiv 

Tjji  irXiit^.     Perhaps  we  might  also  compare  Eph.  v  6  foil.  firj&tU  vftas 

airardTW  kcvoZs  Aoyois  .  .  .  ^«  ydp  iror«  (tkotos,  vuv  8i  ^&t  h  Kvpup  .  .  . 
KOi  fiif  cnryKOU'toyctrc  TOiS  ipyws  tois  iitdpiroit  tou  mt&noi  ,  .  .  ra  yap 
Kpvfft^  yivo/ifva  inr'  ainwv  attr)(pAv  itmv  xot  X.iyttv  k.tA. 

A  second  note  of  the  Marcosians  is  their  influence  with  women,  of 
which  Mr  Barns  speaks  in  pp.  401,  402.  We  do  not  find  this  referred 
to  in  Jude,  but  we  do  find  it  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  as  in 

3  Tim.  iii  6  ix  rovrotv  yap  curiv  o!  ^vSi/fovrcs  tit  ras  oIkuiv  koI  alj^/tiOwiTi- 
j^ovTcv  yuvaut<^Ha  vtirtapwiUva,  afiofruus,  iyofixva  tmBvfuaK  iroiKiXai^,  vav 
TOTt  [iayBavoyrOf  xat  ft.i}BhroTt  tU  ivlyviMTiv  SXy)6tuki  iXOtiv  hwafuva,  where 

Alford  refers  to  the  account  given  by  Irenaeus  of  Marcus.  A  special 
p>oint  mentioned  by  Irenaeus  I  xiii  3  is  that  Marcus  encouraged  and 
even  commanded  women  to  prophesy,  in  reference  to  which  Mr  Bams 
quotes  I  Cor.  xiv  34,  l  Tim.  ii  12  SiSaa-Kta'  ywaucl  ovk  imrpivw,  oiSi 
av9fVT€iv  ofSpo?,  dAAa  ctvoi  iv  ^<rvx(^>  Nothing  of  the  sort  occurs  in 
Jude ;  but  Mr  Bams's  paraphrase  of  Irenaeus  suggests  that  he  has  still 
in  his  mind  the  iwTiyuxlofjxyoi  of  Jude  8.  Irenaeus  says  that  if  a  woman, 
being  called  on  to  prophesy  by  Marcus,  replied  ovjt  otSa  vpo<fnjT€vtiyt 
*  Marcus  made  certain  invocations '  (I  suppose,  of  his  familiar  spirit), 
where  Mr  Bams  seems  to  translate  ImxXi/trfis  Tivas  muovfuytK  'mes* 


576         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

merized  them',  and  continues  'having  put  them  into  a  trance'  {«?* 
*BTuirXi)ft»')  *he  said  Open  your  mouth  and  say  what  you  Hkt^smdywmli 
prophesy.'  But  KarairXi^irt  does  not  mean  a  tranjx,  but  rather  anx  or 
ttrtvr  at  being  brought  into  the  presence  of  a  suptjrnalural  power ;  cf.  in 
use  in  the  passage  quoted  below  as  to  apocryphal  books.  A  third 
maik  of  the  Marcosian  heresy  is  the  stress  laid  upon  genealogies  made 
up  of  mystical  wordN  and  numbers,  which  occupy  some  sLity  ptges  id 
Sticrcn's  edition.  The  only  allusion  to  this  which  Mr  Bams  can  fiod 
in  Jude  is  in  the  p-nvtw  Scinronff  of  v.  4,  but  such  ycvioAoytAi  arc  con- 
demned by  name  in  i  Tim.  i  4  ^>,i^\  vpovij^ur  }t.v$oit  koX  ytrtaXiryiatt 
AiftpiiyTat<;,  and  Tit.  iii  9  /u^pav&i  ^iTTi^iTCK  Ku\  ytvtaXoyuiv  .  ,  .  irtpdirrwol 
cf.  1  Tim,  iv  7  Tovit  fitP-ijXov^  koI  ypail>&<i$  ftv$QVi  TxipatTOV, 

Irenaeus,  in  his  Preface,  cites  i  Tim.  i  4  as  referring  generally  to 
the  Gnostic  heresies  which  had  arisen  since  the  time  of  Paul;  ba 
Mr  Bams,  if  he  is  to  be  consistent,  must  regard  the  Pastoral  Epistle 
as  direct  answers  to  the  Marcosians,  written  therefore  not  earlier  ihao 
160  A.  D. 

Another  Mink'  between  the  Marcosians  and  Jude  is  found  intbdr 
common  use  of  apocryphal  literature,  on  which  reference  is  made  go 

Iren.  I  xx  1  afiw&tjnv  tX^^os  atroKpxKfxav  Kai  v6&<av  ypo^wf,  &{  utm 
jirXcuroi',    ^rafitur^Kpv^MTly  tis   kotwitXi/^u'  Til*  dtv^mii'.      But    nO  OOC  hlS 

accused  Jude  of  foiling  apocr>'phal  books  or  of  using  books  foiged  by 
the  Marcosians^  Nor  do  we  know  for  certain  that  Marcus  used  the  otd 
apocryphal  books  with  which  Jude  was  acquainted.  All  that  is  known 
is  that  he  is  stated  by  an  opponent'  to  have  received  the  aid  of 
Azazel  in  his  sorcery,  and  that  the  name  Auzel  occurs  in  the  book 
of  Enoch. 

I  come  at  last  to  what  I  allow  to  be  real  a^eeinents  between  tte 
Marcosians  and  the  heretics  of  Jude.  These  are  (i)  'be  abuse  of  tfce 
Agapae,  (3)  antinomianisra,  (3)  flattery  of  the  rich.  But  then  ii 
nothing  distinctive  in  these  general  characteristics.  They  arc  appHcibk 
to  various  forms  of  Gnostic  heresy  ;  and  St  Jude  does  not  enter  into 
particulars  which  would  suit  one  more  than  another.  One  minute 
point  is  made  by  Mr  Barns.  He  says  that  *  it  was  to  check  such 
perversions  of  forms  of  prayer  (seemingly  such  as  are  invotved  in  the  use 
of  (TV  &f)  that  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  bids  tlie  faithful  to  pray  m  tlu 
Holy  Ghoit  (Jude  20) '.  I  can  hardly  think  that  this  is  seriously  uipd 
At  this  point  in  his  Episttc  Jude  has  left  the  heretics  behind  and  toini 
to  his  own  people  to  encourage  them  in  the  use  of  that  highest  (onn 


'  I  do  not  quite  anderntind  the  Tvuurks  made  in  p.  4ir,  that  the  iambte 
rtlemd  to  *  help  to  shew  the  identity  or  thought  and  responsibility  t>etw«c*  Uk 
elder  of  Aii&  (.L  e.  the  iambiat)  and  the  writer  of  the  EpUtle '.  What  ■  tbwiM', 
wbal '  rc5poaiibiIity '  is  commoit  to  the  twoJ 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  577 

of  prayer  which  St  Paul  had  urged  on  the  Ephesians  (vi  18)  and  the 
Komans  (viii  36,  37). 

I  have  no  remarks  to  make  upon  the  fifth  part  of  the  Article,  dealing 
with  the  Liturgical  formularies  of  the  Marcosian  Heresy,  except  that 
I  notice  a  difference  between  the  way  in  which  Mr  Bams  speaks  of  the 
resemblance  between  certain  formulas  of  Marcus  and  passages  of  i  Cor. 
and  of  2  Pet.  Of  the  former  he  says  '  The  words  of  St  Paul  Rom.  in 
J  long  to  seeyoUj  that  I  may  impart  (^tcro&u)  ta  you  some  spiritual gtfi 
(xapwr/w),  taken  in  connexion  with  i  Cor.  ziv  i  Vesire  spiritual  gifts^ 
^t  rather  tliat  yemay  ptvphesy,  seem  to  surest  that  there  is  possibly  in 
the  words  of  Marcus  (Iren.  I  xiii  3 :  ^MroSowot  <nt  6iKu  r^  ^/&^ 
y(af>*-Tot  •  •  •  \&fifiay*  wpSirw  iar  ifimit  koi  &'  ifidv  rify  X<V>**')  J'<WM  ^ho  of 
tjit formula  of  tlu  Church'.  In  this  I  am  disposed  to  agree;  but  it  is 
strange  to  find  Mr  Bams  so  much  the  slave  of  his  theory  as  to  the  date 
of  3  Peter,  that  he  spealcs  of  the  beautiful  words  in  3  PeL  iii  18  Grow 
in  grace  and  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  as  being 
merely  an  eclio  of  the  eucharistk  formula  of  Marcus,  17  <£vcn«i7roc  koX 
SppfjTos  x°^^  irkijpwnu  <rm  riv  Vna  SvOpanrov,  Kot  irXi^ftmu  Iv  crol  r^ 
yvSttro'  avTTS,  tyKaTaumipama  toi'  it6Kicor  rov  o-ivanwc  clf  t^  iyeiOipr  yijv. 

J.  B.  Mayor. 


SOME  NEW  COPTIC  APOCRYPHA. 

A  EECENT  publication  of  M.  Pierre  Lacau  {Fragments  d'Apocryphes 
Copies :  MAnoires  . , .  de  rinstitut  Franfais  d'Archiologie  Orientale  du 
Caire,  1904)  has  given  us  a  welcome  supplement  to  the  texts  edited  in 
former  years  by  MM.  R^rillout  and  Guidi,  and  augmented  and  trans- 
lated by  Forbes  Robinson  in  Coptic  Apocryphal  Gospels  (Cambridge 
1896). 

M.  Lacau  has  edited  from  the  MSS  in  the  BibUotl^que  Nationale  such 
fragments  as  relate  to  the  life  of  our  Lord.  His  intention  was  to 
continue  with  those  that  concern  the  Virgin,  Joseph,  and  the  Apostles : 
but  this  intention,  we  regret  to  leara,  he  has  relinquished  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  M.  R^villout  has  undertaken  a  complete  edition  of  the  Coptic 
Apocrypha  for  a  forthcoming  series  of  Scriptores  Christiani  Orientales, 
The  latter  scholar  has  given  a  French  version  of  nearly  all  that  is  new 
in  M.  Lacau's  pubUcation,  in  a  pamphlet  entitled  L'Evangile  des  J^ouu 
Apdtres  ricemment  dianwert,  of  which  account  must  be  taken  in  con- 
junction with  M.  Lacau's  work. 

A  brief  analysis  must  first  be  given  of  M.  Lacau's  texts. 
VOL.  VI.  P  p 


578         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

I.  The  fiist  item  is  a  fragment  of  the  Ada  PHati  (chapters  ix-r1  ia 
s  version  differing  from  those  previously  known. 

II.  Two  leaves,  paged  55,  54  tod  59*  ^1  of  an  interesting  nantdn 
about  the  Resurrection.  Pilate  cramines  the  soldiers  who  guarded  the 
tomb,  scparaicly,  aslur»g  each  of  tiiem  how  many  men.  or  who,  removed 
the  body  of  Jesus.  They  give  contradictory  answers,  that  the  deren 
apostles  and  their  disciples  came, — that  Joseph  and  Nicodemus  and  ibar 
family  came, — that  they,  the  soldiers,  were  asleep.  Pilate  orders  tlva 
to  be  imprisont-d,  and  goes  with  the  centurion  and  the  Jewish  pnesB 
and  elders  to  the  tomb.  Here  they  find  the  grave-clothes,  and  Pilate 
asks  why,  if  the  body  were  st<^en,  these  were  not  taken  with  it  Tbr 
Jews  answer  that  these  are  not  the  grave-clothes  of  Jesus.  Pibie 
remembers  the  words  of  Jesus — 'great  wondere  must  happen  in  my 
tomb ', — and  he  embraces  the  grave-clothes  and  weeps  over  them.  Tbeo 
he  turns  to  the  centurion,  who  has  but  one  eye,  the  other  haviiig  been 
destroyed  in  battle. 

Here  is  a  lacuna  in  which  the  centurion's  eye  is  healod  by  the  toodi 
of  the  grave-clothes  (as  M.  Lacau  rightly  suggests),  and  he  is  convemd. 
Then  Joseph  and  Nicodemus  are  summoned,  and  it  is  pointed  out  by 
the  Jews  that  in  a  well  in  the  garden  there  is  the  body  of  a  crodfied 
man. 

We  resume  with  a  broken  dialogue  between  Pilate  and  the  centniioi^ 
and  tbcn  the  party  go  to  the  well,  'and  I  Gamaliel  followed':  to 
interesting  clause,  shewing  the  attribution  of  the  narrathre.  The  coipse 
is  seen  in  the  well,  and  the  Jews  cry  out  that  it  is  tliat  of  Jesus.  Joseph 
and  Nicodemus,  questioned,  say  that  the  grave<loihes,  which  Pilite 
is  carr>-ing,  are  those  of  Jesus,  and  the  body  is  that  of  the  thief  who  m 
cruciBed  with  Him. 

Pilate  remembers  the  words  of  Jesus,  '  The  dead  shall  be  raised  u 
life  in  my  tomb ',  and  he  suggests  to  the  Jews  that  if  this  body  I 
of  Jesus,  it  ought  to  be  replaced  in  the  tomb. 

Here  the  fragment  ends :  but  it  is  easy  to  see,  as  M.  L^cau 
out,  that  the  body  when  laid  in  the  tomb  revives,  and  bears 
its  own  identity,  and  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  I  hive 
a  detached  sheet  of  an  Ethiopic  MS  (of  which  an  account  and  a  toa^ 
and  incorrect  version  by  myself  was  printed  in  the  Newbery  Hmsi 
MagMtfu,  189a,  pp.  641-6,  by  the  Rev.  A.  Baker,  together  with  a  Sifr 
simile  of  two  pages)  which  plainly  relates  to  the  same  story.  I  «iB 
reproduce  the  version  here  'with  all  faults'. 

p.  I,  col.  I.  ...  the  linen  cloths,  for  he  said  *0  my  brother,  do* 
thou  not  behold  how  it  smells  and  is  beautiful,  the  fragrance  of  tblS 
linen  doth,  and  it  is  not  like  the  smell  of  the  dead,  but  like  thefiM 
linen  (purplej  of  kings'  wrappings '.    And  the  Jews  said  Co  Pilaie.  'TlOB 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  579 

thyself  knovest  how  Joseph  pat  upon  Him  much  spice  and  incense  and 
(rubbed)  Him  with  myrrh  and  aloes,  and  this  is  the  cause  why  they 
smell  (coL  a)  fragrant '.  And  Pilate  laid  to  them,  '  Although  there  was 
put  ointment  upon  the  linen  cloth,  wherefore  is  that  sepulchre  as 
a  chamber  which  has  in  it  mask,  and  sweet  spices,  and  is  warm  and 
smells  fragnmt  7 '  And  they  said,  *  This  odour  which  is  sweet,  Pilate, 
that  is  the  smell  of  the  garden  which  is  what  the  winds  blow  into  it '. 
And  Pilate  heard  them  and  (p.  9,  col.  i) .  . .  Pilate  and  he  said  unto 
them,  *  Ye  have  prepared  for  yourselves  a  way  of  perdition  and  gone 
astray,  and  Eallen  into  a  place  which  shall  not  be  visited  for  ever*.  And 
they  hearkened  to  him  and  said  to  him,  *  It  is  not  proper  or  desirable 
for  thee  to  come  to  this  sepulchre,  for  thou  (art)  governor  and  the  city 
desires  thee :  and  lo  1  the  elders  of  the  priests  and  the  chiefs  (col.  9)  of 
the  Jews  will  learn  this  speech  and  deed  of  thine.  And  it  is  not  a  proper 
thing  for  thee  to  cause  war  among  the  Jews  on  account  of  a  man  (who 
is)  dead.*  And  he  ^  said  to  him,  '  Alas,  O  my  brother,  look  at  this  great 
hatred  wherewith  the  Jews  hate  Jesus.  We  have  done  their  will  and 
crucified  Him :  and  all  the  world  has  come  to  view  through  their  wicked- 
ness and  injustice.    And  He  will  visit  (?) 

[Here  at  least  two  leaves  are  gone.  We  resume  with  the  end  of 
at  prayer  of  PSIate^  as  it  seems.] 

(p.  3,  col.  i)  tud  giver  of  life  to  all,  give  life  (resurrection)  to  all  the 
dead. 

[The  rest  of  the  column  is  occupied  by  a  picture :  above,  men  laying 
a  shrouded  corpse  in  a  tomb ;  below,  Pilate  praying  with  extended 
hands.] 

(Col  2)  I  believe  that  Thou  hast  risen  and  hast  appeared  to  me  and 
Thou  wilt  not  judge  me,  O  my  Lord,  because  I  acted  for  Thee  (did  this 
to  Thee)  fearing  this  from  the  Jews.  And  it  is  not  that  I  deny  Thy 
resurrection,  O  my  Lord,  I  believe  in  Thy  word  and  in  the  mighty  works 
which  Thou  didst  work  amongst  them  when  Thou  wast  alive ;  Thou  didst 
raise  many  dead.  Therefore,  O  my  God,  be  not  angry  with  me  because 
of  what  I  did  (p.  4,  coL  i)  (puttii^)  another  body  in  the  place  where 
they  put  therein  Thy  body,  for  I  did  that,  that  there  might  be  shame  and 
disgrace  upon  those  who  believe  not  in  Thy  resurrection,  fiUse  ones,  for 
upon  them  is  shame  for  ever.  Praise  and  honour  and  power  becometh 
lliee  from  the  mouth  ofThy  creatures  for  ever  and  ever.  Amen.*  (Col.  9) 
And  when  Pilate  had  finished  this  prayer,  while  he  stretched  forth  bis 
hands  over  the  sepulchre,  there  came  a  voice  from  the  mouth  of  the 
dead  and  said,  '  O  my  Lord  (?)  I  behold  Thy  sepulchre  how  Thou  hast 
opened  it     I  behold  the  garden  before  (?).     Roll  away  the  stone  O  my 

*  Perhaps  *  the  said ' ;  it  is  not  unlikely  that  Pilate's  wife  ¥mi  introduced  into 
the  itoi7. 

F  p  a 


580        THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Lord  Pilate,  that  I  may  go  and  come  out  in  the  power  of  my  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  rose  from  the  dead  '.    And  Pilate  cried  oui  with  great  Joy. 

That  this  is  neArly  related  to  the  Coptic  story  does  not  need  to  be 
explained.  Whether  it  is  actually  part  of  the  same  document  is  dm 
clear:  there  arc  differences.  In  the  Coptic,  for  instance,  the  Jews  deny 
that  the  gravc-clolhes  belonfjed  to  Jesus ;  in  the  Ethiopic  they  aOow  it. 
But  the  central  point,  of  the  placing  of  a  body  in  the  torab  of  Christ 
which  revives  and  bears  testimony  to  the  resurrection,  is  common  to 
both :  and  this  is  an  episode  which  we  do  not  find  anywhere  else. 
M.  Lacau  refers  10  an  Arabic  Martyrium  Pilati  in  MS  Arab.  151  at  the 
BibL  Nat.  as  containing  or  likely  to  contain  similar  matter.  This  cletfty 
deserves  investigation  :  it  would  be  most  interesting  to  have  the  story  in 
a  completer  form. 

in.  Three  fragments,  the  last  preserved  partly  in  two  recensions,  (rf 
a  narrative  connected  with  the  Passion. 

Christ  and  the  Apostles  are  at  table :  the  table,  it  is  said,  used  to 
turn  of  its  own  accord  afier  Christ  had  partaken  of  a  disb,  in  order  to 
present  the  dish  to  each  of  the  Apostles. 

Matthias  (not  yet,  of  course,  one  of  the  twelve,  but  represented,  ooe 
supposes,  as  an  attendant^;  just  asSt  Maitialis  and  St  Ursinus  were repr^ 
semed  in  Western  legends)  places  a  cock  on  the  table  in  a  dJsb,  and 
tells  how,  when  he  was  killing  it,  the  Jews  taunted  him  by  saying  tiul 
his  Master's  blood  would  soon  be  shed  like  that  of  the  cock.  Jesus, 
smiling,  assents  to  this,  comparing  the  cock  to  John  Baptist,  as  tbe 
herald  of  light.  Then  touching  the  cock.  He  revives  it  and  bids  it  Uy 
away  and  announce  the  story  of  His  betrayal  {one  would  have  expected 
'  of  His  resurrection ',  but  the  word  is  iropaAtStfviu). 

The  second  fragment,  which  has  many  gaps,  tells  shortly  how  Jodis 
received  the  pieces  of  silver.  Then,  that  Judas's  wife  was  nursing  the 
child,  only  seven  months  old,  of  Joseph  of  jfVrimathaea.  On  the  day  of 
Judas's  bargain  the  child  fell  til  (apparently),  and  Joseph  was  sutnmoDed 
to  see  it.  On  his  arrival  it  cried  out,  begging  to  be  taken  away  'bom 
the  hands  of  this  ftjptW,  because  yesterday  at  the  ninth  hour  they 
received  the  price  (of  blood)*.    Joseph  took  the  child  away  accoTdinglf' 

Then  follows  a  very  short  narrative,  only  a  few  lines,  of  the  FtsUoa 
and  Crucifixion. 

The  third  fragment  tells  the  story  of  a  man  of  Bethlehem,  by  niiM 
Ananias,  who.  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  ran  forward  and  embraced  the 
body  and  the  cross.    A  voice  came  from  the  body,  blessing  him  ami 

■  Or  u  the  naster  oT  the  botue  In  which  the  meal  ukes  plue.  In  >^ 
ipocMlypie  al  Bartholomew  (Lacau  p.  771  Matthisa  ia  uid  to  luive  b«efl  n^ 
in  worldly  goods,  this  is  no  doubt  the  result  of  conrusiun  with  Mslthew.  Mal^'" 
it  sKntioned  in  this  sane  paragraph,  without  anjr  atliniaa  to  bis  ricbca. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  581 

promising  him  immortality.  The  Jews  in  wrath  stoned  him  without 
effect,  then  placed  him  in  a  burning  furnace  for  three  days  and  three 
nights,  and  finally  the  high  priest  pierced  him  with  a  lance.  The  voice 
of  God  was  heard  blessing  him,  and  promising  that  bis  body  should 
never  decay. 

The  episode  of  the  resuscitation  of  the  cock  in  the  first  of  these  frag- 
ments is  one  which  took  hold  on  popular  imagination,  both  in  East  and 
"West.  It  is  told  in  Danish  and  other  northern  ballads,  and  represented 
in  early  northern  art,  in  connexion  with  Christ's  birth,  the  actors  being 
St  Stephen  and  Herod ;  and  again  in  connexion  with  the  Passion  in  late 
Greek  forms  of  the  Acta  Pilati,  and  in  a  good  many  Latin  MSS,  as 
a  detached  story,  the  actors  being  Judas  and  his  wife  or  mother.  An 
Ethiopic  writing  called  the  Book  of  the  Cock  ^  described  in  D'Abbadie's 
catalogue,  contains  the  tale  in  a  form  probably  much  like  the  Coptic. 
It  deserves  publication. 

To  the  other  two  fragments  I  can  at  present  adduce  no  parallel 

IV.  A  large  portion  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Bartholomew,  in  two  recen- 
sions. Both  of  these  are  from  the  convent  of  Amba  Schenoudah  (whence, 
indeed,  most  of  the  other  fragments  also  come),  where  Bartholomew's 
body  was  thought  to  be  preserved. 

One  portion  of  this  Apocalypse  had  been  long  known  by  a  publication 
of  E,  Dulaurier  in  1835.  We  now  have  an  important  accession.  The 
extracts  of  the  whole  are  as  foUows : 

Christ  has  descended  into  Hell  He  tramples  on  Beliar  and  Melchir 
(c£,  Belkiras  in  the  Ascension  of  IscuaK).  Meanwhile  Death  is  convers- 
ing with  the  grave-clothes  of  Christ  in  the  sepulchre.  The  grave-clothes, 
it  is  evident,  are  caused  to  personate  Christ  and  to  hold  Death  in  parley 
while  Christ  descends  to  harry  Hell. 

Christ  addresses  the  soul  of  Judas  in  terms  resembling  those  of  the 
lamentation  over  Elihu  in  the  Testatiunt  of  Job  (ch.  xliii).  Only  the 
beginning  of  this  remains.    Two  pages  (one  leaf)  are  lost  *. 

After  this  speech  Death  (Abaddon),  who  must  have  found  out  the  trick 

*  D'Abbadie's  account  (CaAiA  RaiaoniU  dt  MSS  tik.  1859,  ^  10)  is:  *Aua«itOt 
apris  la  Saiote  Cioe,  Akrosina,  femme  de  Simon  le  Pharuien,  apporta  im  coq  rOti 
dans  nn  pot,  le  mit  sur  nn  joli  plat  et  le  posa  devant  notre  Sauveur . .  .  et  j£sui 
lui  rendit  la  vie  en  le  touchant  et  Tenvoya  tfpier  Judas  dans  Jerusalem ;  il  lui 
donna  aussi  la  voix  humaine.  Et  Rigrimt,  femme  de  Judas,  I'envoya  aux  Juifs. 
Le  coq  assists  an  march^  condu  par  Judas  et  s'eo  alia  I'annoncer  k  Jisus,  qui,  apiis 
I'sToir  tfcouttf,  I'envoja  monter  en  volant  jusqu'au  ciel  pendant  10,000  ans  .  .  . 
Ensuite  vient  I'histoire  dc  la  Passion  . . .  SaQl,  Yodnan  et  Alexandre  sont  panni 
Ics  pcTsdcutenis  de  Notre  Seigneur.' 

*  It  will  be  remembered  by  some  that  in  the  fragmentary  Coptic  Acts  of  Andrew 
and  Paul,  there  is  a  long  conversation  between  Paul  and  the  soul  of  Judas,  which 
is  found  alone  in  Hell  by  the  former. 


582         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

practised  upon  him,  descends  into  HcU  with  his  Power,  the  Pestileoce 
(X(H^),  and  his  six  Decani.  They  Bnd  the  place  laid  desoltte»  «nd 
only  three  souls  left,  namely,  those  of  Cain,  Herod,  and  Jados.  We  are 
reminded  of  Dante's  Inferm  here:  a  mutilated  sentence  reads,  *Tli  se 
trouvaient  dans  ce  lieu  comme  un  kcAoc  (7)  b.  trois  t£tes  (rpucc^oAoti  de 
I'absencc  dc  pardon  qui  ^taii  sur  eux,  etc' 

Mcanvrhtle  Christ  with  the  delivered  souls  emerges  to  find  the  aopli 
singing  the  hymn  of  dawn. 

The  holy  women  had  come  to  the  K>mb.  They  were  Mary  Magdi- 
lene,  Mary  mother  of  James,  whom  Christ  had  delivered  from  Saun, 
Salome  who  tempted  Him,  Mary  and  Martha,  Johanna  wife  of  Cboi^ 
Berenice  whom  He  healed  of  an  issue  at  Capernaum,  Lia  the  widcm, 
whose  son  He  raised  at  Koin,  and  the  woman  that  was  a  sinner,  to  wboo 
He  said,  'Thy  sins  which  are  many  are  forgiven  ihee'.  They  were  in 
the  garden  of  Philogcs  ihe  gardener,  whose  son  Simeon  Christ  baled 
when  He  came  down  from  the  Mount  of  Olives  with  Hisdisdples  (le. 
after  the  Transfiguration). 

Then  follows  a  conversation  between  Philoges  and  the  Vu;^b,  in 
which  he  tells  her  how  the  Jews  had  buried  Jesus  in  his  garden,  and 
how  in  the  night  a  vast  multitude  of  ai^els  and  His  Father  bad  cooe 
and  raised  Him. 

Now  the  Saviour  appears  in  His  chariot  and  calls  to  the  Virgin  in  the 
language  of  His  deity.  She  answers  'Rablwni'  (with  oiher  wonjs),  and 
He  addresses  her  in  a  long  benediction.  After  this,  in  one  recensioos 
she  says,  '  If  thou  permxtUit  me  not  to  touch  thet,  ble&s  me '.  In  both 
texts  she  asks  for  a  blessing,  which  is  given.  Then  she  goes  to  sunimoa 
the  apostles.  Two  leaves  (four  pages)  are  gone.  After  the  g»p  foDom 
the  passage  published  by  Dulaurier  trt:ating  of  the  fofgi renew  (rf 
Adam,  Che  blessings  pronounced  on  the  several  apostles,  and  the  sqipeu- 
ance  in  Galilee.     Bartholumew  appears  throughout  as  the  narrator. 

The  device  of  the  talking  grave-clothes  in  this  fragment  is  new  and 
curious.  It  has  a  Bavour  of  the  fiamiliar  pc^ular  talc  in  which  drops  of 
blood  are  made  to  call  in  answer  to  the  ogre  or  wizard  and  make  him 
believe  that  his  prisoner  is  still  in  the  house,  and  so  delay  his  ponuiL 
A  more  interesting  point  is  the  mention  of  Salome  as  havii^  tempted 
Christ.  We  can  hardly  be  wrong  in  seeing  here  a  reference  to  tbe 
dialogue  between  Salome  and  our  Lord  which  was  contained  in  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians '.     Any  indication  of  the  oontiniwd 

'  Id  ibc  Compits  rtndw  dt  CAmd,  Jti  Jnatr,  rl  BtiJa-Ltttra  1905  pp.  i^iwi^ 
in  in  account  of  ■  paper  rend  by  M,  Rdvjllout  on  these  lAme  apoaypha.  Tb*  oatf 
document  of  which  no  notice  is  given  in  the  other  publicationi  before  we  b 
one  relating  to  Salome.     I  will  quote  what  M.  R^villout  kays  of  it: 

'  A  on  Evaagile  de  Tcafaacc  encore  inconou  apparticnt  sans  doute  le  riot  4cs 
aveoturet  d«  Salomi.      Ces   aventura  sodI  peu    ^htifiantes  .  .   .   Scloo  MIM 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  583 

Influence  of  this  hodk  in  Egypt  is  welcome  and  valuable.  Perhaps  the 
stnmgest  thing  in  the  whole  is  the  apparent  coofusion  between  the 
Virgin  and  Maty  Magdalene.  The  Virgin  is  not  mentioned  in  the  list 
of  hoi;  wcHiien ;  and  the  incident  of  the  yioti  nu  tan^rt  is  pretty  clearly 
transferred  from  the  Magdalene  to  her.  So  grave  a  mistake  is  hardly 
conceivable,  as  a  mistake.  It  must  be  rather  an  intentional  and  con- 
scious perversion.  It  recurs  in  another  document,  of  which  a  notice 
will  be  found  later  on  in  this  paper. 

The  general  tone  of  the  book  is  late.  There  is,  indeed,  one  mention 
of  Aeons  ('Hail  to  thee  [the  Virgin]  who  hast  united  the  seven  Aeons 
in  a  single  creature  '\  but  it  is  very  vague.  The  primacy  of  Peter,  '  the 
great  archbishop ',  is  strongly  emphasized. 

It  will  be  asked  what  connexion  there  is  between  the  Coptic  Apoca- 
lypse and  the  Qutsiions  ofBartkohmew  (Greek  and  Slavonic),  edited  by 
Vassiliev  and  by  Bonwetsch.  Both,  it  may  be  answered,  have  this  in 
common — that  the  scene  is  laid  after  the  Resurrection,  and  that  the 
Vi^[in  is  prominent  in  both.  But  there  is  no  actual  coincidence  of 
matter,  though  I  feel  the  probability  that  a  complete  text  of  the  Coptic 
Apocalypse  would  furnish  some  point  of  connexion.  I  am  inclined 
to  suspect  that  the  Coptic  text  was  an  elaboration,  made  at  Amba 
Schenoudah,  in  honour  of  the  local  saint,  of  some  earlier  text,  whereof 
relics  are  also  embedded  in  the  Questions  of  Bartholmnew. 

V.  Eleven  leaves  containing  matter  relating  to  the  ministry  of  our 
Lord.  Most  of  this  has  aU-eady  been  published  by  Rivillout  and  Guidi, 
and  translated  by  Forbes  Robinson.  M,  Lacau  gives  a  translation  of 
the  inedited  portions.    These  are  two  in  number. 

The  first  continues  the  text  at  the  point  where  Robinson's  fragment  III 
(p.  1 76)  ends.  It  teUs  of  the  intrigues  for  and  against  the  making  Jesus 
king  of  the  Jews.    John  the  Apostle,  it  is  said,  was  taken  by  Carius  (an 

apociyphe,  Salomtf  iftalt  une  demi-mondaine  trte  connue,  qui  avait  autrefois 
acquis  une  grande  fortune.  Le  saint  vieillard  Simfon,  qui  binit  le  Christ  ft  sa 
nainancc,  £tait  alii  alors  la  trouver,  comme  si  la  reputation  de  sa  beauts  I'avait 
attirA.  Salomd  trte  6mue  croit  le  reconnaltre  sans  en  etre  ceitaine.  Sur  sa 
demande,  elle  I'smm^ne  dans  dea  chambres  de  plus  en  plus  secrttes,  pour  iviter 
de  le  compromettre.  Enfin  il  s'ouvre  k  elle  de  ses  intentions  et  fintt  par  la 
convertir.  Elle  abandonna  alon  sa  maison  et  ses  ricbesses.  II  la  baptise  au  nom 
de  la  Sainte-Triniti,  qui  lui  a  tit  r£v<l£e  sur  le  Jonrdain,  que  le  Christ  devait  plus 
tard  visiter,  il  le  salt.  Salom<  se  retire  k  Bethl^m,  q\x  elle  construit  des  Heux  de 
refii^  ponr  y  senrir  les  voyageurs.  C'est  Ut  que  vienneot  plus  tard  Joseph  et 
Marie.  Sur  la  demande  de  Joseph,  Salomi  va  chercher  une  sage-fenune  (comme 
dans  le  proto-ivangile  de  Saint-Jacques).  La  sage-femme  et  elle  devaient,  d'sprte 
le  dernier  texte,  assister  au  miracle  qui  lui  montra,  ainsi  qu'ji  Salomtf,  en  J6sus 
le  nis  de  Dieo.' 

Provisionally  this  must  be  regarded  as  not  at  all  an  early  story,  and  as  very 
probably  influenced  by  such  legends  as  that  of  Hary  of  Egypt 


5B4        THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

imperial  officer)  to  Tiberius,  and  gave  him  an  account  of  Jesus.  Jesm, 
'  as  it  is  WTinen  in  the  Gospels ',  retires  to  a  mountain  with  the  Aposdes. 
And  here  follows  a  solemn  blessing  of  Peter,  not  unlike  that  to  tbe 
Apocalypse  of  Bartholomew.  Similar  blessings  c^  other  apostles  appear 
to  be  contained  in  a  fragmentary  leaf  (pp.  97,  98)  not  translated  by  tbe 
editor.  Then,  after  no  long  gap,  in  all  probability,  we  resume  with 
Robinson's  fragment  XV  (pp.  177-9).  This,  it  may  be  remembered, 
ends  with  an  appearance  of  the  devil  as  a  fisherman,  who  catches  men 
by  different  (larts  of  their  bodies.  A  leaf  in  Lacau  (pp.  99, 100 :  tnni^ 
tion  p.  108)  gives  us  the  continuation  of  this  scene.  The  devil  b  put 
to  flight  by  John  :  Bartholomew  then  asks  to  see  *  him  whom  Tboo  dida 
create  to  laugh  at  him  (i.  e.  Leviathan  :  see  Ps.  civ  26),  whom  Thou  didst 
cast  down  from  the  height  of  the  heaven '.  Jesus  replies  that  do  mu 
can  bear  the  sight,  but  that  He  Himself,  who  puts  all  fear  to  fii^  is 
with  them.  A  cloud  then  appears  in  the  sky,  which  is  that  same  doud 
on  which  Moses  and  Elias  went  up  to  heaven,  and  6rom  which  the  voke 
of  the  Father  was  heard :  *  This  is  my  (Son) '.    Here  the  fragment  endt 

It  seems  not  doubtful  that  a  vision  of  Satan  b  to  be  vouchsafed  to 
the  Apostles  in  answer  to  Bartholomew's  request  In  this  I  see  a  ncu 
resemblance  to  the  QuesHcns  of  Sarikohmew^  where  (cd.  Bonwettch 
pp.  18  sqq,)  Bartholomew  makes  the  same  demand  and  receives  a  ivy 
similar  answer :  Beliar  is  then  brought,  chained,  by  angels,  and  reveals 
many  mysteries  to  the  inquisitive  Ajiostle.  This  affinity  between  the 
Coptic  fragment  and  the  Greek  book  is  to  my  mind  in  favour  of  the 
norion  that  the  Coptic  Apocalypse  of  Bartholomew  will  be  found  to  be 
ultimately  identical  with  the  Questums:  at  the  least  it  points  to  n 
acquaintance  with  the  Questions  in  Egypt. 

Another  Greek  document  which  should  be  mentioned  in  coonexioo 
with  this  incident  is  the  Dispute  of  Chist  witk  Satan^  edited  in  two 
late  texts  by  Vassiliev.  In  this  there  is  no  mention  of  Bartholomew, 
but  there  is  a  rather  similar  setting;  and  there  is  the  common  fisattac 
of  a  cloud  appearing  (which  suiipends  Satan  in  the  air).  I  rather  imagine 
that  this  would  be  the  ultinuite  function  of  the  cloud  in  tbe  Coptic 
fragment. 

The  general  complexion  of  the  piece  is,  of  course,  already  known. 
It  is  professedly  not  in  the  nature  of  a  supplement  to  the  Gospels 
(Robinson  p.  165),  but  one  cannot  easily  find  another  description  fv 
it.  It  constantly  refers  to  the  Gospels,  and  gives  information  whidi 
they  do  not  contain.  Possibly  we  ought  to  rt^rd  these  narratives  M 
illustrative  extracts  from  older  books  introduced  by  the  preacher  to  «W 
interest  to  his  sermon  (for  these  documents  are  nearly  all  in  the  form  of 
sermons) :  at  least  in  the  case  before  us  we  have  seen  what  looks  like 
a  borrowing  from  an  apecryphon  of  Bartholomew.    Other  ampUficatioo^ 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  585 

e.g.  the  long  address  of  Christ  to  Thomas  (p.  170),  may  be  put  down 
confidently  to  the  writer's  imaginatioa  In  the  case  before  us  it  does 
not  appear  (as  it  does  in  some  others)  that  the  author  is  supposed  to  be 
an  eye-witness,  or  a  companion  of  the  Aposdes.  But  until  some  more 
complete  text  containing  the  beginning  or  end  of  these  homilies  is 
discovered,  we  cannot  pronounce  with  certainty  on  the  claims  which 
theii  writers  made  for  them. 

It  is  now  time  to  take  account  of  the  fragments  which  M.  R^villout 
has  translated  in  his  pamphlet  dvan^U  des  Douu  Apdtres  ricemment 
diantoert  (pp.  56).  His  main  thesis  in  this  work  is  one  for  which  he 
will  not  And  many  supporters.  It  is  that  the  fragments  described  above 
under  Nos.  II,  III,  and  V,  together  with  many  others,  belong  to  a  single 
work  which  he  identifies  with  the  Gospel  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  men- 
tioned by  Origen  {in  Zucam) :  that  this  was  an  orthodox  compilation 
attributed  to  Gamaliel,  and  dating  from  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  However,  as  far  as  our  present  knowledge  goes,  we  are  not 
justified  in  regarding  the  *  homiletic  *  fragments  (No.  V)  as  belonging  to 
the  same  work  as  Nos.  II  or  III :  and  I  shall  be  surprised  if  many  or 
any  students  incline  to  ass^  to  any  of  the  documents  a  date  anterior 
to  the  fourth  century  at  earliest  in  their  present  form.  Still,  we  must 
be  grateful  to  M.  R^villout  for  what  he  has  given  us  in  the  way  of  new 
matter,  and  we  shall  look  eageriy  for  his  promised  full  publication  of 
the  texts  in  M.  Graffin's  series. 

His  pamphlet  is  arranged  in  a  rather  confusing  order.  He  follows 
the  Gospel  story  and  intercalates  his  texts  in  the  midst  of  his  comments^ 
and  extracts  from  the  canonical  Gospels.  It  may  be  useful  to  give 
a  list  of  the  passages. 

p.  7.  =:  Robinson  p.  168. 

p.  10.  R.  p.  169. 

p.  II.  New.  Accusation  of  Philip  the  Tetrarch  by  Herod  to  Tiberius, 
and  deposition  of  Philip. 

p.  13.  Robinson  p.  169.     Miracle  of  the  loaves. 

p.  14.  Robinson  p.  169.     Lazarus,     p.  16.  R.  p.  173.     pp.  17-19. 

R.  pp.  173-5- 

p.  19.  Lacau  p.  105. 

p.  32.  Lacau  p.  106. 

On  p.  24  is  a  paragraph  from  the  Apocalypse  of  Bartholomew.    Lacau 

P-75- 

p.  35.  Robinson  pp.  176-8.     p.  28.  R.  p.  178. 

The  fragments  on  pp.  7-35  are  (except  that  on  p.  34)  from  the 
'  homiletic '  narrative. 

p.  30.  New.  A  paragraph  on  Judas,  who  is  instigated  by  his  wife  to 
take  money  from  the  purse,  and  also  to  betray  Christ.    This  resembles 


586         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Lacau's  No.  Ill,  in  that  mention  is  made  of  Judas's  wife:  but  itdoa 
not  fit  into  that  text. 

p.  32.  Lacau  p.  33,  No.  IIL 

On  pp.  36,  37  is  given  the  Strasburg  fragment  published  by  Jacoby. 
This  also  R^IHout  considers  to  fonn  part  of  the  Gu${x;I  of  the  Twdve 
Apostles. 

pp.  3S,  39.  New.  A  conversation  between  Jesiu  and  Pflate.  A 
longer  one  discovered  subsequently  by  the  editor  is  given  in  a  oxt 
on  p.  37. 

p.  41.  Lacau  pp.  34-6.  The  episode  of  Ananias  of  Bethlebeoi.  At 
the  end  of  this,  on  p.  42,  R^villout  adds  a  new  fragment  which  to  m; 
mind  cannot  but  be  an  address  of  Christ  to  Thomas  after  tbe  resttmc- 
tion.    It  is  an  ampli6cation  of  the  words,  '  Reach  hitber  thy  fingei ',  &c 

p.  44.  New.  An  account  of  the  api>earance  of  Christ  to  the  Vt^ 
in  the  garden,  in  which  the  words  Ne/i  me  tangere  are  undoubie<D; 
addressed  to  the  latter,  and  not  to  Mary  Magdalene :  '  O  m^rc,  nt  tae 
touches  pas  ...  II  n'eet  pas  possible  que  rien  de  chamel  me  toucbc 
jusqu'it  ce  que  j'aJlle  au  cid.' 

pp.  46-8.  Lacau  pp.  19  sqq.,  No.  II. 

On  pp.  49  sqq.  fragments  of  an  account  of  the  Assumpdon  of  the 
Virgin  are  given,  which  the  editor  conjecturaily  attributes  to  the  sunt 
hand  and  source  as  the  rest. 

It  will  have  been  gathered  from  what  I  have  said  that  I  do  not  assiga 
a  very  eaily  date  to  any  of  the  fragments  I  have  described.  In  spite  of 
this,  I  feel  that  considerable  intercut  attaches  to  them  in  view  of  the  £Kt 
that  they  probably  embody  (in  the  allusion  to  Salome  they  do  plainlf 
embody)  matter  taken  from  much  earlier  books.  This  elemeot  mQ 
have  to  be  carefully  strained  out  by  protracted  study;  and  before  thit 
study  can  be  usefully  prosecuted,  we  must  have  a  Corpus  of  the  tots 
such  as  we  hope  M.  Revillout  will  shortly  give  us.  Besides  tbor 
borrowed  ingredients,  howe\'cr,  these  wriangs  have  an  interest  of  tlier 
own.  The  wealth  of  fancy,  the  boldness  of  invention  which  they  di^r 
(side  by  side  with  a  good  deal  of  poor  rhetoric,  it  is  true),  is  retUf 
retnarkable.  I  think  even  the  'general  reader',  if  he  l>e  not  too  im- 
patient of  asterisks  and  broken  sentences,  would  be  interested  and 
pleased  by  the  perusal  of  then^  But  perhaps  a  long  familiarity  with 
this  department  of  6ction  has  inchned  me  to  an  tudue  tolerance. 

M.    R.   JA3CIS. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  587 

THE     SO-CALLED     TRACTATUS    ORTGENTS    AND 
OTHER  WRITINGS  ATTRIBUTED  TO  NOVATIAN. 

The  twenty  Latin  homilies  discovered  by  BatifTol  under  the  title 
'  Tntctatus  Origenis  de  Libris  SS.  Scripturarum  *  vera  published  in  1 900, 
and  in  the  October  number  of  the  Journal  of  that  same  year  and  the 
January  number  of  1901  (i!  113  and  354)  I  contributed  notes  wherein 
I  discussed  the  problems  raised  in  the  early  stages  of  the  literary  con- 
troversy called  forth  by  the  appearance  of  these  Traciaius. 

Now,  after  the  ctmtroversy  has  been  running  for  five  years,  and 
a  number  of  scholars  have  pronounced  upon  it,  it  may  be  of  interest  to 
report  pr<^;ress.  I  shall  not  go  back  upon  the  ground  covered  in  the 
previous  notes,  but  shall  endeavour  to  define  the  present  position  of 
the  discussion,  and  shall  indulge  in  some  practical  reflections  upon 
certain  methods  of  literary  criticism  commonly  in  vogue. 

The  one  point  about  which  there  appears  to  be  common  agreement 
Is  that  Weyman  has  solidly  established  his  thesis  that  the  TYactatus  are 
essentially  a  book  of  Latin  origin ;  consequently  Batifibl  and  Hamack 
have  frankly  abandoned  their  first  the(»7  of  a  translation  from  Origen 
(by  Victorinus  of  Pettau)*. 

The  controversy  has  practically  narrowed  itself  to  a  choice  between 
the  two  following  views. 

(i)  The  TVarfd/KJ  were  written  by  Novatian  j 

(2)  They  are  the  work  of  an  unknown  author  (or  compiler),  certainly 
post'Nicene,  and  probably  of  the  later  part  of  the  fourth  century  at 
earliest  *. 

The  first  upholders  of  Novatian's  authorship,  Weyman,  Zahn  and 
Haussleiter,  have  all  reasserted  their  view,  and  defend  it  in  face  of  the 
criticisms  levelled  against  it ;  and  their  ranks  have  been  reinforced  by 
Jordan,  who  has  produced  a  substantial  book  entitled  Die  Theohgie  der 
neuentdeckien  Fredtgien  Nmatians  (1902);  he  practically  assumes 
Novatian's  authorship  as  proved,  and  proceeds  without  more  ado  to 
analyse  and  systematize  the  teaching  of  the  lytKta/us,  and  to  present 
the  result  as  *  Novatian's  theology.' 

*  The  proof  offered  in  my  flrst  note,  that  fragments  of  true  Otigenistlc  nutter  are 
embedded  in  the  Trattaiui,  is,  however,  accepted  as  valid  by  these  scholars  and 
othen. 

>  Batiffol  it  is  true  has  adopted  a  middle  position :  he  is  strongly  opposed  to 
Novatian's  authorship,  but  believes  that  the  author  was  an  unknown  Novatianist, 
ante-Nicene,  peiliaps  of  the  first  years  of  the  fourth  century  {BulUtin  dt  lilt. 
tetltaiasHqtu  (Toulouse)  1900  p.  983;  Rnu*  Bibliqiu  1903  p.  81).  A  similar 
view  seems  to  have  been  put  forward  by  a  Danish  scholar  named  Tonn,  But  it 
has  not  made  way  or  gained  recognition. 


5BB         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

Against  the  claim  to  the  authorship  thus  set  up  for  Novadan  weighty 
Toioes  have  been  raised.  Funic  was  the  first  carefully  to  examioe  the 
new  theory  ;  we  shall  return  to  his  argument ;  here  it  will  suffice  to  say 
that  he  concludes  that  the  Traciatus  are  certainly  not  by  NoTatian,  and 
that  they  are  certainly  post-Nicene,  and  probably  later  than  35a 
Bardenhewer,  in  his  great  History  of  Early  Church  Literature,  devottt 
six  pages  to  the  Tractatvs;  he  weighs  carefully  the  hypotheses  hitherto 
broached,  and  concludes  that  the  author  lived  at  the  farUtst  in  tbe 
second  half  of  the  fourth  century,  but  that  there  are  no  means  lor 
identifying  him'.  Harnack  in  his  'Chronology'  also  discusses  the 
problem,  and  in  his  article '  Novatian,'  in  Hencog^Hauck,  he  summaniei 
his  conclusions  :  the  evidence  points  to  an  unknown  writer  at  least  fai 
on  {titf)  in  the  fourth  century*.  In  the  second  edition  (just  publisbci^ 
of  Part  III  of  the  History  of  Roman  Literature  by  M.  Schanz,  professor 
at  Wiirtburg  (to  be  distinguished  from  the  late  Professor  Schani  of 
TiJbingen),  a  wonderfully  clear  and  comprehensive  risumi  of  the  whole 
controversy  may  be  found  :  he  sums  up  in  favour  of  die  position  defined 
at  the  end  of  my  second  note  in  the  Journal.,  that  the  Trxia^  a 
we  have  them  are  the  work  of  an  unknown  writer  in  the  6flh  of  siah 
century'. 

Now  it  will  probably  be  agreed  that  on  a  point  of  eaHy  Cbristiu 
historico-theological  literary  criticism,  a  stronger  court  than  Kunk, 
Bardenhcwcr  and  Hamack  could  hardly  be  formed  ;  and  these  qualiMd 
judges  are  unanimous  in  the  verdict  that  Novatian's  claim  nwst  be 
rejected  unconditionally,  and  that  the  Tractatus  are  definitely  post- 
Nicene  :  Bardenhewer  and  Hamack  add  that  they  arc  not  earlier  thin 
350,  and  may  be  considerably  later  ;  in  his  article  Funk  abstained  bom 
any  more  precise  pronouncement  than  *  Post-Nicene,'  but  he  teUs  oe 
his  belief  is  that  the  date  must  be  postponed  till  the  fifth  oentuiy*. 

In  these  circumstances  it  was  a  surprise  to  read  in  a  little  textbook, 
prejuirvd  by  Jordan  for  use  in  ecclesiastical  colleges,  the  statement  iha: 
the  Ty^ctatus  'are  with  good  grounds  attributed  to  Novatian  by  a  »enes 
of  students,  and  undoubtedly  were  not  composed  later  than  the  beginiiin| 
of  the  fourth  century,  and  certainly  belong  to  the  Novaiianic  circle". 

'  GtsdtidtU  dtr  altkinMIkktn  Litrraii»rn  ^ii-";^ 

■  CknmoUigie  dtr  tdUhriitliihen  LitUraluru  407-to;  R*^'En^khf4Uk  rir  Siy. 

'  GmAkkU  der  f^misthm  IMUraluriii  413-37. 

'  Hr  writes  :  'Mcinc  Grande  sind  Qbrigena  dcnrt,  dsnidiJcdenrKni  tnfj.Jthr- 
hund«rl  bcnibschen  muu.* 

*  Die  cntc  von  den  3D  Prcdigtcn,  wdche  Pierre  Batiifol  itn  Jahre  1900  m 
entcn  Hale  heniuBCCRebca  hat,  und  welche  von  eincr  RciJic  von  Koncfaaa  flft 
guten  Grtloden  dem  Ncn'^tian  zugeschriebcn  werdco,  iweifcllos  aber  ntcfat  ifiM 
entsunden  Hind  als  am  Anbng  del  4.  Jahrhunderts  ond  sicher  dem  oovatikiusAeB 
XrelM  *ng«hOreD '  {JiAyt)nmiitkt  Pr«*aifJil4  p.  3  (l^oj)). 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  589 

This,  it  has  to  be  said,  is  a  method  of  assertion  rather  than  of  science ; 
but  it  is  not  uncharacteristic  of  the  general  method  pursued  in  this  dia- 
cossion  by  the  upholders  of  Novatian :  they  steadily  advocate  Nova- 
tian's  authorship,  but  ignore  what  has  been  advanced  on  the  other 
side.  It  seems  that  in  these  circumstances  perhaps  the  roost  useful 
contribution  that  can  at  present  be  made  to  the  controversy  will  be  just 
to  mark  time,  by  stating  succinctly  the  a^ments  that  have  been  urged 
against  Novatian  or  any  ante-Nicene  author  of  the  Tradatus ;  which 
are  accepted  as  decisive  by  Bardenhewer,  Hamaclc,  Schanz  and  most 
others  ;  but  to  many  of  which  Novatian's  supporters,  to  the  best  of  my 
knowledge,  have  hitherto  attempted  no  answer. 

These  arguments  are  internal  and  external 

In  regard  to  the  internal  arguments,  practically  nothing  has  been 
added  to  the  reasons  put  forward  by  Funk  against  an  ante-Nicene  origin 
for  the  Thxctatus  in  the  article  which  he  wrote  at  the  beginning  of  the 
discussion  * — an  article  characterized  by  all  the  learning,  solidity  and 
acumen  which  is  associated  with  Funk's  name. 

(i)  The  point  on  which  he  lays  most  stress  is  the  terminology  in 
which  the  Trinitarian  teaching  and  the  ChristoI(^  of  the  Thtaatus 
axe  couched  throughout ;  this  Funk  declares  to  be  decisively  post- 
Nicene.  This  argument  is  the  one  with  which  the  defenders  of  the 
Novatian  theory  have  tried  to  grapple — as  indeed  they  were  bound. 
Weyinan  had  already  suggested  '  a  slight  retouching ' — ein  wenig  re- 
touchiert — in  the  sense  of  Nicene  or  post-Nicene  Orthodoxy  ". 

Jordan  endorses  Funk's  judgement,  but  labours  to  shew  that  the 
pieces  in  question  are  interpolations'.  Bihlmeyer  (Repetent  in  the 
Catholic  Faculty  at  Ttibingen)  contended  that  the  pieces  in  question 
belong  to  the  structure  of  the  context,  and  cannot  be  regarded  as 
interpolations  ^ 

Funk,  Batifibl,  Bardenhewer,  and  Hamack  agree  in  pronouncing 
the  interpolation-theory  to  be  quite  inadmissible;  and  what  is  more 
significant  still,  Weynun,  who  had  been  disposed  to  acquiesce  in  the 
theory,  after  Bihimeyer's  article  reverted  to  his  previous  idea  of  a 
retouching,  or  even  rewriting  of  the  Tractatus  '.  It  is  hard  to  draw  the 
line  between  interpolation  and  retouching ;  for  instance,  in  the  chief 
passage  in  question  (Tr.  xiv  p.  157,  11) :  '  Nemo  enim  vincit  nisi  qui 
[Patrem  et  Filium  et  Spiritum  Sanctum  aequali  potestate  et  indifierenti 
virtute]  crediderit,'  Jordan  attributes  the  words  in  [     ]  to  interpolation  ; 

*■  Thmioguelu  Quartabchrift  1900  p.  534. 

*  Arthhif.  lat.  Ltx.  1900  p.  551. 

■  DU  Thtotogu,  ftc  19.  50-65. 

*  Thtoiogiadu  Quartoiatknft  1904  p.  38. 

■  '  Bearbeitung  und  Cbenrbeitung,'  BtbltKh*  ZtUadtrift  1904  p.  936. 


590        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


4 


can  Weyman  attribute  much  less  to  retouching?  I  believe  Battffol 
stands  quite  alone  in  thinking  that  all  the  expressions  in  question  may  be 
{not  Novatian's,  indeed,  but)ante-NiceDe.  Even  though  Hippotytus  used 
the  term  i^  U  <^ki(t<k.  and  Tertullian  wrote  'iu  de  spiritu  spiritos 
et  de  deo  deus  ut  lumen  de  lumine  accensum ',  still  few  will  see  in  Uie 
language  of  the  TVactatus  :  'deus  de  deo  et  lumen  ex  lumine*  (p.  67. 31) 
and  '  dcus  vcnis  de  deo  vero  '  (p.  33,  19)  anything  else  than  the  Latin 
Tersion  of  the  Creed. 

(3)  In  Tr.  xii  (p.  135)  the  Church  is  represented  as  consisting  of 
three  grades,— catechuroeni,  competentes  fideles.  The  middle  grade 
(otherwise  clecti  or  ^uirt^o/tow)  were  the '  candidates  for  Ijaptism ',  ml 
there  is  no  trace  of  their  being  recognized  as  a  distina  grade  bdoretbe 
middle  of  the  fourth  century. 

(3)  The  application  (in  Tr.  vii  p.  So)  to  our  Lord's  bodtly  appMiKi 
oflhetext:  *Speciosus  forma  praefiliis  borainum',  with  the  comment |U 
He  was  'omni  pulchritudine  pulchrior,  omni  formositate  formosior'.ii 
a  posc-Nicene  conception,  elsewhere  appearing  first  towards  tbeendc' 
the  founb  century,  the  ante-Nicene  conception  being  that  of  Is.  Itii  *,  ]- 
These  two  arguments,  (a)  and  (3),  have  received  the  emphatic  cndoflfr 
ment  of  Bardcnhcwer  and  Hamack  ;  they  have,  to  the  best  of  fl? 
knowledge,  been  ignored  by  the  supporters  of  Novattan. 

(4)  Funk  plants  out  also  that  the  author  of  the  Trtutatus  gimthe 
Sacred  Writers  whom  he  quotes  the  epithet  '  bcatus '  more  than  t»tniy 
times  ;  but  Novatian  not  once  docs  so:  this  difference,  says  Funk,  tclli 
more  strongljr  against  Novatian  than  all  the  parallels  adduced  tdl  ^ 
him.     I  have  not  seen  any  notice  taken  of  this  point. 

We  now  lum  to  the  external  arguments  against  Novatian. 

(5)  Batilfol  pointed  out  the  existence  of  |)aral1eU  between  Tr,  txtod 
ft  poittge  in  Gaudcntius  of  Brescia,  as  a  proof  that  the  IVaetaiut  could 
not  at  any  rate  be  placed  in  the  fifth  century,  thus  assuming  tbsl  l^ 
plagiarism  lay  on  the  side  of  Gaudentius.  Morin,  on  the  other  hm 
maintains  that  Gaudentius  was  the  original,  and  that  for  reasons  '^ 
merit  attention. 

The  following  is  the  text  ^m  Gaudentius  (Senn.  Ill,  de  ^^ 
Lectione,  Migne  P.  Z.  xx  865): 

Ajptus  cnini  ptrftctus,  masmius,  inquit,  attniculus  trit  voOs :  ut  ni^ 
mediocre  de  perfecto  sentias,  nihil  infirmum  de  masculo,  nihil  oc 
■nnlculo  semiplenum.  Pcrfcctus  est  quia  in  co  habitavii  omnis  |:^|' 
tudo  divinitatis  corporaliter.  Masculus  est  quippe  quia  vtr  naso  *^' 
gnatus  est  ex  virgine,  ut  sexui  utrique  consuleret.  Anniculus  est,  q"* 
post  iUud  bapiismum  quod  pro  nobis  in  lordane  susceijerat,  usqo*  "^ 
passionia  suae  diem  unius  a.nni  tempus  impletur  ;  et  ea  tantum  scnl^ 
sunt  in  Evangeliis  quae  in  illo  anno  vcl  docuit  vel  fecit,  nee  ipsa  uWfl 
omnia  ...  [he  illustrates  this]  ...  Hie  est  annm  domini  oca/tM-- 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  59I 

Hie  est  annus  cnitu  eotvtiam  (vktorialan  qtrippe  cucnlnm  operibnt 
boniutis  Chhsti  benedicendum)  propheta  laetiu  nuntiavit  in  psalmo : 
Benedices,  inqiut,  AmMom  atmi  benigmtatis  titae,  ei  campi  titi  rtpiidunhir 
ubertaie :  corda  nempe  credentium  populonim,  percepto  semine  verhi 
vitae,  (ructu  etiam  centesimo  redundabunt 

It  is  plain^  as  Morin  points  out,  that  Gaudentius's  text  of  Ex.  xii  5 
was :  '  A^us  periectus  nuuculus  anniculos  erit  vobis ' — it  so  stands  not 
only  at  the  banning  of  the  comment,  but  alio  when  he  cites  the  whole 
context,  Ex.  xii  3-7,  earlier  in  the  Sermon  (coL  863),  and  in  the  pre- 
vious Sermon  (col.  854) ;  and  these  are  the  three  adjectives  on  which 
the  commentary  is  based.  Thus  the  commentary  belongs  to  the  text ; 
and  moreover  tt  has  in  itself  a  perfect  unity  of  tbot^ht  and  structure^ 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  parallel  passage  in  Tr.  ix  (p.  99) : — 

(a)  Sed  illud  mirari  me  fideor,  dilectisstmi  ftatres,  ut  cum  oven 
diceret,  mascuhim  nominaverit  Nemo  enim  ovem  masculum  appellat : 
hie  vero  sic  ait :  Ovis  autem  ma/urus  mascubts  anmathu  erit  wbis  tt^ 
agfiis  et  htudis.  Cum  enim  ovem  nomtnat  camem  Christi  indicate 
quam  e<xtesiam  esse  apostolus  definivit  dicens :  Caro,  inquit,  Christi 
quod  est  ecclesia,  ex  qua  omnes  credentes  in  Christo  genetati  sumiu^ 
cuius  fetus  sancti  appellantur.  Masculum  autem  ideo  dicit,  ut  camem 
ipsam  non  femineam  sed  virilem,  id  est  perfect!  viri,  esse  ostenderet,  quia 
non  est  masculus  et  femina,  sed  omnes  unum  sumus  in  Christo  lesu. 

{b)  Et  ideo  hie  talis  agnus  immaculatus  eligitur,  ut  simplicitas  et 
innocentia  Christi  sub  agni  istius  figura  monstretur :  masculus  quaeritur, 
ut  invicta  virtus  ipsius  comprobetur : 

{c)  Annieulus  dicitur  quia  ex  quo  in  lordane  baptizatus  est  a  Ioanne» 
quando  dixit :  Eae  agnus  dei^  eeee  qui  iollit  puaxta  mumU^  expleto 
et  exacto  praedicationis  tempore,  passus  est  Christus,  sicut  David  de 
hoc  praedixit :  Senedues,  inquit,  wronam  anni  benignitoHs  tuae.  Fer- 
fectus  est  quoque  quia,  ut  apostolus  ait,  omnis  pUmtudo  dwifdtatis 
corporaiiter  in  illo  inhabitat. 

Here  again  I  think  that  Morin's  analysis  must  be  accepted:  he 
points  out  that  the  passage  falls  into  three  sections : 

In  {a)  the  biblical  text  in  Ex.  xii  5  cited  and  commented  on  is :  Ovis 
maturus  masatius  annicuius  erit  vobisy  and  it  is  so  cited  also,  with  v.  6> 
earlier  in  the  Tractate  (p.  97).  The  comment  turns  on  the  word  Ovis, 
and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Ovis  maturus  is  what  the  writer  of  the 
Trtutatus  had  in  his  biblical  text'.  But  in  {b)  we  find  that  the  comment  is 
on  another  reading  of  the  verse — Agnus  immaatiaius  maseulus,  and  we 

*  I  igree  with  Morin  in  rejecting  the  (as  it  seems  to  me)  paradoxical  view  that 
there  is  no  biblical  text  in  the  Trac/aiHs  ;  on  the  contnrjj  I  hold  that  not  only  is 
there  a  biblical  text,  but  a  highly  curious  and  interesting  one.  I  have  not  the 
special  knowledge  necessary  for  investigating  it  fruitfully,  but  it  is  a  piece  of  work 
that  ought  to  be  undertaken,  and  would  probably  repay  the  Ubonr  spent  upon  it 
(see  note  at  end  of  my  article  in  Ztitadtr.  JSr  dm  NTtkMt  WitMntdutft  1903 


593         THE  JOURMAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


have  an  explanation  of  masculus  difierent  from  that  in  {a) :  the  muce 
of  this  fragment  has  not  yet  been  found.  It  is  in  (r)  that  the  pandld  to 
Gaudcntius  occurs,  the  comment  on  anniatlus  being  surely  a  manifest 
depravation  of  that  of  Gaadentius;  and  then  his  comment  on  /erfiOtu 
being  added,  as  by  an  afterthought,  though  petfe^tus  has  not  occurred 
in  the  verse  as  cited  in  the  Tradatus :  in  other  words,  wc  have  in  (r)  yA 
a  third  type  of  biblical  text,  that  of  Gaudcntius — Agnus  perfeciHs  Sv, 

Can  it  be  supposed  that  the  apparently  composite  passage  of  the 
Traciatus  is  primary,  and  the  passage  of  Gaudentius,  vith  its  tranqisrent 
unity,  is  secondary  ?    This  is  Morin's  argument,  slightly  devdoped '. 

(6)  At  the  end  of  my  first  article  in  the  JouRNAt.  I  called  attentioa 
to  a  series  of  parallelisms  between  Tr.  Ill  and  Rufinus's  translation  of 
Origen's  Horn.  y\\  in  Gen.,  and  I  said  the  presumption  is  scroi^  that 
ths  writer  of  the  T^attatus  is  the  plagiarizer.  BaiifTot  pronounced  the 
argument  'fragile',  but  Morin'  and  Schanz*  accept  it  as  dedsife. 
That  the  readers  of  Che  JotmNAL  may  have  an  opportunity  of  judging 
I  print  out  the  chief  of  the  parallels : 


Orijen-Rufinui  Horn.  VII  iW  GtM,  %  3 
{P.  G.  xii  aoo). 

Superiut  i«m   exponcotes  tpirilualtter 
loco  virtuUi  posuimiH  Sarun. 


Si  ergc  ouo  cuius  penonira  gent 
IsBlAel,  qui  Mcundum  camein  noKiUir, 
SRipiritui  bUndiatur,  qui  cit  Isaac, 


et  iUcMbroBis  aim  eo  deceputiosibus 
•(rat,  si  delecUtiunilms  illicUt,  volu|>U- 
tibus  molliat, 

thuhiiicemodi  ludus  carnis  cum  splntu 
Saritn  niaxinie,  quae  est  virtui,  offendit, 
et  liuiuscemodi  bluidimenta  accerbiisi- 
mam  pcrsccutiooem  iudicat  Paulus.  "KX 
tu  argo,  o  auditor  hurum,  non  illani 
solam  pe  race  11  lion  ein  putes  quando 
furore  gentitium  ad  immolandum  idolis 
cogens  :  scd  si  forte  tc  volupus  camia 
lUidat,  at  tibi  libidims  alLudat  ilJecebn, 
baecsi  virtutisesfiliuatamquanipcrsecii- 
tionem  maximam  Tugc.  IdcJrco  enin  rt 
apostolus  dicit :  Fugite  romJcatioscnt. 


Trwtt  Orig.  III.  ed.  BstiCBl, 
pp.  17, 17-18,  y. 

Nuac  vero  Inlres  atteudtte  quod  diOQ, 

quia  et  ludus  tite  aliud  sigtii£cafe  p(h 

test,  quia  in  omnibos  caro  aJvenrisr 

spiritni. 

Imtael  etenim  fiffuran  camit  gcrit,  qui> 

secundum  cam  cm  nxscitur, 

Isaac  auletn  splrttus,  qtiia  per  repnoii- 
aionem  generatur.     et  idco  caro 

ttblandialur  spiritui 

ut  inlccebrosia  cum  eo  dcccptalioaibM 

«gst,dclcctauonibu4inliciat,voliipWibi 

roolUat, 


et  libidinia  alludat  tolecebn. 


Un<]«,  dilccttaBimi  fra.tr«s,  videtc  qui* 


^  Rtmu  BtMiJieiitu  l^i  p.  aaS. 

•  Op.  eii.  IIP  434. 


■ /kUlp.aa6. 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  593 

Sed  si  iainstitia  blandUtnr,  at  penonam  etmiuititi«boiQinibUnditur,iitpenoiuun 
poteoda  acdpiaa  et  gntia  eius  flezus  potentts  «ccipuit  et  gratia  eius  flexos 
non  rectum  iudidum  fenu,  non  rectum  iudidum  ferat.    Quapropter 

intelligere  debea  quia  snb  specie       intelle|;ere  debet  quia  quia  sub  specie 

ladl  blandam  persecuttoaem  ab  ioiustitia      hidi  blaodam  peTsecutionem  at>  ialustitia 
pateria,    Vemm  et  per  siagulaa  malitiae      patitur. 
spedes,  etiamsi  mollea  et  delicatae  sint 
et  ludo  similes,  baa  peneeutioaeiii  apiri- 
tns  didto,  quia  in  his  omniboa  virtus 
offenditur. 

Sed  quia  Sarra  fignram  virtutis  gent, 

proiode 

f  buiuscemodi  ludus  Ismael  cum  Isaac,  id 

est  carnis  cum  spiritu,  Sairam,  quae  est 

virtus,  maxime  offendit 

There  is  no  need  to  repeat  what  I  urged  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  die 
neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft  (1903  p.  86}  against  the  notion  that 
Rufinus  is  here  dependent  on  the  Tradatus;  after  Novatian's  advo- 
cates have  dealt  with  the  passage  it  will  be  time  enough  to  reinforce 
what  is  there  said ;  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  they  will  consider  the  effect 
on  Origen's  homily  of  the  removal  of  the  various  passages  which  (they 
must  hold)  Rufinus  interpolated  from  Novatian.  Here  I  shall  direct 
attention  to  yet  another  consideration.  It  will  be  noticed  that  a  piece 
of  Rufinus's  text,  suggested  by  the  pagan  persecutions  and  very  natural 
in  Origen,  is  not  found  in  the  TracUttus,  except  the  three  words  '  libi- 
dints  alludat  inlecebra '.  That  Rufinus,  when  translating  Origen,  should 
have  substituted  for  his  author  a  piece  out  of  Novatian,  and  then  hav^ 
so  to  say,  plastered  on  to  three  words  of  Novatian  this  piece  on  per- 
secution, whether  out  of  Origen  or  out  of  his  own  head,  would  surely 
be  an  altogether  fantastic  hypothesis. 

In  short,  are  the  defenders  of  the  Novatianic  (or  ante-Nicene)  author- 
ship of  the  Ttactatui  prepared  to  assert,  with  Jordan,  that  the  above 
parallels  present  'by  no  means  a  case  of  direct  literary  dependence', 
but  only  '  a  common  inheritance  of  preaching-tradition '  *  ?  Or  will  they 
try  to  make  reasonable  the  view  that  Rufinus,  in  his  work  of  translation, 
substituted  pieces  of  Novatian  for  pieces  of  Origen,  and  thus  produced 
a  patchwork  of  Origen  and  Novatian  ?  Or,  lastly,  will  they  have  recourse 
to  further  applications  of  the  interpolation  theory  ? 

Until  the  six  difficulties  just  rehearsed  have  been  in  some  reasonable 

'  *  Was  die  von  Butler  erwUinte  Tatsache  von  (Jbereinstimmungen  im  3.  Traktate 
mit  der  RufinusQbersetzung  der  Hamilia  iu  Genesim  VII  anbctrifi^  so  wird 
darOber  dassclbe  zu  sagen  sein  wie  .  .  .  oben  gesagt  ist'  This  is  the  passage 
referred  to  :  ' . . .  setzen  die  Ubereinstimtnungen  keineswegs  einen  direkten  lite- 
rarischeo  Zusammenhang  voraus,  da  die  Ubereinstimmungeti,  die  sich  finden,  ein 
gemeinsames  Erbteil  der  vonuigegangeiien  Predigtpraxis  sdo  konnen  und  wahr- 
scheinlich  auch  sind'  (0^.  eA.  aog,  306). 
VOL.  VI.  Q  q 


59i         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


measure  remaned,  the  case  for  Novatiaa,  or  any  ante-Nicene  ant 
cannot  be  seriously  considered- 

But  test  I  sboukl  expose  myself  to  the  same  reproach  as  Novatian^ 
advocates— viz.  the  £ulure  to  notice  what  is  advanced  on  the  oppoule 
tide — it  is  necessaiy  to  d«al  with  an  argument  recently  put  formrd  hy 
Weyman,  not  indeed  as  proof  of  Novatian's  aattxmhip,  but  as  a  stga 
that  the  Trtutatus  cannot  be  placed  later  tlian  the  middle  of  the  foarili 
century^     In  Tr.  XVIII  (p.  198)  we  read,  'Novum  etenim  geoos  per 
Christum  inventum  est :  interire  nc  pereas,  mori  ut  vivas '.    And  in  Lucilia 
of  Cagliari's  M<mcndum  esse  pro  deifiiio  we  find, '  Siquideffl  novum  salotit 
genus  per  dei  filium  fueril  tributum :  interire  ne  peream '  {/*.  L.  xiii  loift). 
Weyman  urges  that  it  is  unlikely  that  a  trained  rhetorician  and  styliA 
like  the  author  of  the  T>actahis  should  have  borrowed  this  el^ant  mti- 
thesis  from  a  writer  so  rude  as  X-ucifcr,  who  nearly  always  uses  a  commoa- 
place  ('vulgar')  style  of  writing,  and  who  ('soweit  meine  Kecntiiii 
rcicht ')  has  exercised  no  literary  influence  on  posterity.     Moreorcr,  the 
presence  of  the  explanatory  genitive  iolutis   is  a  sign   of  secoodliy 
character.      And  Lucifer  in  rwo  other  places  makes  use  of  pseu^ 
Cyprianic  treatises  attributed  to  Novatian.     As  this  treatise  of  LudfcA 
was  written  in  360  or  361,  Weyman  concludes  that  the  Tnutahu  nntx 
be  placed  earlier.     Now  whatever  weight  may  be  attached  to  iaBU 
arguments—and  Kriiger  seems  to  have  been  impressed  bytbem*— it 
will,  I  thtnlc,  be  conceded  that  the  case  in  f&vour  kA  Lucifer's  dejKndence 
on  Tr.  XVIII  fades  away  in  presence  of  the  vastly  greater  couDter-di^ 
colties  involved  in  postulating  Gaudendus's  dependence  on  Tr.  IX  GS 
Rufious's  dependence  on  Tr.  IIP. 

Schanz  agrees  with  Morin  and  myself  that  the  plagiarisms  fro> 
Gaudcntius  and  Kufinus  are  proved,  and  places  the  Tractatui  in  thefiAk 
century  at  the  earliest ;  in  his  judgement,  my  verdict  that  they  '  will  Soil 
their  level  among  the  anonymous  writings  of  the  fifth  or  sixth  ceDtuiy' 
(Journal  ii  262),  is  the  position  in  which  the  investigation  at  tte 
time  stands :  Bardcnhcwcr  goes  even  further,  and  says  there  is  noswc 
landmark  to  fix  the  posterior  limit  until  690-750*. 

■  Bihiistht  Ztiiackrifl  1904  p.  338. 

*  GittiHgiadi*  gtttkrU  Atte^igrti  1905  p.  51. 

*  Weytnan,  in  the  same  place,  besiuitiiigly  calls  attention  to  the  bet  that  tk* 
phnuc  '  ut  poUii  ct  puto  ut  debui '  occun  twiire  ui  tfac  Tr%tc/ittns,  while  in  a  wnM 
of  Victricius  of  Rouen  (c.  400)  we  find  '  si  noa  ut  debui,  umen  nl  potui ' :  ad  ^ 
BUgE'csta  as  m  mere  possibility  that  Vilriciiu  is  indebted  to  the  TroOattit.  It »  ^ 
cult  here  Co  see  any  relation  on  either  side;  *sl  non  Dt  debui  umea  at  pot* 
seemed  <|uite  familiar  to  me,  though  I  could  not  recover  it;  but  I  have  SiROe  ■'' 
the  identical  formaU  in  the  wntio^  of  St  Gertrude  (ed.  1875  vol.  i  p.  74):  ^ 
certainly  did  not  §eE  it  from  V'ictrinus  or  the  Tmetaius.  It  may  have  b((* 
a  proverbial  upresiion,  [Cf.  Afi.  constt.  viii  D  t^ttptffr^vfUv  cot,  .  .  .  tJX  "* 
iftiXafini;  iXX'  itiar  ivrAfUOa. — F.  E.  B.] 

*  In  the  article  in  the  Ztt'ttdir,  /.  NTIkht  tVmmscJia/i  1  shewed  that  vt»* 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  595 

It  is  practically  true  to  say  that  the  only  substantive  ground  on  vhlcb 
Novatian's  claim  has  rested  is  the  linguistic  argument,  based  on  resem- 
bUmces  of  vocabulary,  expression,  and  style,  elaborated  with  such  care 
by  Weyman.  I  must  not  go  over  the  ground  already  traversed  in  my 
second  article  in  the  Journai,  wherein  I  offered  some  criticisros  both 
on  Weyman's  application  of  the  method  in  this  particular  case,  and  also 
on  the  conditions  and  limitations  of  the  valid  use  of  the  method  in 
general  But  on  this  latter  point  I  propose  to  offer  some  further  con- 
siderations, suggested  by  the  whole  series  of  recent  attempts  to  father 
anonymous  writings  on  Novatian.  The  treatises  dt  JHnitaie  and  de 
dbis  ludaidst  and  Letters  30  and  36  among  the  Epp.  Cypriani  have 
been  for  some  time,  and  now  are,  recognized  on  all  hands  as  being  by 
Novatian;  since  1893  there  has  been  a  growing  tendency  to  attribute 
to  him,  in  addition,  various  anonymous  writings,  viz. 
from  amoi^  the  '  Spuria  Cypriani ' : 

De  speetacuHs.  De  laude  martyrii. 

De  bono  pudicitiae.  Adversus  ludtuos. 

De  singularitate  ckruorum. 

from  among  the  *  Opera  Cypriani ' : 

,  _     „  Quodidola. 

and  finally :— 

Traciafus  Origenis, 

As  a  basis  c^  discussion,  I  have  drawn  up,  mostly  out  of  Ehrhard, 
Bardenhewer,  Hamaclc,  and  Schanz,  a  Table  of  names,  indicating  the 
current  state  of  opinion,  pro  and  £on.^  in  regard  to  Novatian's  author- 
ship of  each  of  these  works.  A  name  in  brackets  signifies  reserve  or 
hesitation  in  the  opinion  e]q>ressed. 

Pro  Om. 

Di^telaaiUs  1 

D«  bono  ptuHcHiae    \ 

Wqniuui  MoDceAox 

Landgrar  Geyer 

Haussleiter  Watwn  (/.r.5.  v  434). 

Demmler  (Funk)  > 

Harnuk  (Schwu)  ^ 

Bardenhewer 

Ebrhard 

Jordan 

(Wolfflin)* 

(Kroger)  « 

llotin's  attribution  of  the  Homily  parallel  to  Tr.  XI  to  Caesarins  of  Aries  be 
accepted,  it  affords  no  due  to  the  date  of  tbe  TradatHs,  as  that  Homily  ts  not 
derived  from  Tr.  XI. 

'  On  Wolfflin,  Funk,  and  Schanz,  see  below. 

*  Krflger  evidently  has  some  lingering  scepticism  in  spite  of  Novatian's  '  strong ' 
case.  (Kritiadu  BtmtrkungtH  mu  A.  Hanuuks  Ckntudogk,  GSttimg.  gtUhrti 
AfMtigm  1905  p.  48.) 

Qqa 


596        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


Pro 
Dt  iaidt  martyrii 
Hamack 
Loofs 
Hilgenfeld 
(Jordan) 

Advimts  ludMos 
(Landgraf) 
Hamack 
Jordan 

Dt  UHgularitati  dmeorum 

Blafha 


QuoJiibla 

Haussleiter 

(Jordan) 


Tmcta/u3  Origtma 
Weyman 
Zahn 

Haussleiter 
Jordan 


COH. 

Weyman 

Honceauz 

Bardenhewer 

Krager 

Schmnz 

(Ehrhud) 

(Weyman) 
Bardenhewer 

KrOfrer 
Schanz 

Hamack 

Hennecke 

Kroger 

Schanz 

Bardenhewer 

Wejrmui 

Weyman        \ 

Honceaux 

Bardenhewer 

Benson 

Bayard 

Ehrhard 

Schanx 

Watson 

Haniack 

(Kroger) 

Funk 

Batiffol 

Morin 

Konstie 

Ehrhard 

Butler 

Ammundsen 

Torm 

Andersen 

Bihlmeyer 

Bardenhewer 

Hamack 

Schanx 

The  study  of  this  Table  must  set  all  a-thinking.  We  have  the  best 
scholars  of  the  day  in  hopeless  contradiction,  and  we  seem  threatened 
with  a  system  of  mere  audiority — a  counting  of  the  names  that  support 
the  rival  theories — as  the  practical  method  of  settling  these  and  simile 
questions.  The  scholars  who  can  best  claim  to  be  specialists  in  Nov*- 
tian  are  probably  Weyman,  Landgraf,  Haussleiter,  and  Hamack  j  V^ 


Cypriao 


Neidier 

Novatiu 

norQrpriu- 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  597 

yet  in  the  Table  they  are  divided  into  every  combination.  And  the 
examination  of  points  in  detail  is  calculated  still  further  to  lessen  con- 
fidence. For  instance,  the  De  speetaatlis  and  De  iena  pudidtiae  have 
been  almost  imiversally  accepted  as  Novatian's  on  the  strength  of 
Weyman's  and  Deramler's  linguistic  arguments;  and  Hamack  says 
that  *  if  it  ever  is  possible  to  identify  an  author  on  internal  evidence, 
it  is  so  in  this  case '  *.  On  the  other  hand,  Funk  declares  the  linguistic 
argument  in  &vour  of  Novatian's  authorship  of  the  Tractatus  to  be  just 
as  strong  as  that  in  favour  of  his  authorship  of  the  De  sped,  and  Dc  bona 
pud. ;  as,  therefore,  the  argument  is  certainly  invalid  in  the  case  of  the 
Tractatus^  Funk  declares  that  we  cannot  rely  upon  it  in  the  case  of 
the  other  two';  and  Schanz  considers  that  Funk's  scepticism  in  r^rd 
to  Novatian's  authorship  of  the  De  sped,  and  De  bono  pud.  is  very 
intelligible  *.  On  the  other  hand,  E^rfaard  and  Bardenhewer  agree  with 
Hamack  in  accepting  the  linguistic  proof  offered  in  the  case  of  these 
two  writings,  but  rejecting  that  offered  in  the  case  of  the  Tmdaiits. 
Wdlfflin  seems  to  acquiesce  in  Demmler's  proof  of  Novatian's  author- 
ship of  De  sped,  and  De  bono  pud},  but  he  had  not  long  before  written 
an  article,  based  largely  on  similar  linguistic  considerations,  to  urge  that 
De  sped,  is  a  genuine  work  of  St  Cyprian  ',  and  Matzinger,  a  pupil  of 
bis,  had  done  the  same  for  De  bono  pud.* 

Again,  Hamack  maintains  that  the  internal  arguments  for  Novatianic 
authorship  are  just  as  strong  in  the  case  of  Adv.  ludaees  as  in  the  case 
of  De  sped,  and  De  bono  pud.'';  yet  Weyman  and  Bardenhewer,  who 
accept  the  latter  proof,  do  not  accept  the  former. 

Concerning  Quod  idola  the  difficulties  are  still  greater,  for  three  views 
are  in  the  field :  a  number  of  scholars  of  first  rank  (Weyman  among 
them)  cling  to  the  Cyprianic  authorship ;  Haussleiter  claims  the  tract 
for  Novatian ;  others  deny  that  it  belongs  to  either.  Among  the  last 
is  Hamack,  who  once  upon  a  time  thought  the  Novatianic  author- 
ship to  be  possible  or  even  probable,  but  now  definitely  rejects  it". 
Of  the  two  chief  authorities  on  St  Cyprian's  stylistic  and  linguistic 
peculiarities,  the  one,  Bayard  *,  believes  tiiat  Quod  ido&t  is  by  St  Cyprian, 
the  other,  Watson",  believes  that  it  is  not    In  1899  Weyman,  while 

*  ChroMologii  ii  403.  *  Thtol.  Qumialxfir,  I900  p.  543. 

*  Gtach.  d.  rSm.  Lil.  iii  (3  ed.)  434.  Sduuiz^a  posidoo  in  re^iard  to  the  authorship 
of  Dt  Bpt€t.  and  Dt  bono  pud.  is  not  easy  to  determine  :  in  the  first  edition  {ligS) 
— so  at  least  I  gather  from  Ehrbard — he  did  not  admit  Novatian's  authorship ;  la 
the  second  (isffs)  he  allows  it  '■  certain  degree  of  probability'  on  p.  433,  baton 
the  next  page  he  expresses  sjrmpathy  with  Funk's  scepticism. 

*  Arekiv/.  lattin.  Ltxicogr.  1896  p.  319.  *  Ibid.  1893  p.  t. 

*  Deakl,  Tk.  C.  Cypriaftua  *  Dt  bono  pud.' (1S92).  *  Ofcnxioi&^ii  403. 

*  Henog-Hauck  xiv  336".  *  L4  Latin  dtSt  Cyprwt  (1903). 

>*  <Tbe  Style  and  LaoguageofStCyprian',5fMi/Mi£('&&iai<^£<dLiv  (Oxford  1896). 


598         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

oppoiing  Novatian's  authorship,  said  he  found  it  extremely  difficolt 
to  accept  Cyprian's*;  but  in  1904  he  veered  round  to  the  view  that 
we  must  receive  Quod  tdoia  as  a  genuine  production  of  Cyprian*. 
Krligcr  seems  undecided  {loc.  a'f.). 

When  wc  come  to  the  Tyaefafus  we  find  Weyroan  and  Haussleiter, 
than  whom  more  diligent  and  competent  students  of  Novatian  could 
not  be  found,  affirming  that  the  style  and  language  are  throughout 
altogether  like  Novatian's,  and  afford  a  convincii^  proof  that  be  and 
no  other  wrote  the  Tntrialui ;  on  the  other  hand,  Hamacl,  a  no  loi 
diligent  and  cfimjictent  student  of  Novatian — who  declares,  rooreonr, 
that  Kovatian's  style  is  'easily  recognizable', — says  that  only  in  the 
portions  of  the  Tr<u:tatus  taken  from  Kovatian  can  he  discern  any  clear 
resembl2.nce  to  Novatian '. 

In  my  second  article  in  the  Journal  (ii  359)  are  indicated  otbff 
examples,  which  have  arisen  out  of  the  Tra^atus  controversy,  of  the 
uncertainties  to  which  these  cridcal  methods  lead;  and  if  the  sumr 
were  extended  heyond  the  horizon  of  the  Trac/atus^  similar  phenomeoi 
would  meet  us  on  all  sides. 

The  kaleidoscopic  variations  of  expert  opinion  cannot  but  etigeoda 
scepticism,  oot  perhaps  regarding  the  theoretical  validity  of  thecdircri 
linguistic  and  stylistic  method  of  investigating  authorship,  but  regarding 
the  praciical  jHJSsibility  of  applying  it  in  concrete  cases ;  and  agnosiicinn 
regarding  the  results  obtained  by  such  methods.  As  subsidiaiy  proof* 
they  may  play  a  useful  part  in  literary  criticism ;  and  as  negative  proofs 
to  establish  difference  of  authorship,  ihey  may  easily  be  decisive  But 
it  seems  that  Ehrbard  and  Bardenhewer  speak  only  the  language  of 
sound  sense  and  sound  criticism,  when  they  say,  the  former,  iW 
Weyman's  proof  that  Novatian  wrote  the  ThxcttUui  is  'inadeqnaUi 
because ofa  purely  linguistic  nature'*;  the  latter,  that  on  suchgroBO* 
of  language  and  style  alone,  *  only  in  quite  exceptional  cases  is  it  possible 
to  prove  authorship". 

The  time  will  probably  come  before  long  when  a  great  reviews'"! 
revision  will  be  held  of  the  numerous  assignments  of  authorship  midc 
in  the  present  generation,  and  it  can  hardly  be  doubled  that  ni^J 
works  are  destined  then  to  sink  back  into  the  anonymity  whence  ihT 
have  been  temporarily  evoked.  j^  q  Btmxit. 

■  This  I  take  from  Ebrhard  Aitdknst.  Lit.  II  463. 

■  '  Doch  wcrden  wir  Uia  uru  «U  ein  echtes  Produkt  CyprUiu  fcfalko  U»^ 
mOBsen  *  {Bihlisdu  Ztiisdm/t  1904  p.  137). 

*  Hcrzog-Hauckxivaj;.  •  Aiirhhsthdu  LiOamtmriiii^ 

*  GhcA.  dtr  edtkiivMiduH  LitUraiur  ii  571. 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  599 


HYMNS  ATTRIBUTED  TO   HILARY  OF    POITIERS. 

In  April  1904  this  Journal  contained  an  interesting  paper  on  the 
fragmentary  Hymns  attributed  to  Hilary  of  Poitiers  in  an  eleventh* 
century  MS  at  Arezzo,  published  first  by  Gamurrini.  That  paper  proved 
to  my  satisfaction  that  the  hymns  in  question  were  written  by  him. 

That  he  was  the  first  hymn-writer  of  the  Western  Church  is  certain. 
The  united  evidence  of  Jerome,  of  Isidore  of  Seville  +636,  and  of  the 
Fourth  Council  of  Toledo  in  633,  proves  this  fact  beyond  the  possibility 
of  cavil.  But  when  we  try  to  lay  our  hands  on  hts  hymns,  other  than 
the  three  Arezzo  hymns,  we  are  on  less  sure  ground.  However,  Daniel  * 
cites  seven  under  his  name,  and  Mr  Wranghara  *  talks  of  *  eight  hymns, 
the  attribution  of  which  to  him  is  more  or  less  certainly  correct '.  Are 
these  things  so  ?  Let  us  take  the  eight  hymns  one  by  one  and  test  the 
evidence  which  can  be  brought  forward  for  Hilary  as  their  writer. 

First  comes  a  good  morning  hymn  'Lucis  laigitor  splendide  |  cuius 
sereno  lumine  \  post  lapsa  noctis  tcmpora  |  dies  refusus  panditur '.  This 
hymn  was,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  first  assigned  to  Hilary  by 
P.  Constant,  the  Benedictine  editor  ofthe  works  of  Hilary,  in  1693'.  Now 
in  some  MSS  there  is  found  a  letter,  attributed  to  Fortunatus,  purporting 
to  be  written  by  Hilary  to  his  daughter  Apra  *  from  his  place  of  exile  in 
Asia  Minor,  at  the  close  of  which  he  says  that  he  is  therewith  enclosing 
a  morning  and  an  evening  hymn  for  her  use'.  The  letter  is  almost 
universally  condemned  as  a  forgery  •.  And  supposii^  it  to  be  genuine, 
what  grounds  had  Constant  for  suggesting  '  Lucis  largitor  splendide '  as 
the  hymn  in  question,  as  he  did  7  To  b^in  with,  not  one  of  the  eighty 
or  ninety  ancient  hymnals  or  breviaries  which  I  have  examined  contain 
the  hymn  at  all,  and  this  is  most  unlikely  if  it  was  the  work  of  such 
a  man  as  Hilary.  Chevalier  quotes  it  as  in  two  not  very  old  codices '': 
other  MS  authority  for  it  I  know  not  It  seems  at  least  possible  that 
Coustant,  finding  it  in  the  Paris  MS,  jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
was  the  one  referred  to  in  the  letter. 

Next  comes  a  series  of  three  short  hymns,  also  morning  hymns,  from 
the  Mozaiabic  Breviary: — 'Deus  Pater  ingenite*,  'In  matutinissuTgimus*, 

'  Thaaurus  Hymnologicua  i  pp.  1-7.     I  Uke  the  seven  bymns  in  Daniel's  order. 

*  Jnlimn  DieHonary  ofHymnoiogy  p.  513, 

*  Published  in  Paris  at  the  chaises  ofthe  congr^atlon  of  St  Haur. 

*  The  name  is  variously  written  Abra,  Afra,  Apra. 

'  '  Interim  tibi  hTmnum  matutinum  et  aerotinum  miai,  ut  memor  mei  aemper  sis.' 

*  The  letter  was  condemned  first  by  Erasmus,  1533,  nowadays  by  wellni^ 
every  scholar  who  has  approached  the  subject 

'  Paris  B.  N.L  n.  acq.  1455  ;   Rouen,  1381.     Chevalier,  Rtptrlorium  lo^ol,  not 
only  confidently  gives  Hilary  aa  author,  but  the  predae  date,  the  end  of  358. 


600        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

•  lam  roeta  noctis  transiit'.  These  arc  assigned  to  Hilary  by  Dank3'. 
and  by  othen  in  blind  reliance  on  DameL  Wiai  then  is  Diiuel'i 
tuchority?    The  story  is  rather  quainL 

Thomastus  quotes  the  hymn  '  Lucis  largitor  splendide ',  giving  Hitn; 
as  writer  *.  Then  he  quotes  these  tbrce  hj-mns,  with  a  footnote,  Brt 
utarium  Mosarahtm.  Daniel  took  Thomasius  to  mean  not  modytltf 
they  were  in  the  Mozarabic  Breviary  (whi(^  Danid  had  not  faimsdf 
seen),  but  that  this  Breviaiy  gave  Hilary  by  name  as  their  mntbor.  Od 
this  foundation  Daniel  at  once  b^ns  to  bnild*.  'Quod  cum  certnm 
sit  Hilarii  Carolina  in  Gothorum  ecclesia  per  Galtiae  meridionales  pinn 
ac  Hisponiam  uulgatissima  fiiisse,  baud  prorsus  spernenda  est  MoatabOB 
sententix'  And  Kayser*:  *Sie  sind  dem  alten  mozarabiscben  Brrria 
entnommet],  welches  sie  ausdriicldich  unserm  Hymnoden  zuschieibc' 

What  arc  the  facts?  In  the  first  place,  Cardinal  Tommasi  did  oat 
say  more  than  that  the  hymns  are  to  be  found  in  the  Mozarabic  Stt- 
Tiarf,  by  which  presumably  be  meant  the  printed  edition  of  1502,  pr^ 
pared  by  Alphonso  Ortiz  at  the  charges  of  Cardinal  Xtmenes,  Archbtshcfi 
of  Toledo*.  In  the  next  place,  in  the  Mozarabic  Breviary  no  aiaa 
are  given  of  writers  of  hymns  or  of  any  other  part  of  tlie  offices.  Aad 
as  a  matter  of  bet  only  one  of  the  three  hymns  ('In  matutinis  safgnDos*) 
is  fotmd  in  any  MS  of  the  Breviary*.  The  other  two  are  to  be  found 
only  in  this  Bre%'iar}'  of  Ortiz,  which  leaves  it  extremely  doiibcfiilwbeiha 
they  did  reall)-  belong  to  the  ancient  Mozarabic  use. 

llicn  wc  have  the  Epiphany  hymn  'lesus  refulsit  omniaB 
Tedemptor  gentium '.  Here  we  have  Kayser '  on  our  side, 
that  the  combined  mention  of  the  Magi,  the  Baptism  of  Christ,  and 
the  Miracle  at  Cana  with  reference  to  the  Epiphany  could 
have  been  made  by  so  early  a  writer  as  Hilary*.  Then 
objects  to  the  rhyme— not  casoal,  but  carried  throughout  the  hjtm- 
and  still  more  to  the  alliteration  *.  Let  these  objections  cany  «fail 
weight  they  may.  There  remains  the  faa  that  the  hymn  is  not  asagned 
to  Hilary  by  any  writer  earlier  that  Fabridus,  a.d.  1564,  some  1,100 
years  after  Hilary's  death. 

■  Oaniel  {v  36.  In  Drevrs'  and  Kobk's  Dit  ■iBiirwii'rtrw  Hymmm  (Ldpit 
iSq7^  «  better  text  of  xhc  three  fajauis  b  to  be  fouiwl  on  ppu  71,  lot. 

'  pp.  408  ff  of  tbe  cd.  b.'VB{bt  out  by  Fr.  Vazoai,  1747. 

'   7***.  Hytmn,  iv  36. 

*  Bntrigt  wMw  C^kUA^  mtd  ErUJtnmg  Jtw^latm  S^dtnJ^mmtmJ^  h^ 

*  Cf.  Dmcs  xod  Bluae.  A.  pp.  6,  a8  £ 

*  Madrid  cod-  1005  (Hh  60)  x  C«at.  pt,  cxxlv.  ^  Of^aL  PC?. 

*  Drevcft,  A—iwomns  pp^  }•■  S,  makes  tkis  ob^cctioa  of  dottbefitl  we<(hl. 
Petim  Chr7«c)loeM  Cbora  ^)  tnm  Itrntttia  uutgmm  (.of  the   r|ii|ilMWj; 
Maxiwns  of  ToriB. 

*  LmI  Hymmm  At  MwOMhni  ji.     A  tfacOfT  l%UiaMy  fwfcili  i  ^ 
L»t  Ujmmtt  Ai  Bnvaitt  Jtowmm  i  9jft 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  6oi 

The  sixth  hymn  is  the  Lenten  '  lesu  quadragenariae  |  dicator  absti- 
nentiae',  of  which  Daniel  himself  to  be  sure  says  'Sequiori  aeuo 
compositum  esse  tarn  certum  est  quam  quod  certissimum '.  Kayser  the 
conservative  doubts  if  the  forty  days*  fast  was  already,  in  Hilary's  day,  so 
fixed  as  the  hymn  takes  for  granted.  And  the  rhyme  is  persistent.  And 
the  earliest  authority  is  again  Fabricius. 

Last  of  the  seven  hymns  given  to  Hilary  by  Daniel  is  the  Whitsuntide 
'  Beata  nobis  gaudia  |  anni  reduxit  orbita  *.  The  rhyme  is  again  very 
marked,  and  Fabricius  again  is  the  earliest  voucher  for  the  Hilarian 
authorship.  But  the  greatest  objection  is  this.  In  Hilary's  time,  and 
for  two  centuries  more,  the  Easter  hymns  were  sung  up  to  and  including 
Whitsunday.  So  that  he  would  not  have  thought  of  writing  a  hymn 
specially  for  this  latter  festival  As  late  as  the  Rule  of  Aurelian  of 
Aries  (t555)  the  Easter  *Hic  est  dies  uerus  Dei'  of  Ambrose'  covered 
the  whole  of  the  fifty  days.  And  Ambrose  expressly  says :  *  Maiores 
tradidere  nobis,  Fentecostes  omnes  quinquaginta  dies  ut  Fascha  cele- 
brandos.' ' 

The  last  of  the  eight  is  'the  noble  matin  hymn  in  praise  of  Christ' 
'  Hymnum  dicat  turba  fratrum,  hymnum  cantus  personet ' '.  This  really 
has  some  definite  evidence  for  its  Hilarian  authorship.  It  is  in  so  many 
words  assigned  to  him  by  the  so-called  Antiphonary  of  Bangor,  by  two 
ancient  codices  at  St  Gall,  by  two  manuscript  copies  of  the  Irish  liber 
Hymnorum,  and  twice  by  Hincmar,  archbishop  of  Rheims  *.  Against 
this  we  have  to  set  the  fact  that  Bede,  in  his  mention  of  the  hymn,  does 
not  give  the  writer's  name,  which  (say  some)  he  would  have  given  if  it 
had  been  Hilary's.  But  the  ailment  from  silence  is  notoriously  unsafe. 
Bede  may  have  known  the  hymn  to  be  his  and  yet  not  have  stated  the 
fact  And  it  may  have  been  Hilary's  without  Bede  knowing  it  The 
Antiphonary  was  written  when  Bede  was  yet  a  child  '. 

Daniel  is  inclined  to  identify  the  Hymnum  dicat  with  the  hymn  to 
Christ  as  God  sung  before  daybreak  by  the  early  Christians  of  Bithynia, 
and  Kayser  quotes  his  opinion  with  approval.  However,  it  is  but 
a  guess,  resting  upon  no  direct  evidence  of  any  facts  that  can  be 

*  C/.  Daniel  i  49 ;  Mone  {  167  ;  Thomasius  p.  368  ;  Weraer  3a  ;  Biragbi  63 ; 
Dreves  Ambrodua  136. 

■  In  Lue.  vtii  35  (ct  Apob^  Dauid  viii  4a).  Ambrose  was  perhaps  not  thinking 
about  hymns  in  particular  when  he  wrote  these  words,  but,  considered  in  the  light 
of  Aureliin's  Rule  mentioned  above,  they  seem  to  me  to  indicate  that  only  the 
£aater  hymn  was  used. 

»  J.  D.  Chambers  in  Did.  of  Hymnoiogy. 

*  The  Bangor  Antiphonary  (now  in  the  Ambrosiaa  Ubraty  at  Milan)  waa 
written  about  680.  St  Gall  cod.  567  in  the  eighth,  cod.  577  in  the  ninth  centuiy. 
The  two  HSS  of  the  Irish  Ubtr Hymnorum  (Dublin  £.  4.  a  and  Franciscan  Libnry) 
in  the  eleventh  century.    Hincmar  died  88a, 

'  Bede  was  bom  about  67a. 


6o2         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

brought  forward  other  than  'the  well-known  ronnexion  of  the  Britfsh 
and  Irish  Church  wtih  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor '.    And  ihe  hymn  of 
which  I*liny  speaks  was,  of  course,  a  Greek  one.    On  the  vbole  thea, 
until  slronger  rebutting  arguments  have  been  brought  forward  than  ha<re 
been  as  yet  adduced,  we  may  be  content  to  regard  Hilary  of  Poitiers  «i 
the  writer  of  the  hymn.     It  is  true  that  Muratori  thought  that  it  Ucked 
the  elegance  that  might  have  been  expected  in  a  hymn  written  by  Hilary, 
and  others  have  echoed  his  words.     But  what  right  have  we  to  look  ion 
elegance  in  Hilary  ?     The  directness  and  simplicity  of  the  hymn  hare 
persuaded  some  that  it  was  not  his.    To  such  I  should  like  to  point  cwt 
the  contrast  in  regard  to  simplicity  between  one  of  Browning's  eUbontt 
poems,  e.  g.  Paracelsus,  and  the  Pie4  Piper  of  Ifamelift.     An  obscoft 
writer  can  he  plain  on  occasion,  when  the  obscurity  does  not  arise  fivB 
confusion  of  Ihouglit,  which  in  Hilary  it  certainly  did  not. 

It  is  just  possible  that  the  author  of  the /rvm«u«  dkatvr^s  notHilaj 
of  Poitiers,  nor  yet  Hilary  of  Aries,  but  a  third,  otherwise  unknovo. 
Hilary,  who  lived  in  Gaul  in  the  fifth  century  and  who  wrote,  in  104 
hexameters,  an  account  of  the  Creation,  which  he  dedicated  to  Popt 
Leo  V  According  to  Peiper  he  also  wrote  the  poem  dc  martyrio  MaSA' 
baeonim  and  another  dt  euange/io'.  fiut  with  the  hymn  both  tk 
St  Gall  MSS  mentioned  above  and  the  Irish  preface  in  the  Z*^ 
Hymnarum  expressly  connect  the  Bishop  of  Poitiers. 

There  is  also  a  series  of  verses*— a  hymn  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
word  it  is  not — often  identified  with  the  evening  hymn  sent  by  HilaT 
to  his  daughter,  an  abecedarius  of  twenty-three  stanzas  and  a  doxolo^ 
beginning  'Ad  caeli  clara  non  sum  dignus  sidera  |  leuare  meos  infelicel 
oculos".  In  spite  of  Mai  and  Dreves — and  on  such  a  point  the  weight 
of  their  opinion  is  great— I  cannot  think  that  the  bishop  would  hir* 
sent  to  his  little  girl  for  her  daily  use  a  hymn  of  such  length,  and  con- 
taining  such  a  sentiment  as  this:  '[ingluuies]  extendit  uenirem,  letflu- 
lentum  reddidit,  |  miscuit  risus '.  And  to  me  Kayser's  criticism  a{»peiU 
to  be  just :  'die  darin  ausgcsprochcncn  Empfindungcn  sind  iibcitnebeiV 
die  Gefiihle  unwahr'*. 

'  Pope  from  440  to  4'5i. 

*  CorpHi  acripL  t^.lal.  xxhW  ii^S.  This  is  ■  frngment  of  114  hexamctcn.  )>» 
worth  noting  that  white  the  Hymnu*n  diatt,  in  cniimcnitin^  the  guilts  of  the  lilfi 
makes  no  tnention  of  (be  myrrU — perhaps  aa  not  being  opecially  mitahle  tff 
a  king — the  poem  oenits  the  gotd.  Manitius  {Gtstkiehit  titr  eknttHtk-lalaiai^ 
POtsu  101  (!)  treats  Hilary  of  Pocliers  as  the  writer  of  this  fragment. 

*  Mone  i  387  ff,  Du  McriJ  Poesifs  fiopulairrs  laHuts  anieruun*  om  «■*•  wmk  I*l' 
An  Otioboji  MS  of  the  ninth  century  aitnbutcs  the  verses — which  None  •** 
a  Paris  MS  (ninth  century)  entitles  mnut  c<m/titiomt  A  /•«*«  paenittnHm^'O 
Hilary  of  Poitiers.     Othera  give  tfaera  to  Paulinus  of  Aquilda  ;  «f.  Uaawkr  1 1|(- 

*  Op.  eit.  ?  69. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  603 

The  opinion,  therefore,  at  which  I  have  srriTed  is  that  almost  cer- 
tainly Hilary  did  not  write  the  first  seven  and  the  Ad  caeli  clara.  But 
the  Hymnum  dicat  be  probably  did  write,  or  at  least  may  have  written. 

A.  S.  Walpole. 


AN  ANCIENT  OFFICE  FOR  HOLY  SATURDAY. 

In  spite  of  the  great  labours  of  litui^ologists  in  the  past  there  still 
remain  services  and  customs  in  old  MBS  which  have  not  yet  been 
published  or  described.  The  communication  of  a  passage  in  a  Vatican 
MS  at  the  meeting  of  the  Roman  Conferences  on  Christian  Archaeology 
in  January  last,  and  the  subsequent  discussion  at  the  Febnury  meeting, 
seem  too  important  to  be  lost  without  some  permanent  record  of  a 
liturgical  point  then  treated  for  the  first  time. 

The  passage  in  question  is  found  in  Cod.  Vatic-Urbin.  Lat.  603, 
a  troper  usually,  though  without  sufficient  authority,  assigned  to  Monte- 
cassino,  with  Beneventan  script  and  musical  notation  of  the  twelfth 
century;  a  thirteenth-century  writer  has  inserted  on  ff.  99-100^0  with 
neums : 

.Sji  quis  eathecuminus  est.,  proadat. 
Si  quis  heretkus  est^  procedat. 
Si  quis  iudnts  tsU  procedai. 

Si  quis  paganus  esi,  prvcedat  ' 

Si  quis  arrianus  est,  procedat. 
Cuius  cura  non  est,  procedat. 
J^ti  sunt  agni  nooeUt  qui  annuntiaverunt  alhbtia,  modo  venerunt  ad 

/antes. 
£epleti  sunt  ciariiate,  ailetuta^  alleluia. 
In  conspectu  agni  amicti  stolis  albis  etpa/[ 

[For  convenience,  the  words  Isti sunt. .  .pa/mis^  which  are  separated 
from  the  preceding  by  a  slight  break,  will  be  referred  to  as  Part  II.] 

The  neums  dearly  shew  that  these  insertions  were  not  made  merely 
to  preserve  a  dead  rite,  but  for  actual  use.  But  what  rite  is  referred  to? 
In  the  absence  of  other  similar  texts,  the  first  and  not  unnatural  inter- 
pretation was  that  the  first  part  represented  the  ancient  missa  in/ldelium 
before  the  oblation,  when  the  catechumens  were  dismissed  by  the  formula 
'Catecumini  recedant.  Si  quis  catecuminus  est,  recedat'  (Mabillon  Mus. 
Ital.;  Lutet  Paris  1684  vol.  ii  p.  79),  whilst  the  second  referred  to  the 
words  which  the  subdeacon  pronounced  on  the  Saturday  in  aibis  as  he 
presented  to  the  Pope  the  wax  Agnus  Dei. 

This  explanation  of  Si  quis  &c.,  seemed  to  be  so  at  variance  with  the 


te4        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


general  opinion  that  heretics,  Jews,  and  infidels  were  no(  permiii 
be  present  even  at  the  commencement  of  the  sacred  mysteries,  and  als*' 
to  be  founded  on  the  supposition  ihatfrocedat  and  rtctdat  were  synony* 
mous  terms,  that  I  endeavoured  to  find  other  examples  of  this  fomiula 
which  would  give  an  explanation  more  in  accordance  with  the  text  and 
the  traditional  theory '. 

I  have  fortunately  been  able  to  discover  the  passage  in  three  other 
MSS,  and  to  find  a  reference  to  a  fourth. 

X.  A  twelfth-century  Beneventan  troper  (now  No.  28  in  the  ChapW 
Library  of  Benevento)  has  on  foi.  27  for  the  office  of  Holy  SatuidJf, 
after  the  tract '  Sicut  cervus  dcsiderat ',  &c.,  a  short  neumed  litany  wiuci 
is  worth  reproducing  for  its  simplicity  and  archaic  character : 
Dofnine^  defende  run. 
Drmiine,  protege  tws. 

Jfemmanuhel,  no^iscvm  Deus,  adiuva  nos. 
Kyrit  kyson.     Christe  Uison.    Kyrie  leison. 
Christe,  audi  nos. 
Saneta  Maria,  ora  pro  nobis. 
Christe,  audi  nos. 

Omna  sitientes,  vtniH  ad  ofuas,  futritt  damnum  dum  invemri  pei^U 
diat  dominus. 

Here  follows  the  first  part  of  the  formula  as  in  the  Urbinis  MS, 
except  that  the  clause  of  the  heretic  precedes  that  of  the  Jew.  The 
second  part  does  not  appear,  but  the  MS  without  any  break  goes  co 
with  the  Mass  for  Holy  Saturday. 

2.  Vatican  MS  Ottob.  Lat.  576,  a  neumed  Missal  of  about  a-D-  »wv 
which  Ebner  ascribes  to  a  Benedictine  cloister  near  MonteeasaW 
or  fienevento,  has  on  fol.  209*0  sqq.  *  Isle  ordus  dicendus  est  stb- 
bato  post  scmtinium.  Quando  procedunt  ad  fontem,  dicitur  itu 
Antiphona  :  Omnes  sitientes  .  .  .  dominus.  Deinde  circa  fontem  &djr* 
Letaniam '  (with  many  saints,  l^uctus  of  firindtsi  appearing  secoai 
in  the  list  of  martyrs,  between  Stephen  and  Linus).  *  Post  Letanuin 
cantct  diaconus  hos  versus.  Respondeat  diaconus  similiter*:  Si^i^ 
catk'cuminus'  &c,  as  above,  except  that  the  last  sentence  b^ns  •i'i' 
huius  instead  of  Cuius  (the  initial  h  is  not  rubricated  like  the  C).  Tli* 
is  followed  immediately  by  the  usual  blessing  of  the  font 

'  After  thta  notice  wma  in  type  Prof  H.  Benipii  in  the  April  nuaber  of  *a*^ 
tanta  Ji  Sfon'a  e  Cuitttra  EtfUsiattka  (Ronme)  vol.  iii  do.  6  p.  365,  hu  dcfeo^ 
the  above  interprcUtaon,  Kxy^iaiaiu^  firoadat  as  equivalent  to  readoL  But  the  Ki^ 
of  the  office  ot  Ihr:  stnttitnum  rnakes  averydear  diatin'Clion  between  the  twonHM- 
the  invitation  to  Ihe  catechumens  to  come  forward  U  invariably  j»/«v«(faM<;  whi^*' 
their  dismisMl  is  netdant. 

'  The  contracCioD  marks  leave  it  doubtful  wbetiier  liie  Kxibe  did  bM  IbX"" 
tattUnt  JiacQui .  . .  rt^>omUam  dtaconi. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  605 

3.  MS  C.  33  of  the  VallicelUn  Library  at  Rome,  an  Ordinal  of 
Beneventan  script  and  musical  notation,  probably  written  in  the  twelfth 
centuiy,  has  on  fol.  30  sq.  the  Office  for  Holy  Saturday,  with  part  I  as 
above  (except  curam  for  atra)  preceded  by  the  Rubric  *  Quando  proce- 
dunt  ad  fontes.  Attt.  Omnes  sitientes  *  &c,  and  a  South  Italian  Utany^ 
and  followed  by  the  Order  of  Baptism. 

4.  The  'Codice  diploroatico  Barese'  (Ban  1897  vol.  i  p.  309)  gives 
the  text  of  a  Holy  Saturday  neumed  Roll  written  for  Ban  in  the  deventh 
century  and  still  preserved  in  the  cathedral  The  service  for  the  blessing 
of  the  font  runs :  *  Tunc  procedit  pontifex  ad  fontem.  canunt  clerici 
antiphonaro  hanc :  Omnes  sitientes  &c.  Venientes  (!)  ad  fontem  incipit 
episcopus  tetanias  [very  short].  Deinde  legitur  lectio :  Hec  est  hereditas 
&c.  Tractus:  Sicut  eervus  &c  Tunc  presbyter  dicit:  Ortmus. 
Otnnipotens  sempiteme  deus  respite  pnpitius  ad  &c  Deinde  dicantur 
a  duobus  diaconibus  hi  versus :  Si  quis  &c.'  The  invitation  to  the 
Arian  comes  second ;  and  the  last  clause  has  Oa  for  Cuius^  Then 
follows  the  blessing  of  the  font. 

It  will  at  once  be  seen  that  all  four  sources  agree  in  assigning  this 
formula  to  the  procession  to  the  font  on  the  vigil  of  Easter ;  and  an 
examination  of  the  Urbinas  MS  shews  that  here  too  the  thirteenth- 
century  scribe  intended  Si  quis  to  serve  for  that  day ;  he  had  erased 
the  Gradual-tropes  at  the  beginning  of  the  MS  in  order  to  insert 
the  processional  Antiphons  &C.  and  had  written  Sicut  eervus  desi~ 
derat  &c.  for  Holy  Saturday  on  fol.  33^0-23,  but  would  not  erase 
the  following  pages  as  he  desired  to  retain  the  Kyrie-tropes  which 
were  still  in  use ;  so  he  continued  his  insertions  {Si  quis  &c.)  for  that 
day  on  the  next  page  which  he  erased,  viz.  fol.  99^°,  although  he  had 
already  inserted  on  the  margin  of  fol.  33  the  letter  S  as  a  sign  to  the 
nibricator. 

Hence  there  is  no  doubt  that  even  as  late  as  the  thirteenth  century 
Benevento  and  its  neighbourhood  used  for  the  procession  that  day 
an  office  which  we  have  found  nowhere  else  (all  five  MSS  agree  in 
providing  the  same  melody). 

The  precise  meaning  of  our  formula  is  not  so  clear :  we  have  appa- 
rently six  classes  of  persons  to  whom  the  church  appeals ;  the  first  five 
need  no  explanation,  though  it  is  strange  to  find  Arians  put  in  a  class 
by  themselves  apart  from  other  heretics ;  but  the  last  *  Cuius  cura  non 
est '  is  a  strange  expression,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  parallel  passage, 
one  can  but  offer  suggestions  as  to  its  meaning.  The  variants  cui,  huiut, 
curam  make  it  possible  that  we  may  not  have  the  original  text  and  the 
different  order  of  the  precedii^  sentences  adds  to  the  difficulty.  Six 
separate  explanations  have  occurred  to  me  and  to  liturgical  scholars 


6o6        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

whom  I  have  consulted.    It  has  been  suggested  that  if  the  Arian  claose 
is  an  interpolation  due  to  a  marginal  note,  the  scale  would  descend  inm 
cfttechumens  to  (i)  atheists,  sine  atrtL,  a  dcfree  lower  than  pagans  wba 
had  some  sort  of  religion ;  or  that  the  appeal  is  to  (ii)  the  careless  anc 
indolent,  the  reference  living  to  times  when  baptism  was  defened  natil 
late  in  life ',  but  such  would  scarcely  form  a  definite  class  by  thenudve^ 
and  the  formula  should  rather  have  run  '  Cuius  cura  non  erat '.    In  fat 
the  construaion  Cut,  not  Cuius,  seems  necessary  to  justify  eitha  ibi) 
or  the  preceding  rendering  of  the  passage.    Again,  it  is  possible  tfau 
the  intention  may  have  been  to  sum  up  the  five  classes,  (iii)  anyone 
who  is  outside  the  charge  of  the  diurch,  though  it  seems  bard  to 
bring  catechumens  under  this  category.     If,  as  I  think,  this  is  the  r^bt 
meaning  lo  give  to  tura,  I  should  venture  to  make  this  class  fir)  ibe 
excommunicate,  of  whom  for  the  time  being  the  church  took  no  ere, 
i.e.  'cuius  curam  non  habct  ccclesia';  it  is  difficult  to  say  whsl  one 
word  in  early  ecclesiastical  Latin  would  represent  the  class  later  oa 
called  the  'excommunicati'.      Two  other  possible  explanations  hiM 
occurred  to  me ;  if  svi  could  be  understood  afler  cura^  the  referentt 
may  be  to  (v)  cncrgumens;  or,  if  the  expression  is  a  general  one,  the 
invitation  to  join  the  procession  may  be  addressed  to  (vi)  the  bodfol 
the  faithful,  who  did  not  on  this  occasion  need  the  special  care  of  the 
church,  as  the  function  was  primarily  intended  for  the  classes  already 
summoned.     I  must  be  content  to  leave  the  matter  thus,  though  I  us 
inclined  to  favour  the  fourth  explanation. 

But  another  question  arises  as  to  the  rite  for  which  these  various dasss 
were  bidden  to  come  forward.  It  is  apparently  for  baptism,  and  «C 
could  quote  as  a  similar  rite  not  only  the  present  Roman  Missal  irhidl 
refers  to  baptizing  catechumens '  on  Holy  Saturday,  but  also  the  custoo 
of  baptizing  *  Jews '  at  the  Laleran  on  that  day.  But  baptism  is  out*' 
the  question  for  the  last  class  if  we  are  right  in  supposing  them  lo  betb' 
excommunicate,  and  also  for  Che  Arians,  if  we  are  certain  that  the  (iK 
here  referred  lo  is  Western  in  its  origin,  for  the  rebaptism  of  AriiM 
was  never  allowed  by  the  Roman  Church,  whatever  may  have  been  tl" 
belief  and  custom  of  the  Easterns'. 

Another  solution  of  the  question  is  suggested  by  the  order  in  whidi 
the  classes  are  called  up:  the  fint  four  appear  according  to  their Ile>^ 
nesB  to  the  church — (i)  pious  catechumens,  (3)  Jews  by  descent,  (]1 
heretics,  quasi-Christians,  and  (4)  pagans,  all  of  whom  require  baptiiBI 

*  Cr.  the  Holy  Saturday  pnycr  in  the  AtittaU  GalHoMum  wtus :  '  Pro  ae^^ 
tibui  lurdiaque  domitii  noaih  cultoribiu,  id  est  ncophytis.' 

'  The  formula  CaHcumini  proathnl  sa  fuuitd  In  all  the  OiBces  of  tbe  Scr«(il>>»'' 
cl.  intrr  alia  MS  Vatic.  Pakt.  ^S},  fol.  37**  <a  Lorsch  MS  o(  the  ntnlli  ccnhiry}. 

*  Cf.  the  sUth-centur7  Timothcus  Dt  ua  pti  ad  tedtmam  aamtmm^JUgmP-^ 
hxxvi  col.  1059  sqq. 


* 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  607 

then  come  Arians,  separated  from  the  class  of  heretics  in  general  as 
already  validly  baptized,  and  for  such  Confirmation  was  the  public  recep- 
tion into  the  body  of  the  Catholic  Church;  and  lastly  the  excommunicate 
who  needed  reconciliation  with  their  mother.  As  a  matter  of  fact  Con- 
firmation was  always  administered  after  the  Holy  Saturday  baptism, 
and  penitents  expelled  at  the  banning  of  Lent  were  received  back  on 
one  of  the  last  days  of  Holy  Week,  though  I  cannot  for  the  moment 
recall  an  instance  of  their  reconciliation  being  appointed  in  the  West 
for  the  day  preceding  Easter  ^ 

Further  research  may  settle  the  question  definitely  ;  but  the  above  is 
offered  as  a  possible  explanation  of  the  formula.  As  in  the  Good  Friday 
prayers  the  Western  Church  prayed,  and  still  prays,  *  pro  catechuminis 
Dostris,  pro  haereticis  et  schismaticis,  pro  perfidis  ludaeis,  pro  paganis ', 
so  on  Holy  Saturday  she  invited  them  to  approach  the  sacrament,  whether 
of  baptism,  confinnation,  or  absolution,  which  they  respectively  needed 
before  they  could  be  admitted  to  the  paschal  feast. 

This  explanation  suggests  a  corresponding  one  for  the  second  part  of 
onr  formula  which  is  not  found  in  the  three  MSS  quoted  above. 
It  is  true  that  the  blessing  of  the  wax  Agnus  Dei  goes  back  as  far  as  the 
eighth  or  ninth  century,  but,  unless  commentators  are  mistaken,  the 
function  was  restricted  to  Rome  and  suburbanis  cwttatiius.  Moreover, 
whilst  the  blessing  of  the  Agnus  was  on  Holy  Saturday,  the  distribution 
and  the  use  of  these  three  sentences  by  the  subdeacon  took  place  on  the 
following  Saturday ;  as  in  the  Urbinas  MS  the  words  follow  the  &'  ^is 
iuid  apparently  belong  to  the  same  office,  and  as  all  the  additions  by 
the  second  scribe  have  reference  to  processions,  it  seems  very  unlikely 
that  Isti  sunt  can  refer  to  the  subdeacon's  appeal  to  the  Pope  in 
a  stationary  rite.  Hence  I  prefer  connecting  these  three  sentences 
with  the  procession  back  to  the  church  after  the  baptism  on  Holy 
Saturday.  It  will  at  once  be  seen  how  appropriate  is  the  description 
of  the  newly  baptized  as  'agni  novelli,  qui  modo  venerunt  ad  fontes*. 
whilst '  repleti  claritudine '  and  '  amicti  stolis  albts '  well  fit  in  with  the 
lights  they  carried  and  the  clothing  by  the  bishop*,  and  the  'qui  annuntiap 

*  The  oldest  pontificali  may  perhaps  be  cited  as  witnessiiiK  to  some  sinuUr 
arrangemcDt :  e.  g.  the  ninth-century  Poitiers  pontifical  (US  Paris,  Arsen.  337) 
and  the  so-called  Gellone  Sacramentary  of  the  eighth  (IIS  Paris,  B.N.  1 3048)  after 
the  nsoal  ceremonies  for  Holy  Saturday  provide  the  following  offices :  Si  qttia 
nomdum  caUcummus ad bapitMandHtH  vtturit;  ad caUcHtmrnum /adtndum  txpagami; 
ncoMciiiatio  ab  ktrttids  nbapttMoti:  bttudictio  auptr  toa qtti d*  varHs  lurmfnts  vnmmt; 
ncottdUatio  rtdtwiiium  a  paganis ;  impositio  mattuum  snptr  tntrgttmtnunt.  It  is  true 
that  the  precise  day  for  the  use  of  these  collects  is  not  mentioned,  but  their  position 
after  the  Easter-even  oflSces  so^;est8  that  they  may  have  been  intended  for  that  day. 

■  Cf.  the  rubric  in  the  South  Italian  US  Barberini  LaL  561  (zii  4)  -  disf  atngtdu 
Miota,  amUtt  tt  ekrismaU  it  dttfm  aJiquia  tt  vtsHuHtut, 


6oB         THE    JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

verunt  alleluia '  recalls  the  words  of  the  eleventh  Orio  Romanus  wJik 
speaks  of  the  newly- baptized  children  as  those  'qui  annuntiant  alleluia, 
id  est  gloriam  caelestis  patriae'. 

On  the  whole  formula  it  is  noticeable  that  its  use  was  apparently 
restricted  to  the  south  of  Italy,  and  ttiat  it  points  back  to  some  date 
before  the  final  disappearance  of  pagans,  whom  St  Benedict  found 
at  Montecassino  in  the  sixth  century,  and  before  the  Ariantsro  of  the 
Goths  had  died  out ;  the  Bcneventan  liturgy  has  several  references  Co 
this  period,  e.g.  the  cathedral  is  tenncd  the  ecchsia  eathaliai;   in  Ute 
fiirccd   Kyrie   trope  Dtrote   cantntts  which    I    am    now  publishing 
[Anakcta  Hymnica  Medii  Aem  vol.  xlvii  p.  173)  we  meet  with :  /WiM 
iugeat,  garrit  Anus,  st'/eat,  cenfies  vuttts  est.     The  baptism  office  of  the 
South  Italian  manuscript  missals  has  many  allusions  to  the  time  vfaeo 
adult  baptism  was  common  ;  to  take  only  one  example — Ottoboo-  5J^ 
speaks  of  the  catechumen  on,  fol.  193  'qucmde  errore  seculi  ad  agni- 
tionem  nominis  tui  vocare  dignatus  es ',  on  fol.  196  'quern  liberaitille 
errore  gentitium ',  and  as  one  *  qui  in  seculi  huius  nocle  vagatur  inctttis 
et  dubius  \  whilst  on  fol.  1 93  it  adjures  the  pagan  *  horresce  idola,  rcspue 
simulacra ',  and  the  heretic  or  Arian  '  cole  Deum  pattern  omnipotentcm 
et  lesum  Christum  Milium  eius  cum  Spiritu  sancto';  these  expressions 
occur,  it  is  true,  in  an  office  for  the  baptism  of  infants',  but  arcaclor 
indication  of  the  surroundings  of  the  time  when  it  waa  ocigtnallf 
drawn  up. 

If  it  appear  strange  that  such  a  formula  as  ours  was  preserved  and 
was  in  use  as  late  as  the  thirteenth  century,  whilst  no  traces  of  it  ue 
found  in  the  corresponding  Roman  office,  it  is,  I  venture  to  think,  due 
to  the  fact  which,  as  far  as  I  know,  has  not  yet  been  noticed,  that  tbc 
local  ritual  and  ofllices  of  South  Italy  seem  to  have  escaped  the  Gallku 
influence  of  the  ninth  century  which  so  changed  the  Roman  rite,  and 
that,  even  after  the  arrival  of  the  Normans  with  the  usual  Gallican- 
Roman  books,  they  were  allowed  to  be  retained  for  some  time ;  in  some 
MSS,  e.g.  Barberini  Lat.  560  (xii  3)  of  the  tenth  century,  dte 
office  for  the  processions  to  and  from  the  font,  which  may  have  co* 
tained  the  two  formulas  we  have  been  describing,  was  not  cancelled 
until  a  thincenth-cciuur>*  scribe  inserted  other  rubrics  in  their  stead, on* 
evidently  of  the  local  rite,  the  other  'secundum  morcm  Romanac  ecd^- 
siae ';  whilst  in  MSS  siill  at  Benevento  the  two  rites  seem  to  have  been 
allowed  to  go  on  side  by  side  in  the  twelfth  ccnturj*. 

It  must  be  reserved  for  some  future  notice  to  consider  how  fax « 

may  be  able  to  find  in  the  Beneventan  MSS  traces  of  the  origtnil 

Roman  liturgy,  such  as  are  probably  still  to  be  seen  in  the  Ambroaan; 

'  These  exprcuioiu  occur  in  tlic  present  Roman  office  for  adult  baptiant. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  609 

r  the  present  it  may  not  have  been  without  interest  to  call  attention 
I  one  small  but  not  unimportant  part  of  it  in  the  Office  for  Holy 
aturday. 

Henrv  Marriott  Bannister. 

PS.—/ufy  7,  1905.  I  have  now  found  that  the  formula  occurs  in  the 
Ambrosian  Antiphono-  of  the  twelfth  century  (B.M.  add.  MS  34309)^ 
for  Sadbato  in  iraditione  symboH.  This  fact  may  on  investigation  lead 
to  a  modification  of  my  theory.  If  so,  I  hope  to  publish  a  further  Note 
upon  the  subject  in  the  next  number  of  the  Journal. — H.  M.  B. 


THE  IDEA  OF  SLEEP  IN  THE  *HYMN  OF 
THE  SOUL'. 

Mr  a.  S.  Duncan  Jones  in  his  review  of  Dr  E.  Preuschen's  Zwei 
gnostbche  Hymnen  in  the  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  No.  23  p.  450 
writes  as  follows : 

*  The  idea  that  Christ  fell  asleep  and  forgot  his  heavenly  or^n  seems 
difficult  to  understand.  Freuschen  re[Kt!sents  it  as  the  result  of  par- 
taking of  the  food  of  the  world' 

The  verses  of  the  Bardesanic  hymn  in  question  are  thus  translated  by 
Prof  A  A.  Bevan: 

'  I  forgot  that  I  was  a  son  of  kings, 
And  I  served  their  king; 
And  I  fotgot  the  pearl, 
For  which  my  parents  had  sent  me. 
And  by  reason  of  the  burden  of  their  .  .  . 
I  lay  in  a  deep  sleep  .  .  . 
To  thee  our  son,  who  art  in  EgypV  greeting ! 
Up  and  arise  from  thy  sleep.' 

In  a  Summa  ctmtra  Patarenos  contained  in  an  early  thirteenth- 
century  Codex  of  the  San  Lorenzo  library  in  Florence,  Bibl.  Aedilium 
37,  fol.  75^°  foil,  is  a  passage  which  throws  some  light  on  the  reference 
to  sleep  in  the  hymn.  The  Summa  is  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  between 
a  Catholic  and  a  Patarene,  and  on  fol.  77'o  the  latter  speaks  as 
follows : 

'VilUcus  iniquitatis  de  quo  euangelium  (Lk.  xv  35)  dicit,  fuit  dia- 
bolus,  cuius  omnis  (cohors)  angelorum  cum  fuerit  deputata,  ut  laudum 

VOL.  VI.  R  r 


6lO        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

et  psalmorom  pensiones  deo  ab  angelis  reddendas  ipse  colltgetet,  «A 
cum  angelis  pro  tarn  dura  pensione  generatis,  coniurauit,  at  similisesst 
posset  altissimo,  et  pensionJbus  iam  dictis  cotidie  fraudauit  dicens: 
Quantum  debcs  domino  mco?   c   choros  tritici.     Et  dicit    Acdpe 
cautionem   tuam,   Inquire   et  scribe  lxxx.  et  simitia.     Hoc  anwa 
uidcns   Altissimus,  Michaelem  ct   substituit,  et  ipsum  a    uillicatiooe 
remouit,  et  cum  suis  compUcibus  de  celo  eiecit.     Ipse  uero  diabotat 
tctram  aqua  discoopcniit,  ct  duo  bominum  corpora  fabricauit.    Sedcra 
per  XXX.  annos  uitalem  spiritum  istis  corporibus  infundere  non  posstX, 
accessit  ad  misericord  iam  AUissimi  et  duos  angelos  ab  ipso  (ms  ml) 
quaesiuit.     Astilerunt  statiro  duo,  quia  diabolum  occulte  diligeb2o(,a 
rogauerunt  Altissimum  ct  {/fgf  ut)  essenc  cito  reuersuri.    Quonan 
fraudcm  Deus  cito  agnoscens  dixit :    Ite  sed  caueie  ne  dortniatis,  qoii 
per  soporetn  reucrti  non  possetis  et  uiam  obliuioni  traderetis.    Seda 
domiucritis,  jiost  .vi.  millia  annorum  ucniam  ad  uos.     Venenuit  tgitst, 
dormierunt,  in  corpora  pracdicta  oblici  cclcstis  patriae  indusi  ami 
Isti  fuere  Adam  et  Eua.     Isti  spiritus  ]>er  corpora  Enoc,  Noe,  Hi- 
braham  et  omnium  patriarcharum  et  propheiarum  errantes  tuuiqauD 
salutem  reperire  potucrunt.     Sed  demum  in  Symeone  et  Anna  secim- 
dum  promisstonem  in  paradiso  factam  saluati  sunt.     Unde  Symeoo 
dixit:  Nunc  dlmictis  scruum  tuum.  Domine,  secundum  uerbum  tuinn 
in  pace.     Verbum  intelHge  proniissionis,  quam  mlchi  in  oclo  antcquam 
descenderem  fecisti.     Sic  et  omnis  spiritus  qui  ceciderunt  in  diuena 
corpora  intrant,  ct  per  amariludinem  pocnac  et  uiam  terrarum  saltantot 
£t  si  uno  corpore  hoc  non  fcocrunt,  intrant  alia  pucrorum  nasceDtiinn 
corpora  et  saluantium ;    nee  aliud  sunt  animae  hominum  quatn  spiiiCni 
qui  ceciderunt.' 

The  ideas  embodied  in  the  above  may  easily  be  as  old  as  the  second 
century,  and  the  exegesis  may  be  that  of  Marcion.  Egypt  in  tbe 
language  of  religious  symbnlism  denoted  the  flesh.  The  idea  thit 
Adam  received  his  soul  at  the  age  of  thirty  is  a  familiar  one,  *ai 
St  Jerome's  Rablii  rqjeated  very  similar  teaching  which  had  cowe 
down  to  htm  from  Aquila.  The  belief  in  six  millennia  having  eiapMd 
is  also  ancient.  1'he  modem  Syrians  believe  that  a  man  receives  Ni 
panopa  when  he  is  thirty  years  old. 

Jb*.  C.  COKVBEAU. 


NOTES   AND  STUDIES  6ll 

THE  CAMBRIDGE  SEPTUAGINT  OF  1665  AND  1684. 
A  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  QUERY. 

The  Catalogue  '  Bible '  of  the  British  Museum  describes  under  *  Old 
Testament,  Greek'  (col  361): 

*H  IlaXiua  ^laBrjKT]  Kara  toik  "EyJSo/iijKovra.  Vetus  Testamentum 
Graecum  ex  versione  Septuaginta  interpretum :  juxta  exemplar  Vati- 
canum  editum.  [With  a  preface  by  J.  P.,  i.e.  Dr  John  Pearson.]  pp.  ig, 
755t  516)  *73-    J-  Field:  Cantabrigiae,  1665.  130. 

There  are  three  copies  in  the  British  Museum,  bearing  the  press- 
marks 676.  a  6,  7,  8  (2);  1003.  d  5,  6;  318.  i  17,  18  (2). 

The  next  editions  of  the  Septuagint  described  are :  Amstelodami, 
1683.  &°  and  Oxonii  1707-30. 

To  the  first  edition  attaches  a  curious  history,  which  seems  to  be  little 
known.    I  do  not  remember  to  have  found  it  mentioned  lately. 

In  a  letter  signed  T.  B.,  i.  e.  Dr  Thomas  Brett,  Oct  17,  1729,  and 
printed  in  London  1743,  entitled :  'A  Letter  Shewing  why  our  English 
Bibles  Differ  so  much  from  the  Septuagint,  though  both  are  translated 
from  the  Hebrew  Original ',  we  read  (p.  47  f ) : 

'  It  was  also  printed  at  Cambridge  by  John  Meld,  1665,  in  130.  To 
this  Edition  the  learned  Bishop  Pearson  prefixed  an  excellent  Preface. 
And  John  Hayes,  who  succeeded  Fieid  as  Printer  to  that  University, 
reprinted  the  Septuagint  there  in  the  Year  16  84.  But  as  he  took  care 
to  print  it  Page  for  Page,  and,  I  suppose,  Line  for  Line  with  Field\  so 
he  put  Field's  Name  to  it,  and  dated  it  as  Fief's  was,  1665.  By  which 
he  put  a  Cheat  upon  the  World  :  His  Letter  being  not  so  clear,  nor  his 
Book  so  correct  as  Fields  is.  This  Edition  of  Field's  and  Hayefi  does 
more  exactly  give  us  the  Roman  Edition,  than  that  of  London  in  1653, 
though  both  differ  in  some  Particulars.' 

In  a  later,  much  enlarged  edition,  entitled ;  '  A  Dissertation  on  the 
Ancient  Versions  of  the  Bible;  Shewing  vhj  q\xt  English  Translation 
differs  so  much  from  them.  ...  In  a  Letter  to  a  Friend.  The  Second 
Edition,  prepared  for  the  Prefs  by  the  Author  before  his  Death,  and 
now  printed  from  his  own  Manuscript.  By  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas 
Erett.  London,  1760' :  the  passage  concerning  these  impressions  runs 
(p.84f): 

'But  I  must  here  observe,  that  this  Cambridge  Edition,  which  Dean 
Prideaux  (from  whom  I  have  chiefly  taken  what  I  have  here  said  of  the 
three  eminent  Editions)  says  was  twice  printed,  first  hy  John  Field  in 
the  Year  1665,  and  then  hy  Johi  Hayes  in  the  Year  1684.  But  Hayes 
(who  succeeded  Jneld  as  Printer  to  the  University)  put  Field'^  Name  to 
his  own  Impression,  and  dated  it  1665  as  Field*%  was,  and  printed  it 

Rr  2 


6l2         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


Page  for  Page  like  H'eld's,  and  so  put  a  Cheat  uiwn  the  World,  to  tnaie 
it  pafs  for  Jue/d's  Edition,  though  the  Print  was  not  so  clean  and  nea^ 
and  I  question  also  whether  so  correct  as  JneJd's.  As  I  was  admitted 
at  Cambridge  within  a  Year  after  Hayes  reprinted  Jnfld'^  Septuagmt,  aod 
was  well  acquainted  with  Nayes,  I  remember  I  asked  bim  how  be  came 
to  set  Need's  Name,  and  the  Date  of  1665  to  a  Book  himself  had  ji.'si 
printed?  He  only  smiled,  and  made  me  some  slight  Answer,  tntimaDog 
]  sEiewed  myself  a  Stranger  to  the  World,  by  asking  such  a  Quesdoa' 

This  new  impression  is  mentioned  in  Gracssc's  Tresor  da  Hvrts,  *Cl^^ 
bridge,  Hayes  iM^,  contnfafen  de  1665';  but  nowhere  have  I  foond 
a  more  accurate  description,  which  would  make  it  possible  to  distioguisfa 
the  two  editions.  I  therefore  beg  to  put  the  question :  Is  the  lUiy 
of  this  'Cheat'  true,  and  how  may  the  two  editions  be  distinguiifaal 
from  each  other?  My  own  copy,  which  I  bought  as  complete,  omB 
the  third  part,  containing  the  Apocryphal  books.  On  the  last  page  of 
the  Preface  is  the  '  Index  Librorum  Veteris  Testamenti',  running  fioa 
pp.  I  to  7^5  and  I  to  512,  containing  no  clue  that  a  complete  coff 
has  a  third  part  of  273  pages. 

Maulbronn.  Eb.  Nbstu. 

[With  the  help  of  the  officers  of  the  University  Press  and  Mr  Woraun 
of  the  University  Lihrarv,  and  aAer  examination  of  various  cop^  of 
the  LXX,  all  bearing  Field's  name  and  the  date  1665  fooe  tn  the 
University  Library,  four  in  Pembroke  College  Library,  and  othen  b 
other  College  Libraries  and  in  private  hands),  it  is  only  possible  U 
give  a  somewhat  uncertain  answer  to  Dr  Ncstlc's  questions,  though  dK 
evidence  seems  to  point  tn  some  positive  conrlusiims. 

The  books  examined  shew  that  the  title-page  and  the  pre&ce 
were  set  up  three  times.  The  three  editions  may  be  distinguished; 
(a)  probably  Field's  own  original  edition,  bearing  on  the  title-page  ifce 
mark  which  is  commonly  found  in  his  books,  viz.  a  plain  long  o*sl 
the  symbolic  figure  having  the  arms  full  extended,  and  the  motto '  Hinc 
lucem  .  . .'  beginning  at  the  bottom  on  the  lelt  side  and  running  left  ^ 
right ;  {^)  probably  the  edition  of  Hayes,  with  the  mark  which  (though 
he  also  still  continued  to  use  Field's  mark)  is  found  often  in  his  boob, 
viz.  a  smaller  and  rounder  oval,  with  a  scroll  round  it,  the  figure  harins 
the  arms  uplifted,  and  the  motto  beginning  at  the  top  of  the  right  side 
and  running  right  to  left ;  ^e)  probably  printed  abroad,  the  printer*]  nuri 
being  like  those  which  were  used  by  a  Paris  jirintcr,  C  Wechd,  • 
century  before,  and  not  known  in  books  printed  in  England. 

TTie  same  fount  of  type  seems  to  have  been  used  in  {aS  and  in  \i\ 
with  the  exception  of  one  or  two  letters,  but  the  setting  of  a  few  of  the 
lines  in  the  preface  is  different.  The  litle-page  of  (^)  has  the  mtsprinl 
tioBrixy]  for  hoBrixy^,  but  the  preface  seems  to  be  accurately  set  up.  "H* 
paper  used  throughout  both  books  appears  to  be  the  same.  On  the 
other  hand  the  paper  of  the  title-page  and  preface  of  (f)  is  different 
from  the  paper  of  the  rest  of  the  volume  (which  appears  to  be  ibe  sune 


E 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  613 

as  that  of  (a)  and  (6)),  and  there  are  misprints  in  the  preface,  such  aa 

*  a^  earn '  fox  'ad  earn '  in  the  first  sentence,  and  113  for  "ya  on  the 
second  page,  and  the  Hebrew  type  all  through  is  different— a  bold 
staring  type  much  too  large  to  suit  the  type  of  the  rest  of  the  page. 

But  in  all  the  books  examined — (a),  (h),  and  {c)  alike — the  Greek  text 
of  the  whole  of  the  O.  T.,  including  the  Apocrypha,  so  far  as  I  have 
examined  them,  is  identical,  page  for  page,  line  for  line,  and  word  for 
word,  and  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  all  the  sheets  belong  to  one 
impression.  Certain  curious  errors  id  pagination  are  found  in  all  the 
copies :  e.  g.  in  the  O.  T.  (i  Kings)  the  pages  run  444,  445  ;  446,  447  ; 
4461  447  (repeated^;  450,451;  450,  451  (repeated) i  454.455;  454i 
457.  And  again  (i  Chronicles)  646,  647  ;  648,  647  ;  648,  649 ;  and 
(2  Chronicles)  688,  689;  690,  691;  692,  693;  694,  685;  686,  687; 
688,  689;  690,  691.  And  in  the  Apocrypha  (3  Maccabees)  there  is 
a  similar  error,  the  pages  running  262,  263 ;  464,  265  ;  266,  267  ;  268, 
469;  470,471 ;  472,  273.  fiut  apart  from  this  evidence,  the  officials  of 
the  Press  are  of  opinion  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  any  compositor, 
even  if  he  used  the  same  type,  to  follow  his  copy  so  minutely  and 
exactly.  It  appears,  then,  that  all  the  sheets  of  the  Greek  text  are  of 
Field's  printing;  that  a  smaller  number  of  the  title-page  and  preface 
were  originally  printed  (a)  (or  else  that  the  stock  was  mislaid),  and  that 
the  type  was  set  up  again  (6),  and  that  some  of  the  sheets  of  the  text 
passed  into  the  hands  of  some  one  abroad  who  set  up  the  title-page  and 
preface  for  himself  and  issued  the  book  as  Field's  {(). 

In  any  case  it  seems  clear  that  no  real '  cheat '  was  perpetrated ;  and  if 
the  text  of  all  editions  was  the  actual  text,  the  actual  sheets,  of  Field's 
original  printing,  we  have  the  explanation  of  Hayes's  smile  and  his 

*  slight  answer '. 

With  regard  to  Dr  Nestle's  other  question :  the  book  was  printed  in 
three  parts— (i)  Genesis-Esther  pp.  1-755,  sheets  A-Kk;  (2)  Job- 
Malachi  pp.  1-5 16,  sheets  Aaa-vyy,  with  r^Xoc  ruv  vpo^^v  at  the 
end;  (3)  £sdraa-3  Maccabees  pp.  1-273,  sheets  a-z.  Farts  (i) 
and  (2)  were  frequently  bound  t<^ether  in  one  volume.  Part  (3) 
was  issued  separately,  but  commonly  bound  up  in  one  volume  with 
Duport's  Greek  Version  of  the  Prayer  Book  (with  the  UCX  version  of 
the  Psalms  in  the  middle),  and  the  New  Testament  in  Greek,  making  a 
volume  of  the  size  of  parts  (i)  and  (2)  together.  Otherwise  the  whole 
is  divided  into  three  volumes  of  nearly  equal  size — (i)  being  found 
alone,  (2)  and  (3)  forming  the  second  volume,  while  the  third  com- 
prises the  Prayer  Book  and  the  New  Testament  These  other  contents 
of  the  volume  also  were  printed  separately  in  parts :  the  Prayer  Book 
pp.  1-126  (ending  with  the  Commination  Service);  the  Psalms,  Special 
Forms  of  Prayer,  and  Ordinal  pp.  1-171;  and  the  New  Testament  pp. 
1-419. 

The  Psalms  (the  LXX  version,  arranged  according  to  the  divisions 
of  days  and  verses  in  the  Prayer  Book ;  the  titles  of  the  LXX  beii^ 
retained  and  supplemented,  in  place  of  the  Latin  headings  of  the  Prayer 
Book)  had  been  printed  as  a  separate  volume,  with  title-page  and  last 
page  bearing  the  printer's  (Field's)  mark,  in  1664;  and  the  sheets  of 


6l4         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOI.OGICAL  STUDIES 


this  impression,  title-page  and  all,  were  used  for  the  1665  edition  of  I 
Prayer  Book,  Ihe  pages  of  the  version  of  the  'special  forms  of  pnye 
and  the  Ordinal  being  Dumbercd  continuously  with  the  last  page  of  the 
Psalms. 

I  have  before  me  the  two-volume  edition  of  the  whole  in  its  originil 
binding,  and  a  copy  of  the  Prayer  Book  and  of  ilie  N.  T.  (not  the  sum 
setting  as  in  the  original  two  or  three  volume  editions  of  the  whole)adl 
in  one  volume:  but  I  have  not  seen  a  copy  of  the  Apocrypha  by  itsdC 
The  copy  of  the  N.  T.  (belonging  to  one  of  the  Readers  of  the  Press) 
contains  the  advertisement  of  the  London  agents  of  the  Press  in  and  about 
the  year  1698  as  follows:  'The  Sepiuagini  Bible  in  Greek:  the  GnA 
Apocrypha  :  the  Common-Prayer  in  Greek  :  Printed  in  the  same  Volnnie 
with  this;  and  making  two  equal  Volumes  when  bound  together;  VE 
Sold  nompleat  or  separately,  by  A.  and  /■  ChatrchiU^  in  PiUa^imkr 
raw' 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  add  that,  whatever  the  facts  are  with  r^ud 
to  Field's  edition  of  the  Old  Testament,  there  is  no  doubt  that  ri>e 
Prayer  Book  was  set  up  and  printed  more  than  once.  The  two  copie 
iKjforc  me  bear  Field's  name  and  the  date  1665  (,a;(f<),  but  there  «rt 
numerous  small  difTerences  in  type  and  setting.  The  Psalms,  bovefOt 
in  both  liocks  seem  to  be  the  same  impression,  \-iz.  that  of  1664,11 
they  purport  to  be,  with  the  same  minute  displacements  of  single  iettm 
and  other  resemblances  which  it  seems  impossible  that  a  composdor 
could  have  reproduced.  There  appears,  therefore,  to  have  been  a  big? 
impression  of  the  Psalms  of  1664  than  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  1665 ;  ud 
the  history  of  impressions  of  the  Psalms  and  the  Prayer  Book  in  Greek 
— so  far  as  we  can  recover  it — seems  to  furnish  a  parallel  to  that  of  tiie 
LXX  and  the  preface'.— J.  F.  BB.J 

'  Tbc  Amsterdam  cditign  of  1683,  which  Dr  Nestle  mentions,  rcprinta  Pevsoa't 
Prt^aHo  Paratnitiea  without  acknowledgment,  omittuiK  the  signature  J.  F.  U 
theZoricb  edition  of  Grabe  (17.^0-1733)  PcKraan's  Preface  is  also  printed,  bat » 
his,  wicli  an  appendix  by  the  Editor.  The  London  Edition  of  16^3,  mgatJane^  by 
Dr  Nutlc,  waa  aUo  printed  by  a  Cambndgc  printer,  whose  patent  wu  canoeM 
for  neglect  in  J6go. 


fits 


REVIEWS 

THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST. 

Outlines  of  the  life  of  Christ.     By  W.   Sanday,   D.D.     (T.  &  T. 
Clark,  1905.) 

No  sooner  had  Dr  Sanday's  article  '  Jesus  Christ  '  appeared  in  the 
second  volume  of  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  than  the  wish  was 
expressed  that  it  might  be  reprinted  in  a  separate  form  for  the  benefit 
of  readers  who  could  not  procure  the  Dictionary  as  a  whole.  It  is 
matter  for  general  congratulation  that  this  desire  has  now  been  fulfilled. 
Few  greater  gifts  could  be  bestowed  upon  the  rank  and  file  of  the  reli- 
giotis  teachers  of  England  than  a  book  which,  within  the  compass  of 
350  pages,  offers  a  summary  of  all  that  is  at  present  known  of  its  great 
subject,  written  by  a  scholar  whose  name  is  a  guarantee  for  fullness  of 
information,  sobriety  of  judgement,  and  perfect  candour  in  the  treatment 
of  disputable  points. 

So  far  as  our  examination  has  gone,  the  Outlines  have  [voved  to  be 
an  almost  exact  reprint  of  the  article.  No  change  has  been  made  in  the 
literary  form  beyond  the  breaking  up  of  the  text  into  chapters.  Occa- 
sionally we  have  noticed  a  slight  addition  or  correction  :  thus,  on  p.  47, 
the  author  refers  in  a  footnote  to  his  acceptance  of  Tell  ^^m  as  the 
site  of  Capernaum,  which  was  announced  in  the  Journal  of  Theological 
Studies  for  October  1903;  and  on  pp.  145,  151  his  description  of 
a  writer  (Dr  Chwolson)  is  modified,  presumably  in  the  light  of  fuller 
knowledge.  But  as  a  rule  nothing  has  been  altered,  even  when  a  slight 
change  would  have  brought  the  information  up  to  date ;  e.g.  on  p.  29 
the  third  edition  of  Schiirer's  Geschichte  des  jOd.  Volkes,  which  was 
completed  in  1 901,  is  said  to  have  'be^n  to  appear  (vols,  ii  and  iii, 
1898) ';  and,  generally,  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  bring  the  biblio- 
graphical lists  down  to  the  present  year.  Thus  the  book,  like  the  article, 
must  be  regarded  as  the  work  of  1S99  (p.  239).  As  the  prefatory  note 
explains,  this  course  has  been  deliberately  adopted,  in  view  of  Dr  Sanday's 
intention  of  publishing  a  larger  work  on  the  subject  a  few  years  hence ; 
and  it  is  easy  to  understand  his  desire  under  these  circumstances  to 
postpone  the  publication  of  results  which  must  still  be  incomplete  and 


6l6         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

judgements  still  open  to  reconsideration.  But  it  is  permissible  to  cxprns 
a  hope  that  when  the  larger  work  has  been  given  to  the  world  the  Out- 
lines may  be  revised  in  the  light  of  the  author's  latest  researches.  Pro- 
bably there  wiU  always  be  room  for  the  smaller  as  well  as  for  the  fuller 
book. 

Dr  Sanday's  article  is  so  familiar  to  all  readers  of  this  Jourkal  that  it 
would  be  superfluous  to  review  what  is  ptactically  a  simple  reprint.  As 
a  manual  of  the  Life  of  Christ  it  has  the  merit  of  blending  clear  and 
well-balanced  statements,  such  as  a  beginner  may  comprehend,  iritb 
occasional  discussions  which  meet  the  wants  of  the  maturer  studotL 
The  textual  notes  on  Luke  xx  14  if  (p.  isSf)  and  MatL  i  16  (p.  197^) 
may  be  mentioned  as  examples  of  expert  guidance  for  which  scbohis 
will  be  grateful.  Yet  these  admirable  digressions  do  not  impose  on  tbe 
neck  of  ihe  English  reader  a  yoke  which  he  is  not  able  to  bear;  he  an 
pass  them  over  without  being  conscious  al  any  break  in  the  contiiiiii^ 
of  the  expositioTL 

There  is  one  feature,  inherited  from  the  article,  which  it  n  djfficrit 
not  to  regret,  though  much  may  obviously  be  said  in  its  iavour.  In  the 
reprint,  as  in  the  article,  the  Life  of  our  Lord  begins  with  the  Ministiy, 
and  the  Birth  and  early  years  are  treated  near  the  end  of  the  book  undef 
the  head  of  'supplemental  matter'.  Although  the  atitbor  cardoOy 
guards  against  misconception  'p.  3  and  ch,  vii  passim),  it  is  only  tw 
probable  that  events  thus  relegated  to  the  position  of  a  supplement  nay 
be  regarded  as  of  inferior  importance,  if  not  as  standing  on  a  knttt 
plane  of  historical  truth  than  the  rest  of  Ihe  Gospel  narrative.  Man- 
over,  while  the  Ministry  and  its  sequel  may  fairly  be  treated,  as  they  am 
treated  in  the  second  and  fourth  Gospels,  withaui  reference  to  thep(^ 
paratory  years,  a  Life  of  Christ,  even  in  outline,  seems  to  call  for  an 
orderly  view,  so  far  as  il  may  be  obtained,  of  the  whole  course  of  ennti 
from  His  birth  to  His  departure  from  the  world.  For  these  reasons 
it  might  be  wished  that  ch.  vii  had  been  placed,  mutatis  miOan&i 
in  the  foreground  of  the  Outiims,  notwithstanding  the  difficulties  tHncb 
a  change  of  order  would  have  involved. 

But  this  is  a  mere  matter  of  arrangement,  and  one  on  which  r^an 
will  differ.  As  to  the  value  of  every  part  of  the  work,  and  the  skill  fridi 
which  it  meets  the  wants  of  studenis  of  every  class,  there  cannot  be  ino 
opinions.  Wliere  all  is  admirable  it  is  difficult  to  particularize,  bnll» 
the  present  writer  the  sections  on  'the  Miracles  of  Jesus'  and  'the 
Resurrection'  have  always  seemed  to  bear  the  palm;  it  is  hard  to 
conceive  of  any  more  worthy  or  satisfactory  treatment  of  these  difficnJt 
subjects  within  so  short  a  compass.  But  the  book  is  one  to  be  to^l 
and  digested  from  cover  to  cover;  and  nothing  better  can  be  desired  m 
the  interests  of  a  sane  and  intelligent  teaching  of  the  Gospel  history  than 


REVIEWS  617 

that  these  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Christ  should  be  accepted  as  a  recog- 
nized authority  upon  the  subject  in  our  pulpits,  our  theolc^cal  colleges, 
and  our  public  sdiools. 

H.    B.   SWETS. 


ST  PAUL'S  KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  GOSPEL 
HISTORY. 

£>er  PauUnisnats  und  die  Zogia  /esu,  in  ihrem  gegenseitigen  Ver-' 
hiiltnis  untersucht  von  D.  A.  Resch.  Texte  und  Unt^suchungen, 
N.  F.  xiL    (J.  C-  Hinrichs,  Leipzig,  1904.) 

This  book  is  the  result  of  infinite  pains  and  is  full  of  interesting 
suggestions.  Dr  Resch  has  for  years  been  an  independent  student  of 
the  Synoptic  problem,  and  by  a  careful  comparison  of  the  three  Synoptists, 
of  all  the  variant  readings  of  their  text  found  in  MSS  and  in  patristic 
quotations,  and  of  the  non-canonical  sayings  attributed  to  our  Lord,  he 
has  come  to  the  conclusion  that  St  Mark's  is  the  earliest  of  the  three, 
that  behind  St  Mark  lay  an  earlier  narrative  which  existed  primarily  in 
Hebrew  and  which  was  used  independently  by  the  three  Evangelists, 
each  taking  from  it  as  much  as  suited  the  primary  purpose  of  his  Gospel. 
This  earlier  narrative  he  calls  the  Zogia,  identifying  it  with  the  Logia  of 
Papias,  and  r^arding  it  not  as  a  mere  collection  of  sayings,  but  as 
a  narrative  Gospel  including  the  main  outline  of  the  synoptist  story 
as  well  as  much  of  the  material  peculiar  to  each  Synoptist  and  even  the 
Pericope  Adulterae,  and  this  he  attempted  to  reconstruct  both  in 
Hebrew  and  Greek,  and  published  in  1898  in  his  volume  entitled  Die 
Logia  /esu. 

In  the  present  volume  be  approaches  the  same  question  from  a 
different  side,  from  the  study  of  Faulinism.  The  Pauline  Epistles 
seem  to  him  to  prove  that  St  Paul  had  a  wide  knowledge  of  the 
facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  his  teaching  and  language  shew  many 
points  of  coincidence  with  those  of  the  Evangelists ;  and  this  agree- 
ment is  found  in  all  the  letters,  the  earliest  as  well  as  the  latest. 
Whence  then  had  St  Paul,  who  at  first  purposely  abstained  from  oral 
communications  with  the  earlier  apostles,  acquired  this  knowledge? 
This  is  the  question  which  Dr  Resch  sets  himself  to  answer  here. 
He  is  inclined  to  believe  that  St  Paul  had  seen  the  Lord  during 
His  earthly  ministry;  indeed,  he  hints  that  he  was  the  rich  young 
man,  the  ruler,  whom  Jesus  loved,  but  who  turned  away  from  Him 


6l8        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


being  as  yet  unprepared  to  give  up  his  riches.    This  hint  is,  bowerer, 
not  followed  up.    The  main  answer  to  the  question  is  thai  St  Paul,  after 
his  conversion,  received  a  written  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Logia,  perhaps 
from  Ananias,  that  he  had  this  with  him  during  his  three  years  in  Arabu, 
that  his  mind  was  thoroughJy  steeped  in  it,  and  that  all  his  teaching  ww 
developed  from  germs  to  be  found  there-    To  this  document  be  sees 
allusions  in  i  Cor.  xv  3,  i  Tim.  v  18,  a  Tim.  iv  13.     In  order  to  pro« 
this  point  he  inarshals  his  facu  with  great  skill.     First  (pp.  35-^54)  ** 
prints  every  passage  from  St  Paul  in  which  any  coincidence  with  the 
Gospels  or  the  Agrapha  can  be  detected;  next  (pp.  155-464)  foUw 
a  scries  of  excursuses  in  which  the  chief  phrases  .ind  thoughts  at 
examined ;  finally  (pp.  464-639),  each  epistle  is  examined  sepuitdf, 
and  the  effect  of  the  Logia  on  its  language  and  teaching  drawn  out; 
then  Ihf  Pauline  vocabulary  and  Pauline  doctrine  as  a  whole  is  tresied 
in  the  same  way  ;  and  an  attempt  is  made  to  shew  that  while  Pauliwan 
has  bt:eii  dejtendent  on  the  Logia,  it  has  itself  influenced,  though  not  to 
the  degree  often  assumed,  tlie  final  form  of  our  three  Gospels. 

Does  he  succeed  in  his  main  contention  ?  Not,  I  think,  wholly  01 
conclusively.  The  array  of  quotations  is  indeed  imposing  at  first  sight ; 
but  he  has  all  the  cleverness  of  a  general,  who  makea  the  same  soldien 
pass  quickly  by  a  given  point  dressed  in  different  uniforms  each  ^^^ 
and  so  deceives  his  enemy  into  the  belief  that  his  force  is  three  tim^  iu 
real  size.  Again,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  author  overpressa  lus 
point ;  he  prints  many  passages  in  which  he  would  himself  admit  tbit 
the  coincidence  was  very,  very  precarious:  he  does  not  allow  for  ^ 
independent  use  by  the  two  writers  of  the  same  passage  of  the  On 
Testament ;  or  for  the  effect  of  oral  tradition ;  or,  again,  for  the  necefflir 
of  two  writers  using  similar  language  when  treating  the  same  topic-  To 
take  but  one  instance,  from  1  Timothy  he  quotes  fifty-two  points  ol 
comparison:  of  these,  thirty  leave  on  my  mind  the  impression  ofjoo- 
dental  coincidence,  two  are  due  to  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  andody 
twenty  suggest  a  possible  dependence  on  previous  material,  aod  rf 
these  one  only  (v  18)  su^esis,  and  it  does  not  require,  depeodeo'' 
on  a  written  document. 

Yet  when  all  deductions  have  been  made,  much  of  real  value  reniiiw 
and  the  book  will  be  of  permanent  interest  to  the  student  of  the  Gosp* 
and  of  the  Pauhne  Epistles  alike.  To  put  this  at  its  lowest  estimriCi 
the  facts  accumulated  supply  a  rich  illustration  of  St  Paul's  langiMK^ 
and  are  often  very  illuminating  as  to  his  meaning:  but  tn  addition tD 
this,  there  is  much  valuable  material  in  the  excursuses,  e.g.  the  collectioo 
of  passages  bearing  on  Trinitarian  doctrine  (p.  368),  on  prayer  (p.  3*5^ 
on  St  Paul's  use  of 'lov&iloc  as  the  equivalent  of  <^a/H(rauH.tnthc 
(p.  194),  on  the  references  to  Jerusalem  (p.  326),  Gcthsemane  (p. 


REVIEWS  619 

on  the  use  of  Koiwij  StaB^xri  (p.  341):  the  treatment  of  each  Epistle, 
the  defence  of  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the  Pastorals,  the  account  of 
Paulinism  and  its  influence  on  Church  history,  are  all  well  done,  and  in 
spite  of  the  mass  of  his  materials  he  makes  hts  argument  lucid  and 
effective ;  nor  can  it  be  denied  that  he  has  proved  that  St  Paul  was  in 
close  touch  with  the  traditions  of  the  earliest  Christians,  that  he  had 
a  real  knowledge  of  the  facts  of  the  I.ord's  earthly  life,  and  that  there  is 
a  distinct  possibility,  nay  probability,  that  some  of  the  discourses  and 
parables  of  the  Lord  lay  before  him  in  a  written  form.  While  it  setma 
to  me  purely  fanciful  to  suggest  that  he  was  thinking  of  the  parable  of 
The  Good  Samaritan  in  his  account  of  his  own  treatment  of  Onesimus,  it 
seems  more  than  probable  that  he  knew  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  outline 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  eschatological  discourse  of  our  Lord, 
and  that  i  Cor.  vii  35  implies  a  knowledge  of  the  story  of  Martha  and 
Mary  in  the  form  which  we  have  it  now  in  St  Luke's  Gospel. 

Walter  Lock. 


THE   GENUINE  WRITINGS  OF  APOLLINARIUS. 

Apollitutris  von  Zaodicea  und  seine  Sckule.  Von  Lie.  Hans  Lietzmann. 
(J.  C.  B.  Mohr  [Paul  Siebeck],  Tiibingen.     1904.) 

Fresh  interest  in  ApoUinarius  was  aroused  some  dozen  years  ago  by 
the  researches  of  Dr  Draseke,  who  claimed  [Texte  u.  Uniersueftungen 
vii  3,  4:  1893)  as  the  genuine  work  of  the  great  herestarcb  (i)  the 
letters  to  Basil  which  the  Benedictine  editors  of  Basil's  works  inserted 
in  their  edition,  though  regarding  them  as  forgeries ;  (3)  the  two  last  of 
the  five  books  against  Eunomius  attributed  to  Basil,  the  first  three 
of  which  only  are  believed  to  be  his ;  (3)  the  JK^fcric  irurrcoK  or  vtfX 
TfnaBoi  attributed  to  Justin,  but  clearly  belonging  to  a  later  time ;  and 
(4}  the  first  three  of  the  seven  dialc^es  on  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarna- 
tion, printed  in  the  Benedictine  edition  of  the  works  of  Athanasius, 
and  attributed  by  the  MSS  to  Athanasius,  Maximus  the  Confessor,  or 
left  anonymous. 

Dr  Draseke  thus  added  very  largely  to  the  scanty  materials  which 
were  available  for  the  study  of  Apollinarius,  though  none  of  these 
writings  shews  any  trace  of  'Apollinarian'  conceptions,  and  he  took 
credit  for  giving  back  to  Apollinarius  his  own,  of  which  he  had  been 
deprived  for  so  many  years.  His  arguments  met  with  some  acceptance: 
— as  a  whole,  in  England,  by  the  Church  Quarterly  reviewer  (October 


6ao       THB  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

1893);    as  regards  (i),  by  Hamack,  Seeberg,  Bardenhewer,  Battfibl, 
Kriigcr,  Jiilichcr,  though  the  contrary  view  was  maintained  by  Loofs 
{Eus/athius  ttcn  Stbaste,  1898X  and  independently  in  Texts  and  Htudies 
vol.  vii  no.  I  pp.  38  fl";  and  as  regards  (3),  by  Haraack,  Seeberg,  and 
others,    while    Funk    (TAw/.    Quartahchrifi   1896— reprinted    in    his 
Kirchengcsch.  Abhandl.  vol.  ii  pp.  253-291)  attacked  the  main  piemtss 
on  which  Draseke's  argument  rests.    Similarly  as  regards  {2),  Funk,  in 
1897  {0p.  dt.  pp.  291-329)1  by  a  searching  examination  shewed  that  the 
two  books  against  Eunomius  could  not  be  a  work  by  Apollinarius  refut- 
ing ihc  ApologetKus  of  Eunomius,  as  Diaseke  had  maintained  they  were. 
And  finally,  G.  Voisin  {L'ApoUinarismt  pp.  z^t-ijo,  Louvain  1901), 
carefully  reviewing  the  whole  controversy,  and  adducing  fresh  aigumcnts 
after  independent  study,  shewed,  as  it  seems  to  me  conclusively,  as 
regards  all  four  works,  that  Draseke's  confident  claim  to  have  ustabli&bed 
the  authorship  of  Apoiiinarius  is  not  made  good.     Voisin  himself  stylei 
the  attribution  both  gratuitous  and  impossible,  and,  so  far  as  I  caa 
judge,  the  words  are  not  loo  strong.     One  is  entitled  to  resent  the 
publication  of  theories  which  are  not  more  securely  based. 

And  now  Herr  Lietzntann,  merely  referring  his  readers  to  Funkwd 
Voisin,  ignores  Dr  Draseke  as  having  altogether  too  great  a  '  combiai- 
tionsgabc',  and  gives  us  only  about  fifty  of  the  two  hundred  pages  that 
Draseke  printed  as  the  work  of  Apoiiinarius,  adding  to  them  some  fresii 
materials  from  Syriac  verstonii  and  some  pages  of  writings  by  foUovrciS 
of  Apoiiinarius. 

To  establish  the  text  he  has  spared  no  pains,  utilizing  the  Latin  an<3 
Syriac  translations  wherever  they  are  available,  as  well  as  the  Gicek 
MSS.  The  Syriac  iranslarions  arc  published  scfarately  in  the  oanfr 
actions  of  the  KOnigliche  Geseltscbaft  dcr  VVissenschaften  of  Gottingco 
(phil.-hist.  Kl.  N.  F.  vii  4}.  Where  the  Syriac  only  Js  extant,  we  ba* 
in  this  volume  German  (of  the  de  fide  it  iruarnafioHe,  of  which  onlftbe 
middle  portion  is  extant  in  Greek,  Herr  Lietzmann  gives  us  transIatkiDS 
of  Che  Syriac  all  through).  Besides,  by  way  oi  introduction  to  tlie  USH, 
we  have  (ch.  ij  an  interesting  sketch  of  the  'political  history*  of  ApoUi- 
narianism,  (ch.  ii}  the  sources  and  chronology,  (ch.  iii)  the  hisloiy  of 
the  iransmiiision  of  Apollinarian  writings,  and  (ch.  iv)  an  account 
of  ilie  writings  themselves.  We  are  promised  a  second  volume  with 
the  exegetical  fragments,  an  exposition  of  ihe  theological  position  of 
Apolltnaritis,  and  discussion  of  other  subsidiary  questions. 

i'ending  the  completion  of  the  work,  we  may  content  ourselves  widl 
giving  a  hearty  welcome  to  this  volume,  which  seems  to  m-ike  it  possible 
at  last  to  read  the  genuine  works  of  Apoiiinarius  as  a  whole,  so  far  as 
they  have  survived.  The  type  is  so  arranged  tliat  we  can  distinguish 
at  a  glance  between  what  he  actually  wrote  and  what  his  opponenu 


REVIEWS  631 

supposed  that  he  meant  and  represented  him  as  sayii^ ;  and  so  we  may 
be  able  to  arrive  at  the  truth  about  his  teaching. 

For  example,  to  take  one  point,  it  is  of  course  certain  that  he  did  not 
teach,  as  he  was  &Isely  charged  with  teaching,  that  \h&  flesh  of  our  Lord 
came  down  from  heaven  or  was  in  any  sense  eternal.  It  also  seems 
clear  that  he  started  from  an  Aristotelian  basts,  though  in  some  respects 
he  approximated  to  the  Platonic  standpoint  But  did  be  get  so  far  as  to 
conceive  the  idea  of  an  eternal  prototype  of  humanity,  which  is  an 
emphatically  Platonic  notion?  And  did  he  defend  himself  against 
the  chaise  of  mutilating  the  humanity  of  our  Lord,  by  declaring  that 
the  Logos  was  the  archetype  of  all  human  souls,  and  that,  therefore, 
where  the  Logos  Himself  was  present,  there  was  full  and  perfect  man- 
hood ?  As  &r  as  I  know,  Domer  was  the  first  to  find  this  conception 
in  his  teaching,  following  the  lead  which  Gr^ory  gave.  '  The  Second 
Man  is  from  heaven '  and  '  the  Son  of  Man  came  down  from  heaven '  were 
favourite  sayings  with  Apollinarius;  and  again,  o**  lirrw  Ik  y5«  S.v6puaro% 

h  i$  oipayav  xara/Sag  SyOputnv  S.vBptatroi  fJvTOi  xaX  tl  l(  ovpavov  Karo/S^- 
fiifKtv  (fr.  17 — L.  p.  309)  and  vpovrapxu  5  oWpunrot  ILpurr^  (ff.  3a — L. 

p.  211 ;  cf.  fr.  33).    Gregory's  comment  on  the  latter  expression  is  that 

he  taught  TO  iyOfMTttyoy  rov  ^avcvroc  ^/uv  dcov  trpoaimviov  c&ot,  and  it  is 

difficult  to  resist  the  natural  inference  from  such  phrases  that  he  did 
actually  maintain  that  the  Person  who  came  down  from  heaven  was 
already  in  some  sense  human.  The  conception  is,  in  its  philosophical 
aspects,  an  attractive  one,  and  I  wish  some  scholar  would  investigate  it ; 
but  he  would  perhaps  do  well  to  let  Herr  Lietzmann  have  his  say  first, 
as  I  understand  fix)m  him  he  will  in  hts  second  volume,  as  to  what 
Apollinarius  really  taught  ^  I  only  note  now,  as  illustrating  the  important 
results  that  Herr  Lietzraann's  researches  into  the  text  sometimes  have, 
that  appeal  can  no  longer  be  made  to  one  well-known  passage.  In  the 
address  to  Jovian  (p.  251 1.  14)  Draseke  (p.  342  1.  7),  reading  ov  before 
lUTowTuf  and  punctuating  accordingly,  gives  a  text  which  runs  as  follows : 
*  He  therefore  that  was  bom  of  the  Virgin  Mary  is  Son  of  God,  and  very 
God,  by  nature  and  not  by  grace,  and  [He  is]  man  not  only  by  parti- 
cipation [with  us]  as  r^ards  the  flesh  which  was  of  Mary* — and  so  Apolli- 
narius is  credited  with  a  strange  remark  which  at  once  suggests  that  the 
Logos  was  already  somehow  Man  before  the  Incarnation.  Hahn  also 
{SymhoU*  p.  267)  retains  the  o£,  though  he  notes  that  the  reading  has 
little  attestation,  and  joins  oii  ftmwrOi.  with  oi  x<^n'  The  awkwardness 
of  the  clause,  especially  in  connexion  with  the  following  sentences,  is 
enough  to  throw  suspicion  on  it.  The  text  as  we  now  have  it,  how- 
ever, with  ov  omitted,  gives  us  the  sense,  *.  .  .  God,  by  nature  and 

*  He  writes  to  me  that,  while  he  must  reserve  a  definitive  Judgement  at  present. 
Comer's  view  aeems  to  him  very  questionable. 


622         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


by 


only  as  regards  the  flesb  wM 


e  and  participation ;  : 
was  of  Mary'.  This  text  is  in  agreement  with  many  other  passages, 
in  which  He  n  said  to  be  Man  in  and  by  the  flesh  which  was  assumed, 
and  it  gives  no  support  to  the  view  in  question.  I,  for  one,  while  thanking 
Herr  Licizii^ann  for  what  be  has  already  done  for  us,  shall  look  forwind^ 
with  much  interest  to  his  second  volume. 

J.  F.  BBTHUKE-BAltES. 


HISTORY  OF  DOCTRtNE  AND  PATRISTIC  TEXTS- 

7^   Christian  Idea  of  Atonement.    By  T.  Vincent  Tvmms,  OD. 
(Macmillan  &  Co.,  1904.) 

This  volume,  which  contains  the  Angus  Lectures  delivered  in  1903, 
is  a  valuable  addition  to  recent  English  literature  upon  the  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement.  It  is  not  the  least  of  iis  merits  that  it  is  wrinco  in 
a  clear  and  forcible  style,  which  is  free  from  technical  terms.  In 
a  few  places  the  book  suffers  from  the  lack  of  careful  revision,  ini 
there  is  an  irritating  use  of  the  split  infinitive.  In  one  or  two  poinB 
of  detail  Dr  Tymms's  treatment  is  open  to  criticism,  e.g.  his  rendning 
of  irtpt  ifiafirCat  in  Rom.  vlii  3  by  '  an  account  of  sin '  (p.  49) ;  v 
again  his  note  on  the  same  passage  (p.  44a),  which  scarcely  doe* 
justice  to  the  inierprclalion  rejected  by  him.  Nor  again  are  we  sine 
that  l>r  Tymms  has  fairly  interpreted  the  passage  of  Augustine  whiA 
he  criticizes  adversely  on  p.  448.  But  these  are  details  which  do  no* 
affect  his  treatment  as  a  whole. 

The  main  value  of  the  book  is  that  it  is  an  attempt  to  restate  io 
a  modern  form  the  theory  of  the  Atonement  which  ha.s  been  associiiri 
with  the  name  of  Abelard.  Dr  Tymms  does  not  indeed  refer  W 
Abelard  or  his  view  of  the  Atonement  in  the  short  historical  sketch 
contained  in  Lecture  I,  but  the  exposition  of  his  own  view  of  tbc 
Atonement  in  Lectures  IV,  VI,  VII  presents  striking  points  of  conttct 
with  that  of  the  mediaeval  thinker.  The  following  suieraenis  set  forth 
the  leading  points  in  Dr  Tymms's  treatment  of  the  subject.  'The  onlj 
real  remedy  for  sin,  and  the  only  |>erfeci  satisfaction  of  God's  naiute^ 
must  consist  in  tAf  recimdiiation  0/  man  to  a  state  of  vcluntary  oheJitiut 
to  the  Divine  will'  (p.  167).  'This  obedience  can  be  induced  onlj 
by  measures  which  inspire  that  love  which  is  the  spring  of  all  the 
conduct  God  enjoins,  and  the  sum  of  all  that  He  requires  to  see  in 
human  hearts'  (p.  169).    'It  was  not  enough  that  God  etemaily  "o 


REVIEWS  623 

love ".  There  was  a  necessity  for  Him  to  shew  that  love,  and  to  so 
shew  it  as  to  convince  the  minds  and  recapture  the  hearts  of  those 
who  have  denied  or  doubted  its  existence '  (p.  264). 

In  Lecture  VII,  Dr  Tymms  developes  his  thesis,  and  exhibits  the 
death  of  Christ  as  'a  revelation,  and  the  most  intense,  vivid,  and 
sublime  revelation  of  God  in  His  relations  with  a  sinful  world'  (p.  285). 
Among  the  reasons  given  for  the  death  of  Christ  are  the  revelation 
of  the  malignity  of  sin,  of  God's  antagonism  to  it,  and  of  its  impotence 
against  God ;  the  demonstration  of  God's  sorrow  for  sin,  of  His  power 
to  forgive  it,  and  of  the  costliness  of  mercy  ;  and  lastly  the  necessity 
that  Christ's  human  experience  should  be  complete,  that  He  should 
confront  the  full  force  of  temptation,  and  that  He  should  'reveal 
Resurrection  in  such  a  manner  as  would  assure  His  followers  of  fellow- 
ship in  His  risen  life'  (p.  301).  The  resemblance  of  the  view  here 
propounded  to  that  of  Abelard  is  apparent.  With  Dr  Tymms,  as  with 
Abelard,  the  prominent  thought  is  that  •  it  was  God's  design  to  render 
the  crucifixion  a  spectacle  to  the  world,  and  through  what,  with  all 
reverence,  may  be  called  its  dramatic  power,  to  work  upon  the  '  hearts 
and  consciences  of  men '  (p.  286).  This  view  of  the  Atonement  has 
commended  itself  to  many  thinkers  in  modem  times.  It  presents  some 
points  of  contact  with  that  of  Ritschl  in  his  great  iiai^  Justification  and 
Reconciliation,  though  Dr  Tymms's  standpoint  is  far  removed  from  that 
of  Ritschl  in  the  matter  of  sin  and  guilt  and  the  person  of  Christ.  In 
one  respect  Ritschl's  teaching  seems  an  advance  upon  that  of  Dr  Tymms. 
While  the  latter,  following  the  general  tendency  of  Protestant  theology, 
fiiils  to  give  sufficient  emphasis  to  the  corporate  relationship  of  Christ 
and  believers,  in  the  teaching  of  Ritschl  the  love  of  God  exhibited  in 
Christ  has  as  its  correlate  and  object  the  Christian  community,  through 
which  man  attains  fellowship  with  Christ  and  shares  His  Spirit 
Dr  Tymms  does  not  indeed  ignore  this  aspect.  In  his  concluding 
lecture  the  mystical  union  with  Christ  and  the  work  of  the  Spirit  are 
referred  to,  but  they  are  not  brought  prominently  into  connexion  with 
his  main  thesis,  and,  as  Dr  Moberly  has  shewn,  the  full  significance  of 
the  Atonement  as  a  present  power  in  men's  Uves  cannot  be  adequately 
set  forth  without  them.  On  the  side  of  what  has  been  called  the 
'representative'  character  of  Christ's  human  sufferings  Dr  Tymms's 
treatment  seems  defective.  Though  he  dwells  upon  the  force  of  Christ's 
example  and  His  submission  to  human  conditions,  there  is  no  com- 
prehensive treatment  in  his  book  of  the  place  of  our  Lord's  humanity  in 
the  Atonement.  Throughout,  the  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  spectacle 
of  the  Cross  as  a  revelation  of  certain  truths.  Dr  Tymms's  treatment  of 
the  cry  upon  the  Cross  is  not  wholly  consistent.  In  one  place 
(p.  290  foil.)  he  seems  to  be  on  the  verge  of  explaining  it  away.    A  little 


6a4         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


later  he  explains  it  by  the  very  questionable  supposition  that  the  deSi 
of  Christ  ■seems  to  have  necessarily  involved  a  temporary  severance  of 
the  Divine  and  humaa '.  '  There  was  a  passing  away  of  the  Father  from 
His  abode  in  the  Son  of  Man  prior  to  the  passing  of  the  human  spiiil 
from  the  flesh  which  left  an  inanimate  body  on  the  cross'  (p.  294^ 
It  is  commonly  agreed  chat  the  mystery  of  the  Attracment  culminated 
in  this  cry.  Dr  Tymms's  treatment  of  it  seems  to  shew  that  bis  theoi7 
is  inadequate  to  meet  all  the  facts. 

In  Leaure  II  there  is  a  valuable  discussion  of  the  Scriptural  teachins 
on  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  a  careful  examination  of  the  '  proof-texli' 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  are  commonly  quoted  to  shew  that 
Christ  bore  the  actual  punishment  of  our  sins.  In  Lectxire  V  tbe 
significance  of  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  is  treated  of  in  an  abte 
and  convincing  manner,  and  there  is  a  criticism  of  some  modem  writerj 
who  are  inclined  to  '  throw  overboard  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  saai- 
fice  as  a  survival  of  ancient  Semitic  heathenism,  while  insisting  that  is 
the  New  Testament  this  heathenish  idea  is  not  only  discarded  but 
reversed '  (p.  184).  Lecture  VIII  contains  a  discussion  of  justification 
by  faith,  a  criticism  of  imputation  theories,  and  some  careful  positive 
statements  upon  the  relation  of  St  Paul's  idea  of  justification  to  the 

teaching  of  Christ 

J.  H.  Srawlct. 

Histoire  des  dogvtes.     1,  La  TSl^gU  anUmdenne^  par  J,  TiXEROXt 
(Paris.    Victor  Lecoflre,  1905.) 

This  is  the  first  part  of  a  Hisioire  dts  dogmei  dans  la  ih/o/ogu  artdtiuc 
by  the  Dean  of  the  Catholic  Faculty  of  Theology  at  Lyons.  A  sbI>- 
sequent  volume  is  to  complete  the  history. 

As  to  how  the  history  of  doctrines  should  be  presented,  there  is  d 
course  room  for  difTcrence  of  opinion.  It  is  possible  to  trace  tfac 
develu[H:ment  of  a  particular  doctrine,  or  group  of  doctrines,  throu^ 
a  given  period,  and  it  Is  possible  to  give  in  more  systematic  form  the 
teaching  of  the  leaders  of  Christian  thought  in  their  chronological  order. 
and  various  combinations  of  both  methods  are  possible.  M.  Tixeront 
recognizes,  the  advantages  and  some  of  the  drawbacks  of  either  m( 
(p.  9).  He  chooses  the  latter,  which  he  styles  the  'synthetic'  m« 
It  seems  to  me  to  be  the  method  of  Patristics  rather  than  of  history 
doctrines.  It  tends  to  concentrate  attention  on  the  particular  teocba 
and  leaves  a  student  uncertain  how  far  the  doctrine  which  he  represeois 
is  only  an  individual's  opinion ;  but  it  has,  no  doubt,  its  special 
vantages,  and  the  student  who  wishes  to  take  his  history  in  this 
will  find  M.  Tixeront  an  excellently  etjuippcd  and  a  thoroughly  sympi- 
thetic  guide. 


REVIEWS  625 

Full  references  are  given  in  footnotes  to  the  original  sources  and  to 
the  more  important  modem  works  upon  the  subject  of  French,  Gennan, 
and  occasionally  English  writers  (the  latter  including  articles  ia  this 
Journal),  so  that  a  student  is  well  guided  to  further  investigation  for 
himself.  Special  praise  is  due  to  this  part  of  the  work.  And  in  the 
careful,  though  brief,  risumis  of  the  different  special  studies  which  the 
volume  contains,  an  attempt  is  made,  with  a  large  measure  of  success, 
to  gather  tc^ether  the  main  results  and  to  mark  the  stages  in  regard  to 
the  devetopement  of  doctrines. 

Occasionally  it  seems  to  me  there  are  misleading  statements,  as 
(p.  410)  that  Dionysius  of  Rome  in  his  letter  to  his  namesake  of 
Alexandria  says  nothing  of  the  term  o^uxivo-tof.  '  Le  mot  ^tait  nouveau, 
et  si  son  collogue  d'Alexandrie  I'^vitait,  le  pape,  lui,  ne  voulait  pas 
I'adopter'  (p.  410).  The  Latin  equivalent  of  the  term  had  long  been 
current  coin  in  the  West,  and  it  is  clear  from  the  reply  of  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria  that  his  avoidance  of  the  term  had  not  the  Bishop  of  Rome's 
approval.  The  recognition  of  this  fact  is  of  the  first  importance  in 
tracing  the  history  of  doctrine.  So,  too,  to  say  that  by  the  <nrt/iftaruo9 
Xoyos  Justin  probably  meant  only  'la  raison  humaine,  derivation  de  la 
sagesse  ^temelle,  mais  elle-mSme  cr^ee  et  finie'  (p.  228)  is  to  fail  to  do 
justice  to  the  width  and  depth  of  Justin's  view  of  human  life  and  history. 
Again,  that  the  African  Creed  was  originally  derived  from  Rome  is 
highly  probable,  but  it  is  not  accurate  to  say  'Tertullien  remarque 
d'ailleurs  que  les  Eglises  d'Afrique  avaient  re^u  de  Rome  la  tessera 
de  la  foi  *  (p.  159  n.).  In  the  passage  cited  de  praescript.  36  the  true 
reading  is  coniesietttr,  not  contesserarit,  and  contesseratio  which  occurs 
ibid.  20  has  no  reference  to  the  Creed.  And  it  is  strange  to  find 
M.  Tixeront  endorsing  the  view  to  which  Dr  Hamack  has  given 
currency  that  iraWpa  in  the  first  article  of  the  Creed  '  ne  designe  pas  la 
personne  du  F^re,  mais  affirme  simplement  I'universelle  paternity  de 
Dieu  comme  cr^ateur'  {p.  160).  It  is  certain  that  the  conception  of 
God  as  Father,  in  relation  to  Jesus  Christ  and,  at  least  through  Him,  to 
men,  was  of  the  essence  of  the  Gospel  from  the  first.  If  stress  is  laid 
by  some  of  the  Apologists  of  the  second  century  on  the  cosmic  sig- 
nificance of  the  title,  it  is  to  be  explained  by  their  desire  to  find  as 
much  common  ground  as  possible  with  their  pagan  opponents.  It  is 
unthinkable  that  Christians  who  invoked  God  as  Father,  through  Jesus 
Christ,  can  ever  have  failed  to  attach  to  the  title  its  special  Christian 
sense.  General  considerations  of  this  kind  must  correct  inferences  that 
may  be  su^ested  by  other  evidence.  M.  Tixeront  himself  fully 
recognizes  the  &ct  as  regards  the  presentation  of  the  Christian  faith 
which  we  find  in  the  Apologists  (p.  323). 

The  loose  translation  of  ovo-ui  by  nature  (p.  26 1 )  also  calb  for  comment* 
VOL.  VI.  S  S 


626        THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


There  is  perceptible,  too,  all  through,  2  tendency  to  attribute  to 
Church  of  Kome  and  its  bishops  an  authority  in  matters  of  doctrine 
which  in  these  early  days  was  not  conceded  to  tbem.  So  we  find  the 
popular  Roman  reading  of  the  appeal  of  Ircnacus  to  the  tradition  of 
the  churches,  which  is  dcscrilx-d  as  not  'sa  tradition  doctrinale,  w»is 
sa  tradition  hi<^rarchique  .  . .  Les  successeurs  des  ap6tres  sent  seals 
qualifies  pour  nous  enscigner  lav^ti'  (p.  200).  For  this  point  of  view, 
however,  allowance  can  easily  be  made. 

The  book  is  in  style  and  form  a  refreshing  contrast  to  most  recent 
works  on  doctrine,and  others  than  the  French  students  of  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory for  whom  it  is  primarily  designed  will  read  it  with  pleastire  and  profit. 

TJke  iMiert  and  other  Remains  of  Dionysius  0/  Alexandria^  edited  bf 
C.  L.  Feltoe.  Cambridge  University  Press,  1904  (Cambridge 
Patristic  Texts). 
In  this  volume  we  have  collected  together  the  extant  fragments  of 
the  writings  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  including  a  few  which  hne 
been  preserved  only  in  a  Syriac  translation.  A  large  amount  of  nwtt 
careful  and  scholarly  work  and  research  baa  been  ptit  into  the  bod^ 
in  the  deiennination  of  the  text,  the  explanation  of  the  historical 
setting  of  the  fragments,  and  the  elucidation  of  the  thought  and  the 
language  of  a  writer  whose  style  and  vocabulary,  though  *  realty  sua- 
rated  with  classical  uses ',  often  present  more  than  momentary  difficultitf. 
The  great  St  Denys  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  interesting  (^[uie^ 
as  administrator,  theologian,  and  biblical  critic,  in  a  most  interesting 
period  of  the  history  of  the  Church,  and  Dr  Feltoe  has  rendered  a  ml 
service  to  all  students  by  putting  into  their  hands  this  admirable  edition 
of  his  writings,  which  touch  so  many  subjects  of  high  importance.  The 
volume  is  a  worthy  addition  to  the  useful  series  of  Cambridge  Patristic 
Texts. 

Justin:  .rf/<?/tf^i»r,  par  Louis  Pautignv.  (Paris.  Alphonse  Picard <i 
fils,  1904.) 

I'His  is  the  first  of  a  series  of  Ttxtes  ti  documents  pour  tkhiit 
hislorique  du  Christtanisme,  which  is  to  include  the  texts  of  the  works 
of  most  importance  for  the  his:ory  of  Chris tiajiiiy,  its  institutions,  and 
its  doctrines,  with  a  French  translation. 

We  have,  accordingly,  in  this  volume  the  Greek  text  of  Juslini 
Apologies  (based  on  that  of  the  third  edition  of  G.  Krucgcr)  with  d>e 
translation  on  the  opposite  page,  a  few  notes  on  the  text,  an  introdoctioo, 
and  an  index  of  words  and  Biblical  quotations. 

The  Introduction  is  brief  but  excellent  on  all  the  points  which  call  (* 
ooUce,  a  few  matters  which  would  naturally  come  tn  expository  ao(e$ 


I 


REVIEWS  627 

included;  and  the  admirable  bibliognphy  given  at  the  end  of  each 
section  furnishes  ample  materials  for  further  study  of  all  the  questions 
that  are  dealt  with.  For  the  Introduction  alone  any  student  <rf'  the 
Apologies  will  be  grateful.  If  subsequent  volumes  are  as  good  as  this 
one,  the  series  will  abundantly  fulfil  its  aim. 

Justin's  involved  and  often  clumsy  periods  become  transparently 
clear  and  pleasant  reading  in  the  French  of  M.  Fautigny.  But  this 
result  is,  of  course,  only  attained  by  the  exercise  of  a  good  deal  of 
freedom  of  translation,  and  in  some  passages  which  are  particularly 
difficult,  and  where  the  exact  meaning  is  obscure,  I  am  not  sure  that 
the  sense  is  always  caught  or  successfully  expressed. 

I  subjoin  a  few  examples  of  passages  in  which  it  seems  that  the  trans- 
lation is  inexact  or  the  text  adopted  unsatisfactory. 

iii  4  oTWt  /af  vwkp  Twv  dyitKtv  ra  ^/Urtpa  yo/u^ovruv  r^  rifuupaiv  Sv 
av  'wXfjfi^ttXiiKn  Tv^A(i>rroKrcc  avrot  Javrott  otftkijaiufuy  is  rendered  de  peur 
qucy  pour  ne  nous  itre  pas  fait  connaitre  de  vous,  nous  m  seyons  rtspon- 
saiUs  devant  noire  conscience  des  fautes  que  vous  commettries  par  ignorance. 
The  meaning  is  '  that  we  may  not  bring  upon  ourselves  (lit  ourselves 
incur  for  ourselves)  the  punishment,  which  is  due  to  those  who  are 
habituated  to  ignorance  about  us,  for  the  crimes  which  in  their  blindness 
they  commit*.  The  rendering  given  slides  over  the  difficulties  and 
devant  notre  conscience  introduces  an  alien  idea.  Christians  who  let 
others  remain  in  ignorance  would  have  to  bear  on  their  behalf  the 
divine  punishment  for  their  wrongdoings.  iv  7  irapaxcXcvovrai  is 
slurred  over,  and  dXXwf  in  the  next  clause,  vi  2  The  translation 
given  is  no  doubt  right :  that  we  have  here  an  instance  of  the  substantival 
use  of  01  cUAotf  as  is  suggested  in  the  note  (p.  xxix),  is  impcssible. 
vii  2  &a  rove  -Kpc^^vno,^  rendered /ar<v  que  d'autres  ont  iti  ciiis  avant 
eux  gives  no  sense.  For  the  word  vpoXx^Birm  which  is  untranslateable 
(unless,  indeed,  Stu/tovat  may  be  understood  with  Trollope),  we  should 
probably  read — as  has  been  suggested— tr/xMXcyxt^'vrafi  giving  a  good 
sense ;  viz. :  you  have  to  condemn  many,  on  the  evidence  of  their  evil 
conduct ;  but  you  do  it  because  you  find  them  guilty  of  crimes  of  their 
own,  not  because  others  before  them  have  been  convicted  :  yet  this  is 
the  principle  you  are  following  in  the  case  of  Christians  if  you  condemn 
them  as  such,  because  some  Christians  have  been  convicted  of  crimes, 
xii  3  ov  yap . . .  gives  no  sense,  unless  perhaps  with  a  question  after 
oJcxoixru'.    Veil's  correction  ot  yap  ...  is  to  be  preferred,      xxi  4  Sia- 

tftOopav  Ktu  mpaTpoirqv  are  read  instead  of  the  MS  tw^apav  kox  trporpoir^f 

which  however  can  be  understood  as  ironical.  xxiv  2  iv  to^s 
trrtfltavcm  with  Otto,  for  iv  ypa^v  MS.  We  still  wait  for  a  convincing 
restoration  of  the  text,  xxix  3  the  paraphrase  seems  to  miss  the 
meaning.      xli  3  Xdj8cr«  x<W  (t.  e.  '  take  a  thank-offering ') — apporUt 

s  s  a 


628         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


des  prisents  (Eng.  V.  '  bring  presents').  xliv  11  the  corwtrurtton 
twwnw  . .  .  fu'AAoiTa  .  .  .  Tavap  a^ToS  . .  .  SarayrqcrttrBiu, '  that  every  one 
shall  meet  with  the  things  from  him  (sc.  God),  i.  e.  receive  his  rewtid'- 
The  correction  of  the  text  to  ri  irap'  avror  (tr.  /ts  offettsts  commtsts  lontn 
/ui)  is  unnccessar)',  and  the  translation  of  the  whole  clause  is  impossibly 
even  if  trof!  ai'-ro'v,  which  occurs  in  the  previous  clause  meaning  *  with 
him  ',  could  be  used  in  two  successive  clauses  in  one  sentence  in  such 
different  senses.  The  second  clause  is  really  pleonastic.  xlv  t  the 
correction  ^jcm'powtv  is  unnecessary — the  MS  rfirun'poxnv  ' confirmation' 
of  a  decree,  so  *  consummntion  '  of  things,  is  quite  intelligible,  and  <m- 
pwr\¥  is  not  likely  to  ha^'e  been  altered  to  it.  I  7  on  oWtrr/nrrw  n 
TrpwT\inrav  avrav  (i.  e.  '  bccausc  his  face  was  turned  away ')  on  se  ditoum 
de  sa  /ace.  (Hcb.  =  as  one  from  whom  faces  .iru  hid,)  10  o-  tj  iwru- 
»w<i  avTov  ^  tptVit  QiToC  jjp^  dans  son  humiliation^  H  a  itfju^,  li  i 
SuMTw  Tovs  irtrVT/poi'S  ai-ri  r^s  ra^rfi  ttiTov  J€  pardoHturat  aux  ow/dMr 
i  cause  de  ia  sepulture.  IxvJ  a  Si*  WrXT*  ^'Jyou  to3  »ap'  a^rov  cfjn*- 
trrr\Bi\ifav  consacr/  par  ia  pri'tre  fomtfe  des  paroles  du  Chriit. 

I  have  noticed  but  few  misprints,  e.  g.  p.  7,  I.  4, 15  for  19;  p.  6.L  14. 
Tmr/jyopowTa^  for  KomfyoftovvnK  \  p.  144,  I.  6,  vpovixri^  for  xporur^. 

J.  F.  Beiuune-Bakek. 


RECENT  ASSYRIOLOGY. 

Assyrian  and  Babyhnian  letters  belonging  to  the  Konyunjik  CoUtiHM 
of  the  British  Museum.    Part  VIII.    By  Professor  R.  F.  Harpw- 
(Luzac  &:  Co.,  l»ndon.     rgoa.     Svo.     vii  +  Sai-g4o+xniii  pp) 
The  Eighth  Volume  of  Professor  R.  F.  Harper's  great  Corpus  Efisi*- 
larum  apparently  completes  the  first  half  of  his  task,  as  it  is  to  be 
followed  by  an  index-volume  containing  the  proper  names  occurring 
in  the  first  eight  volumes.    This  will,  doubtless,  prove  a  great  help  to 
those  who  want  to  refer  to  the  rich  and  varied  contents.     Already  876 
of  these  specimens  of  'epistolary  correspondence'  are  thus  rendered 
available  for  study.    The  texts  have  been  edited  with  the  greatest  care, 
and  each  volume  lias  added  ronsiderubly  to  our  knowledge  of  the  last 
centur)' of  the  Assyrian  Empire.   These  letters  forma  mine  of  information 
concerning  matters  to  which  the  forma!  historical  inscriptions  arc  often 
only  summary  and  obscure  guides.    They  are  frank  and  outspoken  and 
aim  at  conveying  the  truth;  they  are  as  candid  about  defeats  as  tbcf 
are  exultant  over  victories.      Often  they  exhibit   strange  words  and 
plimses,  sometimes  the  faithful  record  of  provincial  usages,  sometimes 
preserving  examples  of  diction  only  to  be  paralleled  later  from  cognate 


REVIEWS  639 

Semitic  tongues.  They  add  to  our  knowledge  of  manners  and  customs, 
politics  and  religion,  even  at  times  contribute  to  the  reading  d  obscure 
ideograms  and  other  technical  matters.  Their  chief  interest,  however, 
consists  in  their  being  firsthand  sources,  subjected  to  no  revision  in 
party  interests  and  guiltless  of '  tendency '. 

The  historical  value  of  this  volume  is  considerable.  It  contributes 
side-notes  to  many  chapters  of  history.  Thus,  No.  764  is  obviously  from 
ApU,  the  governor  of  Arapt^a  (cC  No.  326  in  vol.  Ill),  who,  with  Kudur 
governor  of  Erech,  was  so  hard  pressed  by  Shamash-shum-uk!n's  rebel- 
lion against  his  brother  Ashurb&nipal.  Again,  No.  774  is  concerned 
with  Ashurb^ipal's  seventh  campaign,  against  Elam  (  K  Jl.  p.  5,  11.  50- 
57].  The  dty  Shamauna  is  that  elsewhere  called  Samuna ;  it  lay  in  the 
district  of  latburu,  had  already  been  captured  by  Sargon,  rebuilt  by  him 
and  renamed  B£l-iki&a,  was  taken  again  by  Sennacherib,  and  now  once 
more  by  Ashurb4nipal,  Its  inhabitants  bore  names  of  the  old  Aramaic 
types,  Abta-kla,  Ab!a-ki',  Abi-iakar,  Abi-bigSnu,  &c.  They  write  to  the 
king  about  affairs  in  the  land  of  Rdshu,  which  Sargon's  inscriptions 
locate  in  Elam,  on  the  borders  of  Babylonia  and  on  the  banks  of  the 
Tigris.  It  was  captured  at  the  same  time  as  Shamauna.  Ashurb&nipal 
had  to  retake  it  in  his  seventh  campaign.  In  No.  295  we  have  a  letter 
from  the  king  to  the  people  of  this  land  of  RAshu,  reminding  them 
of  his  kindness  to  the  Elamites  in  the  time  of  famine  and  his  continued 
friendship  for  them,  but  complaining  of  their  bad  faith,  and  ui^ng  the 
Sishai  to  be  staunch  friends.  So  we  might  go  through  letter  aAer  letter 
reconstructing  the  history  of  many  a  small  town  or  state. 

Occasionally  we  meet  with  some  welcome  hints  as  to  internal  politics. 
Thus  No.  870,  from  a  writer  whose  name  we  can  no  longer  decipher,  but 
one  who  must  have  been  highly  placed,  uses  a  plainness  of  speech  truly 
remarkable  when  addressed  to  an  Oriental  despot.  It  opens  with  the 
startling  words :  '  that  which  is  not  done  in  heaven,  the  king  my  lord, 
has  done  for  his  part  on  earth,  or  allowed  to  be  done.  Thou  hast 
thrown  a  veil  (?)  upon  the  face  of  thy  son  (the  writer  ?).  Thou  hast 
committed  to  him  the  kingdom  of  Assyria,  thy  eldest  son  thou  hast  set 
in  the  kingdom  of  Babylon.'  After  a  considerable  lacuna  the  writer 
goes  on  to  say  that '  what  the  king  my  lord  has  done  to  the  kings  his 
sons  is  not  good  for  Assyria.  Ashur  has  given  thee,  the  king  my  lord, 
from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  setting  of  the  sun ;  let  him  look  upon 
these  thy  sons  with  favour  and  may  he  rejoice  thy  heart.  May  the  king 
my  lord  dismiss  from  his  mind  that  counsel  which  is  not  good '.  Unfor- 
tunately the  rest  of  the  letter  conveys  no  connected  sense ;  but  it  is 
evident  that  the  writer  bitterly  resented  the  king's  new  policy.  Now 
which  king  was  this?  One  naturally  thinks  at  once  of  Esarhaddon. 
We  know  that  he  made  his  sons  Ashurb^ipal  and  Shamash-shum-uktn 


630        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

kings  of  Assyria  and  of  Babylon  respectively ;  and  Ihat  in  his  own 
lifetime.  Further,  wc  know  that  for  some  reason  the  nobles  of  Assyrii 
oflended  him  and  that  in  B.C.  669  he  put  many  of  them  to  death.  If 
we  assodale  this  letter  with  these  events  we  must  suppose  tt  to  be 
addressed  to  Esarhaddon.  That  would  necessitate  our  concluding  that 
Shamash-shum-uktn  was  really  AshurbSni[)ars  elder  brother  and  thit 
Esarhaddon  passed  him  over  in  favour  of  his  younger  brother.  The 
writer  seems  to  regard  the  selection  of  the  eldest  son  for  the  throne  of 
Babylon  as  a  slight  to  Assyria.  Did  he  regard  it  as  a  step  towards 
making  Babylon  the  metropolis?  Esarhaddon  may  have  meant  ihit, 
and  afterwards  have  subordinated  the  elder  to  the  younger  in  order 
to  appease  the  disaffected  nobles  of  jVssyria.  Or  this  stroke  of  policy 
may  have  been  due  to  ihc  great  queen- mother,  ?^kAiu,  mother  of 
Esarhaddon,  who  on  his  death,  together  with  Shamash-shum-ukln,  and 
the  nobles  of  Assyria,  proclaimed  Ashurbdnipal  as  the  rightful  kin;  oi 
Assyria.  Was  this  adhesion  of  Shamash-shuraukln  to  this  policy  an 
abdication  of  his  birthright  ?  If  so,  his  disastrous  rebellion  twenty  yean 
later  against  his  brother  may  have  been  an  attempt  to  resume  his  lathers 
policy.  Wc  do  know  that  he  was  only  titular  king  of  Babylon  while  he 
fiither  lived,  and  did  not  take  up  his  position  there  till  some  time  after 
AshurMnipal  began  to  reign  in  Assyria.  Ksarhaddon's  death  on  his 
way  to  Eg)'pt  may  have  been  a  result  of  the  disaffection  caused  bjf 
his  new  policy,  and  the  Assyrian  nobles  may  hare  kept  Shamash-shum- 
uktn  in  Assyria  because  they  doubled  his  intentions.  It  would  ail  6t 
together  very  well,  but  we  have  hitherto  been  accustomed  to  r^ard 
AshurbSnipal  as  the  eldest  son.  He  is  named  first  in  a  letter  to 
Esarhaddon  which  seems  to  give  the  list  of  that  king's  family  in  Ofdef 
of  seniority  (No.  113).  There  Ashurb^ipal  is  called  eldest  son,  and 
the  third  child  named  is  a  daughter,  Sh^rua-eftrat,  who  is  elsewhere 
called  eldest  duughter  of  Esarhaddon  (No.  308).  Then  follow  the 
names  of  two  more  sons.  Shamash-shum-ukin  is  second  in  this  li< 
of  five  children.  So  loo  in  my  Assyrian  Dttds  and  DommentSt  No.  970, 
the  same  order  is  given,  and  in  a  dozen  other  places  Ashutbii^l 
seems  to  be  the  eldest. 

Now  Sennacherib  had  placed  his  eldest  son,  Ashurnidinshura,  on 
the  throne  of  Babylon  during  his  lifetime,  while  he  destined  1  yout^er 
son,  Esarhaddon,  for  the  throne  of  Assyria.  Could  the  writer  of  dia 
letter  have  forgotten  that  exttmple  when  he  wrote  that  such  a  thing  'was 
not  done  in  heaven'?  One  can  hardly  think  sa  Still,  Esarhaddon 
was  probably  not  called  king  of  Assyria  lilt  after  his  elder  tmrtber  was 
dead.  The  difficulty  may  be  got  over  by  supposing  that  .Ashurbinipal 
and  Sliamash-shum-ukln  were  really  twins,  but  that  one  party  daiiaed 
the  status  of  eldest  son  for  Shamash  shumukln.     Ashurbfinipal  con- 


REVIEWS  63tX 

tinualljr  calls  ShanuLsh-shum-uktn  his  ta/imu,  a  word  that  has  been  a 
great  puzzle.  Delitzsch  renders  it '  twin ',  Lehmana  ebet^&riiger  Brueler, 
Meyer  '  illegitimate  brother ',  &c. ;  it  may  be  merely  a  term  of  affection, 
something  like  '  own  brother '.  Can  it  be  that  Esarhaddon  originally 
meant  Ashurbdnipal,  really  the  elder  brother,  to  be  king  of  Babylon, 
and  Shamash-shum-uktn  to  be  hts  successor  in  Assyria  ?  He  may  have 
been  forced  to  reverse  that  policy  by  his  nobles  and  this  letter  may 
voice  the  discontent 

Another  most  interesting  reference  to  ancient  history  occurs  in 
Na  873.  The  writer's  name  has  perished  and  we  can  only  conjecture 
to  which  king  he  wrote.  Evidently  that  king  had  the  tastes  of  an  anti- 
quary, for  the  writer  prides  himself  on  having  presented  to  his  royal 
master  an  ancient  letter  written  in  Aramaic,  egirtu  Armiti,  which  had 
been  given  to  him  by  one  Kabtt,  a  scribe  and  once  servant  of  Ashur- 
diin-apH,  son  of  Shalmaneser.  Now  we  know  that  in  b,c.  837  Ashur- 
diin-apli,  son  of  Shalmaneser  II,  rebelled  against  his  father  and  suc- 
ceeded in  holding  the  greater  part  of  the  empire  for  some  years.  This 
must  have  been  Kabtt's  master,  for  the  writer  says  that  Kabtt  told  him 
'the  letter  concerned  the  rebel,  btl  ^ttV.  Hence  we  may  conclude 
that  the  Aramaic  script  was  used  for  letters  at  least  as  early  as  b.c.  833, 
when  Ashur-diUn-apli  was  slain  by  his  brother  Shamshi-adad.  The  two 
lives,  Kabtf  s  and  the  writer's,  can  hardly  be  made  to  cover  more  than 
a  century,  and  the  royal  antiquary  can  hardly  be  later  than  b.c  700. 

As  an  example  of  curiosities  in  language  we  may  note  No.  771.  Here 
BSIikbi  and  the  people  of  Gambulu,  writing  to  the  king,  address  him  as 
bilumni  where  we  usually  have  bilini^  'our  lord '.  Was  this  from  a  pecu- 
liarity of  the  Gambulu  speech,  or  is  it  a  scribe's  blunder  ?  They  say 
further,  kalH  mitAiu  an1nt\  'dead  dogs  were  we',  but  the  king  has 
restored  them  to  life,  and  iim  baidtu  ana  nafftrini  iltakan  '  has  given 
the  breath  of  life  to  our  nostrils '.  There  are  many  other  peculiarities 
in  this  and  other  letters  which  will  interest  philologists  for  some  time 
to  come. 

A  contribution  to  the  elucidation  of  the  ideographic  writing,  so 
frequent  in  the  long  proper  names,  is  made  by  No.  775.  Here  the 
writer,  NabA-Hbn-niS£Su,  is  clearly  the  same  as  the  Nabft-r£m-£-J?/who 
wrote  No.  140.  There  and  in  Na  777  he  is  associated  with  Salamu 
and  they  both  use  the  same  style  of  address.  Each  letter  refers  to 
Elamite  affairs.  The  city  Dunni-shamash,  named  in  No.  775,  is  i^ced 
by  Sargon's  inscriptions  in  the  land  of  Rishu,  on  the  borders  of  Elam. 
The  writer  seems  to  have  lived  in  Dfiri,  or  Dtlrili,  also  on  the  Elamite 
border.  This  identi6cation  shews  that  ERI  is  an  ideographic  writing 
for  m?/,  'people'.  We  already  knew  that  it  stood  for  an/«, ' servant \ 
and  n^ruy  perhaps  'person*.    Thus  gradually  knowledge  accumulates 


633         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

and  obscurities  depart.    Again,  No.  295  shews  that  to  the  other  nlutt 
of  the  sign  NE  may  now  be  added  fik. 

It  would  be  easy  to  continue  to  point  out  the  many  other  gems  which 
this  volume  contains.  NabQa's  letter?  arc  of  great  interest  for  the 
calendar,  recording  many  observations  of  eclipses,  but  we  must  not 
trespass  further.  Of  errors  we  have  noticed  very  few.  It  is,  of  coarse; 
im^iossible  without  the  favour  of  the  Museum  authorities  to  ascertiia 
wliccher  these  are  due  to  the  original  scribe  or  to  the  learned  copyist 
It  may  be  of  service  to  the  reader  to  point  these  out,  and  they  will  no 
doubt  be  corrected  in  the  editor's  notes,  or  at  least  assigned  to  their  true 
source.  On  p.  873,  rev.  3,  the  first  sign  as  printed  is  not  Tec<^nizable; 
p.  S26,  rev.  6,  the  first  sign  should  be  am  not  kar;  p.  838,  line  19, 
i^arb^ie  is  for  ina  Aarl-H/e,  but  such  an  omission  of  mi  is  not  wilfaout 
parallel ;  p.  845,  rev.  3,  the  archaic  sign  for  '  god  '  is  surely  not  on  the 
original ;  p.  877,  obv.  9,  rev.  9,  the  kind  of  wood  mentioned  should  be 
Surman  not  AUurman ;  in  rev.  7,  the  official  title  is  surely  rai  SE-GAR, 
not  AS'SE-GAJf  as  given.  The  sign  which  follows  the  determinattfC 
of  wooden  objects  on  p.  876,  obv.  6  and  rev.  9,  is  Brilnnow's  No.  419Z, 
and  forms  the  subject  of  K.  4257,  col.  1, 11.  33-47-  On  p.  891,  L  15, 
the  liisl  sign  should  be  completed  to  hi.  On  p.  907, 1.  9,  atmi  is  more 
probable  than  alfu-as.  According  to  No.  381,  obv.  ai,  the  last  sign  but 
one  of  No.  789,  obv.  7,  should  be  f  not  si.  A  comparison  with  ibe 
earlier  volumes  makes  many  more  restorations  possible  than  those  given 
by  Professor  Harper.  On  the  whole  this  is  an  error  on  the  rigta  side, 
for  a  wrong  restoration  is  often  cause  of  more  trouble  than  an  obscure 
iacuna.  No.  793  is  almost  a  duplicate  of  No.  2S3,  though  one  is 
addressed  to  the  king,  the  other  to  the  Rabshakeh.  Yet  the  use  of 
either  to  restore  the  other  must  be  made  with  great  care. 

A  fruitful  source  of  obscurities  is  the  detestable  habit,  in  which  some 
copyists  have  indulged  themselves,  of  scratching  the  tablets  with  a  pifl, 
or  pen,  or  knife,  in  order  to  remove  the  hard  incrustation  due  to  long 
burial  in  the  earth.  This  incrustation  of  '  siUca ',  or  *  bitumen ',  often 
renders  the  characters  illegible,  but  it  can  be  removed  scientifically  asil 
then  proves  to  have  been  an  invaluable  preservative  of  them.  Afier  itt 
removal  the  signs  ap[icar  as  sharp  as  on  Iht;  day  when  they  were  firs 
inscribed.  Many  of  the  tablets  have  been  beautifully  cleaned  and  lU 
might  be  so.  It  is  difficult  to  trace  the  culprits  who  thus  damage  taMeis; 
but  the  widespread  occurrence  of  their  depredations  makes  it  doubtM 
whether  the  habit  is  a  failing  of  more  than  one  or  two.  I*robabIy  ooly 
one  man  alive  has  handled  them  all,  and  it  would  be  interesting  to  knov 
in  what  state  he  found  and  left  them.  Now,  whoever  finds  such  traces 
can  only  say  he  has  had  a  predecessor. 


I 


REVIEWS  633 

Die  Xeiigim  Bafyioniens  und  Assyriens,  Professor  M.  Jastrow,  Jnr. 
(Giessen :  A.  TOpelmann,  1902-1904.  First  7  parts.  Band  L 
pp.  55a) 

Seven  years  ago  Prof  M.  Jastrow,  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
published  what  was  at  once  recognized  as  the  best  history  of  Bal^lonian 
religion  {The  Religion  of  Baiylonia  and  Assyriei,  Ginn  &  Co.,  Boston 
U.S.A.  1898).  The  best,  because  the  most  closely  wedded  to  facts 
and  furnished  with  invaluable  references  to  the  sources.  A  competent 
Assyriologist,  a  student  of  Comparative  Religion  (since  author  of  7^ 
S/udy  0/  Jie/igtoH,  W.  Scott,  London,  igoi),  Librarian  in  a  thoroughly 
equipped  modem  library,  he  had  every  qualification  for  producing  good 
work  on  the  subject  His  own  personal  qualities  of  industry,  accuracy, 
and  method  were  guided  by  an  eminently  sane  judgement  What  he 
did  then  will  always  remain  a  fine  piece  of  work. 

Seven  years,  however,  is  a  long  time  in  Assyriological  research  ;  little 
short  of  a  hundred  important  works  have  appeared,  bearing  on  the 
religious  life  of  Babylonia.  Some  of  them  have  greatly  increased  our 
knowledge  of  the  sources  and  naturally  modified  details  or  enlarged 
whole  sections.  A  new  edition  was  urgently  needed  to  embody  new 
material,  and  no  one  could  be  so  competent  to  estimate  the  value  of 
fresh  results  as  he  who  had  done  so  much  for  the  earlier  known  facts. 
The  better  to  meet  the  wants  of  students  this  work  is  being  issued  in 
instalments.  The  firet  volume  includes  such  valuable  introductory 
matter  as  a  short  sketch  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  history,  an  excel- 
lent concise  account  of  the  discovery  and  decipherment  of  the  cuneiform 
inscriptions,  and  a  programme  of  the  sources  and  method  of  research 
to  be  followed  in  the  work.  Then  tliere  comes  an  admirable  account 
of  the  Pantheon  arranged  in  four  strata ;  the  ancient  pantheon,  that  of 
the  united  empire,  the  Assyrian,  and  the  later  Babylonian.  The  next 
great  section  deals  with  religious  literature  as  far  as  the  incantations, 
prayers,  and  hymns. 

There  is  not  extant  any  native  treatise  dealing  formally  with  the 
subject  of  religion,  and,  in  default  of  such  a  guide,  the  labour  involved 
in  collecting  from  scattered  sources  the  materials  for  this  work  must 
have  been  enormous.  The  new  edition  is,  however,  far  from  being 
merely  an  enlarged  text  with  insertions  and  excursuses.  So  far  as  it 
goes  it  is  a  triumph  of  classification  and  arrangement.  It  is  singularly 
free  from  the  fault  so  easy  to  commit  of  piling  up  references  and  quota- 
tions till  each  page  becomes  as  wearisome  to  read  as  a  dictionary.  Not 
only  is  it  free  from  cuneiform  type  but  also  from  the  disfigurement  of 
Arabic,  Hebrew,  Ethiopic,  or  Syriac  type  which  spoils  so  many  learned 
works.     Any  one  can  make  out  the  meaning  of  what  is  printed. 

Naturally  many  questions  are  discussed  on  which  a  final  pronounce- 


fi34         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

nient  cannot  lj«  expected  for  years  to  come.  Some  vital  points  tokj 
never  be  really  settled.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  materiil,  often 
bewildering  in  its  profusion,  yet  coraes  from  widely  distant  localities,  at 
wide  intervals  of  time.  Thus  the  cult  of  a  particular  god  may  be  abun- 
dantly illustrated  in  early  limes,  entirely  unattested  for  a  thousand  yean 
or  more,  and  then  appear  in  full  vigour  again.  Nevertheless  this  may 
be  iw  revival  but  only  the  result  of  the  fact  that  we  arc  without  evideoce 
for  the  interval.  Exploration  has  not  been  carried  out  thoroughly  on 
more  than  one  or  two  sites.  The  connecting  links  still  lie  buried  in  the 
soil  and  it  may  he  centuries  before  they  are  discovered. 

A  marked  feature  of  the  discussion  of  the  Babylonian  Pantheon  is  the 
frequency  with  which  one  god  is  found  to  be  an  Erstfuinung  of  another 
god.  Either  he  owed  his  distinguishing  name  to  a  local  cult,  or  souk 
asfiect  of  his  character  gradually  b>ecamc  more  |iramincnt.  A  compara- 
tively small  extension  of  what  seems  to  be  proved  for  a  very  large 
number  of  cases  would  jtistify  us  in  saying  that  the  Babylonians  wor- 
shipped one  god  in  a  multiplicity  of  persons.  Ttic  discussion  has 
a  distinct  value  for  the  appreciation  of  what  personality  was  to  the 
ancients.  Recalling  their  significant  use  of  the  name  as  implying  and 
fixing  the  power  and  destiny  of  its  bearer  we  may  ask :  '  In  what  con- 
sisted the  personal  identity  of  a  god?'  Was  he  a  different  god  when 
worshipped  under  another  name,  or  was  there  but  one  god  worshipped 
by  many  names?  That  the  gods  were  not  unanimous  was  implied,  we 
may  suppose,  by  their  oppositions,  e.g.  by  their  divided  counsels  in  the 
deluge  story.  Yet  the  composite  nature  of  that  poem  may  be  the  reil 
explanation  of  the  ap[)arent  discord.  It  might  seem  impossible  10 
suppose  that  gods  were  originally  one  with  goddesses.  Sex  seems  an 
impassable  barrier  to  identification.  Yet  nothing  is  more  certain  than 
that  gods  became  goddesses  in  time.  Whether  they  were  always  mile 
and  female  we  cannot  say,  because  our  earliest  evidence  must  be 
thousands  of  years  later  than  the  first  gods.  As  wc  sec  the  evidenot 
preserved,  either  a  new  name,  no  uncommon  event,  conferred  a  fresh 
personaltty,  which  might  lead  Co  difTcrencc  of  opinion  with  the  old;  or 
we  have  to  do  with  a  gradual  corruption  of  original  identity. 

Most  instructive  In  this  aspect  is  the  character  of  Ashur,  the  god 
of  the  city  Asshur,  then  the  national  god  of  Assyria.  He  appears  to 
have  been  destitute  of  the  usual  features  of  a  nature  god.  Ashur  was 
not  worshipped  in  one  place  only,  but  wherever  the  Ass)Tian  power 
became  dominant  there  he  was  supreme.  His  worshippers  readily  did 
sacrifice  to  other  gods  in  other  lands,  but  he  remained  supreme  wherever 
they  became  masters,  He  was  a  moveable  god,  symbolized  by  the 
standard  carried  into  battle.  Fierce,  terrible,  cruel  to  his  foes,  yet  be 
was  '  the  good  god '  to  his  own.   Like  all  the  Babylonian  gods  he  shares 


REVIEWS  ^ 

in  that  estimable  feature,  which  characterizes  almost  the  whole  cuneif(»in 
literature,  the  absence  of  lewd  and  disgusting  traits.  These  old  gods  are 
eminently  respectable  beside  the  classical  deities. 

Of  &r-reaching  importance  for  ethical  studies  is  the  list  of  sins. 
True  they  were  regarded  as  likely  to  bring  on  disease,  and  in  every 
sickness  the  first  question  was  '  What  is  the  sin  ? '  True,  the  disease 
and  the  sin  also  could  be  removed  by  magical  rites  associated  with 
prayer.  But  the  character  of  sin  is  the  key  to  the  ethical  system. 
There  is  a  very  fine  morality  inculcated  even  in  professedly  magical 
rites :  and  most  beautiful  prayers  are  mingled  with  grotesque  exorcisms. 
Possession  by  devils  was  firmly  believed  in,  but  there  are  sane  attempts 
at  medical  treatment ;  and  surgical  skill  was  by  no  means  contemptible. 
It  was  apparently  a  chaos  of  incompattbles,  yet  there  was  much  that 
was  noble  and  worthy  to  survive.  The  prayers  and  hymns  are  a  most 
striking  feature  of  the  religious  literature.  Professor  Jastrow  has  given 
excellent  renderings  of  them,  and  every  page  shews  improvements  on 
his  predecessors.  One  only  wonders,  at  times,  whether  the  ancient 
Babylonian  meant  by  bis  words  what  the  modem  translation  can  mean 
to  us.    If  so,  surely  he  too  was  not  far  from  God. 

C  H.  W.  Johns. 


636         THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO 
THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


(t)  Emcusii. 

Church  Quarierfy  JitvifW,  April  n)0$  (Vol  Ix,  No.  119: 
woodc  &  Co.).    Church  Reform:  II  The  laaease  of  the 
(continued)— Cowper's  letters— The  tninslators  of  the  Welsh  Bible—' 
Ferdinand  Fabre— The  Fourth  Gospel  I— Matter— Mr  C.  H.  Tnnei^ 
edition  of  the  Nicene  Creed  and  Canons — Romanism,  Catholidan,  and 
the  Concordat —Short  Notices^  Index  of  Articles  to  vols,  i-lix. 

TVie  I/i&ier/  Journal^  April  1905  (Vol.  iu.  No.  3;  Willkmi  Is. 
Norgate).  The  Bishop  of  Kipon  The  Education  of  a  Minister  of 
God — Hrnkv  Jones  Mr  Balfour  as  Sophist — W.  H.  Maux>ck  The 
Crux  of  Theism— F.  W.  Orde-Ward  The  Lord  is  a  Man  of  War— 
H.  W,  Gakrod  Christian.  Greek,  or  Goth? — C  F.  Nolloth  The 
Resurrection  of  our  Lord  and  recent  criiicisin — W.  R,  Sobley  The 
knowledge  of  good— R-  H.  Charles  The  Testaments  of  the  »i  Patri- 
archs— '  RoHANus*  The  historical  Jesus  and  the  Christ  of  experience — 
M.  A.  R.  TuKER  The  Religion  of  Rome :  Classical  and  Christian— 
I^iscussions — Reviews— Bibliography  of  recent  literature. 

The  Jewish  Quarterly  Hwiew,  April  1905  (Vol.  xrii,  Na  67  :  Mac* 
millan  &  Co.).  I.  Zangwii.i.  Mr  Lucicn  Wolf  on  ilie  'Zionist  Peril' — 
I.  Abrahams  An  eighth-century  Genizah  document  {wt/h /aaimiie) — 
H.  HiRSCHF£u>  The  .Arabic  portion  of  the  Cairo  Genizah  at  Cam- 
bridge (9th  art.)— S.  Daiches  Ezekit:!  and  the  Babylonian  account 
of  ihc  IJeluge  (Notes  on  Kiek.  xiv  i2-3o)^H.  Ixewe  Some  Talmudic 
fragments  from  the  Cairo  Genizah  in  the  British  Museum— R  S 
Lewis  Maimonidcs  on  Superstition— G.  H.  Skipwith  The  God  of 
Sinai  and  Jerusalem — M.  N.  Adler  The  Itinerary  of  Benjamin  of 
Tudela  (continued) — M.  J-  Marc.oi.is  The  Mendelssohnian  Progianimc 
— M.  Steinschn EIDER  Allgcmeini:  Einlcitung  in  die  jiidische  Literatur 
des  Mittclalters  (concluded)— W.  Bacher  The  Talmudical  panicle 
13i>in,  and  Note  to/.  Q.  R.  xvii  279— L.  Belleli  The  High  Priest's 
Procession— I.  Abrahams  The  High  Priest's  Procession  and  the  Utiuj; 
— Critical  Notices — Bibliograi>hy  of  Hebraica  and  Judaica. 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES    637 

7%«  Expositor,  April  1905  (Sixth  Series,  No.  64:  Hodder  &  Stough- 
ton).  C.  A.  Briggs  Loisy  and  his  critics  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church— A.  R,  Gordon  Wellhausen— W.  H.  Behn£tt  The  Life  of 
Christ  according  to  St  Mark — G.  Jackson  The  passive  virtues  in  the 
ethical  teaching  of  St  Paul — ^W.  M.  Ramsay  The  early  Christian  symbol 
of  the  open  Book — G.  A.  Smith  Jerusalem  from  Rehoboam  to  Heze- 
kiah. 

May  1905  (Sixth  Series,  No.  65).  J.  M,  Robertson  The 
poverty  of  Christ — A.  Carr  The  eclectic  use  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
the  New  Testament — J.  H.  Bernard  The  transformation  of  the  Seed — 
G.  Jackson  The  intellectual  virtues  in  the  ethical  teaching  of  St  Paul 
— G.  A.  Smith  Jerusalem  from  Rehoboam  to  Hezekiah — J.  Moffatt 
Literary  illustrations  of  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

June  1905  (Sbcth  Series^  No.  66).  W.  M.  Ramsay  The  worship 
of  the  Virgin  Mary  at  Ephesus — S.  L  Curtiss  Survivals  of  ancient 
Semitic  religion  in  Syrian  centres — V,  Bartlet  More  words  on  the 
Epistle  to  Hebrews — H.  H.  B.  Ayles  Our  Lord's  refutation  of  the 
Sadducees — N.  J.  D.  White  The  presence  of  Christ  in  His  Church 
— G.  Jackson  The  ethics  of  controversy  in  the  teaching  of  St  Paul — 
J.  Moffatt  Literary  illustrations  of  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

(3)  American. 

The  American  Journal  of  TAeo/ogy,  April  1905  (Vol.  ix,  No.  2: 
Chic^;o  University  Press).  E.  D.  Burton  The  present  problems  of 
New  Testament  study — J.  A.  Bewer  The  literary  problems  of  the 
Balaam  story  in  Numbers  xxii-xxiv — J,  M.  Whiton  The  God-con- 
sciousness of  Jesus — N.  S.  Burton  Fatherhood  and  Forgiveness — 
F.  M.  Schiele  Hamack's  '  Frobabilia '  concerning  the  address  and  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews— T.  F.  Fotheringham  'The 
Offering  *  or  the  eucharistic  office  of  the  Celtic  Church — T.  K.  Cheyne 
An  appeal  for  the  reconsideration  of  some  testing  biblical  passages — 
Recent  Theological  Literature. 

TAe  Princeton  Theoiogicai  Review,  April  1905  (Vol.  iii,  No.  2: 
Philadelphia,  MacCalla  &  Ca).  A.  H.  Kellogg  The  Incarnation  and 
other  worlds — E.  C.  Richardson  Oral  traditions,  libraries,  and  the 
Hexateuch — B.  B.  Warfield  William  Miller  Paxton— R.  D.  Wilson 
Royal  Titles  in  Antiquity:  an  essay  in  criticism  (4th  art.) — E.  D.  Miller 
Professor  Royce's  Idealism — J.  O.  Boyd  Critical  Note  ;  an  undesigned 
coincidence — Recent  Literature. 

{3)  French  and  Belgian. 

Reoue  Binidietine,  April  1905  (Vol.  xxii,  No.  2  :  Abbaye  de  Mared- 
sous).    F.  Cabsol    La  messe  de  Flacius  Illyricus — G.  MoRiN    Un 


638         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

ccrivain  inconnu  du  xi"  siecic,  Walter,  moine  de  Ilonnecourt,  puis  dc 
VtJzelay — R.  Froost  L'idcalismc  dc  Kant  ct  dc  Descartes — R.  Ancbl 
La  question  de  Siennc  ct  la  politique  du  cardinal  Cario  Carafa  (wrtf)— 
A.  Clement  Conrad  d'Urach— S.  Haidacker  NUus-Exzerpte  fan 
Pandektes  des  Antiochus — B.  Lkbbe  Dc  rinerrance  de  la  Bible— 
F,  UruHEAU  L'abbaye  de  Fonlevrault  (1790) — G.  Mollat  Pierre  Ber- 
suire,  cbarabrier  de  N.-D.  de  CuuIombs—BibliogTaphJe. 

Retmt  Bibiique^  April  1905  (Nouvelle  s^rie,  3^  ann^  No.  2:  Puis, 
V.  Lecoffre).  Communications  de  la  commission  pontificalc  pour  Its 
<^tudes  bibliqucs — A.  Van  Hoonacker  Notes  d'cx^^c  sur  quelqoes 
passages  difltciles  d'Amos — Lagrange  Le  Messianisrae  dans  les 
psaumea — Hwernat  I*  langage  de  la  Massorc— Melanges :  A.  Jaus- 
SEN,  R.  Savignac,  H.  Vincf.ni  'Abdeh;  H.  Vincent  Unc  anticfaajsbre 
du  palais  de  Salomon — Chronique :  Lagrange  Deux  busies  palmare- 
nicns;  H.  V.  Lcs  fouiUes  en  Palestine — Recensions — Bulletin. 

Revue  d'Histoirt  tt  de  lltt'eraturt  Religieusts,  March-April  1905 
(VoL  X,  No.  2  :  Paris,  74,  Boulevard  Suint-Gennatn).  A.  L.01SV  La 
mission  des  disciples — P.  Lejav  LerdiethtelogiquedeCcsaircd'Arles; 
i"^  article :  Th^ologie  speculative :  I.'opuscuie  sur  la  Trinite,  Doctrines 
de  Cisaire,  Syraboles  de  Cesaire^P.  Le;av  Notes  bibliographiques  sur 
Cfeaire d'Arles — I*  he  iji  VAi.i.feE  Poussin  Rcligionsdel'Inde:  Cowel, 
Lc  NySyakusumafljali  ct  le  th^isme  philosophique,  lcs  fiha.ktisutra&  ct  la 
devotion  krsna'ite. 

May-June  1905  (Vol.  x,  No.  3).  P.  Lrjav  Le  r61e  thcologique 
de  C^saired'Arles;  a*article:  Le  ptkh^  originel  etla  grice:  L'opuscule 
sur  la  grAcc,  Lc  sermon  sur  Tcndurcissement  du  Pharaon,  La  doctxine 
Sparse  dans  lcs  sermons,  La  Icttre  d'Anastase  II,  Le  condle  de  Valenoei 
Le  concile  d'Orange — A.  Bouuinhon  Note  sur  le  concile  d'Hippone 
dc  427 — A.  Loisv  i^  mission  des  disciples;  2*  article — P.  Lejav 
Ancicnne  philotogie  chrt:tienne:  Ouvragcs  g^n^raux  ct  ouvtagcs  d'en- 
sembte(i897-i904);  IV  Histoiredesdogmes  (jtfi/f);  VAvantNicie— 
j.  Dalbret  Utterature  leligieuse  moderne. 

Revue  d'Histoirt  Ecclisioitique^  April  1905  (VoL  vi.  No.  a  :  Locvain, 
40,  Rue  de  Namur).  J.  Warichkz  Le  Pasteur  d'Hermas  :  un  nouveau 
manuscrit  de  I'ancienne  version  latine — L.  Saltkt  Les  sources  de 
r  "E/xivMrrv!  de  Thiodoret  (i  j««w)— P.  de  Puniet  Les  trois  homilies 
cat^chctiques  du  sacramenuire  gelasien  pour  la  tradition  des  ^vangiles, 
du  symbolc  et  de  Foraison  dominicale  {suite  et  fin) — G.  Mollat  Lts 
doleances  du  clerg^  de  Li  province  de  Sens  au  concile  dc  Vienne  ( 1 3 1 1  - 
1312)— G.  MoRiN  De  la  besogne  pour  les  jeunes :  sujcts  de  travaux 
sur  la  liti&aturc  latine  du  moyen  Age — Comptcs  rcndus— Chronique— 
Bibliographic. 


1 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES    699 

H^vue  ie  rOrient  CMtien^  January  1905  (Vol  x,  No.  i ;  Paris, 
A.  Picard  et  fik).  J.  B.  Rebours  Quelques  manuscrits  de  musique 
byzantine  (/«)— Fr.  Tournebizb  Histoire  politique  et  religieuse  de 
I'Ann^ie  («!>)— L.  Clugnet  Vie  et  ricita  d'anachor^tes — D.  P.  de 
Meester  Le  dogme  de  Tinunacul^  conception  et  la  doctrine  de 
r£gtise  grecque  {suite) — P.  Girard  Sivas,  huit  sifecles  d'histoire— 
S.  Vailh^  Chrysippe,  prttre  de  Jerusalem — F.  Nau  Le  Congrbs  inter- 
national des  Orientalistes — Bibliographie. 

Analecta  BolIandian<t,  January  1905  (Vol.  xxiv,  No.  i :  Brussels, 
14,  Rue  des  Ursulines).  A.  Poncelet  Les  Saints  de  Micy — L.  Du- 
chesne Sur  la  tnuulation  de  S.  Austremoine — Bulletin  des  publications 
hagiogtaphiques. 

(4)  German. 

Zeitschrift  fur  TTIuoUgie  und  KircAe,  June  1905  (VoL  xr,  Na  3 : 
Tiibingen,  J.  C.  B.  Mohr).    F.  Niebergall  Die  modeme  Predigt 

Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschafiliche  Theohgie,  April  1905  (Vol.  xlviii, 
No.  3  :  Leipzig,  O.  R.  Reisland).  A.  Dorner  Eine  neue  griechische 
Dogmatik— J.  Cullen  Das  Urdeuteronomium — J.  Draseke  Psellos 
und  seine  Anklageschrifl  gegen  den  Patriarchen  Michael  Kerullarios : 
Art  X — A.  HiLGENFBLD  Das  Urchristentum  und  Ernst  von  Dobschiitz : 
Art.  I — Anzeigen:  A.  Bolliger,Z?«/«M^e  Uckter:  Gott,  Frdheitt  Unsterh- 
iickkeit  (G.  Graue)  ;  S.  E.  Lampros  Ncoc  *EAAi;vo/un7ptfv  (J.  Draseke)  ; 
R.  A.  Hoffmann  Das  Mareus-EvangeUum  und  seine  Queilen  (A.  H.)— 
Bekanntmachung  der  K.  Schwarz-Stiftung. 

Zeitschrift  fur  die  mutestamentiiche  Wissenschaft  und  die  Kunde  des 
Urchristentums,  April  1905  (Vol.  vi,  No.  2:  Gtessen,  A.  TOpelmann). 
R.  Kabisch  Die  Entstehungszeit  der  Apokalypse  Mose — H.  Gressmanh 
Studien  zum  syrischen  Tetraevangelium  11 — B.  W.  Bacon  The  Markan 
theory  of  Demonic  recognition  of  the  Christ — S.  A.  Fries  Was  bedeutet 
der  Fiirst  der  Welt  in  Job.  xii  31 ;  xiv  30;  xvi  11  ? — W.  Bousset  Bei- 
trage  zur  Achikarl^ende — H.  Vollmer  '  Der  KOnig  mit  der  Domen- 
krone ' — Eb.  Nestle  tJber  Zacharias  in  Matt,  xxiii — W.  Backer  Cena 
pura — W.  Bacher  Ein  Name  des  Sonntags  im  Talmud— R.  Reitzen- 
STEiN  Ein  Zitat  aus  den  Aoyux  Iitctou — G.  Klein  Matt,  vi  2. 

Theolfigische  Quartalsckrift^  June  1905  (Vol.  Ixxxvii,  No.  3 : 
Tiibingen,  H.  Laupp).  Vetter  Das  Buch  Tobias  und  die  Achikar- 
Sage — Stolz  Didymus,  Ambrosius,  Hieronymus — SagmUller  Die 
formelle  Seite  der  Neukodifikation  des  kanonischen  Rechts— Rauscheh 
Die  I^hre  des  hi.  Hilarius  von  Poitiers  iiber  die  I^densfahigkeit 
Christi — Rezensionen. 


e^a        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

Thfologischf  Studien  und  Kriiiken,  April  1905  (1905,  No.  3: 
F,  A.  Perthes).    Rotksteih  Amos  und  seine  Stellung  innerhalb 
israelitiscben   Prophetismus — Preuschek    Zur  Lebensgeschictite 
Origenes— Clkmien  Melanchthoniana — Brrrig  Aklcn  zur  Refonnatif 
gcschichtc   in  Coburg — Traub    Zur  dogmatischen    Mcthodenlefai 
Jaspis  Zur  Krklarung  der  Schriftstellen  Exod.  iii  ai,  i^\   l^^\  •m\ 
36 — Pl.\th   Der  neuteslameiuUche  Weheruf  iibet   Jerusalem — Hi 
MiJLLER  Noch  einnial  'Saltrament  und  Symbol  im  Urchristentum'- 
Rezcnsioncn. 

Zeiischrift fur  Kirchengeschichte,  April  1905  (Vol.  xxvi.  No-  i  : 
F.  A.  Perthes).    Eroes    Das  syrische  Martyrologium  und  der 
nachtsfestkreis  [Sihtua) — Dietterle  Die  summae  confessonim  (I. 
&A/i/jj)— Clemen  Die  Elbogener  Rircheoordnung  von    1522 — .' 
lekten. 

Neue  kireh/uhf  Zd/sfhrt/ty  June  1905  (Vol.  xvi,  No.  6  :  ErUngen 
Leipzig,  A.  Deichert).  T.  Zahn  Neuc  Funde  aus  der  alien  Kii 
Hashagek  Der  Kultus  der  GoUtn  Vemunit  in  der  ersten  franz 
Revolution  i^Sihiuis) — W.  Caspar!  Die  literargeschichtliche 
dcr  ersten  christlichcn  Dichter — Bokhoff  Die  Gebclscrhdrung 
/egio  fuhninatrix,  Geschichte  Oder  Legcndc  ? — Meusel  War  die 
jawislische  Religion  Israels  Ahncnkultus  ?  £in  Oberblick  ubci 
Geschichte  dieses  Problems. 


he  yournal 

Theological  Studies 

PUBLISHED  QUARTERLY 


Vol.  VI 


OCrOMER,   1904 


No.  21 


I 


CONTRNTS 

ROBERT  CAMPBELL  MOBERLY.    By  W.  H.  MonuiLV       

THE    DEMtTS    OK    EARLY    MOHAMMEDANS    RLSPECTING    A 

FUTURE   EXISTENCE.     By  A-  A.   Bkvam     

THE  INSPIRATION  OF  THE  LITURGY.     By  F.  Grwcir    

THE  DOIK  OF  THE  DEAD.     By  G.  St.  ClaJR 

DOCUMENTS: 

Aw     UsK.-OWH    FhAOMItNT    or    Ttm    ratUDO-AuGt/STIHIAH    QM<U3tiOHH 
yetrm  tt  tfo-i  TrsJammH,    By  A.  Souteb 

KOITS  AND  STUDIES: 

Tkk  O1.0   Latib  Texts  or  the  Minor  PworHETs.    V.     By  tbc  Rev. 

W.  O.  E.Ow.TMi.tv,  B.D 

Tm  LrrTMS  or  Saikt  Isiwjbe  or  Pclusiuh.    By  C.  H.  TuRinm ... 
Recsxt    Woxx    oh    EuTKALtOft.     By  the   Very    Rev.   J.   Auhitauk 

R0MK8ON.  D.D.      ...        ,, ^. 

The  Palestinian  Svriac  Lectiokabv.     By  F.  C  Bunstrr      

FnorMs    nv    LiTvn<iiCAL    Lsctioks    ahi>    Gospels.      By    Uic    Rkv. 

P.   H.   DjtOotTtN       

Baptism  by  ArrusioNiNTKEEARLYCiitTRCH.    Ry  thcKsv.  C.  F.  Roucna 

The  EryMOLocv  or  DARTHotoNtw.     By  tt.   Ihttz  

'Po«nU5  Pilat*'  IX  711E  Creed.     By  ihc  Rev.  T.  H.  Biweuv.  D.D. 
The  OuiRCK-CirATioKs  in  Crauer's  Catena  dm  t  CoriMtJiimu,     By 

the  Rev,  C.  Jenkins 

TiiE  'Ac.Tio  ON  St  Paul's  Vovace.     By  the  Riv.  J.  R.  MadaN 
Mark    the    '  Curt-Fincerxd'    Evakceli»t.     By    lite   Rkv.    Vernok 

Baktlet        

REVIEWS  T 

Tm  Come  Acts  of  Paul  (Carl  Sch>iidt\     By  W.  E.  Cruj* 
Selsctioks   fmum   tiie    Ejtkratuiik  or   Theism   (A.   Caldkcott   and 

H    R.  MackiktoshI.     By  C.  C.  J.  Wran      

Tfir.  £i«>Li&H  CnuNtu   rftOM   the  Accemiom  or  CnARir*  1  to  tiu 

Deaih  or  Anne  (W.  H.  HutiunV     By  Ibe  R«v.  E.  W.  Watson... 
Actus  Beati   Francibci   et  Socioruh  iiu»  ^H.  SABAnitR),     By  the 

Rev.  W.  H.  Munofi         

EfcHotouiA  (A.  DjiitbiivseijV     By  F.  C.  Convbeare  

The  Eaaly  History  oj  Tut  Loons  Sopper  (.Dbj  AUtittnut/il  m  Am 

twri  tratnt  Jahrhumitritn  imdi  CArisfMi.     A.  AmdirsbkJ.     By  llie 

Rev.  J.  H.  Sbawlev.  B.D.  ...        

MiicELLANKA.   By  ihc  Rcv.  J.  H- Srawlev  ud  E.  W.  M.  O.  DC  u  Hcv 

ONICLE; 
New  Tcstamext  (.W.  Lock.  A-  E.  Brooke,  G.  A,  Cookc,  W.  C  ALUMt 
A.  S.  Baknu.  W.  E.  Barnes,  J.  F.  Betmune-Baker) 

RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


81 


70 

<7 
SI 

u» 
107 
no 
112 

113 
110 

121 

125 
128 
ISO 
ISi 


inn 

i;i8 


HI 


tloittion 
MACMILLAN     ANIJ     CO.,     LIMITED 

N&W  VORR:  TUE  UACUIUAH  CO. 


Ube  6uacbi 


THE  GUARDIAN  is  a  Weekly  Jouraa 
Education,  and  the  Fine  Arts,  for  C 
women,  dealing  with  the  Kcclesiastical  ai 
sides  of  social  and  industrial  activity.  M 
Political  Subjects  are  treated  from  a  defi 
its  Correspondence  columns  arc  open  to 
Special  reports  arc  given  of  all  importadj 
the  Church  and  Education.  1 

The  GUARDIAN  is  issued  every  Wednesdav  at  1 
and  is  supplied  regularly,  post-free,  direct  from  the 
in  adi'tmceonly,  at  —  per  f^udrter  ( 13  nuinbers),5J.9^ 
7^.  bd. ;  per  Year  (53  numbers),  15/.  To  Suucribi 
It  may  also  be  obtained  from  any  Newsagent. 

AdvcitiKtnoits  »b(inld  leacti  the  OG^  sot  Ut«E  Ua 

tnciit  tniist  be  moidc  in  ndvAncc  rn  iKr  followinc  Scale gM 

Thrt*  Xilaei  and  Under         ...         ,H 

■▼•IT  iLdditlonal  Lis*  ...         .X 

On  an  aventKe  font  wordj  may  be  reckoned  for  the  fin 
,  line  aftetwud* ;  but  AdTcitisemcut*  are  char([«d  sccurdio 

In  all  cases  whrrc  replies  to  arlnrtUemcntt  ue  to  1: 
nddiltonal  chirgc  of  6d.  ji  inAdo  on  each  iDscrtioo. 

Notices  of  Testimonials  Biclh^  M.itmgefl,  mid  ' 
two  IJiKt,  and  a  Shilling  for  cvrry  mlditioiinl  line. 

All  UtUrt  rtsptding  Adxftrtistmtnt!  cmd  Suhurif 
*Tkc  QUfcrdlm'  OOoe,  5  Batlaicb  BttMt,  Btnjid.ll 
on  ihe  Post  Office.  Southnmpton  Street,  Ktranil,  tSonM  1 
Orders  i.nd  Che<inei  to  \jq  ciossed  '  Loadon  and  Cc 

TeUgrams—'^OBxiAata,  London.* 


0. 

Oe^ll 


COMMITTEE  OF  Dli 

Rev.  Dr.  Ixce,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oi 
Rev.  Dr.  Swete,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  I 
Rev.  Dr.  Driver,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Rev.  Dr.  Bigg,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastic 
Rev.  Dr.  Barnes,  Hulsean  Professor  of  DiNnnili 
F.  C.  Bl-rkitt,  Lecturer  in  Palaeography,  Carol 
Rev.  Dr.  Headlam,  Principal  of  King's  College, 

Rev.  Dr.  Kirkpatrick,  The  Lady  Margaret**' 

bridge.  S 

Rev.  Dr.  Lock,  Dean  Ireland's  Professor  of  fli 

Rev.  Dr.  Mason,  Master  of  Pembroke  College,  i 

Very  Rev,  Dr.  J,  Armitage  Robinson,  Dean  of  V 
Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev,  Dr.  Sanday,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  1 

Rev.  Dr.  Stakton,  Ely  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cl 

Very  Rev.  Dr.  Strong,  Dean  of  Christ  Churcli, 

C.  W.  TtntNER,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College, 


1 


EDITORS: 
Rev.  J.  F-  Uctwuwt-ftwi.tT.^Vttrt&T^iYtt.'OiNiK^, 
Rev.  F.  E.  TiRiouiiujR,Wat'^a\cttQ.Q\\«%<i,CiiS 


The  yournal 


of 


Ideological  Studies 


PUBLISHED  QUARTERLY 


_Yoi.  VI 


JANUARY,  1905 


No.  22 


rilE    ORIGIN    or    THE    AARONITE 
Riv.   R.  II.   Kknkxtt      


CONTENTS 

PRIESTHOOD. 


By  the 


lei 


lb! 


sot 


2i; 


^SUGGESTIONS  ON  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING 
H  TO  ST  MATTHEW.    By  the  Vsrv  Rbv.  Mcr.  A.  S.  Barkcs  ... 

"the    HISTORICAL    SETTING    OF   THE    SECOND    AND   THIRD 
EPISTLES  OF  ST  JOHN.     By  ihc  Kiv.  Vkmnom  BARtLST 

NOTES  AND  STUDIES: 

The  Oud  Latix  Trxts  or  tub  Minor  Psopuns.    ArrKMDtx.    By  the 
Rtv.  W.  O.  E.  OcsTCRLEV,  B.D 

The    Pc&iitTTA   VittnoN   or   2    Ktinsa.      By  llic   Rbv.   W.    Eniitv 
Bahhw,  D.D 2-JO 

Rhythm  im  thi  Book  op  Wisdom.     By  H.  Sr  J.  Tuackcr-w      ...      232 

Non  ON  Ut.  XX  3,1  AKD  Hx.  X  40.    By  the  Riv.  BLOHrisLD  Jackson  ,.      237 

TiiK  ORibtKAi.    Hans   or   CooEX  Clakomoniakus   (D  *'**'''-}.     By 
A.  SouTER 340 

A  NoTK  OH  TIIK  Acta  Pauli.    By  H.  R,  Jahbs,  LULD 241 

Pnol£GOHCHA  to  ths  TVsAWiomm  or  Saikt  Ctfriah.    By  C  H.  TuRNtu      S4ti 

Further  Notes  on  the  MSS  or  Imoork  or  Peluuuh.    By  the 
Rev.  K.  Lake         2?tf 

Note*  raoH  Coshas  iKOicorLCuaTEs.    By  £.  O.  Wirismr 2t)i 

(REVIEWS  : 

The  Srnuc  PsALTtm  {Tht  Ptihilla  Paatttr atan^ing  to  tht  tVtsi  Syrian 
UM.    Dr  Barkis^    By  F.CBureitt  U* 

Recent  AssrstoLocy.    By  Uie  Rev.  C.  H.  W.  Johwb  ...        ...      MO 

;hronicle  : 

AMTRioL'tiT.    By  the  Rev.  C.  H.  W.  Joitw    «,       2M 

Uturc.ca.    By  the  lUv,  F.  E.  Brichtman      ...       ...        2M 

^RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES      «1« 


NDON  :  PUBLISHED  BY  HENRY  FROWDE,  AMEN  CORNER,  E.C 
OXFORD:  PRINTED  AT  THE  UNIVERSn^*  PRESS 


Wm  3»,  6d.  net    Annual. SabacrlpUou,  ^o^V^t^fc, 


COMMITTEE  OF  DJUECTJON: 

Rev.  Dr.  Ikce,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swete,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  DtttvER,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dn.  BicG,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  OxTord. 

Rev.  Dr.  Barkes,  Hulsean  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

F.  C.  BuRKtTT,  Lecturer  in  Palaeography,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hcaduui,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

Rev.  Dr.  Kirkpatrick,  The  Lady  Margaret's  Reader  in  Divinity,  Carn^ 

bridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Lock,  Dean  Ireland's  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Masoh,  Master  of  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge. 

Very  Rev.  Dr.J.Armitagk  Robkcsoi*.  Dean  of  Westminster:  late  Norrisran 
Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Sakoay,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  5TA^^^oN,  Ely  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Very  Rev.  Dr.  Stromg,  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

C.  H.  Turn£r,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 

EDITORS: 


Rev.  J.  F.  Bethune-Barcr,  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge. 
Rev.  F.  E,  Brightmak,  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 


OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

THE   PARALLEL   PSALTER:   being  the  Prayer- 

Book  Version  of  the  Psalms  and  a  New  Version  arranged  on  opposite 
pages,  wiih  an  introduction  and  glossaries   by  S.  R.  Dsit^R,   D.D, 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  University  of  Oxford.     Secoi 
cdiiion,  fcap.  8vo,  35.  (kl,  net. 

NOUUM    TESTAMENTUM    DOMINI    N05TRI 

IF.su  CHRISTI  Latine,  secundum  Editioncm  Sancti  Hieionjnii. 
Ad  Codkura  Manuscriptonim  fidcra  rccensuil  I.  Wordsworth.  Epi- 
scopus  Sarishuriensis ;  in  opens  socieiatem  adsumco  H.  I.  White,  A.M. 
4to.  Part  I  (Fasc.  I-V),  buclcram,  £2  las.  6d,  (Also  separately,  Fast-. 
I,  I3S.  6d.;  II,  7S.  6d.;  Ill,i3s.6d.;  IV,  ios.6d.;  V,  los.  6d.) 
Fasc.  VI,  I3S.  6d. 

ECCLESIAE    OCCIDENTALIS    MONUMENTA 

lURIS  ANTIQUIS-SIMA :  Canonum  «  Concilionim  Graecorum 
Intcrpreiationes  Latinae.  Hdidii  Ci/thbcrtls  H.  Tiknsr,  A.M.  410, 
stiff  covers.    Fasc.  1,  pars  I,  los.  6d.;  Fasc.  1,  pars  II,  21s. 

THE  COPTIC  VERSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 

MENT,  in  the  Northern  Dialect,  otherwise  called  Memphiiic  and 
Bohairic.  E<ti(ed,  wiih  introduction,  critical  apparatus,  and  English 
translation,  by  G.  F.  Horner.  8vo.  4  Vols.  Vols.  I  and  II,  The  Gospels, 
£2  2S.  net.  Vol.  Ill,  The  F.i)isiles  of  St  Paul,  and  Vol.  IV,  The 
Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

SACRED  SITES  OF  THE  GOSPELS,  with  sixty- 

three  fu!I-pagc  illustrations,  maps,  and  plans.  Uy  W.  Sasdat.  IXI),, 
Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Oxford,  with  the 
assiiitance  of  Pavl  WAXXaHoysi,  R.A.    gvo,  i3S.6d.  net. 

THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  SACRA- 
MENTS AND  OTHER  RITES  OF  THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH, 
together  with  the  Greek  Riles  of  Baptism  and  Epiphany,  edited  from  the 
oldest  MSS.,  by  F.  C.  Conybeare.  M.A.,  and  THE  EAST  SYRIAN 
EPIPHANY  RITES,  translated  byA- J.Maclkan,  D.D.  [Immediately. 

EARLY  PATRISTIC  QUOTATIONS  FROM  THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT.    By  A.  J.  Cablilk,  M.A,  and  others. 

[Immediately. 

FACSIMILES  OF  THE  ATHOS  FRAGMENTS  OF 

CODEX  H  OF^  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES,  photographed  and 
deciphered  by  Kirsopp  Lake,  M.A.,  Professor  of  New  Testament 
Exegesis  in  the  University  of  Leiden.  [Immediately. 

EUSEBII  CHRONICORUM  LIBER:  reproduced  in 

CoIloty{«,  with  introduction  by  J.  K.  Fotkxrincham,  M.A.  [Immediately. 

LONDON:  HENRY  FROWDE,  AMEN  CORNER.  E.C. 
And  at  EsutBLROH,  Glasgow,  Oxford,  Nxw  Yore  and  Tokoktq. 


Cambridge  University  Press. 

EVANGELXON  DA  MEPHARRESHE :  the  Curetonfan  Version  nf  ihc 

Four  GoiprU,  with  tbe   Kcatlinn  of  the  Sioai  PalimpMM  uid  ibe  Ea-' 
I'aimlic  Ewlewe.     Filited.  Collected,  and  Atrai));cd  1^  t.  CbawfuuU   I 
M.A.,  LFni>c«il»  lecturer  trj  P&Incoenipbr.     Crown  ^to,  i  voU^  43/,  tuf;  u(  m^xt- 
■tcly,  Vol.  I,  Tfxt,  ji/.  W.  w/;  Vol.  11,  Introduction  mad  Not«,  au.  "rf. 

NICETA  OF  REMESIANA:  hi&  Life  ami  Works.    By  A.  E.  Burn.  DJ5., 

Trini'.y  Cullc);c,  (luiilMtilg'r,  Rector  of  llsodiwonb  axid  Prctwfidntjr  of    l.kli^«UI, 
iMumining  Cfanplnin  10  the  Lonl  bisliop  ol  l^chrielit    Cvown  8va,  ^  «r/. 

CAMBRIDGE  GRFEK  TESTAMENT  FOR  SCHOOI5  AND  COLLEGES. 
NliW  VOLUME. 
(Icnenl  Filitor :  F.  H.  Cha&k,  D.D.,  Noniuju  Piolnsoi  of  tKviait>-. 
THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE   THESSALONIANS.     Edited   by   llie 
Ki-v.  (iioKCK   G.   I'lHULAY,   D  I).,  I'lafiuor  of  Mew   Tc«l4ioeat   LuEOBgc  uid 
j.licnturc  XI  the   WcfJcyan   College,  Hadlxtgley,    Wlib  Ma[j,  JnUoduction,  maA 
Nulei.    ^. 

Eitmct  from  the  Eiitoi's  I'reCacc :  '  Thii  is  »il<st»iilinlly  r  new  work,  dni|riici]  (or  tbe 
Greek  Tc«lauicnt  iiutWnt  av  the  iiieviooi  volume  from  the  same  luuid.  in  th«  C*nbrid«e 
Uiblc  lot  Schools  snd  CollcKCt  0^9t)i  *""  wiittca  for  the  stiKleiit  of  the  Er^uh  Utblc*^ 

CAMBRIDGE  PATRISTIC  TEXTS.— NEW  VOLUME. 
General  E<1iior:  A,  J.  Mason,  D.n. 

THE  LETTERS  AND  OTHER  REMAINS  OF  DIONYSIUS   OF 

ALEXANDRIA.    hj'Mcd  by  Charlbs  Lbtt  Kei.tob,  IJ.D.,  someilrnf:  Tdloo  wf 
Cianr  CuUegc,  Caiiibriil(;r.    CrowB  8vo,  fs.  (td.  ntt. 

Lokdok:  Cambbiooe  Univrrsitv  Prkss  Wauxkousi,  Ave  Maria  Ljxk. 
C.  r.  CLAV,  Manager. 


tlbe  (3uacMajL 

Witt  wbich  la  ittoorporntefl  '  Cbc  Clnitcbvponun. 


L 


THE  GUARDIA'N  is  n  Weckl)-  Journal  of  I»oIiiics,  Lileratwe. Education, 
and  the  Fine  Arts,  for  Churclimcn  and  Ctiurcbwomcn,  dealing  wiih  tbe 
FcclesiaMical  and  many  of  the  mctilar  sides  of  social  and  initus(ri.it  acltvitr. 
WliiUi  l-'cclfsiasiical  and  Polidcal  Subjectt  are  treated  from  a  dcfiiiiif  "' 
slandpoini,  its  Conesiioiidence  columns  are  ojwn  lo  all  aludca  of  1  , 
Special  reports  are  given  of  all  important  mailera  connecled  \i\\h  the  Ciiurcii 
and  F.diiCiition. 

TIieGi'AkDiAs  is  issued  every  Wednesday  at  i  p-m..  price  >/.,  by  ;-- 
and  is  supplied  regularly,  post-frcc,  direct  from  the  office,  lo  &ul)«cribci_ 
/«a<'ft'*i«fi-tf«A',  at -per  Quarter  (13  numbers), 3^.91/.;  perHaIf-year*s6nuinhcj3j, 
fs.  (id. ;  per  Year  (52  numbers),  15*.     To  Subscribers  abroad  — 17^.  per  annum. 
It  tnay  also  be  obliiinnj  fioiti  .-my  Newsagent. 

Advctitionrids  thoiild  icoLb  the  OfTice  XMt  UMr  Ibaa  11  R.m.  o«  Tn«*d»y,  paymcst 
Winu  jn»(!e  in  advance  «ii  the  fuUow iut;  Scale*: — 

Clkkical  ani>  DiiMRSMC  AiiVEKTiSF.MKNTS,  ^E.  Curacita  Vacani  and  WKitcrt, 
IXMHim  TCT-.;ncie«,  (to,  \Vymca'»  Work,  Govcnitste^  aixl  Senranti — 8S.  84-  for  TwttiE)- 
Kvcn  \Votd»  and  uii<)ef-,  luid  fld.  fo(  evrry  additional  Li^hl  Woidi  ami  luwlcr. 

OTiieit  AnVKRTiSF.HKKTs:  Three  Liiks  and  under,  48. ;  evrry  AitdiiJonal  Uii«.  ML 

On  nn  arerage  four  worns  may  be  reckoned  for  the  furt  line,  an.l  H|;ht  words  for  dCb 
Sine  nftcrwaiiit ;  but  Adverli»cini-i)ts  nrc  char);rd  avximliiig  lu  space  oocuptcd. 

Ill  all  cases  wbrre  irpljes  to  advertisements  ntc  to  be  furwnidcil  tiuin  tlir  OfCe*  aji 
addiliunil  clurRe  of  fld.  is  made  ou  each  iuierltOD. 

Noticet  of  TeitmiuuiaK  Hirths,  Marriages,  nnd  Deatlis  are  ii-*etleO  al  3a.  Ad.  each  br 
two  lines,  awl  a  .Sliilling  fnr  crery  additioftsl  line. 

AU  lftitr$  rei/vrtin;;  AchertitsmtnU  imd  Sttf'Mrif'lfOtu  ikouiJ  b«  mtdrfttH  Pnbnabvr, 
'Tha  On^tdlKu' OflLc*,  &%m\«Vg'^U\i«v^,&\TVbd, W.O.    Mnvey  And  1 
on  the  I*u»l  I  tff,cc,houV\i\m;.\«>nS\iefc\,'fiVTW.^,-Ai':iAi\*it».fc.<;-:iNvy««i  1 
Orders  nnd  Clieqrcs  to  V*  aowcA' UJ^«aMl^OJ^.a^•i'ftMi^,Uw«JLV-.^..v.. 


^^»m4^ta.i 


-*  <A.  UMmnm  V«^..Ov>.*v. b, \\^.««^^. 


urn. 


Theological  Studies 


Vol.  VI 


PUBLISHED  OUARTERLV 

APRIU   1905 


No.  23 


CONTENTS 

THE  LAUSIAC  HISTORY  OF  PALLADIUS.     By  C.  H.  TuMm      '^    S2I 

THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  THE  HEBREWS.     By  ihc  Vmv  R»v. 

H<,«.  A.  S.  Bankis V      ...       3M 

DOCUMENTS: 

CoDu  TAUHtKKKSt*  (Y).    Bf  ihe  Rev.  W.  O.  E.  OEsrERLCT,  B.U,      s;3 

NOTT-S  AND  STUDIES: 

Tnc  HnnicAL  Ehdimqs  or  rut  Lkomimi  SAOuuinrTAKT  II.    B5  Ifae 

Rkv.  H.  A.  Wilsom  Ml 

The  Enmjt  or  St  Juot :  a  Studv  in  iuk  MAncostAW  Hkiusv.    By 

the  Rev.  T.  Barkb  S91 

Notts  om  tmk  DiuAaiK  HI.    Bj  the  Rsv.  C.  BiGO,  D.D. 411 

NoTss    OM  -iHK    GospcL   AocoBDtMO    TO   St   Johk.       By  the   Rtv, 

W.  Lock,  D.D 41B 

The  HtAMiNC  or  the  Lutdsn  Grakco-Dimotic  PAmttn  Akast.  6^ 

By  J.  OE  ZwAAM 418 

Tr<  Uohahhkoam  'GoanL  or  Barnabas'.     By  th«  Riv.  LoiisiiAtc 

Raco 4S4 

Notes  on  T«r  D*  Laptv  yi'gim*  or  Nicxta.     By  A.  Soutkk  ...       4M 

Lucas  OR  Lucamus?    By  tbe  Rk¥.  G.  Mercati,  D.D.  4Sfi 

Tin  Cox  in  c  Cahrrioge  Septuacdit:    a  Plsa   ron  *  Pure  Tut. 

By  Sib  H.  H.  Howorth  (36 

Tai  MiRACLZ  or  Cama.    By  tbe  Rkv.  W.  Spicir  Wood     4U 

REVIEWS: 

EcCtESIAE    OcCIDtKTALIB    HoNUMEKTA     lURIS    AKnQUUBtHA     (C     H. 

TORHER).     By  J.   B.  BoRV  ...         439 

Das  rorckhlXiidikiie  HtlxcHTVH  (3.  Schiwietz).     By  Dom  E.  C 

BcTttP 448 

De  TtNoniKO  1  NBrroRJAXOHiiM  Patriakcka  (Hisroxthub  Larourt). 

By  H.  L.  Pam        440 

Zwfi  Gnostische   Htmmer   (£.    PrkusckenI.    By  the    Riv.   A.  S. 

Dl'kcak  Jones         ... 44S 

L'ArRiQCE  CHRtnidKE  (H.  Leclxkcq).     By  the  Riv.  E.  W.  Watsok      4(1 
Idfjms   or   SctiMcx  akd   Faith   i.ed.   T.   E.   Hand),    By   thfe    Rxv. 

F.  R.  TcMHAKr        „ 46S 

A  FoLrRTTENTii-CiNTURy  Fnousii  Bislical  Veruon  (A.  C.  Pauks). 

By  the  Rev-.  J.  H.  Luptom,  D.D 4fi6 

CHRONICLE: 

Old  Testameht.     By  th«    Rev.  W.    E«bry  Bahres,  D.D.,  and  the 

Rev.  C.  F,  BfR?rev  .,  481 

Philosophy  or   Rkliciok,   AroLocKrics,  akd   noMiimca.    By  the 

Rev.  F,  R.  Tinxaxt,  Dr.  Bicc,  axo  othcrs A'^ 

RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES      477 


.ONDON  :  PUBLISHED  BY  HENRY  FROWDE,  A.WE.N  CO^V.?.^^!:- 
OXFORD:  PRINTED  AT  TV\t  \JS\Vt.W.SWi  V*.\5>'=> 


y^B-K,      <n«..   Tkl 


SOME  OF 

WILLIAMS&NORGATFS  PUBLICATION! 


Jiist  Kcaily,   Demy  fivo,  clolh,   l8j,  ncL       Tost  five,   iSj.  firf, 

THE  STATUTES  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

The  faitbnto  unedited  Ethlopic  and  Arabic  Tots,  edited  with  u  Inlradsctiaa  and  TransUtiwa 
of  the  ElhiopJc,  Arabic,  and  Cof:tic  Tcxt».    By  Rcr.  G.  HoBwaa.  MjV. 
With  an  Appksdix  (a  reuolly  disccmtcd  Vanaot  of  tbe  Coptic  TeaO* 

TBS  S»*TnTB5  or  TBt  Apobti*s'  coonitAl (he  ApotMlieCliareh  Order,  tlw  Borptian  CtwrcfcOnWn 
mmi  tbe dglrih  booW  ot  the  ApcHtoUc Coa>lil«tkma,  irantUltJ /rvm  f** BlkU^,  Aratic,  »mdS»Jditvmiimmt, 
wilbtlieEthiopi'^  ui:l  Atabic  luu  i^>1ii«l  for  iIk  firx  tim&  la  che  Kihioptc  vmioa  wIU  bcfaaod  dM^tfVM 
I  iDrm  of  the  EacKuil.  an  e>ir»ct  From  th?  Uiduhe,  and  tbe  Didukaltk.  arnMhw  wWi  the  Latla  renhm.  7W 
wibwinc*  orUicv  udent  nlea  and  tMlnictlcMu  ■>(  the  CbriMiaa  Cluuaw*  Am  at  IcmC  froa  tk»  JmrA 
amtury,  tboMch  ibe earliest  manaicnpt,  vie.  tiK  Saidic,  li  not  MrfierllrtiilbtcaHhceoUirj. 

^111*  wotk  i«  Kood ...  We  con|jatuUt«  Ur.  Homer  on  hii  leaned  and  ■errleeablc  worlt.*—  Tlu  i 
i>R.  abolf  harn'ack's  1-ate.st  work. 
Now  Rcadjr,  Vol.  I,  Demy  8vo,  cloth,  loj,  6rf.    Vol.  II  Id  the  Press. 
I      THE  EXPANSION  OF  CHRISTIANITY  IN  THE 
■  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES. 

ii-j  Adolf  IIarn-ad:,  Piofeswi  of  Church  Hlstoiy  in  the  Univenity  of  Derlln,  and  Member 
the  Kojal  Pn)«!aii  Academy.  Tnuulated  and  edited  by  Jauis  MfiFFATT.  Ii.D.,D.D.  [Sl  Aoi  ' 

'On  tbe  valvr  ftf  MCh  a  work  by  mcb  n  ■rriter.  It  i»  •carcely  neceanfjr  to  enUrfc-      Ad  faailJKf  vbli 

PrafevKn  Harn^ck's  mnboj  cin«cl  hi*  ircstmeni  of  a  tbooe  like  (hii  tol«  nuulcriy,  and  their  PtprdatKM  ■ 

^—tfon  than  ita\,mii:-CJiri$iU»  World. 

^H  Demy  8*0,  elo4h,  101.  6a- 

■  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH. 

^^L   By  Kbnst  VOTJ  DoBSCtliirZ,  D.D,,  Prefcwor  of  New  Teunmcnt  ITicology  in  the  L'niTereity 

^^1  of  StiasbBTg. 

^^1    'IVofuMW  von  OoUchAta  liaa  app>rDache>]  tbe  Mbjed  tn  a  ipirii  of  tare  hiauwical  ceadnar  aad  o^ielMlT-' 

^H  Crown  8vo,  dolb,  sr. 

■  BIBLE  PROBLEMS  AND  THE  NEW  MATERIAL  FOR 

■  THEIR  SOLUTION. 

^^P  A  Pica  fer  iboroniilniess  of  Inrntij^tion.  addmsed  lo  Churchmen  and  Scholan. 

^■^  By  the  Rev.  Prot  T.  K.  ChfvWK.  DXitl..  Un. 

'Tlieinipartaat  qnei4tmuwhifhCananChr|rnei^>«c«<*Min  the  body  of  htaBany canaocbt       __    _ 

■iicpir  aaMQt-clorcitiBnifi;  lhc«*i'lonce  man  b?  ilnpd  and  •ntlihed.     I^non  Cbe-jriK  h*s  da«c  a  raaJ  aKvM 
ikf  remioiltn);  ui  once  more  ol  ihia  rlrmeniary  cnith  of  critic tMn.'—J/iaveAwirr  Gmdnittim, 

Ntjw  Rendy,  Crown  8vo.  i:loth,  V-  ^' 

THE  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  CONCEPTION  OF  CHRIST  i 

lu  Value  and  SignificaDce  in  the  Hi&tory  of  Religion. 
By  Otto  PrtatnEREti,  D.Il.,  Profc«or  of  Pmctical  Theolofiy  in  the  l/aivtrttty,  Berlin. 
'WhaiftrTBMy  b«  thcniilmatfl  verJltt,  Pflrldcirr'*  wmmnry  pnscnution  in  ih«M  pncea  deacnres  « < 
•tuijy  a*  a  (art  of  innnifcilo  of  llw  B'tvaiKCil  ThK>lii|[y  oTthr  (Uy.'— ^'•iWJMin. 

Now  Ready,  Demy  8vo,  clolh,  as.  neL 

THE  CANONS  OF  ATHANASIUS  OF  ALEXANDRIA 

In  Arabic,  Fthiopic,  and  Coptic 
Edited  uid  Translated  by  rro'essor  W.  Ruhkl  (Grie&wald)  and  W.  E.  Ceuh. 

Since  Ihe  leferences  of  Rrnaudol  and  Vsnatcb  (wo  centuries  ago,  thoe  IniportajU 
rbMi  itill  furin  part  ut  Uic  ccclcdutical  law  of  tbe  £p-,<tian  Church,  have  been  entirely  ignc 
Whetbrr  or  no  ihey  be  eventually  accepted  as  Ininlnd  directly  by  their  repaled  aMhor, 
ntiquiiy  and  iittrintic  Interest  jostifio  a  critical  editioo. 

In  the  I'rcas. 

A  RABBINIC  COMMENTARY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  J03, 

Contained  in  a  Unique  MS.  U  Cambridge. 
Edited,  w\t\tTta\it\a\\<»(  vAOvnvokeetOiX^.lit  W.  Aldis  Wkiout,  I.LD. 


* 


Williams  &  NoT^aXt,  v^\iVtxa«.V\a.^VEwX,\«^Aw^^K^ 


Published  by  T.  &  T.   CLARK,  Edinburgh, 


Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Christ.    By  Prof.  W.  Sanday.  D.D.. 

Oxford.     VVith  new  large  Map  of  Talestinc.     Post  8vo,  5.?.  nel. 

The  Bible:   its  Origin  and  Nature.     By  Prof.  Marcus 

DoDs.  D.D..  Edinburgh.     Post  8vo,  41.  W.  net. 

CO?n'EXTS.— The  Bible  and  other  Saciwl  Hooks— The  Canon— RevtUlioo—lMpimtioo— 
Innnlliblliljr  of  Scripmre — Tru»t worthiness  of  ihe  Closjicl*     MiracuIouB  Klcmeiii  in  Uie  Go^peli. 


. 


New  Volume  of 'THE  INTERNATIONAL  CRITICAL  COMMENTARY.' 

Amos  and   Hosea.      A  Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentary. 

By  President  W.  R.  Hahpkb,  Ph.D..  Cliicago  University.     Post  8vo,  lis. 

[Jufi  published. 

Christus  in  Ecclesia.  Sermons  by  Rev.  Hastings  Rashdall, 

D.Liti.,  Oxford.     Post  8vo,  is.  W.  net. 

Faith  and  Knowledge.    Sermons  by  Rev-  W.  R.  Inge,  D.D., 

Oxford.     Post  8vo,  4J.  6rf.  net. 

English  Church  History,  1575   1649.    From  the  Death  of 

Archbishop  Parker  to  tlie  Death  of  King  Charles  I.  Four  Lectures.  By  Rev. 
Alfred  Pli'mmkk,  D.D.,  late  Master  of  University  College,  Durham.  Crown 
8vo,  y.  net. 

The  Life  Everlasting.     Studies  in  the  Subject  of  the  Future. 
By  Rev.  Da%id  Purves.  D.D..  Belfast.     Crown  8vo,  41.  net. 

The  Christian  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.     By  Rev. 

R.  M.  Adamsox,  M.A.,  Ardrossan.     Square  Crown  8vo,  4^.  6</.  net. 

CONTKNTS.— Old  Tertament  B^nninga— In  the  New  Tealament— The  Early  hathert— 
The  Rise  of  the  Sacrificial  Itica— The  Greek  Church — Reformation  of  the  Doctrine — Constroctiw 
JCcatatemcnt — The  Loid'i  Sapper  in  the  Liturgies — In  Devotiomil  Literature — Practical  Atpecta 
of  the  Doctrine. 

Babylonian    and    Assyrian     Laws,    Contracts,    and 

Letters.    By  Rev.  C.  H.  W.  Johws,  M.A.,  Cambridge.   In  one  large  volume, 

lis.  nel. 

Thi«  i«  the  first  volume  of  a  new  scries  entitled  'The  Library  of  Andcnl  Tnuriplions,'  prepared 

bv  leading  ichoUr^  in  Euiope  add  America.    It  containa  a  fre»h  traiiclation  of  the  niready  famous 

Hsmmurabi  Code  and  the  pRritUel  luid  $u]ip1cmcnt!\l  legnl  and  contract  iiiateiinl.  with  original 

Studies  in  BabySonian  and  Assyrian  iRstitaltons,  residing  which  thu  Author  »  the  acknowledged 

authority. 

Dtiailsd  Proffiettvs  oftkt  Stritifrte  im  a^filkatiott. 


Selections  from  the  Literature  of  Theism.     Edited,  with 

Introductory  and  Explanatory  Notes,  by  Prof.  A.  Caldkcoit,  U.D.,  King's 
College,  London,  and  Prof.  H.  R.  Mackintosh,  D.Phil.,  Edinburgh.  In  post 
8vo,  IS.  ^d.  net.  

Norw  complete  in  FIVE  VOLUMES  (including  the  KXTRA  Volume  i«it  pobli«hed). 

Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

Published  price  per  volume — in  doth.  i^s. ;  in  dark  purple  haJf-morocco,  34J. 
Complete  Set*  may  abu  lie  luul  in  other  elegant  half-tnoiocco  bindings.    Prices  on  application. 
fuH  Froipttttu,  wiik  ipectauH  paffs,fru. 


EDINBURGH:    T.  A  T.  CLARK,  38  George  Street  ■ 

LONDON.-   S/MPKIN.  MARSHALL.  H^W\LTOV*,  V.tK\    «».  C.O.,VA&..  ■ 


Mr.  Fisher  Unwinds  New  Books 


SIBERIA:   a  Record  of  Travel,  Climbing,  and 

Exploration.  By  Samuel  Turner,  K.R.G.S.  With  loo 
Illustrations  and  3  Maps.     Demy  Hvo^  cloth,  us-  net. 

INTERNATIONAL    LAW   AND    THE    NORTH 

SEA  CRISIS,  By  F.  K.  Smith,  B.C.L..  Fellow  of  Merlon 
Collie,  Oxford,  and  Vincrian  Scholar  in  the  University  of 
Oxford;  and  N.  W.  Sibley.  LL.M.,Trin.  H.,  Cant.,  Bamstcr- 
at-Law.     Royal  8vo,  cloth,  lis.  net. 

RUSSIA  UNDER  THE  GREAT  SHADOW.    By 

LuiGI  VlLLAUI,  Author  of  'Giovanni  Segantini,' '  Italian  Life 
in  Town  and  Country,"  &c.  With  60  Illustrations.  Demy  8vo, 
cloth,  loj.  6(/.  net. 

THE  STORY  OF  MY  STRUGGLES.  The  Memoirs 

of  Akminuls  Vamukkv,  C.V.O.,  Professor  of  Oriental  Lan- 
guages in  the  University  of  Budapest.  With  Photogravure  and 
other  Illustrations.  2  vols.  Demy  8vo,  cloth.  Second  Impres- 
sion, 21s.  net. 

THE  AGE  OF  THE  EARTH,  and  other  Geologi- 
cal Studies.  By  W.  J.  SoLL.\s,  LL.D.,  D.Sc.  F.R.S..  Professor 
of  Geology  in  the  Univcreity  of  Oxford.  Illustrated.  DemySvo, 
cloth,  I  Of.  6(^. 

LADY  JEAN:  The  Romance  of  the  Great  Douglas 
Case.  By  Pkrcv  Fitzgerald,  F,S.A.  With  Photogravure 
Frontispiece,  and  la  other  Illustrations.     Demy  Kvo,  laj.  net 

THE  GOVERNANCE  OF  ENGLAND.     By  Sidney 

Low.     Second  Impiession.     js.  6ii.  net 

OLD  TIMES  AND  NEW.  By  Canon  Tetlev.  Second 
Impression,     ys.  6d.  net. 

IN  PERIL  OF  CHANGE.  Essays  Written  in  Time 

of  Tranquillity.  By  C.  F.  G.  Masi  ermak.  Fellow  of  Christ's 
College.  Cambridge,  Author  of 'From  the  Abyss,'  &c.    Crown 

8vo,  cloth.  6j-. 

ASTRONOMY  FOR    AMATEURS.     By  Camille 

Flammarion,  Author  of 'Lumen,' &c.  With  84  Illustrations,  6s. 

ENGLISH  WAYFARING  LIFE  IN  THE  MIDDLE 
AGES  (XIV  Century).  By  J.  J.  Jussekano.  Illustrated. 
Cheap  Fditlon.     Cloth,  is.  (>d.  net. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  FLORENCE  (for  the  First  Two 
Centuries).  By  Prof.  Villari.  Illustrated.  Cheap  edition. 
Cloth,  2J-.  f)d.  net. 

T.  FlSUtR  Vi^V^V^,  Va.VtT\v^s^^Kt  *5«,^iare. 


le  "Leading    Newspaper  for 
Churchmen  &  Churchwomen. 


With  which  is  incorporated  "CbC  CburCbWOmail.  J 


[tPECIAL  REPORTS 

(jf  all  [fnpnrtant  matters  connected  with  the  Church  and  Education. 
A  large  amount  of  space  is  devoted  to  lilcclcsiasticnl  and  many  of  the 
secular  sides  of  social  and  industrial  activity ;  also  to  the  Fine  Arts. 

tE  VIEWS 

of  Theological,  Historical,  and  Sdenlific  Works,  Fiction,  Travel,  &c 

CORRESPONDENCE  COLUMNS 

always  open  to  discussions  of  interest  and  value  to  Churchpeople. 

ALL  CHURCH  NEWS  OF  GENERAL  INTEREST. 


3'>- 


EVERY  WEDNESDAY. 


3D. 


Offices— BURLEIGH  STREET.  STRAND,  W,C. 


HE  INTERPRETER. 

6D.    THE  NEW  CHURCH  MONTHLY  MAGAZINE.     G"*- 


Popular  Articles  on  BibJIcal  Questions,  Archaeological  Discovery, 

Church  History,  Social  and  Missionary  Topics,  Christian 

Evidences;    Reviews,  and  Correspondence. 


SOME   CONTENTS  OF  APRIL   NUMBER. 
ristian  Wisdom  as  defined  by  St.  James.— Rev.  WALTER  LOCK,  D.D. 
Athan;isiua  of  Alexandria.— Rev.  W.  lilMEKV  Daknes,  D.D. 
The  Kcsurreciion  of  Jesits  Christ. — The  Kditor. 
Our  Lord's  Last  Days  on  Earth.— ROBERT  TaVIX)R,  M.A.,  tate  B.C.S. 
The  Growth  of  Creeds  (continued K—Kcv,  H.  D.  Lockett,  M.A. 
The  liiWkal  Story  of  Creiition,  II.— Rev.  S.  L.  Hrown,  H.A. 

Some  Hints  of  Teaching  the  Old  Testament.— Miss  Dorothea  Beale,  LL.D.,  Prin- 
cipal of  Ladies'  College,  Cheltenham. 


SIZ7SNCE  VET. 


Apply  at  Smjth'ii  BookstalEs;  S.  C.  Urowh,  Lakcham,  amd  Co.,  Ltd.,  47  Great  Riiiiscll 
Slrcci,  W.C. :  or  ilircct  to  the  Publishers,  Rodcer  amd  JohmmiiIj  '  latcrprBlcr '  Office, 
AltHncham,  Manchester, 


Prospcctases  tumt/rec  on  appUcalion. 

t4»S} 


Annual  Subscription,  Ss.,  poft^-frM. 


A   NEW  AND  IMPORTANT  WORK.      Large  crown 

THE    TABERNACLE 

Its  History  and  Structupo. 
By  the  Rer.  W.  SHAW  CALDECOTT, 

With  I^e&ce  by  FtofcsMt  SaYce.     With  M^p  utd  Ki^htceu  lUastntiaus  aod 

T/uCAitreA  7>H>unr*:— *lt  nkfartlliuit  pieorof  S'orfc,  ■nd  dnan  M  wrrpnl  painti  iboat  th«Ti 
whieli  wcrr  ptn-Jowlj  icry  plaoaic.     U  a  vay  Bifllliajt  chiplei  Ml.  Cftl'JvccKt  atbBOipta  to  Kfeatify 
tmifftt^  bra.  midfit  w*l]  oaimle  the  tnodpra  viilart  oiBi  KudHi.  near  Hebroa.  *kta  the  i<cr*  ^Ot  AS 
"SUBOal  Mlt  an  <!t*t  to  Ibf!  LotO  M  Kamsh  "    I(  Ihi*  virw  <■  BCcrptcl  ii  (rltlca  tin  loas^la^atfMl  I 
TTt^h      Bw  il  doci  mMc    It  ai  onoc  wvcdhronv  ibe  tlMary,  pat  tDrmtd  by  ihc  ausn*  tdMMl  at  T 
CrWa^  tli>ltkpiklaili«Miaecird«riih  ih«Mr>c(«r«aflb«TBb«rBar1i^  wprv  to*ei)I>o««b]rtbrpotf-r    "" 

ThoCHiBV  KabkI  k4yi:  — '1  can  well  viKlenlauJ  Ibe  in(ca«r  a{)pli<:ation  yov  have  £i*««  la  tk> 
obarnrc  nb^crt.' 

7*^  GttanfiaK  Mys :  — '  Ladd  LliiMrwtKmi  «m)  dtarraaH  acnmiwDy  ibc  tetutfttm^  «nd  ibc 
marked  by  that  1»l<liir«>  aa'l  mhunun  wbicb  rfwtild^cfawKtarin  all  ptottMr  aroik  ' 

THE  REUGIOUS  TRACT  SOCIETY,  LONDON. 


JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES. 


COMMITTEE  OF  DIRECTIOl^: 

Rev.  Dr.  Ihck,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swete,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Driver,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Bigg,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History*,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dk.  Barnks,  Hulscan  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

F.  C.  Burkitt,  Lecturer  in  Ptilaeography,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Headlam,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

Rev.  Dr.  Kikkpatrick,  The  Lady  Margaret's  Reader  in  Divinity^  Cam* 
bridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Loot,  Dean  Ireland's  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford, 

Rev.  Dr.  Masom,  Master  of  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge. 

Very  Rev.  DR.J.ARHn-AGE  RonmsoN,  Dean  of  Westminster ;  late  NorrisiaB 
Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dk,  Sanday,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stamtox,  Ely  Profcsaor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Very  Rev.  Dr.  Strong,  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

C.  H.  TuRNi^R,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 

EDITORS: 

Rev.  J.  F.  BETHUKt-^MtI.^,V^TO\iT«l>«;Q.<i^t%^,C«Bfia^i^jU 

Rev.  F.  E.  BBaGUT:M4»,^a«A^^'^^'>'^^^Vi'^^^*^^ 


HODDER  &  STOUGHTON'S 

PUBLICATIONS. 


I 


k 


PROFESSOR'S  RAMSAY'S  LATEST  WORK. 
THE  LETTERS  TO  THE  SEVEN  CnURCHES  OP  ASIA. 

AND  THEIR  PLACE  IN  THE  PLAN  OP  THE  APOCALYPSB.     By 

Professor  W.  M.  Ramsav,  D.C.Lt  LL.l).    With  numerous  Tlales  and  Illustratioos. 
8vo,  cloth,  izx. 

BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 

A     HISTORICAL     COMMENTARY     ON     ST.     PAUL'S 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  QALATIANS.     With  Maps.     8vo,  cloth,  Ilx. 

ST.  PAUL  THE  TRAVELLER  AND  THE  ROMAN 

CITIZEN.     Sixth  Kditiun.     Svo,  cloth,  with  Mnp,  lo-f.  SJ. 

THE  CHURCH   IN  THE    ROMAN   EMPIRE.    With  Maps 

aod  IUu&tr2tion!i.    Seventh  EditiuD.     Svo,  cloth,  12s.  ^ 

REV.  PROFESSOR  Q.  A.  SMITH'S  LATEST  WORK.  ^ 

THE  FORGIVENESS  OP  SINS.  AND  OTHER  SERMONS. 

Dy  the  Rev.  Professor  GEORGE  AliAM  SMITH,  D.D.,  LLU.    Crown  Svo,  doth,  dr, 
rr  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 

MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  PREACHING  OP  THE 

OI.D  TESTAUENT.    Yale  Lectures  on  Preoohlng.    Third  Hdilioo.    Crown 
8vo,  cloth,  6s. 

THE  HISTORICAL  GEOGRAPHY  OP  THE  HOLY  LAND. 

With  six   specially  prejjartd  M;ips.  Ailditiotis,  Corrections,  and   New  Index  o( 
Smpttire  References.     Eleventh  Edition.     Svo,  cloth.  15.;. 

THE  BOOK  OP  THE  TWELVE  PROPHETS  COMMONLY 

CALLED  THB  MINOR.     In  (wo  volumes.     Vol  I,  Teolh  t:diiioQ ;  Vol.  Ii; 
Seventh  Edition.     Crown  8vo,  doth,  7/.  6d.  each. 

HE  BOOK  OP  ISAIAH.     Vol.  I,  Sixteenth  Edition;  Vol.  11, 
Eleventh  Edition.    Crown  8vo,  71.  6</.  each. 


WORKS  BT  THE  REV.  PRINCIPAL  FAIRBAIRN. 
THE   PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION. 

By  the  Rev.  Prindp.tl  A.  M.  FairbaiRN,  M,A.,  V.U.,  LL.L).    Third  KdiEian. 
Demy  8vo,  doth,  12s. 

CATHOLICISM-ROMAN  AND  ANGLICAN.    Fifth  Edition. 

Crown  8\t\  doih,  7s.  6<f. 

THE  PLACE    OF  CHRIST    IN   MODERN    THEOLOGY. 

Tenth  Edition.     8vo,  cloth,  12s. 

THE  CITY  OF  GOD.    A  Series  of  Discussions  in  Religion. 

Scventli  EUiliou,     ii\o,  tioth,  Js.  61/. 

STUDIES  IN  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.    Twelfth  Edition.    Kvo, 
clMh,  9f.  _^ 

DR.  KENNEDT'S  LATEST  WORK. 

ST.  PAUL'S   CONCEPTIONS    OF  THE  LAST  THINGS. 

By  Rev.  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy,  M.A.,  D.Sc.    Second  Edition.    Crown  8vo,  doth, 
7J.  6</.  net.  

WORKS  BY  OR.  BREVILLE  MACOOMALD. 
THE  TREE  IN  THE  MIDST.    A  Contribution  to  the  Study  of 

Freedom,     by  GRtvii-LE  Maci>unald,  M.D.     10/.  M.  net. 

THE  RELIGIOUS  SENSE  IN  ITS  SCIENTIFIC  ASPECT. 

^  Second  Edition.    Illustrated,    jj.  &/. 


1 


HOOO£B  &  STOUGHTDN.  27  Pll^lM^Wn%.W«^V^'«W!^' 


J 


OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC 

FATHERS.  By  a  Committee  of  Uic  Oxrord  Soaeiy  of  liittorical 
Tli«oI(^y.     8vo,  cloih,  6s.  net. 

ECCLESIAE    OCCIDENTALIS    MONUMENTA 

lURIS  ANTIQUISSIMA:  Canonuro  ct  Concilionjni  Graeconin 
IntcrprctAtiones  Laiinae.  Kdidit  CVthikktus  H.  Tirbir.  A.M.  Fasc  I, 
Pars.  II,  Nicaenae  ConcUIi  Pnefaiiones  CapittiU  9)-mbo1um  Canooes. 
Demy  4I0,  stiff  covers,  £  i  is. 

Uiiiirljpvm^: — *  A  wotd  of  pnbe  »  due  to  the  perilecUf  deu  uni>£eaieat  of  tin 
copious  rriilenee,  in  wLlch  Mi.  Turner  hu  been  kblr  ucoaded  t^  tlte  Prett.  U  ii  doabt* 
faf  if  any  other  pren  io  the  worM  could  achieve  vioi  tjpographical  raiicty  aad  bcaatr.' 

THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  SACRA- 
MENTS AND  OTHER  RITES  OF  THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH. 
together  with  the  Greek  Rites  of  Baptism  and  Epipluny,  edited  from  U>e 
oldest  MSS.  by  F.  C.  Contbeare,  M.A..  and  THE  EAST  SYRIAN 
EPIPHANY  RITES,  iranshted  by  the  Rev.  A.  J.  Macleam,  D.D. 
8vo,  cloth,  ;£  t  is.net.  [Immedutely. 

THE  COPTIC  VERSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 

MENT,  in  the  Nortl«in  I^ect,  otherwise  called  Metnphtijc  and 
Bohairic  With  introduction,  critical  apparatus,  and  literal  English 
translation.  Vols.  Ill  and  IV  (completing  the  Work),  gvo,  cloth, 
f*2  3ij.  nel. 

FACSIMILES   OF  THE  ATHOS    FRAGMENTS 

OF  COUEX  H  OF  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES,  photographed 
and  deciphered  by  Kirsopp  Lake,  M.A.  Large  ^to,  in  an  envelope. 
Xi  IS.  ncL 

THE  CHURCH'S  TASK  UNDER  THE  ROMAN' 

EMPIRE,     By  the  Rev.  C.  Bigg.  D.D.     8vo,  cloth,  gs.  nee. 
(The  subjects  dealt  with  include  Education,  Religion,  and  Moral 
and  Social  Condiiions.) 

Timtt .-— ■  Canon  Bigg  tmtf  hit  aobjccl  in  a  worm  and  UWng  way,  wliitih  %\\ 
the  Icciuiet  appeal  to  all  inlelllgcot  iicople.     Bat  it  t*  eapedallr  among  ib^  tj 
one  would  wish  ihnt  ineh  a  book  aboufil  luive  a  large  circu'stica.' 

A    CRITICISM    OF    SYSTEMS    OF    HEBREW, 

METRE,     An  Elementary  Treatise.     By  WoiOA*   H.  Cobb.     6\ 
cloth,  6b.  neu 

THE  PARALLEL   PSALTER:    being  the  Prayer- 

Book  Version  of  the  Psalms,  printed  parallel  w-ith  a  New  Vcr&ion  by 
S.  R.  Drivkr,  D.D.     Second  edition,  extra  fcap.  8to.  cloih,  3s.  Ad.  act. 

Je»iik  CkfWiiiJf : — '  For  an  ialelUgent  stBdjr  of  the  siib>9tJiiice  of  Ibe  Pulms  no  b«n«c 

aid  i«  coaceivable  than  this.' 

^T  LONDON:    HENRY  FROWDE 

Ij       OXFORD    UJvlVERiil'VN   ¥*t%S  ^Kftfi.VViVi^'S.^  K>1S3.  (ICilLNER,   E.C- 


ournUi 

Theological  Studies 

PUBLISHED  QUARTERLY 


Vou  VI 


JULY»  1905 


No.   2  A 


461 


549 


«7 


5«S 


CONTENTS 

THE  LORD'S  COMMAND  TO  BAPTIZE.    By  the  Rr.-.  F.H.CMASt,  O.D. 

APHRAAfES  AND  MONASTIC! SM.     By  the  Riv.  R.  H.  CoimoilY, 

O.&B.         ,.4        .,,        ,,,        ,..        t,,        Ai        ••-        ••(       J-- 

ADAM  STOREY  FARRAR.    By  the  Rrv.  W.  Samdat,  DJ> 

DOCUMENTS:  , 

Tiii  Acts  or  Titos  akd  nu  Acts  or  Pacl.    By  M.  R.  James,  Ltw.  D. 

NOTES  AND  STUDIES: 

Tu  TsM  WoKM  or  Exodus  xxxiv.  By  the  Rbv.  W.  E.  Bamu,  D.D. 
St  luNAtuB  ON  THE  Datxs  or  Tiu  GospCL*.   By  the  Rxv.  J.  Ckaphait, 

O.S.B 

Tilt  Znnix  or  St  Juox  amd  niz  ilARCoiuM  HutESY.    By  the  Rev. 

J,  B.  Mayor 

Some  New  Come  Apocrypha  (P.  Lacau).  By  M.  R.  James,  Litt.  D. 
The  So-calud  Trariattti  Ongmis.  By  the  Riv.  £.  C.  Butler,  O.S.B. 
Hthks  Attributeii  to  Hilary -or  Poitiers.    By  the  Rrv.  A.  5. 

W*tpoL«,  B.D 

An  Anciext  Orrici  for   Holt   Saturday.     By  the  Rev.   H.   M. 

Baknister       

The  Idia  orSLEZPiiiTHS'HTWKorYRESooL'.  By  F.  C.  Coh r bears 
CAMBRii>aK  Editions  or  tre  Septoacikt.     By  Dr.  Eb.  Nesti.e 

REVIEWS  : 

Tbz  Lirx  or  Chrjet  (W.  SamoayI.  By  the  Riv.  H,  B.  Swete,  D.D. 
St  Paul's  Kkowlidoe  or  tii»  Gospel  History  (A  Reich).     By  il»e 

Rev.  W.  Lock.  D.D 

The  GEMtHKK  Writikcs  or  AroLLiHARiim  (H.  Lietzmamr).    By  tbc 

Rfv.  J,  F.  Eitiiui«-Baker        

History  or  Doctrine  akd  Patristic  Trna  (T.  V,  Traws,  J.  TatRONT, 

C.  L.  Feltoe  L.  Paxttickv).    By  tbc  Rrv*.  J.  H.  Srawisv,  B.[^ 

and  J.  F.  Bethune-Baker  , 

Recent  Absyrioloct   .R.  F.   Harper  and  M.  Jastrow).     By  tlic 

Rev.  C,  H.  W.  Jouks     \   ... 

RECENT  PERIODICALS  REL.^T1NG  TO  THEOLOGICAL  ^TUDIES 


£00 


5]5 


617 


eid 


033 


LONDON  :  PUBLISHED  BY  HENRY  FROWDE,  AMEM  CORNER,  E.C. 
OXFORD:  PRINTED  AT  THE  VMYERSlTY  PRESS 

3s.  6d.  net.    Annual  Subscription,  Po%\.  tt%%,  v» 


JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDL 

COMMITTEE  OF  DIRECTION: 

Rev.  Dr.  Ince,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swete,  Regius  Professor  of  DK-inityj  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Dan-ER,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Bigg,  Re^us  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Barkes,  Hulsean  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

F,  C.  BuRKrrr,  University  Lecturer  in  Palaeography,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  HEAOtJtu,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

Rev.  Dr.  KiRxrATRics,  The  Lady  Margaret's  Reader  in  Divini^, 

bridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Lock,  Dean  Ireland's  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mason,  Master  of  Pembroke  Collie,  Cambridge. 

Very  Rev.  DR.J.ARMrrACE  Robinsom,  Dean  of  Westminster ;  late  Not 
Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Sanday,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stahto.v,  Ely  Professor  of  Ditnniiy,  Cambridge. 

Very  Rev.  Dr.  Strong,  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

C.  H.  Turner,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 


EDITORSi 

Rev.  J.  ^.  Bethl-ke- Barer,  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge. 
Rev.  F.  E.  Bricutuak,  RIagdalen  College,  Oxford. 


T.  FISHER  UNWIN'S 

NEVSr   BOOKS. 


L'S^ 


THE  PROGRESS  OP  HELLENISM  IN  ALEXANDER 

EMPIRE.  By  JOHN  Pentland  MAMAtrv,  D.D.,  Mus.Doc.  Uuljlin,  Hon. 
V.C.L.  OxoQ.,  sometime  Professor  of  Ancient  History  in  the  University  of 
Dublin.     5j.  net.  [StconJ  Imprestion, 

THE    ORIGINAL    POEM    OP   JOB.    Translated  from  the 

Restored  Text.  By  E.  J.  Dillon,  Doc.  Orient.  Lang.,  Author  of  'The 
Sceptics  of  the  Old  Testament,'  Sic^  &c  To  which  is  appended  '  The  Book 
of  Job  according  lo  the  Authoriied  Version."     Crown  8vo,  51. 

IN  PERIL  OP  CHANGE.     Essays  written  in  Time  of  Tran- 
quillity.    By  C.  F.  G.  Masternun,  Fellow  of  Christ's  College,  Cambridge, 

Author  of  '  From  the  Abyss,'  &c    Large  crown  8vo,  cloth,  6j. 

RUSSIA   UNDER  THE   GREAT   SHADOW.     By  LuiGi 

ViLLARi.   With  84  Illustrations.    Demy  8vo,  loj.  6i/,  net.   [Seccml Impressicw. 

THE    STORY    OP    MY    STRUGGLES.      The  Memoit^  of 

Arminii's  Vamb6rv,  C.V.O.  With  Photogravure  and  other  Illustrations. 
3  vols,  demy  8vo,  cloth,  zis.  net.  \SecimH  Impression. 

Daily  News'. — 'A  t»!c  nol  equall^^d  twice  in  a  scnention.  .  .  .  Ii  U  one  of  the  moM 
eatlUftUing  books  of  reminUceace  that  hivu  aj>[>«afed  fot  rnnQy  yean,'  . 

BYGONES  WORTH  REMEMBERING.    By  GEORGE  JACOB 

HOLYOAKE.  With  a  Photogravure  Frontispiece  and  18  other  Tortraits. 
2  vols,  demy  £vo,  cloth,  SU. 

LADY  JEAN :  The  Romance  of  the  Great  Douglas  Cause. 

By  Percy  Fitzgerald,  F.S,j^.  With  Photogravure  Frontispiece  and  is 
other  Illustrations.     Demy  Svo,  cloth,  \zs.  net. 

THE  PERSONAL  STORY  OP  THE  UPPER  HOUSE. 

Hy  KosMO  Wilkinson.  With  Photogravure  Frontispiece.  Demy  Svo, 
cloth,  \^. 

DAMES  AND  DAUGHTERS  OF  THE  FRENCH  COURT. 

By  Geralpink  Bkouks.  With  Photogravure  and  other  Illustrations.  Large 
crown  8vo,  81.  hd,  net. 

THE   YOUTH  OP  WASHINGTON:   Told  in  the  Form  of 

an  Autobiography.  By  S.  WEIR  MITCHELL,  Author  of  'Hugh  Wynne.' 
Crown  Svo,  6/. 

THE  COMING   OP  PARLIAMENT.     (England  from  1350 

to  1660.)  By  L.  Cecil  Jane,  Edilor  of  'Bede's  Ecclesiastical  Hisloiy* 
('Temple  Classics').  With  a  Map  and  51  Illustrations.  Large  crown  gvO| 
ji.  \St0ty  of  the  Naii0ns, 

\  FISHER  UN  WIN,  PATERNOSTER  SQU^B.^,, 


OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

FORTHCOMING  BOOKS  ^| 

THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  SACRA- 
MENTS AND  OTHER  RITES  OF  THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH, 
togettier  with  the  Greek  Rites  of  Qapttsm  and  Kpiphanv,  edited  ftora  the 
oldest  MSS.  by  F.  C.  Conybearb,  M-A-anJ  THE  EAST  SYRIAN 
EPIPHANV  RITES,  translated  by  ihe  Right  Rev.  A.  J.  KIacleaMj 
D.D.,  Butiop  of  Moray.    8vo,  cloth.  Xi  u.  net. 

ASTRONOMY  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

G.  SciiiAPARELLi.    Authorized  English  TransUlion.  with  aJditioos 
the  Author.    Crown  8vo. 

LECTURES  ON  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

W.  Saxdav,  D.U.,  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.     8vo. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  APOSTOLl 

FATHERS.    By  a  Commitlec  of  the  Oifotd  Sociely  of  Histoiij 

Theology.     8vo,  cloth,  hs.  net. 

ECCLESIAE    OCCIDENTALIS    MONUMEN" 

lURIS    ANTIQUISSIMA:    Canonum  ci   Conciliorum    Graeci 
IntcrpretaiionesLatinae.  Edidit  CuTHHEBTi'sH.TvRKEa,  A.M.  Fmsc^ 
Pan  U,  Kicaenac  Concilii  Praefationes  Capitula  Symbolam  CanoDes. 
DfiDiv  410,  stiff  covers,  £1  \s. 

THE  COPTIC  VERSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTi 

^rF.KT,  in  the  Northern  Dialect,  othen%ise  called  Metnphittc 
Bohairic.      With  introduction,  critical  apparatus,  and  literal  Eogl 
translation.    Vols.  Ill  and  IV  (completing  the  Work).     8vo,  d 
£2  2j.  net. 


FACSIMILES   OF  THE  ATHOS   FRAGMEN 

OF  CODEX  H  OF  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES,   photogrmi 
and  deciphered  by  Kirsopp  Laki,  M.A.    Large  4(0,  in  an  enve. 


£1  ir.  neL 


opt* 


GuarJian: — 'The  plates  are  adminble.  lutd  appear  to  pUoe  tbrir  poMCKM  fi 
potitioa  or  one  wtio  bu  Lfac  MS.  Itself  before  him.' 

THE   OXYRHYNCHUS   SAYINGS  OF  JESUj 

Found  in  1903,  wth  tlic  Sayinirs  called  '  Logia,'  found  in  1897.    A  " 
lure  by  CbarLes  Tavlor,  D.D.,  LL.D.    8vo,  paper  covers,  11.  neu 

THE  CHtJRCH'S  TASK  UNDER  THE  ROM. 

EMPIRE.    By  the  Rev.  C.  Bigg.  DD.     8vo.  doih,  ^.  net. 

(The  aabjecis  desk  with  include  Education,  Religion,  and  Morai 
and  Social  Conditions,) 

A    CRITICISM    OF   SYSTEMS    OF    HEBREW 

METRE.    An  Elemenury  Treatise.    By  Wiluam  H.   Co»«.     Siti, 

doth,  6r.  net. 


^ 


VO^\iO^-.   HENRY  FROWDE 
OXFORD  UWVEKSnX  ¥^t?a  NX  WiS.Y.QVi^'?.^  NWi^s  CORNER.  K,( 


1 


I 


I